+Stephen Stine no, that's not how the media works. Actually most of the time they don't even care to check facts at all, that's why most sci fi movies and even books suck big time (with the exception of hard scifi, which does base it in facts) Most movies are straight imagination and focus on making it look good, they don't even bother to be factual at all.
+Stephen Stine You're absolutely right as it pertains to the media! well.. the getting the facts part seems optional. but I see where you're going with it.
Neat bit of trivia. I was reading an interview with Andy Weir and he called himself out on the points in the novel where he used said artistic license. He lamented about the dust storm being unrealistic but needed the storm tomake the plot work.
Typical American "journalism": Two phony, scientifically illiterate/disinterested chuckle-heads were given the opportunity to interview Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the science of a movie, but neither even bothered to watch the movie. This is not journalism, and it wouldn't be entertaining or interesting if the guest wasn't able to take control of the lazy interview.
Yes, I much prefer the dead eyed commentators of old East-Berlin. :p Only a schmuck would think this show is "journalism" let alone a platform for science.
that was one awesome sci-fi movie. one more place where I think it may have been wrong is how Matt Damon walks normally on the surface or mars with 1/3rd gravity. but I might be missing the weight of his suit so I don't know. Rest of it was perfect! will even be a reality within 30 years.
another is there is no way he would be able to plant and grow potatoes in 4inches of soil. Also you would not be able to yeild so many potatoes and not have a few that would make you sick. then again its movie a great movie. I'm definitely going to see it again.
+Chetan Bhadrashette I also dont get about the part where the MAV is too heavy to reach outside of Mars so that they have to disassemble some of the part of MAV so that they could reach a total payload of 500kg? cmiiw
+Ray Wellington IIRC in a normal Ares mission, the Mar's Ascent Vehicle's primary mission is to take the crew from the martian surface to low-Mars orbit where it can rendezvous with Hermes. But this not in a normal mission anymore and the emergency "Rich Purnell maneuver" takes the Hermes screaming past Mars, making it unable to slow down into low-Mars orbit and meet the MAV. By removing large pieces of the MAV, they were able to get the MAV moving fast and high enough to rendezvous with Hermes.
Huh. So because of Mars' thin atmosphere, the entire inciting incident of the film/book couldn't have happened. That is...pretty glaring 0_0 especially in a story that's otherwise so solid
huh i never noticed the little gravity bits he mentioned. that was something that bugged me a bit but i figured whatever theres only so much you can do with that.
One thing they got wrong was showing a sunset where the sun is red. Actually photos taken by the rovers of Martian sunsets show that the sun is a pale blue at sunrise and sunset. If they went through the trouble to simulate Mars' lower gravity they definitely could have incorporated a photo from the rover into the film.
Ares 3: Was on the Martian surface a couple of weeks, had to abort the mission to avoid being tipped over by a wind storm. Ares 4: Stood unmanned several years on the Martian surface, found quite vertical because Mark Watney needed it. Still a great movie! We can forgive a little "convenient physics".
@@jimellis1496 They meant how within 18 days one MAV encountered a storm so strong it'd have tipped it over, while the other one seemingly encountered no strong storms ever as it stood for years
Simply acquiring degrees does not necessarily entail they understand him. The two women have not seen the movie they are interviewing him about, thats why they seem to lack understanding about the conversation. It could be 2 men making the same comments and similar comments would be made.
whenever someone starts saying"right" as a response to what ur saying is by definition that person is not understanding a damn thing ur saying.. its like ur talking "blah blah blah" that's how these women seemed like.
Why he walk on Mars like on earth !?you see him in base he walk like he have gravity on earth and base is covered with some nylon snd where is deadly radiation !! basically lot of horshits
+Zoster they explained in the book that the other methods of communication were dependent on the ship that his crewmates took when they left. Nobody was supposed to be on the planet without it.
The media girls were totally ignorant about movies in general and science in particular....how are they allowed to interview Mr. Tyson without even watching the movie!
One of the biggest and main things I can think of is the Martian dirt. It is so poisonous, and radioactive... Matt Damon's character is just living, working, and eating from it. Those dirt particles are so tiny and poisonous, that he'd breathe it in constantly and infect himself even without bringing all that dirt inside and laying it out to plant the potatoes
+jony1495 mars isn't open vacuum. ofcourse if there was a hole poked by something at any point it'd certainly be blown the fuck out by the pressure change. Otherwise the mars atmosphere is enough to allow that.
+Amon Ra Well, the wind wouldn't be strong enough to pick up the dish in the first place. Let alone being able to topple the craft. A storm on Mars would feel like a mild breeze to us. But like Neil said, they needed this for the plot.
The biggest problem I had was that they were going to "accelerate" at Earth instead of using their last month to "decelerate" ... which is not how orbital mechanics work ... and on top of that, Earth's gravity was somehow going to be strong enough to turn them 180 degrees after all that accelerating. Rubbish. If they'd claimed they were going to accelerate to make a Venus intercept and slingshot against Venus for a rendezvous with Mars, that actually would have made more sense (without checking the position of Venus in the timeline of the movie), because it could work out that it wasn't a 180 degree turn, and accelerating would let them pass Mars at a much different point in its orbit from where it was when they left. They really threw the science out the window by dumbing it down to a slingshot around Earth.
Aren't they communicating mars -> earth instantaneously also? That would be a scientific flaw as well. Takes ~45min for signals to travel the distance ;S
The communications delay would depend upon the relative positions of Mars and Earth. It could take anywhere from a little over three minutes (when they're nearest to each other) to nearly 21 minutes (when they're on opposite sides of the Sun).
No they weren't. In the beginning they were sending photos and they wouldn't recieve them instantaneously. Some of the minor characters actually talked about the communication delay.
Didn't see the movie, I didn't like the trailer - but seriously, why would anyone try to send a video link of a text message (with that silly joining of different pictures/windows), instead of just sending plain text? It's not like you have 10 Mbps up/down on Mars.. What's up with all the idiotic representation of "computer stuff" in the movies, often too graphic criptography, maps, etc..?
+minikuperS It's actually explained in the movie. At first, M. Watney has to dig up the Pathfinder rover, and he uses the still-frame camera (its only instrument) to send a message to NASA. Later in the movie, NASA sends him instructions on how to edit the drivable rover's operating system to transmit on the same frequency as Pathfinder, thus opening the possibility of text communication up. The whole multiple windows thing was just for suspense. It's not shown what Watney wrote on the board until NASA recieves the image. No hate, but next time you criticize a movie, please watch it first.
thanks for an explanatory, but more importantly nice and friendly comment. If only that was a more common sight on the internet... ;) The explanation seems fair on first glance, that + Neil D.G. might actually persuade me to see the movie... The silly, over-the-top ecranization of computers still kills me though, mars rover shoots one image not five, couldn't they get the suspense just by slowly receiving the image, downloading from top to bottom, or slowly sharpening from a poor to better resolution, like it actually works when the broadband isn't great... I mean, you go trough a whole lot of trouble and research to nail gravity on mars, but then you try to scrape some extra suspense by stupidly joining multiple images... I don't get that. probably will see the movie in the end, thanks again for the explanation..
There were many more things wrong with the movie. The scene where Matt's character gets his helmet's glass/plastic broken, he would have been dead in a split second, there is no way to tape that shit up and go about your day. The other thing you can't be out there in your space suit for hours on end beacsue the radiation would kill you eventually, and that taping up the big hole with plastic was probably most pathetic of them all probably. Why didn't Neil, the great scientist that he is bring it up?
He touched on like 2 things. I could probably list about 20 glaring physics problems with this movie. Tyson stop stooping to the lowest common denominator and rip this movie a new one ffs.
Maybe the point is to point out that it isn't perfect in terms of science by giving some examples to prove it. I think Neil, like most people should do, respects the freedom art has. A movie doesn't have to get the science right to be a brilliant movie. I don't see why he should have ripped this movie a new one. I don't see that to be his intention, either.
I think we shouldn't meddle with outer space. That is gods territory and in the bible it clearly states that we shouldn't mess with the heavens. The only place we can get to doing that is hell. God has sent us messages before telling us not to participate in space travel. Look at Apollo 1 and the Challenger for example.
+Zeekhandsome lol you know people like you are way behind the progressive world. Bible is suppose to help give you a sense of morality, it's not an explanation of how the universe and science works. If it was God that wrote the Bible he would have explained it in detail. just proves people wrote it. They had no knowledge or intuition on how the universe works on a physical level. There's things in the bible that we can go test or experiment on and you can disprove it. Just a bunch of rationalizations written down to help explain what they couldn't understand. Can't blame them for wanting an explanation, but let's stop the nonsense. Keep your bible out of science. God isn't stupid.
+Zeekhandsome science is the study of the natural universe. How is the study a sin if it is the sole reason for all of our technological advances that had allowed us to live our lives more at convenience. Not only that, quantum physics, a major field in science is the reason our computers, tablets, and phones function the way they do, like running social media software where people's true selves are revealed. So you can thank science for allowing you to spew a biased view, not based on testable hypotheses and data like science, on the world wide web. Also stop referencing people to the bible when trying to make a point. That's such a cop out response. Maybe you should learn how the science works then maybe it wouldn't be so difficult to grasp and appreciate how science benefits us. You can go through and verify it by math. And if you can prove otherwise, by God tell the science committee, they'd love you if you're right.
"First get your facts, then distort them at your leisure." - Media in a nutshell
+Stephen Stine no, that's not how the media works. Actually most of the time they don't even care to check facts at all, that's why most sci fi movies and even books suck big time (with the exception of hard scifi, which does base it in facts) Most movies are straight imagination and focus on making it look good, they don't even bother to be factual at all.
+Stephen Stine How f*cking true!!!
I wish I could up vote this more than once. You sir are 100% correct.
+Stephen Stine You're absolutely right as it pertains to the media! well.. the getting the facts part seems optional. but I see where you're going with it.
I'm going to have to upvote the shit out of this
these ladies be like : WHAAAAAA DAAAAAA...
The mission impossible movie where they have dust storm is actually in the ghost protocol one so you are actually correct lol
+Ray Wellington Clearly journalism is weighed more on looks that knowledge of the subject. Otherwise, public not attracted to watch.
I wanna smoke a doobie with this man
+Elias Gonzalez Count me in xD
I dont. I would never jeopordize this mans brain for my personal amusement. And yes i smoke hella weed
Neat bit of trivia. I was reading an interview with Andy Weir and he called himself out on the points in the novel where he used said artistic license. He lamented about the dust storm being unrealistic but needed the storm tomake the plot work.
Both of them have no ideas what he was talking about.
Typical American "journalism": Two phony, scientifically illiterate/disinterested chuckle-heads were given the opportunity to interview Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the science of a movie, but neither even bothered to watch the movie. This is not journalism, and it wouldn't be entertaining or interesting if the guest wasn't able to take control of the lazy interview.
So true.
Dan yeah exactly, well said sir !
Yes, I much prefer the dead eyed commentators of old East-Berlin.
:p Only a schmuck would think this show is "journalism" let alone a platform for science.
this comment was written 3 years ago, and the pretension is still felt today 🤦🏽♂️
They're just the anchors because they're attractive
Living on mars is kind of painful (especially the commander's disco music)
Making the ladies giggle, you are my man Doctor Tyson...
Neil the type to destroy Uranus
takes alot of balls to say YEAH RIGHT OF COURSE HMHMM if you dont have a clue what someones talking about
+where are the turtles ACTUALLY IN MOST CASES IT TAKES A LOT OF TITS
@@BlueskiN1980 I like how you mocked him with the all caps response
He even got Mission Impossible: The Ghost Protocol movie reference right as well. Stop second-guessing yourself Neil, smart as smart.
that was one awesome sci-fi movie. one more place where I think it may have been wrong is how Matt Damon walks normally on the surface or mars with 1/3rd gravity. but I might be missing the weight of his suit so I don't know. Rest of it was perfect! will even be a reality within 30 years.
another is there is no way he would be able to plant and grow potatoes in 4inches of soil. Also you would not be able to yeild so many potatoes and not have a few that would make you sick. then again its movie a great movie. I'm definitely going to see it again.
+Chetan Bhadrashette I also dont get about the part where the MAV is too heavy to reach outside of Mars so that they have to disassemble some of the part of MAV so that they could reach a total payload of 500kg? cmiiw
Ray Wellington
Has to do with velocity. The MAV needed to reach a certain velocity to meet up with the crew.
+Ray Wellington IIRC in a normal Ares mission, the Mar's Ascent Vehicle's primary mission is to take the crew from the martian surface to low-Mars orbit where it can rendezvous with Hermes. But this not in a normal mission anymore and the emergency "Rich Purnell maneuver" takes the Hermes screaming past Mars, making it unable to slow down into low-Mars orbit and meet the MAV. By removing large pieces of the MAV, they were able to get the MAV moving fast and high enough to rendezvous with Hermes.
+Chetan Bhadrashette Probably with weights. That would exactly like scuba divers use to submerge while carrying oxygen.
Neil is very touchie-feelie with the ladies.... LOL
Huh. So because of Mars' thin atmosphere, the entire inciting incident of the film/book couldn't have happened. That is...pretty glaring 0_0 especially in a story that's otherwise so solid
huh i never noticed the little gravity bits he mentioned. that was something that bugged me a bit but i figured whatever theres only so much you can do with that.
One thing they got wrong was showing a sunset where the sun is red. Actually photos taken by the rovers of Martian sunsets show that the sun is a pale blue at sunrise and sunset. If they went through the trouble to simulate Mars' lower gravity they definitely could have incorporated a photo from the rover into the film.
Ares 3: Was on the Martian surface a couple of weeks, had to abort the mission to avoid being tipped over by a wind storm.
Ares 4: Stood unmanned several years on the Martian surface, found quite vertical because Mark Watney needed it.
Still a great movie! We can forgive a little "convenient physics".
Ares 4 MAV was landed remotely by Martinez just before Ares 3 crew descended. It was not in the path of the storm, so didn't suffer any damage.
@@jimellis1496 They meant how within 18 days one MAV encountered a storm so strong it'd have tipped it over, while the other one seemingly encountered no strong storms ever as it stood for years
Neil was trying to make the point about the dust storms and the movie he was having trouble with was Mission to mars.
Anne Marie Green holds 2 degrees, Elaine Quijano also holds a degree, but you think they dont understand Neil because they are women?
Simply acquiring degrees does not necessarily entail they understand him. The two women have not seen the movie they are interviewing him about, thats why they seem to lack understanding about the conversation. It could be 2 men making the same comments and similar comments would be made.
today on “Neil Degrasse Tyson Educates Idiots”, two plastic news robots smile and pretend to understand science
whenever someone starts saying"right" as a response to what ur saying is by definition that person is not understanding a damn thing ur saying.. its like ur talking "blah blah blah" that's how these women seemed like.
These women have no idea what Neil is talking about
What’s the lady’s name in the burgundy top? For research purposes of course.
Ahhhhhh, yahhhhhhh, woooooow. They are clueless as to what Tyson is saying. 😂
Neil: Was it Ghost Protocol?
Inept Dolt: *_YeA yEa A ScI-Fi MoViE_*
Why he walk on Mars like on earth !?you see him in base he walk like he have gravity on earth and base is covered with some nylon snd where is deadly radiation !! basically lot of horshits
He is just geeking out.
No...I would actually expect them to get the gravity thing right...it they hadn't it would've been pretty cheap
the martion should have just hired Tyson as the producer. then it would be perfect
what i don;t buy is that this whole mars station depended on one flimsy antenna for all it's communication.. no backups whatsoever..right
+Zoster they explained in the book that the other methods of communication were dependent on the ship that his crewmates took when they left. Nobody was supposed to be on the planet without it.
Freakazette thanks!
everyone can be superman in mars
he forgot to calculate the oxygen he exhaled like grissom did and was burned alive::)))flying submarines in space one bolt weighs 50 pounds::)))
Um if there were 6 crew members each eating 3 meals a day and they provided 68 days of meals. Thats 1200+ meals plenty to survive on 1/3 rations
The colossal bacon modestly stretch because wing shortly entertain aside a acidic brand. alleged, cooperative fork
The media girls were totally ignorant about movies in general and science in particular....how are they allowed to interview Mr. Tyson without even watching the movie!
the whirlwinds were pretty cool
Neil could have been that director.
Please don't have mere mortals interview NDGT because it's a squandered opportunity. Next time use fellow geeks.
I'm just not sure about depressurization in the lansed rocket and in the space IMO that's very unreal.
The sound is horrible in this video! Tell your audio guy to stop clipping the levels..
You can tell these girls are not following a bean of what hes saying. They want to but have no clue.
I always loved when he ripped the science of The Walking Dead.
One of the biggest and main things I can think of is the Martian dirt. It is so poisonous, and radioactive... Matt Damon's character is just living, working, and eating from it. Those dirt particles are so tiny and poisonous, that he'd breathe it in constantly and infect himself even without bringing all that dirt inside and laying it out to plant the potatoes
+RTX J It is not poisonous or radioactive.
let me translate what he said at the end, he said fuck shit up
3:30 well, at least theres no cow flying.
?? they got like everything wrong. sealing off the base with a chute and duck tape. what a joke that movie was ...
+jony1495 mars isn't open vacuum. ofcourse if there was a hole poked by something at any point it'd certainly be blown the fuck out by the pressure change. Otherwise the mars atmosphere is enough to allow that.
its 0.006 bar .... no thats not possible
What is very closer from human now .
Ghost Protocol a sci fi movie! haha!
It was a dish which knocked him down, not the wind.
+Amon Ra Well, the wind wouldn't be strong enough to pick up the dish in the first place. Let alone being able to topple the craft. A storm on Mars would feel like a mild breeze to us. But like Neil said, they needed this for the plot.
Mars has
The biggest problem I had was that they were going to "accelerate" at Earth instead of using their last month to "decelerate" ... which is not how orbital mechanics work ... and on top of that, Earth's gravity was somehow going to be strong enough to turn them 180 degrees after all that accelerating. Rubbish. If they'd claimed they were going to accelerate to make a Venus intercept and slingshot against Venus for a rendezvous with Mars, that actually would have made more sense (without checking the position of Venus in the timeline of the movie), because it could work out that it wasn't a 180 degree turn, and accelerating would let them pass Mars at a much different point in its orbit from where it was when they left. They really threw the science out the window by dumbing it down to a slingshot around Earth.
Aren't they communicating mars -> earth instantaneously also? That would be a scientific flaw as well. Takes ~45min for signals to travel the distance ;S
no they weren't, at least in the book. The delay was an important side plot.
The communications delay would depend upon the relative positions of Mars and Earth. It could take anywhere from a little over three minutes (when they're nearest to each other) to nearly 21 minutes (when they're on opposite sides of the Sun).
No they weren't. In the beginning they were sending photos and they wouldn't recieve them instantaneously. Some of the minor characters actually talked about the communication delay.
the martian > star wars
Didn't see the movie, I didn't like the trailer - but seriously, why would anyone try to send a video link of a text message (with that silly joining of different pictures/windows), instead of just sending plain text? It's not like you have 10 Mbps up/down on Mars.. What's up with all the idiotic representation of "computer stuff" in the movies, often too graphic criptography, maps, etc..?
+minikuperS It's actually explained in the movie. At first, M. Watney has to dig up the Pathfinder rover, and he uses the still-frame camera (its only instrument) to send a message to NASA. Later in the movie, NASA sends him instructions on how to edit the drivable rover's operating system to transmit on the same frequency as Pathfinder, thus opening the possibility of text communication up.
The whole multiple windows thing was just for suspense. It's not shown what Watney wrote on the board until NASA recieves the image.
No hate, but next time you criticize a movie, please watch it first.
thanks for an explanatory, but more importantly nice and friendly comment. If only that was a more common sight on the internet... ;) The explanation seems fair on first glance, that + Neil D.G. might actually persuade me to see the movie...
The silly, over-the-top ecranization of computers still kills me though, mars rover shoots one image not five, couldn't they get the suspense just by slowly receiving the image, downloading from top to bottom, or slowly sharpening from a poor to better resolution, like it actually works when the broadband isn't great... I mean, you go trough a whole lot of trouble and research to nail gravity on mars, but then you try to scrape some extra suspense by stupidly joining multiple images... I don't get that. probably will see the movie in the end, thanks again for the explanation..
+minikuperS If you're interested in better accuracy and the more sciencey stuff, I highly recommend the book.
Tyson is quite touchy-feely with that woman.
There were many more things wrong with the movie. The scene where Matt's character gets his helmet's glass/plastic broken, he would have been dead in a split second, there is no way to tape that shit up and go about your day. The other thing you can't be out there in your space suit for hours on end beacsue the radiation would kill you eventually, and that taping up the big hole with plastic was probably most pathetic of them all probably. Why didn't Neil, the great scientist that he is bring it up?
+Karp Calmari How do you know? Have you been on Mars and tested all this shit out?
Lord Humungus No. Have they?
Karp Calmari No, but you haven't either.
+Karp Calmari Thing is, the man who wrote the book has actual knowledge on space and how things work there.
Jes Olague Apparently not.
what homework? the movie is based on the novel ffs, everything was written in it.
He touched on like 2 things. I could probably list about 20 glaring physics problems with this movie. Tyson stop stooping to the lowest common denominator and rip this movie a new one ffs.
Ok list them. It better be good. 1....
Maybe the point is to point out that it isn't perfect in terms of science by giving some examples to prove it. I think Neil, like most people should do, respects the freedom art has. A movie doesn't have to get the science right to be a brilliant movie. I don't see why he should have ripped this movie a new one. I don't see that to be his intention, either.
NDT please go away. Maybe you should retake some highschool level math.
I think we shouldn't meddle with outer space. That is gods territory and in the bible it clearly states that we shouldn't mess with the heavens. The only place we can get to doing that is hell. God has sent us messages before telling us not to participate in space travel. Look at Apollo 1 and the Challenger for example.
Are you... serious? Please don't be serious.
+Zeekhandsome lol you know people like you are way behind the progressive world. Bible is suppose to help give you a sense of morality, it's not an explanation of how the universe and science works. If it was God that wrote the Bible he would have explained it in detail. just proves people wrote it. They had no knowledge or intuition on how the universe works on a physical level. There's things in the bible that we can go test or experiment on and you can disprove it. Just a bunch of rationalizations written down to help explain what they couldn't understand. Can't blame them for wanting an explanation, but let's stop the nonsense. Keep your bible out of science. God isn't stupid.
Maybe you should read the bible before you argue on the internet and then you'll realize how much sin science beholds
+Zeekhandsome science is the study of the natural universe. How is the study a sin if it is the sole reason for all of our technological advances that had allowed us to live our lives more at convenience. Not only that, quantum physics, a major field in science is the reason our computers, tablets, and phones function the way they do, like running social media software where people's true selves are revealed. So you can thank science for allowing you to spew a biased view, not based on testable hypotheses and data like science, on the world wide web. Also stop referencing people to the bible when trying to make a point. That's such a cop out response. Maybe you should learn how the science works then maybe it wouldn't be so difficult to grasp and appreciate how science benefits us. You can go through and verify it by math. And if you can prove otherwise, by God tell the science committee, they'd love you if you're right.
read the bible
He's incredibly socially awkward