Slashdot Mirror
Review: The Martian
Let's briefly discuss the book, first. If you haven't read it, I recommend doing so. In short: near-future astronaut Mark Watney gets stranded on the surface of Mars, and must figure out how to stay alive using only the limited resources at hand. This is hard science fiction. Weir meticulously researched all the problems facing Watney, without giving him magically advanced technology to defeat them.
The story is largely told through Watney's journal updates, which read remarkably like following a brilliant engineer's blog while he solves fascinating problems. Weir also infuses Watney with dry humor and an unwillingness to be told that the right way is wrong. For being so dense with science and engineering, the book manages to have a rapid pace.
Fortunately, that pace made the transition to film a bit easier, as did the book's narrative form. Watney's thought processes tend to be spoken, rather than a typical internal monologue, and this keeps it more conversational and brief. In the novel, when Watney has to "do the math" — for example to figure out the hydrogen levels in his living space — you follow along as he actually does the math, then as he develops a procedure to safely lower those levels. The movie tackles this complex scene by making him discover the problem right when it begins, with a small amount of hydrogen igniting dramatically. It keeps the science and the problem-solving, but conveys it quickly and moves on.
That's the real triumph of this movie's creators — they accelerate the plot while maintaining the book's love and respect for science and for thoughtful engineering. They embellish for interesting visuals, like the martian wind, and for dramatic license. But they never go over the top. It's... refreshing, to say the least.
One thing the film does even better than the book is bringing intensity to particular scenes. It's one thing to read Watney's account of how he dealt with an emergency in past tense — it's another to see it as it's happening. The first scene of Watney alone on Mars is incredibly tense and visceral.
This is largely due to Matt Damon's performance as Watney (and to Ridley Scott, for enabling that performance). Damon does a great job coming off not as a movie superhero, but as a funny, capable guy you might run into at your local makerspace. The other roles in the film are well cast and performed, too. Jeff Daniels as the director of NASA is the closest the movie gets to having a 'bad guy.'
He's the one who tends to raise the practical and ethical questions surrounding Watney's predicament. How many resources should be allocated to helping a single man? What will be the cost to future missions if they don't? They're impossible questions to answer, but they deserved to be brought up and debated.
One of the big reasons to see this film is for its cinematography. If you're a space buff, you'll really enjoy the long, lingering shots of the Martian surface. The graphic artists really deserve commendation. They make the landscape look both desolate and fascinating. They had lots of source material to work with from all the rovers and orbiters we've sent to Mars, and they used it to fill each scene with incredible detail. Look carefully and you'll see one of Mars's lumpy moons in the background of a shot on the surface, or a dust storm slowly flowing across a vast mesa when looking down from orbit.
The Martian, much like Apollo 13 twenty years ago, inspires us to cheer on our civilization's brightest scientists and engineers to solve hideously complex problems. NASA has been falling all over itself to help promote the film, and for good reason. I think the reception of this film will show support is still there from the general public to go and do really challenging missions. The Martian the best movie I've seen all year, and I highly recommend it.
I'm going to write a book about me flying on a plane and landing in London and driving on the wrong side. I'll spend entire chapters describing the turbines and materials of the floor.
Fuck me but you nerds have simple tastes in your entertainment.
Find a way to have yourself face certain death with no hope of rescue unless you can manage to drive on the left side of the road, and you've got a bestseller there.
I liked the movie a lot, and I was surprised about how almost everything in the book made it into the movie. Then I realized it was because the book was short. The Lord of the Rings is great, there is no way to put all of the material into the movie when you have 10 times the words that the script needs.
Of course there were a million nits, technical and otherwise, but they made a good movie from a good story.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
I really enjoyed the movie adaptation of the book.
For me, the cut the right bits, had a wink and a nod for those that had read the book. They kept the movie manageable and enjoyable...
Except that I didn't like their choices in the last 15 minutes. Without spoilers, an idea dismissed as ludicrous in the book was nonetheless implemented in the movie, and it annoyed me a bit.
That said, read the book. See the movie. And if you are in to that sort of thing, the audiobook is really quite enjoyable as well.
I read the book twice and was kind of apprehensive of how Sir Ridley would take this on. Would he neuter the science to make it more accessible? Introduce stuff that wasn't in the book at all to make it more blockbuster-y? Would there be some love interest stuff that isn't in the book? Would he remove the gory details of the potato farming to not gross out the audience?
Nope, it stayed very very true to the book. And the scenes at NASA were very very good, I did not get impatient and think "come on get back to Mars". They really captured Watney's personality while giving the audience a real appreciation of the situation he was in. I went to see it twice, it was that good.
Matt Damon nails it. I know it's hip to hate on him but he's a damn fine actor and also the Bourne movies were great, he can pull off the action hero very well.
The supporting cast does a great job. Commander Lewis (Jessica Chastain) is true to the character in the book as are all the NASA people. Jeff Daniels is phenomenal. The only tiny teeny complaint I have is they changed the Venkat Kapoor character to be named Vincent Kapoor, but very capably played by academy award winner Chiwetel Ejiofor. They should still have kept his character as Indian but I guess they didn't want to give him an accent, that would have been much worse. Annoying debate has raged on this point on the IMDB boards ever since the casting choice was made but final consensus (by non-SJW reasonable people) is that it was simply a matter of availability of actors who could pull off the role. Chiwetel Ejiofor was a great choice.
I hope this movie gets all the Oscars coming to it. Best picture, best director, best actor. 10/10. Fantastic.
Mars' atmosphere has about 0.6% of the pressure of Earth's atmosphere at STP. So that part works with this part of the movie, but strongly against a Martian windstorm being able to blow over spaceships, etc. It's enough to move dust around, and that's all.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
WE don't need more taxes. THEY do.
Knowing it all since the late 70's.
What, as opposed to the bullshit claim that by cutting the taxes of corporations and the wealthy somehow that improves everybody's lives?
Because that fucking lie has utterly failed to work for the last several decades. In fact, it has had the opposite effect.
We need to stop buying the lie that cutting taxes for the wealthy and the corporations in any way helps anybody but the wealthy and corporations who paid off the politicians.
The Martian did it.
>> as opposed to the claim that by cutting the taxes of corporations and the wealthy somehow that improves everybody's lives
No, as opposed to the claim that we need to keep raising taxes/fees on middle class working people, which is what actually continues to happen. (Need a recent example? Go see Chicago...and the huge property tax increase they just pushed through.)
Where to cut? How about pensions, which are currently 25% of our total federal spend, and are the line item choking a lot of state and local governments too. Or the military at 22% of current spend. In other words, switch government employees to a 401K systems (even with more pay to make up the difference) or drop a couple of carrier groups from the Navy (maybe kill the F-35), and you'd have billions upon billions to spend on things taxpayers actually want, like NASA.
The force, not the movie.
I was hoping this would be the first sci-fi movie to get the gravity right on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvnDIDqcfGI
I have no idea how they could have accomplished this from a SFX perspective and maybe it wouldn't have added to the story. I was disappointed with the scene where he was disassembling the MAV and the pieces were falling to the surface at a very Earth-like speed. Seemed like a easy place to add a little SFX magic to mimic Mars gravity.
Great movie overall though!
I read an interview with Weir that says that the Windstorm on Mars is the one thing that couldn't have happened as it did in the book. But it was necessary to strand Watney.
The other thing that is mentioned is the radioactive heater (OK it was a power source, but it is only used for the heat it gives off) that Watney retrieves. At the moment it is possible, just not surviving being close to it, but this could change in the near future. The book is set around 2030, so this one could be possible by then.
Are you really sure the general populous cares about NASA? People on this site may care, but that's a tiny fraction of the population. I would say that the average person really doesn't care that much about space travel.
Even people interested in the idea of going to Mars probably don't understand how astronomically (pun intended) difficult it would be to send people there. Apollo 11, the first Lunar mission was only in space for under 9 days, And the longest lunar stay was Apollo 17 with a 3 day stay on the moon.
A trip to mars would take more than 9 months just to get there. If you wanted to come back, you'd have to stay there for 3 months for the planets to line up right again, and then spend another 9 months coming home. Total mission time would probably be close to 2 years. Not to mention the lead up time as you send supplies ahead so they are already in place when the astronauts get to Mars.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The other thing that is mentioned is the radioactive heater (OK it was a power source, but it is only used for the heat it gives off) that Watney retrieves. At the moment it is possible, just not surviving being close to it
Slashdot reader "Rei" would disagree with you. He says that the radioactive materials inside an RTG are just "alpha particle" emitters, and alpha particles are a not-that-dangerous sort of radiation.
In fact "Rei" criticises Andy Weir for not knowing how relatively safe an RTG is:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8114017&threshold=3&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=50655133
"About three quarters of Americans view NASA favorably – second only to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention among federal agencies – according to a 2013 Pew Research survey." (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/23/americans-keen-on-space-exploration-less-so-on-paying-for-it/)
Ah, yes. 401(K)s. I sure want to put my retirement in the hands of the same people who created a bubble market in the US and then bet against the value of the dollar in international exchanges right as they popped it. I feel MUCH safer leaving money in the hands of private sector morons who get to drive $1 million cars in NYC,
Pu-238 (which really is what you build those with, the Apollo missions used them) only emits significant quantities of alpha particles - which you really /can/ basically stand next to something producing with no particular ill effects. They're high-energy helium nuclei. Paper or your /skin/ is enough to stop them, and we build them with a layer or two of solid metal structure around them to keep them quite safe when we're building RTGs.
Now, if you eat or breathe the contents, and you'll probably die.
I don't recall whether he got Pu-238 and Pu-239 mixed up, but if anything the RTG in the book is described as /more/ dangerous than the real ones. (OTOH, we did make that kind of big deal about them for the Apollo missions, out of a great abundance of caution.)
Yup. Pu. You can stand next to it. But don't breath it into your lungs.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
A Plutonium-238 RTG is an alpha emitter. All of its radiation is stopped by the casing. As long as you don't cut it open and eat the fuel, you're good.
Watched it last night. Didn't read the book.
How in the name of all stupid plot devices does each and every space suit, vehicle, structure and other large chunk of habitat equipment not have its own, independent up-link to the multiple Earth-Mars radio relays we already have in orbit around that planet? I squirmed for the first hour because that was too much disbelief to suspend; over the years as habitat equipment appeared on the surface prior to habitation a big collection of radio equipment would unavoidably accrete; they'd be tripping over redundant radio gear.
Maybe the book has some rationale for the mystifying lack of otherwise ubiquitous radio equipment and we can pin it on bad movie making. If the book tries the "lack of funding" trope I'll laugh; so the habitat isn't monitored because Republicans or whatever, yet NASA instantly picks up a signal some (now) ancient lander? Pfft.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Mars' atmosphere has about 0.6% of the pressure of Earth's atmosphere at STP.
I'm pretty sure that anything, Mars's atmosphere included, is 100% of Earth's atmosphere at STP.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Fully agree. Is Mars such a hospitable place so that you have to think of a fake reason in order to get somebody in a story stranded on it?
But, I was seriously disappointing in the film. Not due to the book, since I have not read it. But because it gave the impression it was going to have some sort of scientifically-accurate veneer on it.
But as the story unfolded, I immediately started to shake my head and smack my forehead in disbelief at the blatant nonsense of the film from a science standpoint.
It would take an immense post to cover all of the things that wrong both scientifically, practically or procedurally. For those interested, I'll cover as many as I can before fatigue sets in. This is based on the film, not the book.
Launching a space-ship in a violent storm. So violent that it is pushing the dang thing over. Obviously one could argue it was designed for that, but I see no reason to believe it was from the movie.
Watney is hit by debris and whisked away. An astronaut asks how long he could survive if his suit was breached (or something like that). A) That question would not be asked, they would know. B) The answer is not whatever they said (1 minute or something) but rather 3 minutes (max, which is what they'd be concerned with).
Watney is in left on the surface, and wakes up the next.... day, I guess. O2 is low, apparently, but otherwise in pretty good sleep. Suit or no, he would have faced freezing to death. Quite often the film deals with cold one moment and then ignores it the next.
Funny thing... he used a normal Hero camera to do his vlogging... yet the results as shown were 3D. :)
Watney talks about the awful things that can go wrong. The final one he says something like, "... and if the hab fails... I'll implode!" Implode? You don't implode in a thin atmosphere! Or even zero-atmosphere. Your bowels and bladder would evacuate. You'd lose consciousness pretty quick, and die in 3. If you held your breath your lungs would rupture. But you don't frikin implode. He must be thinking of... the bottom of the sea or something? Mr. science astronaut guy would never say anything so lame-brained.
Hollywood's rediculous portrayal of computers, even the kind everyday people use, is on full display. Sure, some of us appreciate the shoe-horned in nod to Zork 2 and Leather Goddesses of Phobos (especially, given it's Mars), but takes nothing away form everything else shown. When Watney goes around talking about "Hex-Y-Decimal" spoken like someone who's never picked a color for a web page before, I just cringed.
It wasn't clear, but it also looks like he tried to point the communication dish at Earth? It is true Pathfinder had the ability to communicate directly to earth through both a low and high gain antenna, but the way it would work is the low-gain is omnidirecitonal, and once signal is received then they remotely determine how to orient the high-gain which is more focused. That is more of a quibble.
Some basic of Mars are wrong, like gravity. Sure, hard to get right.... but still wrong.
There were many scenes on the Hermes where EVA was treated very poorly. I was really amused when the one guy pop'd the hatch to watch the docking operation. Maybe he was going to help out instead of what was really happening.... putting himself and the mission in ridiculous danger. The whole EVA crawling around the space station was just shy of Gravity-level ridiculousness.
Basics of space wrong: There is no sound in the vacuum of space. Sure some sounds could be heard in the suits from things happening to the suit (things dinking off the helmet or whatnot) but there was way more sound than that going on.
The Hermes itself was not believable. It had these parts with gigantic glass picture windows. That's not a likely design feature. Needing a bomb to open a hatch... okay maybe, but mostly just seemed a way to try and figure out how to "science up a bomb" on screen than anything.
I'm sorry to disappoint, but poking a hole in your glove does not make you Iron Man. How do I know? Because this has happened before. Know what really happens? Your skin seals the hol
David Whatley
The challenge is stranding someone alone on Mars. It's easy to envision the entire crew getting stuck there. Malfunction in the ascent vehicle would do that. If it had a sufficient electrical meltdown it could even justify the loss of contact with Earth. But getting five people safely off the surface, all of them convinced of the sixth crew member's death and unable to retrieve his body, was a writing challenge. What scenarios can you think of for one man being left alive, alone, and presumed dead on the surface of Mars?
The parachute was explained quite a bit in the book, and Weir actually pointed it out as an inconsistency (air pressure enough to fling an antenna, but not enough to matter on take off). In the movie, they utterly failed that part of the book, the parachute instead of nosecone was the whole reason for the altitude/speed differential, but all it got in the movie was "its fighting me" from the pilot.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I don't know... 30 years ago life was awesome. Barely a care in the world... no bills, no responsibilities other than cleaning my room!
(I was 6.)
Thank you! Seriously, this is getting tiring.
How tiring can it be to skip over a headline + article summary when you see something you're not interested in? Here's a pro tip: Before you click through and read a Slashdot story, read the headline (and/or skim the summary) and see if it's something that interests you first. If, for example, you're not interested in reading more stories about The Martian, if the headline mentions "The Martian", then don't click on it.
What you're doing is the opposite, you've not only clicked on the story, but you've read enough of the comments to find someone that agrees with you and you've posted a comment -- no wonder you find it so tiring, you don't have to tell everyone when you're not interested in a story, you can just silently skip it.
Spoilers below: I agree liked the movie. Good science on the orbital mechanics and many of the issues. The ending was far fetched. The small amount of mass expelled by blowing the hatch would have little effect on the speed of the ship.The risk of unintended irreparable damage would be massive. Why not use attitude thrusters or just turn the ship around and use the main engine sounded like they had plenty of fuel. I would think they would have considered needing to make course adjustments before hand and stopped the habitat rotation so attitude control was easy. I was disappointed when he used plastic sheet and duct tape to replace the airlock that blew off the habitat. No way a thin sheet of plastic is going to hold 12psi needed to make the habitat habitable over that 8 ft diameter hole. Similar issue with the bubble taped to the rover for storing supplies. Might be possible with some kevlar fiber reinforced material but not the clear poly sheet he appears to use. Sealing the plastic to the habitat and rover adequately would be just about impossible. Still liked the movie and may read the book.
Of course the general public also thinks that NASA gets 10% of the federal budget as opposed to 0.3%
For a contrarian view... I really don't understand why everyone thinks this movie was so well-made. I loved the book and was eagerly anticipating the movie, especially after all the reviews calling it a gripping, edge-of-your-seat thriller.
I didn't get any of the sense of impending danger and claustrophobia that I did from the book. Sure, he ran into some problems but he solved them so quickly there wasn't that "holy crap, what will he do now?" notion that his demise was always just around the corner.
(warning: spoilers) His trip to Schiaparelli crater was probably the biggest nail-biter in the book... the dust storm, the integrity of his makeshift "bedroom", whether or not all of the rover connectors & attached equipment would keep working, the danger of going down the "ramp" into the crater, and the overall sense of utter isolation as he made the months-long trip: it was all replaced by not much more than a screen wipe with his rover magically transported next to the MAV.
When he finally reached the MAV, after eating his meal "surviving something that should have killed me", then did his little victory dance and kissed the device as he arrived... that was such a huge moment and victory for him in the book. All gone from the movie so they could spend 15 minutes on a cheesy, completely invented recap scene at the end.
Oh, and the commander going out to personally retrieve him from the MAV? WTF???
I realize they had to make changes for the movie, but I thought it was all rather boring. My wife, who generally enjoys suspenseful movies but hadn't read the book, agreed.