Talk:Red Planet (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article Autonomous Mapping Evaluation and Evasion was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 21 March 2008 with a consensus to merge the content into Red Planet (film). If the merger is not completed promptly, Autonomous Mapping Evaluation and Evasion might be re-nominated for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Australian cinema task force

Contents 1 Plot Outline 2 plot 3 Scientific Mistakes, Goofs and Blunders 4 Removed some POV statements 5 At least it's better than 6 is it worth 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Redplanetmovieposter.jpg

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Scientific Mistakes, Goofs and Blunders

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

• 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).

• 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?

• 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? It just doesn't make sense. Also, in the story those insects or arthropods are called "nematodes". Nematodes are unsegmented worms, so someone got a "D" in Biology here.

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

• 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?

• 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 just some 100 yards away from the main ship. What a bullseye!!!

• 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.

I enjoyed the film hugely, despite these 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] At least it's better than

this piece of crap. Mission_to_Mars ;)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)