Perhaps the best thing about The Martian is its pro-science tone. The entire premise of the film is the use of math and science to solve problems. Watching the film, it’s hard not to be inspired by its message that human ingenuity can overcome just about anything. There is also some good science in The Martian. However, the presence of good science only draws attention to some of the films more glaring errors and irritating choices.
The film is set in the year 2035. Mark Watney is a botanist on a manned mission to Mars. A severe sandstorm forces the crew to abort their mission, as the force of the storm is forceful enough to tip their ascent vehicle, potentially trapping them on Mars. During the trip for the habitat pod to the ascent vehicle, Watney is struck by flying debris, and left behind by the rest of the crew, who presume he has been killed. The rest of the film follows Mark Watney’s efforts to remain alive until he can be rescued.
Later in the film, Watney accidently blows up part of the habitat pod, leaving an open hole. He patches this hole with a what looks like a plastic sheet held in place by duct tape. Given that it has been established that Mars get incredibly violent sandstorms, I don’t know that I would be comfortable with only a flimsy plastic tarp between myself and horrible death. Why doesn’t it break? And, given that Watney was able to make water out of rocket fuel and farm on mars, is that really the best he can do? Also, where did he get more oxygen to depressurize the HAB after it blew open? It’s theoretically possible that Watney’s Mars mission has a device to make oxygen from materials on Mars, but I feel the film doesn’t explain this well enough.
Further, the film’s upbeat tone completely glosses over the long-term health consequences of extended time in space. Watney is eventually rescued by his crew, who decide to turn their ship around using a gravity assist and travel back to Mars to pick him up. Because of this, they significantly add to their time spent in space. Watney also spends a lot of time on Mars with no radiation shielding. Of course, in 2035 we could well have invented solutions like radiation proofing for space suits and the habitat pod Watney lives in, and the space ship his crew travels in. But mentioning the potential consequences of long term space travel might feel more honest in a movie that seems a little too upbeat at times.
I would recommend watching The Martian. It’s entertaining and has a nice pro-science message. But, be ready to suspend your disbelief.
Hello,
I think it’s very interesting that you analyzed all of the science behind Mars survival. Obviously, there are things the movie didn’t mention which makes the rescue impossible, but I tried to not even think about the actual science and simply appreciate the ideas and film-making. As you also said, I think the point of the movie is to focus on human ingenuity and success rather than the actual science and math.
I definitely agree that this film comes with flaws and I honestly don’t think that Mark Watney would have survived if this really happened. The film had some inspirational tones to it and for me, that made it enjoyable to watch. If it was more scientifically accurate like you mentioned though, that would only add to the film’s value!
Your points are all very interesting, and bring up good questions. I never thought about the fact that Watney covered the blown off door with a plastic tarp–that’s pretty sketchy. Also, I find it weird that they never mention any of the mental effects on Watney; they touch on the crew’s guilt of leaving him behind, but Watney seemed to always be a little too cheerful about the fact that he could die at any moment.