The Martian anyone??

@DrewDad,

Quote:

If you and another astronaut are tethered and rotating, then you will only speed your rotation by shortening the distance between you. Anyone who has seen a figure skater knows this.

I totally missed that. I must have suspended all my doubts

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

If it makes you feel better, the movie people changed the second half of the story from the book. In the book, the guy being rescued was completely at the mercy of the crew and took no part in the rescue, so no hand jet. All that stuff with the captain catching him was dramatized too. No way the captain abandons the bridge and sits her expert to do the rescue herself.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OK, end of rant. I'm just sick of hearing about how accurate the science is.

I think what most people mean is "accurate in comparison". If we really break it down it's riddled with inaccuracies. But compared to most of the other SciFi which makes no attempt at all to be accurate, this one was more accurate by comparison.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
OK, end of rant. I'm just sick of hearing about how accurate the science is.

I think what most people mean is "accurate in comparison". If we really break it down it's riddled with inaccuracies. But compared to most of the other SciFi which makes no attempt at all to be accurate, this one was more accurate by comparison.

We see this all over the culture now, telling a "better" story is considered more important than telling the truth. The truth always seems to lose these days.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Alley Oop never really rode dinosaurs, but I sometimes try to calm down my need to be accurate and just enjoy the experience. I dont think that Spielberg was going to NOT produce Jurassic Park when he learnt that it is probably just bullshit for today.

Science, sometimes, can be really dull so the artists attempt to stoke it up a bit.

I enjoy the really well placed anachronistic goofs, like when, in a movie about ancient Rome, a centurion is wearing a watch, or in "Captain and Commander, where we can see a jet contrail in the background sky.

.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Agreed, and what bothers me much more than a sci-fi movie getting the science wrong on purpose to tell a better story are movies like "Selma", which both purposefully try to tell a distorted story as they try to trump up what ever their pet political agenda is while claiming that their product is factual truth. Trying to tell a better story and driving a political agenda through fabrication advertised as fact are two very different projects.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I think what most people mean is "accurate in comparison". If we really break it down it's riddled with inaccuracies. But compared to most of the other SciFi which makes no attempt at all to be accurate, this one was more accurate by comparison.

I would argue that a movie that claims to be accurate, but isn't, is much worse than a movie that just takes a fun idea and runs crazy with it, like Jurassic Park.

If you're going for hard science fiction, then you can't take liberties and still call it hard science fiction. "Hard science fiction lite" should not be a thing.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Here is a read on the compromises the screen writer made to take the book to a movie. As someone who read the book first, it did a good job clarifying the logic behind what was cut out and places where the science was bastardized. In short, a sucky, four hour long accurate movie does less for science than a two hour long blockbuster that takes a few liberties with the source material.

Quote:

Throughout the adaptation process, Goddard said he worked hard to keep two principles in mind. “I need to love it, and if I love it, then I trust that I will protect what needs to be protected because I love it,” he said. “And the second one is you have to really make peace with the fact that your job is not to karaoke the book. Your job is to make a good movie. You hope that if you have both of those two things in mind, you’ll do your job well. But if it’s only one, you’re gonna really screw things up.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/the-martian-page-to-screen-drew-goddard#.drYqERJox

1 Reply

@engineer,

Their job is to make art and entertainment that people will pay money to consume. I have no problem with that.

My gripe is not that they took liberties. My gripe is that they took liberties, and then everyone hypes how accurate the movie is.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I would argue that a movie that claims to be accurate, but isn't, is much worse than a movie that just takes a fun idea and runs crazy with it, like Jurassic Park.

Perhaps a valid point. But I'm not sure they ever made that claim. It probably came more from the media and general audience discussion than anything the movie producers ever claimed.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
I would argue that a movie that claims to be accurate, but isn't, is much worse than a movie that just takes a fun idea and runs crazy with it, like Jurassic Park.
Perhaps a valid point. But I'm not sure they ever made that claim. It probably came more from the media and general audience discussion than anything the movie producers ever claimed.

Thank you. Thank you! Thank you! This criticism against the film's science cred is a tad too much when the filmmakers aren't the ones claiming the film is prime example of scrupulous and meticulous science. Scientists are saying that some of the plot points are relatively accurate, science fact wise. They're not saying it's all correct.

0 Replies

People tend to forget that these stories belong to the general literary genre of fiction, hence the term science fiction. Fiction is a nice synonym for the baser term bullshit.

In the late 16th century Sir Philip Sidney, in his An Apologie for Poetrie against the Puritan censors of his time, wrote:

Quote:

III. Sidney: "All philosophers (natural and moral) follow nature, but only the poet, disdaining to be tied to any such subjection, lifted up with the vigor of his own invention, does grow in effect into another nature, in making things either better than nature brings forth, or, quite anew, forms such as never were in nature...Nature never set forth the earth in so rich a tapestry as different poets have done, neither with so pleasant rivers, fruitful trees..."

IV. The poet as a creator: Poetry and man--the poet's talents stem from the fact that he is able to create from a pre-existing idea called the fore-conceit. Poetry is the link between the real [nominalism] and the ideal [realism] worlds. Poets therefore take part in the divine act of creation.

V. Poetry defined: "Poetry therefore is an art of imitation, for so Aristotle terms it in the word mimesis--that is to say a representing, counter-feiting, or figuring forth to speak metaphorically, a speaking picture with this end, to teach and delight."

The very best of them can bullshit us till we laugh and cry, all the while teaching us a little bit about ourselves.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I recall from the first Jurassic Park there were all kinds of quasi-scientific discussions (mostly among science news reporters and not too many real biologists) who disputed the concept of viable DNA from Cretaceous mosquitoes. (Actually it SHOULD have been called CRETACEOUS PARK) because the most recent of the dinosaurs was a citizen of the mid-K.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

One nice thing about scifi is that sometimes good ideas can become self fulfilling prophesies.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Then there was the covering of the blown open entry of the habitat with some plastic and tape and then the habitat refill with pressure.

There must had been many many tons of force on that plastic and tape.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

https://www.facebook.com/MartianMovie/photos/a.839990222755026.1073741828.754778727942843/943400599080654/?type=3&theater

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

These people do remember that this is just a movie, right?

Neil Armstrong actually went somewhere.

In your face movie.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

It's a line in the movie. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

It's a line in the movie.

Ahhh, ok. Now it makes more sense Wink

It sure looks out of place outside of context though.

0 Replies

Quote:

Academy Awards, USA 2016
Nominated
Oscar Best Motion Picture of the Year;
Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Matt Damon;
Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay;
Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Best Achievement in Visual Effect
Best Achievement in Production Design.

Golden Globes, USA 2016
Won
Golden Globe Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical
Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical
Matt Damon

Nominated
Golden Globe Best Director - Motion Picture

0 Replies

The Martian anyone??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know