Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later[^][v]#664,941
I liked it. Toward the end it started to move from plausible sci-fi to overly-theatrical action flick, but it was an overall entertaining film.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#664,943
the book was originally published episodically on the author's website for free. as it gained popularity, it also gained critics. the author began receiving letters from people correcting various mistakes and offering up real-world problems that Mark Watney would encounter, but also potential solutions that have a basis in reality. The author worked very hard to find ways to try and kill the main character, and ended up using the solutions offered by scientists to prevent his death. most of the science in the book/film is realistic to the point that, like you say, nasa strokes their cocks over it.
even the Rich Purnell maneuver is real. in fact, it's correctly plotted and everything. the author used real world dates and the positions of the planets as they will be at that time and literally figured out how to perform the gravitational slingshot. not only that, but every instance of math mentioned in the book is accurate, including everything written about oxygen/carbon dioxide production/consumption and the manufacturing of water and growing of crops.
there were liberties taken. many assumptions are made about the Hermes, and even fictional super materials (glue/tape/hab-canvas) were invented by the author, but they came from discussions with engineers at NASA who are actually working on (or contracting out to 3M) those very kinds of super materials for use on a real world Mars mission.
it's about as close as you can get to realistic, but the movie took a lot of liberties the book didn't, like the whole ironman ending. it's a highly scientifically informed and has a hard slant towards realism, but, survival in that situation is highly unrealistic. i think even the author talks about that, that any one problem was so devastating and potentially insurmountable that all of them happening as they do in the book would probably have meant death well before rescue.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#664,944
@previous (squeegee)
Did Syntax advise on any of this?? Because if he didn't, then I don't know how much I could believe any of the stuff in the movie.
> survival in that situation is highly unrealistic.
Yeah, being trapped on Mars would be sort of like being trapped in Antarctica, except with no breathable air or available water source. I know the movie "sciences-the-fuck" out of it, but... No.
Good sci-fi? Yes. Realistic story? No.
Don't get me wrong, it's set in a future where people casually mine Mars for minerals and joke around while doing so, so as sci-fi it's not that bad.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#664,946
@previous (B)
Didn't he have the water supply that was provided for him?
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#664,949
@previous (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
Without watching the movie over again, I think so. But how much can you store without some completely ad hoc solution? He was left on the planet for dead. There's water ice on Mars, but temperatures don't generally allow it to melt.
You're stuck in a landscape with no atmosphere and water that freezes when you don't heat it. I'm doubting how real this could be given what we know about how humans survive. I'm certainly not disagreeing with the idea that the movie was good, but it stretches the bounds of what might be reasonable. Although it's sci-fi, and that is what sci-fi is there to do anyway. (stretch the bounds of what is possible) I agree that it was a good movie. I'm just saying it stretched the bounds in the reality sector.