Talk:Red Planet (film)

Plot Outline

Okay, so I finally got off my butt and wrote this beast. It's long and ugly, much like the film, and could use some better formatting. Also, it's only a film article, but it may be a bit non-NPOV, because I happened to like this film--not so much for it's literary quality, but for what it was trying to say about science and philosophy and the future of humanity if we don't smarten up. Anyway, I'm sure it's not perfect, so, Wikipedia, do your thang... work your magic... wave the wand... stroke the lamp... oh, geez... nevermind. It's very late. I go bed now. Sincerely yours--Pariah 06:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

plot

This is so dumb. That's the most pointless movie I've ever seen! The astronauts didn't accomplish their mission! Why'd that idiot set the algae and the atmosphere on fire for? What a dummy! What's gonna happen to Earth now? It's going to get overpopulated and everyone's going to die! They shouldn't have made that movie if it wasn't going to have a happy ending! Scorpionman 01:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh...thats kind of the point. Not everything happens according to plan and not every conclusion can be a happy one.--Kross July 7, 2005 07:11 (UTC)

Heheheh... --Pariah 03:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sez you! 4.158.60.25 21:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still just trying to figure out what the hell was the deal with the guy calling the bugs "Nematodes" 2 Oct 2005

That's what we thought, too. They put all that work into the scientific aspects, then trot out embarassing gaffes like that. -Timvasquez 20:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't the final point that they had these bugs that they could use to clean up earth's atmosphere? -- Imladros 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Mistakes, Goofs and Blunders

There are several flaws in the plot, including scientific goofs.

Dr. Quinn Burchenal: At one point he brags about knowing about science, "A-G-T-P! Thats what i believe in!" THE four base pairs of DNA are A-G-C-T not A-G-P-T like he says. His character plays a geneticist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1900:71FD:288E:473A:223C:12E (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• First of all, can anyone tell what was exactly the original plan for the return flight to the ship? The landing capsule that got busted after falling off a cliff apparently had no rocket motor (or, at least, it was never spoken of).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay

• Another one: having all that highly advanced science, and having based the mission precisely on the unaccounted-for lower Oxygen levels in the Martian athmosphere, why didn't those crew members know that the Martian air was breathable? Did they have to discover it by sheer accident, when they were at he brink of dying by suffocation when their spacesuit air reserves were depleted?

Yes

• When they search for some hardware to build a radio they desperately need, they find an "off-the-shelf computer modem... with a frequency we're not using in our mission". Two hours after they manage to transmit "This is Mars One ground crew. Do you copy?" several times, Houston calls Bowman to report that they've "...picked up on the telescope... ...you'll have to turn to a frequency we haven't used in 50 years". Just what kind of a telescope was that, a radio telescope? And just does the "frequency" of a pre-Internet, pre-wireless modem have to do to with radio frequencies? Gosh, pretty powerful radio at that (even though it was battery-operated), able to reach Earth!
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem#Deep-space_telecommunications Gramby (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_telescope

• Another inexplicable scientific blunder is the weird chemistry of the martian insects, that ate algae ("and everything else") and "produced oxygen". How did they do it, decomposing CO²? That would consume a lot of energy, and where would that energy come from? Why did those beasts burn like firecrackers? The article perpetrates further Chemistry goofs, asserting that "The insects eat the algae and excrete oxygen creating the new Martian atmosphere and explaining why they explode when burned", which explains nothing at all. It just doesn't make sense. Also, in the story those insects or arthropods are called "nematodes". Nematodes are unsegmented worms, so, equally and in addition to Chemistry, someone got a "D" in Biology here.

The CGI artist got the "D" the writer probably knew what he was talking about, and Locusts are more intimidating than worms. Originally Earth was like Venus, but anaerobic algae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudomonas_aeruginosa polluted the planet with oxygen. Mars is red for the same reason rocks on Earth are red: RUST. Oxygen on Mars and Earth is trapped as iron oxide in rocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide So Oxygen was present on Mars at some point, and why should the Martian Locusts use Oxygen & expel Carbon Dioxide? Why cant they be the other way around?

• Speaking of Biology and Chemistry, all those Algae in that clear martian patch came from Earth, right? It was green due to its Chlorophyll, which means it had a regular, earthlike chemistry, right? So, why did it burn like gunpowder when Burchenal "ignited the bugs, causing a chain reaction that burned the remaining algae and much of the region's atmosphere", something that was visible from space? Grass and Algae just don't "burn" (or rather, explode) in an Oxygen atmosphere. And sorry, but another D in Meteorology. An Atmosphere doesn't just "burn", either. Oxygen consuming Oxygen?

They shit pure oxygen, don't they? Have you ever seen a forest fire? Trees shit oxygen too.

• When Gallagher makes his last stride toward the soviet lander, he discards his spacesuit helmet. One wonders, where did he find a replacement helmet?

The CGI artist, again. But this is fiction, so why sweat it?

• Bowman directs Gallagher to throw away "two liters" of an unnamed and highly flammable fuel, after some "computations" in order to reach a suitable orbit to allow for his recue. But, how did she manage to know the original fuel level in the tank, to begin with?

Because she had access to the schematics.

• When Gallagher finally blasts off Mars, he has no idea about how to control the Soviet lander KOSMOS navigation (all the "interface" is in Russian, remember - in reality it's a lot of nonsense made up of loose Russian words). Yet he somehow manages to come to a complete relative stop in orbit just some "1,000 metres" (actually it looks like 150, but in space distances are deceptive) away from the main ship. WOW! What a bullseye!!!

The Ship turns toward him, but it was already set up to collect him if he did make it to space.

• And last but not least, why did the mission have to include that murderous, mechanical ninja beast, AMEE? Only to jeopardize the mission further, and have one extra villain, I guess. As if the harsh conditions upon an alien planet weren't tough enough.

Because Hollywood Execs have just less imagination than you do. All they see are dollar signs and all you see are problems with a fictional movie.

I enjoyed the film hugely, despite these and other defects.

--AVM 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, want more? If the board computer has a voice interface and an AI smart enough to make witty remarks (e.g. about the woman not taking the lack of gravity into account when trying to use a fire extinguisher), why does AMEE never speak a word? If AMEE is such a highly advanced robot, why can't her combat mode be disabled BEFORE the mission, and why is she too stupid to tell a real threat from her own teammates -- also, why doesn't she kill all of them if they are entirely unarmed and thus already inferior (no need for wounding)? Lastly, how did the bugs evolve if there were no algae before human intervention and hardly enough time for complex multi-celled organisms to evolve? Even more so, how did they evolve to be able to digest humans if there were no humans (or any higher creatures other than the bugs) on Mars? Where are all those ancestor species anyway -- did they just get eaten by the bugs? That's not how evolution works at all!

I'm fascinated by the note in the article claiming it was praised by its fans for its science when there are so many blatant flaws. Yes, the greenhouse/algae concept is a real one, but that's hardly a "scientific basis" for the entire film. -- 62.143.139.233 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this for unrealistic? Gallagher, Pettengill and Burchenal have 19 hours to walk 100 kilometers to the Russian probe. Walk (walk!) across rough terrain, with one of them severely injured. And then they take refuge for 2-3 hours from the storm. Presumably, there is also the time required to reconfigure the probe, so they've actually use at best 14-15 hours (probably less) to travel those 100 kilometers (62 miles). Tough enough on smooth roads and paths, but they've got to bushwack it across Mars! Hah! --99.139.139.119 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@62.143.139.233 The crew expected that the Martian atmosphere is like before the terraforming already, so they didn't even look up what the atmosphere's composition is. Probably they would have before entering the atmosphere, but the solar storm caused huge damage to the mothership, with all instruments shutting down at first, the crew made an emergency landing. They would have been safe in the habitat if it wasn't destroyed, and would return by another spacecraft sent from Earth perhaps. 212.186.15.63 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed some POV statements

I removed a few POV statements in the last section. We can't say stuff like "the movie was long and dull" or "the movie has a solid cast and an interesting premise". If anyone want it in here, it should be a quoted reference to a review in a newspaper or similar. Bergsten 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No objections here; although I guess I'm biased. I enjoyed the film--Pariah 04:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You might as well remove the section below. Thanks. 89.1.162.134 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

At least it's better than

this piece of crap. Mission_to_Mars ;)

You're joking, right? Mission to Mars was a slow-burner with suspense and a twist ending. Red Planet elicits a yawn, oftentimes a cringe, and is entirely predictable with the focus not even being about Mars at all, but AMEE trying to kill everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:501:2700:7D2D:DA6:6FA1:ECA5 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

is it worth

mentioning the references to 2001 a space odyssey (the character being called bowman, AMEE going mental due to the threat to her 'life' and her HAL-esque eye, bowman flushing out the spacecraft with a vacuum for example) as it's notable and one of the things i enjoyed most about the film. also the whole nearly-asphyxiating-on-mars-but-then-there's-oxygen sequence was reminiscent of total recall and the main premise seemed similar to silent running (directed by douglas trumbull who also worked on 2001)

the 'space janitor' wearing a hawaiian shirt and a shot of mars-1 passing under the camera reminded me of red dwarf, but that's probably just me :) 87.112.209.194 19:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just watched Red Planet and found the plot very similar to The Martian. Many of the plot details were also used in The Martian. Is this already discussed somewhere?

Fair use rationale for Image:Redplanetmovieposter.jpg

Image:Redplanetmovieposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Director

Was it ever explained why the studio trusted a big-budget movie like this to an ad director ? - Beardo (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This Is One of My Most Favorite Films of All Time

Why did this film bomb? I don't quite get it. I'm glad that at least The Martian didn't bomb. But this film is 10 times more fun than The Martian. I don't care what the critics say and whether it bombed at the box office, this film is one of my most favorite films of all time.

These are some of the things in it that make me love it:

• It's about a mission to Mars.
• It has an artificially intelligent robot which has martial arts skills
• It's about radio communications, a subject that I love.
• The computer graphics of the ship are quite nice, especially for 2000.
• Who doesn't love Carrie-Anne Moss??!
• The Mars terrain shown is awesome.
• The way Gallagher uses an old Soviet lander to shoot back into space is freaking awesome.
• All and all, it's a great movie - it should be loved, at least, by most electrical engineers.
• Anyway, that's what I think.
• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.5.112 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

* so is The Martian

* Something that might excite 12 year olds. I found the robot too campy.

* Doesn't every film set on Mars involve that?

* true

* I don't

* Nothing notable other Mars movies haven't gotten right.

* It's a slap in the face of physics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:501:2700:7D2D:DA6:6FA1:ECA5 (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Planet (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140225053634/http://www.villageroadshow.com.au/Company-Profile/Film-Distribution.htm to http://www.villageroadshow.com.au/Company-Profile/Film-Distribution.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)