|
Chamale posted:Imagine a movie botching something basic like gravity on Earth disappearing for a scene with no explanation, it would break immersion for the whole audience. You mean like the tons of movies where characters fall huge distances without getting hurt or leap tremendously high into the air or pull off insane stunts in cars?
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Did no one else notice that in the whole movie Mars gravity is basically shown as 1 G? Best example is when they show on earth the drilling of the holes in the rover with the guy jumping on it and falling through, followed by Watney doing the exact same thing. Obviously he would need more holes in the top of his rover to make it fall by stomping it. I also feel like anything that was dropped or thrown or what have you hit the ground with an earth like acceleration. Didn't bother me much, but I definitely noticed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Jago posted:Did no one else notice that in the whole movie Mars gravity is basically shown as 1 G? Best example is when they show on earth the drilling of the holes in the rover with the guy jumping on it and falling through, followed by Watney doing the exact same thing. Obviously he would need more holes in the top of his rover to make it fall by stomping it. I also feel like anything that was dropped or thrown or what have you hit the ground with an earth like acceleration. Yeah, I mentioned earlier that once I gave up trying to believe he was on the real Mars and just let it be an orange, dry Earth it got a lot better. Lots of great stuff in the movie overall, but the "being on Mars" part didn't really work if you know much about Mars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Jago posted:Did no one else notice that in the whole movie Mars gravity is basically shown as 1 G? Best example is when they show on earth the drilling of the holes in the rover with the guy jumping on it and falling through, followed by Watney doing the exact same thing. Obviously he would need more holes in the top of his rover to make it fall by stomping it. All the energy is coming from your legs though, so it should break the rover's top just as effectively, it'd just put Watney higher in the air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Good movies can have major plot holes. Most of them do. Pointing them out is not particularly unusual. Independance Day, the scene with the undamaged trees after the city was blown up. Go! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
I wasn't joking earlier; Scott deliberately presents the storm as a bizarre supernatural event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I wasn't joking earlier; Scott deliberately presents the storm as a bizarre supernatural event. Isn't the storm basically a reference to The Odyssey?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Jago posted:Did no one else notice that in the whole movie Mars gravity is basically shown as 1 G? Best example is when they show on earth the drilling of the holes in the rover with the guy jumping on it and falling through, followed by Watney doing the exact same thing. Obviously he would need more holes in the top of his rover to make it fall by stomping it. I also feel like anything that was dropped or thrown or what have you hit the ground with an earth like acceleration. Taken from Wikipedia: While Martian gravity is less than 40% of Earth's, director Ridley Scott chose not to depict the gravitational difference, finding the effort less worthwhile to put on screen than zero gravity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Jago posted:Did no one else notice that in the whole movie Mars gravity is basically shown as 1 G? Best example is when they show on earth the drilling of the holes in the rover with the guy jumping on it and falling through, followed by Watney doing the exact same thing. Obviously he would need more holes in the top of his rover to make it fall by stomping it. I also feel like anything that was dropped or thrown or what have you hit the ground with an earth like acceleration. In fairness, I was thinking about this reading Red Mars and that poo poo would be HELLA expensive to film. Every time someone moves, or kicks up a clod of dust, or throws a rock, it would have to somehow fall differently than it does on Earth. You can't do it for real because we don't have a lot of methods of simulating low gravity (basically, going underwater, or the "vomit comet".) You'd basically need a lot of CGI particle stuff which is hard to make convincing (see how CGI squibs never quite look right), and you'd be doing it in shot after shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
I realise I'm annoyed by commander Lewis buggering off to save the day at the end. She's already assigned everyone their roles and got it all figured out. Then other fella, Beck I think, is, at a moment's notice, bouncing around outside at apparently a million miles an hour seemingly without a tether, handling a homemade bomb and gets back into the airlock to do his actual job, only to be met by his boss saying no, I'm not prepared to risk anyone else. Er? wtf? So the commander does his job instead, which is basically just being a fishing hook but with the bonus of getting to be the person that grabs (is grabbed by) Watney. Its such a Captain Kirk ego nonsense. Its no wonder she's not on the next mission. Fired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:I realise I'm annoyed by commander Lewis buggering off to save the day at the end. For whatever it's worth, she doesn't do that in the book. For the movie I guess they figured the big hero moment should go to a character they've spent a little more time on than what's-his-Beck. But speaking of book vs. movie endings... in the book, Watney says something like "If this was a movie, the entire crew would have met me at the airlock for high-fives." And sure enough, in the movie, they do exactly that. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:in the book, Watney says something like "If this was a movie, the entire crew would have met me at the airlock for high-fives." And sure enough, in the movie, they do exactly that. Ha. I like that. I like the movie. I'm just whinging because I'm a whinger. With the tongue in cheek music choices, the light heartedness in general and so on, it just feels like a what ridley scott did on his weekend off kind of project. It does feel very... 'knowing' in all its decisions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:But speaking of book vs. movie endings... in the book, Watney says something like "If this was a movie, the entire crew would have met me at the airlock for high-fives." And sure enough, in the movie, they do exactly that. And I'm pretty sure Beck's smell quote there is the same as the book, so I figure it was a deliberate wink.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Well the divorce might not have been his decision. It is an interesting moral quandary though; do you spend another two years away from your kid who probably is young enough that he doesn't even remember you, or do you let a good friend starve to death millions of miles from home? It's just kind of glossed over in the movie, but I guess you can tell from the ending that his wife would rather he let Watney die. I was speaking of the next mission at the ending.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:Another thing: people tend to care about inconsistencies in fiction when they deal with a field that person is very familiar with or works with a lot. An astronomer or planetary scientist is going to notice science errors like orbital mechanics, atmospheric conditions, and that sort of thing. Computer science professionals get annoyed when computers are portrayed as magical devices that can do anything (see: "hacking"). People who play a lot of videogames are bothered when fiction still associates videogames with basement nerds and Pac-man. Car nuts would notice things like the endless upshifting in Fast and Furious movies. Historians would notice incorrect clothing or weaponry or dialects in a scene. Car nerds love the poo poo out of Fast and the Furious and cherish the absurd inaccuracies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Saw it last night and loved it! Never read the book. Can't wait to schedule a Gravity/Interstellar/Martian marathon so I can enjoy them in one sitting and ultimately rank them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
I saw the movie when it first came out i finally convinced my gf to come and see it with me, therefore I am going again tonight. Might just buy the book on my way there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:
None of them should be flying again after this mission, the amount of rads they take doing the planetary assist would be more than whatever NASA allow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 10:35
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:Saw it last night and loved it! Never read the book. Can't wait to schedule a Gravity/Interstellar/Martian marathon so I can enjoy them in one sitting and ultimately rank them. Gravity is garbage, Interstellar is okay but difficult to watch, The Martian is just a great movie, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
Matt Damon wears one type of suit while walking on Mars and another type of suit when he goes back into space that looks more like the spacesuits NASA uses today. Why does he need a different suit? Many sci-fi movies give the impression that we'll have slimmer, more agile spacesuits in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Matt Damon wears one type of suit while walking on Mars and another type of suit when he goes back into space that looks more like the spacesuits NASA uses today. Why does he need a different suit? Many sci-fi movies give the impression that we'll have slimmer, more agile spacesuits in the future. The book mentions that they have one suit for doing stuff on mars with all the bells and whistles, and one for spaceship stuff. That's why he had the mars suits from all the other crew members.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Matt Damon wears one type of suit while walking on Mars and another type of suit when he goes back into space that looks more like the spacesuits NASA uses today. Why does he need a different suit? Many sci-fi movies give the impression that we'll have slimmer, more agile spacesuits in the future. To expand on what Tunicate said, the space suit probably has more life support systems & better protection, and is designed to assist the wearing in withstanding high G-forces - sure he passed out, but given Watneys became the fastest man ever in his convertible without the suit it might have killed him. More to the point, after spending years on the surface of Mars the surface suit is gonna be on it's last legs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Woden posted:None of them should be flying again after this mission, the amount of rads they take doing the planetary assist would be more than whatever NASA allow. It really depends on how well radiation penetrates The Hermes. It's entirely possible that they all spent the few months near the sun inside the portions of the ship that are radiation-hardened, or that they radiation-hardened additional parts of the ship somehow, or perhaps The Hermes is just really radiation resistant as a build spec. Really anything having to do with The Hermes as a build is speculation, especially considering the differences between book.Hermes and movie.Hermes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
I liked the movie. I went and saw it again. I don't know if it's been mentioned in here before, so forgive me if it has, but I'll reiterate what I said in the general chat thread: I thought the Donald glover character was unnecessary. I'd like to expand upon that, and say I felt the Kristin Wiig character was also unneeded. If they were needed, then they weren't used very well, imo. Note that I like DongLover, and tolerate Miss Wiig, but my opinion stands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:Saw it last night and loved it! Never read the book. Can't wait to schedule a Gravity/Interstellar/Martian marathon so I can enjoy them in one sitting and ultimately rank them. Why rank them at all? They are all very different movies that stand on their own merits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
They're all supposed to be scientifically accurate. Interstellar made a big deal about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:And I'm pretty sure Beck's smell quote there is the same as the book, so I figure it was a deliberate wink. The "I haven't showered in 400 days" line was pretty funny but the movie definitely shows him taking several showers. He takes one right before leaving the hab!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:They're all supposed to be scientifically accurate. Interstellar made a big deal about it. Well it's not, and we all know that already. If you can land and take off those Rangers multiple times, breaking orbit, you've already "solved the gravity problem." quote:The "I haven't showered in 400 days" line was pretty funny but the movie definitely shows him taking several showers. He takes one right before leaving the hab! I'm pretty sure it's "I haven't showered in half a year" or something, and it had been months since he'd left the hab. They glaze over just how long he had to travel to get to the Ares IV MAV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Well it's not, and we all know that already. If you can land and take off those Rangers multiple times, breaking orbit, you've already "solved the gravity problem." I think somebody mentioned earlier in the thread that in the book (which I haven't read, which I need to rectify) Watney actually makes a point of collecting soil samples along the entire trip because it's a (hopefully) once in a lifetime chance to get samples from across a 3200km stretch of Martian landscape. It's a little thing, but I would have liked that to have been in the movie just to show that he wasn't only thinking about his own survival but was still "on-mission" the whole time too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:They're all supposed to be scientifically accurate. Interstellar made a big deal about it. Sounds like somebody's got a case of the "supposed to be's"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Plastik posted:It really depends on how well radiation penetrates The Hermes. It's entirely possible that they all spent the few months near the sun inside the portions of the ship that are radiation-hardened, or that they radiation-hardened additional parts of the ship somehow, or perhaps The Hermes is just really radiation resistant as a build spec. High energy radiation is really hard to stop, reducing it is essentially having as much ~~stuff~~ between you and the source as possible. Nail Rat posted:Well it's not, and we all know that already. If you can land and take off those Rangers multiple times, breaking orbit, you've already "solved the gravity problem." Some of it (the rangers, mainly) is simplified for story-telling purposes. Next you'll be telling me that if you go inside a black hole you can't affect the past!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:They're all supposed to be scientifically accurate. Interstellar made a big deal about it. I didn't think Gravity was trying for realism. There is a lot that it got right though that can be read about here http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/10/17/what-does-a-real-astronaut-think-of-gravity/ But the sequences in Gravity felt like symbolism or a dream sequence for all of the feelings and awful things going on in Dr. Stones life that she talks about shortly after the Explorer is destroyed. So realism really wasnt important. I said come in! fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Generally "trying to be scientifically accurate" means "unless it undercuts the themes and drama." I guess you can argue that it's more frustrating to see them get some things right and then skip out on other things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I think somebody mentioned earlier in the thread that in the book (which I haven't read, which I need to rectify) Watney actually makes a point of collecting soil samples along the entire trip because it's a (hopefully) once in a lifetime chance to get samples from across a 3200km stretch of Martian landscape. That's extremely bizarre, considering the absurd lengths they went to in stripping as much weight as they could from the MAV, and still didn't get all the DV they needed. They even (in the movie) specially addressed the weight allotment for soil samples as a "gimme" to obviously omit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
vessbot posted:That's extremely bizarre, considering the absurd lengths they went to in stripping as much weight as they could from the MAV, and still didn't get all the DV they needed. They even (in the movie) specially addressed the weight allotment for soil samples as a "gimme" to obviously omit. I don't remember if this is specifically addressed in the book, but I'm pretty sure he meant to collect them and then leave them on the surface for later retrieval. He is, after all, traveling to the landing site of Ares IV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Ahhh... OK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Erwin posted:I don't remember if this is specifically addressed in the book, but I'm pretty sure he meant to collect them and then leave them on the surface for later retrieval. He is, after all, traveling to the landing site of Ares IV. Yeah, he says as he's doing it that he knows he'll have to leave them behind, but there's a small chance someone'll come and get them someday, so he does it just in case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Some of it (the rangers, mainly) is simplified for story-telling purposes. Ordinarily I'd accept things like that, but that's core to the problem of the plot. Additionally, it's just not a very scientifically accurate movie in general. That doesn't mean it's a bad movie, but The Martian is far more plausible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Matt Damon wears one type of suit while walking on Mars and another type of suit when he goes back into space that looks more like the spacesuits NASA uses today. Why does he need a different suit? Many sci-fi movies give the impression that we'll have slimmer, more agile spacesuits in the future. When he goes into space he's wearing an EVA (extra-vehicular activity) suit, which has to be a lot sturdier and bigger than the planetside suit, because it has to withstand the pressure difference between the inside of the suit (1 atm) and vacuum (0 atm). It also needs to house systems that take care of storing the excess body heat temporarily, since you can't just cool off with air (like you could on Mars), since the suit is a completely closed system and can't lose heat to the outside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
I was expecting something of that sort. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:10
|
|