** Spoilers below **
I saw "Mission to Mars" in the theater, and rented "Red Planet" - just finished my 2nd viewing and read a bunch of these posts... I'll try to say what hasn't been said yet. Positives:
1) NO CRYING ALIENS a la "Mission" - I nearly did a spit-take in the theater thanks to that scene. And the Hollywood eco-preaching was hardly noticeable... I think that's a good thing (?)
2) On a second viewing, "Armageddon" was unbelievably ignorant - oh, the pain! I can suspend my disbelief to allow for earthlike gravity on Mars, but NOT a stinkin' asteroid. Sci-fi doesn't have to be perfectly scientific; but RP did OK here.
3) Fire in space sequence: accurate! Hey folks, remember the fire on MIR? Anyone watch PBS? All fire needs is oxygen - no gravity required - and it can form weird floating globules. (See the book "Dragonfly" by Bryan Burrough, about the MIR disasters.)
4) AMEE the robot - lots of complaints like "why didn't they just delete the military mode?" Gee... it's a mission to figure out what went wrong on Mars - shouldn't we have some kind of just-in-case protection? It makes complete sense. You'd rather they wear pistols?
5) Poster "andykleinendorst" complained about too-advanced computer technology... oh please! It wasn't nearly advanced enough. We nearly have that technology NOW... pick up a science magazine, dude.
Negatives:
1) Even with oxygen, Mars would still be WAY too cold - even in sunlight
2) So the bugs create oxygen, fine - where will we get the nitrogen that makes up 70% of Earth's atmosphere?
3) We seem to totally forget the lessons of the past, and abandon redundant computer/landing/liftoff systems (as with most future-space-exploration movies)
4) Isn't it convenient that the farthest distance they travel on Mars is 100 km? Not too far, planet-wise - and they nearly crushed poor Sojourner when landing!
5) The cliff scene is just done terribly... contrived with forced dialogue... later, a totally wasted opportunity for a great subplot
6) Carrie-Anne Moss manages to be a turn-off as a female (bleah!) AND an actor... but the love scene was still better than in The Matrix (*gag*retch*)
Overall... it has its problems, but RP is generally believable (the bugs are much more original than any Big Bad Martian Threat). Why was the mission deemed a success? Call it a "successful failure" - like Apollo 13 (the reality, not the movie).
Red Planet could've been better, but it's decent compared to most of the intelligence-insulting nonsense Hollywood thinks we want.
I saw "Mission to Mars" in the theater, and rented "Red Planet" - just finished my 2nd viewing and read a bunch of these posts... I'll try to say what hasn't been said yet. Positives:
1) NO CRYING ALIENS a la "Mission" - I nearly did a spit-take in the theater thanks to that scene. And the Hollywood eco-preaching was hardly noticeable... I think that's a good thing (?)
2) On a second viewing, "Armageddon" was unbelievably ignorant - oh, the pain! I can suspend my disbelief to allow for earthlike gravity on Mars, but NOT a stinkin' asteroid. Sci-fi doesn't have to be perfectly scientific; but RP did OK here.
3) Fire in space sequence: accurate! Hey folks, remember the fire on MIR? Anyone watch PBS? All fire needs is oxygen - no gravity required - and it can form weird floating globules. (See the book "Dragonfly" by Bryan Burrough, about the MIR disasters.)
4) AMEE the robot - lots of complaints like "why didn't they just delete the military mode?" Gee... it's a mission to figure out what went wrong on Mars - shouldn't we have some kind of just-in-case protection? It makes complete sense. You'd rather they wear pistols?
5) Poster "andykleinendorst" complained about too-advanced computer technology... oh please! It wasn't nearly advanced enough. We nearly have that technology NOW... pick up a science magazine, dude.
Negatives:
1) Even with oxygen, Mars would still be WAY too cold - even in sunlight
2) So the bugs create oxygen, fine - where will we get the nitrogen that makes up 70% of Earth's atmosphere?
3) We seem to totally forget the lessons of the past, and abandon redundant computer/landing/liftoff systems (as with most future-space-exploration movies)
4) Isn't it convenient that the farthest distance they travel on Mars is 100 km? Not too far, planet-wise - and they nearly crushed poor Sojourner when landing!
5) The cliff scene is just done terribly... contrived with forced dialogue... later, a totally wasted opportunity for a great subplot
6) Carrie-Anne Moss manages to be a turn-off as a female (bleah!) AND an actor... but the love scene was still better than in The Matrix (*gag*retch*)
Overall... it has its problems, but RP is generally believable (the bugs are much more original than any Big Bad Martian Threat). Why was the mission deemed a success? Call it a "successful failure" - like Apollo 13 (the reality, not the movie).
Red Planet could've been better, but it's decent compared to most of the intelligence-insulting nonsense Hollywood thinks we want.
