Jump to content

Talk:The Martian (film)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Scientific Accuracy

I believe source 144 - Time Magazine - is in error when it asserts that Rich Purnell's idea is a gravity assist return to Mars. While watching the movie, I thought no such thing. It goes without saying that most items on any fast food menu, particularly cheeseburgers, are knowledgeable about gravity assist as an astronavigational technique (as fundamental as tacking in sailing or holding out one's thumb while hitchhiking). It seemed obvious to me that his idea was not the slingshot technique, but the trajectory itself, which no other NASA technician had been able to conceive. He visualized it, and the necessary maneuver to achieve it, and then verified its viability on that supercomputer before presenting it to NASA brass. I suggest that this scientific "inaccuracy" be deleted, as Time's science editor fell a bit short of comprehending Rich Purnell's level of intellect. That's my opinion; I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.24.214.161 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to judge whether sources are correct or not. If we were, almost any article's talk page would be an endless debate between vegans and omnivores, conservatives and liberals, scientists and conservative Christians, etc.
Instead, we merely report what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. We call this "verifiability". It ain't perfect, but it's what we have. Time is certainly a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source (hopefully something better than a fast food burger) countering this claim, we'd have something to talk about: Do we keep one and scrap the other, include both with attribution, etc.
(While I am not a physicist of any variety, my reading would indicate that the point is moot. Whether the maneuver was intended to increase relative speed, change direction or both is immaterial: Changing direction -- any vector change -- is acceleration.) - SummerPhDv2.0 01:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as it's on the record that Rich Purnell is actually a whole lot smarter than Time Magazine is, even if it's only here on the talk page. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.24.214.161 (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Country of production revisited

To revisit this discussion, in addition to BFI considering this film a co-production between the US and UK as seen here, the film is now in the LUMIERE database (search for film title here), and it says the same thing. I would suggesting going ahead and dropping "American" from the opening sentence and adding United Kingdom to the film infobox. We can add "English-language" to the opening sentence instead and/or mention both US and UK later in the lead section. Pinging those involved in the last discussion: Daerl, ChamithN, Sock, Gothicfilm, Betty Logan. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC) UPDATE: Also pinging Tjdrum2000 since their edits led me to revisit this matter. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, I agree that we should stick to WP:FILMLEAD and cover the different national interests later in the lead section instead. -- ChamithN (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

20th Century Fox

Pinging Gothicfilm and AAK94 about the recent edit. I agree with Gothicfilm's edits. As I stated on AAK94's talk page, "...please understand that a major studio doesn't 'just' distribute a film. Studios are often active in production and distribution. It can be difficult to tell when it only distributes a film, but in my experience, this usually happens with a branch of it buying distribution rights to an independently produced film, usually shown at a film festival. A rare example would be something like Walking with Dinosaurs (film), and even then, 20th Century Fox influenced the film by requiring voiceovers." Gothicfilm, anything wrong with what I said? Is there any good way to make a distinction in such cases? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"Produced through 20th Century Fox" works well in a case like this, where we know Fox started the development process when it bought the rights to the novel. The term could also be used if the studio was not the initiator, e.g. if a producer brought the property to the studio and then the studio took on its production. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended cut (Naomi Scott)

The IP User talk:68.202.131.94 made this edit which was reverted by Sock. I completely understand this, however on Naomi Scott they made this edit, which states that her scences were reinserted in the extended cut. Unfortunately I have not seen this version so I can't verify, but Movie-Censorship doesn't seem to show her. Can somebody please confirm whether she was in this version or not? I will undo the IP's edit on the other page for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@AntiVenom2150: You added similar information with this edit on her page. Would you please explain? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Martian (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Life on Mars and being "Scientific"

When somebody has never landed on Mars, and the information received about the surface of Mars is via our imperfect senses (and their imperfect extensions viz. telescopes, cameras, radio waves etc.), how can showing that there is no life on Mars be considered scientific? Is it not scientific only in the sense of what current material science (which has vast limitations) can tell us about? -Polytope4D (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is referring to something in the article and suggesting an improvement, it is not clear what part of the article or what change you are suggesting.
If this is not discussing improving the article, please note that this article talk page is specifically for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Scientific Accuracy" regarding communication

As far as I know, it takes 20 minutes to communicate the distance from Earth to Mars. In the film it looks like there is immidiate communication/steering (of the camera) possible. An expert may add this to the article pointing to a reliable source. Thanks. Syncrow (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Dialogue within this film explicitly addresses the time lag between Mars and Earth. The seemingly instantaneous transactions are because, as the host of 'The World Tonight' once explained, "This time delay has been edited from this recording".
To add it to the article, we would need a reliable source discussing the issue directly related to this film. Anything else is original research. This prevents every film article from devolving into endless discussions of acceleration due to gravity on Mars, liquor laws in Pennsylvania and cuisine in WWII-era Casablanca. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, okay, I see. I found this article here. Can this be considered a reliable source? https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-martian-psychology-2015-9
"One thing that’s important for staying sane on journeys to space is real-time communication, which helps astronauts feel connected to friends and family. Thankfully for most of today’s astronauts — including NASA astronaut Scott Kelly, who’s spending a year on the International Space Station — communication is delayed by only a fraction of a second.
But on Mars, there would be a lag of about 20 minutes each way, which means a single exchange would take 40 minutes. In “The Martian,” Watney faces the added difficulty of having to communicate with NASA using the camera on an old rover, which NASA can only use by pointing at letters and spelling out words. Talk about frustrating." Syncrow (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a reliable enough source, but it doesn't say the film was inaccurate. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the year it occurs actually in the film?

I know the book is set in 2035, but does the film ever say it is set in 2035? Adpete (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Venkat Kapoor representation, whitewashing allegations, audiobook portrayal

Concerning the MANAA criticism, it might be worth noting [in the article] that in the audiobook edition (in which the author probably had some saying), Kapoor was portrayed with an Indian accent, corresponding to the character’s obvious Indian names and his Hindu beliefs. -- Gohnarch░ 09:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Differences from the novel

It might be worth mentioning how the film cuts out the majority of Watney's journey to the MAV, including the imperceptible reduction in solar panel efficiency due to the approaching dust storm, and the crash at the crater rim, for example.2A02:8084:983C:A380:2D92:566B:CC89:7432 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding individual opinions to the accolade section

Someone added an individual's opinion to the accolade section of this film, even though that section is reserved for award giving organizations such as the academy awards, the golden globes and such. The critical reception section is where we often find professional film critics opinions and review aggregation companies results. If people arbitrarily add individual opinions to the accolade section the wikipedia will just become more disorganized. Thanks. User:Wikieditor1377 01:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The poster is referring to this. It was the opinion of US President Obama at the time the sitting president. This opinion is notable for a couple reasons. He wrote the budget for NASA and if he said something about a film in relation to Mars it is relevant because the film clearly influenced him enough to say something about it. NASA helped develop the film, the President funds NASA, and the President said something positive about the film. Next the accolades section is just that, it includes notable opinions and reviews. If Wikieditor1377 only wants professional film commentators fine, but Wikipedia is not limited to that. Wikipedia is not that structured, each article is free to include whatever information is relevant to the topic. -- GreenC 01:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I moved it to the budget section we'll see if that sticks. There is a definite connection between the President who makes the annual NASA budget request to Congress, NASA who helped develop the film (which costs money), and the President's positive shout-out about the film which is positive PR for NASA. Similar government/hollywood relations exist with military themed films. -- GreenC 02:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy - Mars' Atmosphere

I have no problem with sci-fi movies shading the facts, as long as correcting/removing the misrepresentation wouldn't require a major plot change. However, this movie plays fast and loose with Mars' atmosphere in far more serious ways than the article and the cited Time magazine reference admit. In fact, the reference, despite the pedigree of its author, is wrong in one important aspect. It states that Watney's plastic sheet and duct tape repair to his living quarters would be OK in the real Mars' atmosphere, i.e. near vacuum. It would not - see below.

Incidents for which Mars needs an atmosphere, with pressure and density a significant fraction of Earth's (which is fiction)

The initial dustorm that isolated Watney from the crew. As the article states, that would have required a dense atmosphere.

The band-aid repair to the living quarters - The opening that Watney sealed had an area of approximately 4,000 sq. in. I doubt that Watney's repair could take a force of more than 200 lb. before breaking, but I'll be charitable and assume 500 lb. That's a pressure differential of 0.13 psi. Assuming that the air inside the living quarters was at least 12 psi in order to be breathable, then the ground level Martian atmospheric pressure would have to be at least 11.87 psi, or 80% of Earth's.

Incidents for which Mars' atmosphere needs to be near-vacuum (the reality)

Damage to Watney's spacesuit causing a critical loss of his suit's oxygen partial pressure.

Rupture of the living quarters' wall causing explosive decompression which leads to the destruction of Watney's "farm".

Taking off from Mars' surface with only a "tarpaulin" sealing the nose of the rocket.

The movie can't have it both ways, and changing to a uniform atmosphere at all times, preferably the real near-vacuum, would be a plot-killer. Nigelrg (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Nigelrg (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Martian_(film)/Archive_3&oldid=1121614062"