The Martian third listed on "most mistakes"

[Kerbart]

The movie we all love—listed third on "moviemistakes.com" list of movies with the most mistakes of 2015. Before, one would assume more accurate, movies like Ant-man, Sharknado and San Andreas (really? yes! Really!)

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film11214

Go knock yourself out!

 

 

[Frybert]

In my experience most of the mistakes listed on that site are continuity. That can of coke was facing west in one shot and south west in the next. Most 'factual', plot hole, ect, mistakes are left up to 'movie logic'.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Frybert

[peachoftree]

Also the martian would be held to a higher standard for factual accuracy, since it is a near-future hard sci-fi movie. Actual Spoiler Below, watch out. 

Spoiler

one of the errors had to do with bolts floating around in the capsule while the second stage engine is firing during watneys ascent to the hermes. They should be floating around in the capsule. In a less realistic movie, say star trek, the pulse engines they use to move between planets would move them so fast everyone would be turned into tomato paste from being slammed against the back of the wall.

Also, @Frybert, I like your profile pick

Edited December 17, 2015 by peachoftree

[cantab]

It relies on user submissions, so interest or lack thereof will bias things too. The "most mistakes" overall are in old films where people have gone through with a fine-toothed comb looking for tiny errors.

As for The Martian, it's a mix of "continuity mistakes" and "factual errors", but several of the claimed factual errors are themselves making big assumptions.

[The Optimist]

*cough* 400+ mph sandstorm on planet with 38 percent Earth gravity and 30% atmosphere *cough*

*cough* RTGs *cough* Plutonium insulated in lead spheres *cough*

[problemecium]

No spoilers meant, but The Force Awakens is going to blow it out of the water as far as science mistakes are concerned ;P

[Robotengineer]

29 minutes ago, parameciumkid said:

No spoilers meant, but The Force Awakens is going to blow it out of the water as far as science mistakes are concerned ;P

Why would anyone even bother checking for science mistakes on TFA? I can understand it for movies that are meant to be realistic like The Martian, but it would be a major waste of time to science check Star Wars movies and movies like them. 

[DestinyPlayer]

Well, it's quite obvious that people are going to find much more mistakes in the work that strives to be realistic than in the one that doesn't care about the science of things. In the latter case, there's nothing to be mistaken about.

[One-Way Films]

There'd be a lot less mistakes factually if the movie was a bit more true to the book. Film/Book spoiler below

Spoiler

There's a point about Lewis going on EVA to save Mark instead of Beck (the EVA specialist), where, in the book, Beck saves Watney instead.

 

[Maxwell Comp]

I saw Spectre the other day, and I can't count the number of errors in it. It has such an abundance of the classic unrealistic aspects that the 007 franchise is famous for. I'm not talking about jetpacks or submarine cars, I'm talking about the 

Spoiler

Hello Mr. Bond, I'm your nemesis. Would you like a cup of tea while I explain my evil plan? And after your inevitable escape, please follow my trap exactly as I instruct, and don't take anything more powerful than a pistol with you. Because reasons. By the way, did you know my helicopter is so reliable that it can always escape in less than 3 minutes? As long as you don't shoot it, of course.

stuff.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Maxwell Comp

[kerbiloid]

1. If a thin plastic bag is enough to withstand against the dynamic pressure - why install that heavy nose cone at all?
They could take several bags of potatoes more - instead of the nosecone.
And btw use those bags to cover the MAV when the potatoe has been eaten.

2. If he just puts a potatoe into the feces, no potatoes should grow, because it would be burnt due to the decay heat.
Any feces must be first totally rotten into compost, and only when the decay stopped, this becomes a fertilizer.

3. Watney's RTG heat power is 1500 W - as a powered clothes iron, and it's still enough to keep a bath of water hot.
Why the RTG wasn't molten down or at least red hot when it was buried into the ground?
Try to hide a powered clothes iron beneath a seat and feel the difference.
Probably, Mark could bake his potatoes above that place, but he was wrapped up in his thoughts and lost that opportunity.

4. When Hermes released the air, dV = 29 m/s.
Air molecules velocity U = sqrt(3 * 8.3144 * (273 + 20) / 29e-3) = 500 m/s.

dV = U * ln(M/(M-m));
M/(M-m) = exp(dV/U);
(M-m)/M = exp(-dV/U);
1-m/M = exp(-dV/U);
m/M = 1-exp(-dV/U) = 1-exp(-29/500) = 0.056;

Per every 1000 kg of Hermes:
Air mass = 0.056 * 1000 = 56 kg.
Air volume = 56/1.225e-3 ~= 45000 m^3.
Average Hermes density ~= 1000 kg / 45000 m^3 = 0.02 kg/m3.
Hermes is 50k times lighter than water and 16 times heavier than air. It's a space zeppelin.

Edited December 21, 2015 by kerbiloid

[Motokid600]

There's also the contradicting airlock incident I made a big stink about when the movie first came out. It was described as the stressed fabric of the airlock failing. And yet the airlock remained somewhat intact ( in the book anyway. Iirc it was destroyed in the movie. ) and the Habs fabric is what failed. 

Contradicts Weir's description of the failure.

[Martian Music]

Come on, you gotta pick for the mistakes? It's an amazing movie, watched it at 3 AM and screwed my routine up. Worth it.

[monstah]

On ‎20‎/‎12‎/‎2015 at 5:53 PM, Robotengineer said:

Why would anyone even bother checking for science mistakes on TFA?

That's exactly why I think The Martian is third: who'd nitpick anything else for scientific acurateness?

Ant-man: "Whole premise is stupid". There, need anything else?