Talk:The Martian (film)/Archive 2

Venkat Kapoor and Vincent Kapoor
This edit checks out since the source says Chiwetel Ejiofor plays "Vincent Kapoor". In the book, the character is Venkat Kapoor. There may be some critical commentary about this kind of casting when the film comes out. If reliable sources report on the commentary, it can then be included in the article. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There has been comment on chat pages. One of them noted the significance of the film character explaining that one parent was Hindu and one black. I recall noting that altho i think there are Indian ethnicities typically as dark as he, my gut suspects his facial features also don't go with theirs. (Selection of maternal and paternal genes is a crap-shoot, tho, and getting only recessive facial-structure genes from your mother is not inconsistent with having a more overall-balanced split between your parents.  But of course as you note, only RS need apply. --Jerzy•t 01:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Jerzy•t 02:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , this has Ejiofor talking about his character. It can definitely be used; just have not gotten around to implementing all the sources available about this film. (I am not this fast, I was commenting just as you pinged me!) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, tnx! --Jerzy•t 03:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy
, it is not due weight to focus on a film's inaccuracies as if they define the film. There are inaccuracies, to be sure, but we have to balance this against the overall approach. For example, this says, "Ridley Scott's The Martian is being acclaimed as one of the most realistic portrayals of human space exploration ever filmed... There are several small inaccuracies in both Weir's book and Scott's film... But these are minor technical quibbles." There is an undue focus on the inaccuracies, and what belongs in the lead section is a proper summary of a well-balanced "Scientific accuracy" section in the article body. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A sentence like, "Nonetheless, the film has been criticized for its inaccuracies in both science and technology," implies that the film failed to be accurate at all. It is undue weight that emphasizes issues with the science rather than properly balancing the sources. For example, NASA's Green says the film is "reasonably realistic", but one wouldn't know it from the above sentence. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly a ridiculous assertion. As it previously existed, the lede was all but fawning over the technical accuracy of the film, which even the screenwriter points out is not wholly there.  Drama won over accuracy and truth...not exactly a first for Hollywood.  The *cited* section I've added in the lede adds balance where there previously was none. Regardless of what you may think, the film's foundational premise -- extreme, spaceship-toppling sandstorms on Mars -- are scientifically absurd.  And the surrendered-to-drama screenwriter himself agrees with that truth. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed "accurately" from the original text because I agree that set a particular tone. The problem here is that the opposite tone is being set with the "Nonetheless" addition. We need to finish expanding the "Scientific accuracy" section to determine the overall response about the film's science. No science-based film is ever going to be 100% accurate, but we need to properly summarize what experts thought of the film as a whole. The Martian is not The Core. When we summarize these thoughts, we can then highlight the specific issues that were found in the film. That's not a problem; the problem is with the tone being cast as if nobody said the film was much more realistic than past similar films. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've read this thread, above in this sect, and I've read the article, and before I came here or even knew of this discussion I'd already happened to read several articles about the science portrayed in the film, the book, and watch video interviews where the production team discussed their intentions to try to get much of the science as accurate as possible, per Dr. Jim Green (NASA JPL) Interview. After reading the above exchange, I strongly agree with all comments by . Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Gee, that's nice, Curt. Here's the reality. I just saw the film this afternoon, and laughed at the windstorm scene. I doubt I was alone. "The problem here" is that you've bought into the NASA-selling assertions that this film is somehow unique in its accuracies. ...which is just false.  And a quarter-sized hole in an astronaut's helmet as being survivable, fixed with duct tape?  Just dumbness served up for for dumb people.  More:  at regular atmospheric pressures, which something akin to which would be required for growing potatoes, the pressure on the plastic sheet and duct-tape covered, blown-out egress from the Mars shelter would amount to this:  circle surface = pi r 2 ...which with a 3.5ft radius and 14.7 psi... => 25,930 pounds (!)  And I'm just getting warmed up.  Word to the wise...others just suffer. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you have a particular POV you want to push, rather than deferring to the sources for a proper summary-level assessment. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's called "reality," Erik. If that's a 'POV,' sign me up...as it is precisely the topic of conversation. A bit of plastic sheet and duct tape holding back more than 12 and a half tons of air pressure? Now that's "POV"...if entirely ridiculous. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. More "POV" for you:

(1) "Dave Lavery, Program Executive for Solar System Exploration at NASA headquarters and a consultant for the film, told IFLScience. “But a 100 mph wind on Mars, because the atmosphere is so thin, has the same inertia and dynamic pressure down at the surface as about an 11 mph (18 km/h) wind on Earth. It’s not going to have the sort of energy to move large objects the way that is portrayed in the book and the film.”" Ref:  http://www.iflscience.com/space/how-accurate-martian-9-things-movie-got-right-and-wrong --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

(2) "When a pressure leak causes an entire pod on Watney’s habitat to blow up, he patches a yawning opening in what’s left of the dwelling with plastic tarp and duct tape. That might actually be enough to do the job in the tenuous atmosphere that does exist on Mars. But in the violent one Weir invents for his story, the fix wouldn’t last a day." (And it actually wouldn't last seconds, as the atmosphere required for the astronauts would be much higher than that on Mars. See 12.5 tons of force comment above.) Ref: http://time.com/4055413/martian-movie-review-science-accuracy-matt-damon/   --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the lead should touch upon the general consensus of how accurate the science is since the lead is supposed to summarize the article and we have a section about the scientific accuracy; however, to devote five lines out of twenty to one specific criticism is not a fair balance of the content, and the specifics of the criticism should be left to the actual criticism section. To put it another way, the response from the scientific community is just a form of critical response, so the amount of space devoted to it in the lead should perhaps be in line with the amount of space given over to summarizing the critics' reponse. Also, as a rule we don't quote individual film critics in the lead so perhaps we shouldn't be quoting an individual critic of the science either. Technically, it is poor writing to have things in the lead which are not covered in the article body itself, so my suggestion to the IP is that if you have content relevant to the discourse on scientific accuracy then add it to the "scientific accuracy" section and leave the lead alone for the time being. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You clearly haven't read all the criticism of the "science," Betty. We were only addressing one.  That doesn't mean that there is "one." --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but if you realize that too why were you so intent on edit-warring one particular criticism of the science into the lead, such as in this edit? The article has a whole section on scientific accuracy so it looks like you were cherry-picking just one particular criticism and giving undue prominence to it. Per MOS:LEAD: The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you "realize" that the winds were the foundation of the film? Others do.  Quote:  "The story’s least honest device is also its most important one: the massive windstorm that sweeps astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) away, causing his crew mates to abandon him on the planet, assuming he has been killed. That sets the entire castaway tale into motion, but on a false note, because while Mars does have winds, its atmosphere is barely 1% of the density of Earth’s, meaning it could never whip up anything like the fury it does in the story." http://time.com/4055413/martian-movie-review-science-accuracy-matt-damon/ --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the lede wasn't the place to address all the gross inaccuracies of the film. One will do to make the point, especially if it is the foundation of the film...and "least honest device" as judged by the other, written-by-journalist statements (which Wikipedia holds to be oh-so-precious). --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Having said ALL that (and there are plenty more gross inaccuracies to discuss if anyone insists), I would very much agree with this statement from the link immediately above: "Go see The Martian. But still: Don’t expect all of the science to be what it should be. The hard part about good science fiction has always been the fiction part."  THAT would be an appropriate expectation, not the fawning, B.S.-buying "oh, it's soooo accurate" line that so many people have been parroting without critical thinking.  Last words for now:  I did like the film...but was not at all happy with the "soooo accurate" expectations that had been set for me (and others) by the usual suspects:  paid-for media. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the lead is not to discuss the foundations of the film, but to summarize the article. You could save us both considerable time if you took five minutes to read MOS:LEAD which states: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The topic of wind speeds take up just 3-4 lines out of twenty in the scientific accuracy section, so the topic certainly doesn't warrant a quarter of lead. I think the screenwriter's response about the film drawing its dramatic impetus from this one particular inaccuracy merits inclusion in the appropriate section, and I am happy to help you integrate that aspect into the article, but ultimately any edits which do not comply with MOS:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and MOS:EDITORIALIZING will be rejected. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And the point of the lede is to not spread gross falsehoods, which has now been corrected, such as high scientific accuracy. It's a movie. It's science fiction.  Emphasis on "fiction." Claims to the contrary cost us both time.  Nothing else.  --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:9891:B5A5:1B0E:4496 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to mentioning inaccuracies in the lead section, but we need a healthy paragraph there that is based on a well-developed "Scientific accuracy" section. I don't think that section is there yet in terms of capturing the extent of what experts thought of the film. Wikipedia follows and summarizes reliable sources in this. The issue from the start has been no indication that the film had been successful in any way in showing the film's science and technology. The original text said something about filmmakers working with NASA to "accurately" do this, but the section did not have an independent assessment about if that succeeded or failed. On some points, it definitely failed, and these should be mentioned, but sources (like Scientific American above) recognize that the film was overall a realistic portrayal, especially relative to past such films, and that's what we're missing. If we cover this in the lead section, we need to start with the general impression by experts of the film, and then detail some of the inaccuracies that were noted. I won't have time to do this today, but I suggest that editors search for the film's title and variants of the word "accuracy" and see what summary overview can go into the "Scientific accuracy" section and ultimately the lead section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case, I'm truly out of patience and time for trying to educate "Googlers" on the gross *in*accuracy (worth Googling for as well) of this otherwise fine science fiction film. Peace, out -- you're on your own, my fine film-loving friend to whom I sincerely and respectfully wish well.  Seek the Truth...and the truth will set you free.  Signed, former chief engineer aboard U.S. nuclear-powered submarines. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:FCF2:7326:4688:5434 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction: The habitat's air pressure that the plastic sheeting and duct tape is depicted as holding in is actually not as high as 25,930 pounds for a 7-foot diameter entrance. I forgot to subtract the counter-pressure from Mars' atmosphere. In that the average air pressure on Earth is 29.92 inches of mercury (or 1,013 millibars), and Mars' air pressure is an average of 0.224 inches of mercury (7.5 millibars), a more accurate number for the magic-plastic-sheeting-and-duct-tape's strength would be: 25,930 pounds x (29.92-0.224)/29.92  =  25,736 pounds. Just sayin'. --2602:306:BC24:A1E0:FCF2:7326:4688:5434 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Guardian says it well, "...while there are mistakes in it, it is the first genuine Mars movie. It is the first movie that attempts to be realistic and that is actually about human beings grappling with the problems of exploring Mars, as opposed to various movies set on Mars that are essentially either shoot ’em ups or horror films. It does not engage in fantasy: no monsters, no magic, no Nazis. However, there are a number of technical mistakes." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - yes - agreed - added Robert Zubrin comments to main article (ie, "The Martian (film)") - *entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Filming dates misleading
The article states filing began on 24 November 2014 and lasted approximately 70 days. This would put the end date of filming around 1 February 2015 (7 days in Nov, 31 in Dec, 31 in Jan and 1 of Feb = 70), if they filmed straight through. Filming in the Wadi Rum with Matt Damon et al finished on 10 March 2015, finishing ahead of schedule after eight days filming there. So filming at Wadi Rum went on from 3-10 March; 24 Nov to 10 March = 107 days if they filmed continuously. But if there was a complete break in filming the 70 days figure might still be correct.

Source: http://www1.jordantimes.com/ridley-scott-hany-abu-asad-shoot-their-latest-movies-in-jordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.224.44 (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I added that and worded it to keep vague. Maybe that sentence should be separated into two, the latter saying that there were 70 days of filming total. Maybe there were some breaks (weekends?) throughout the shooting schedule? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Taglines
Shouldn't the article mention the two taglines? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Help is only 140 million miles away
 * Bring Him Home

Matt Damon quote
I removed a quote by Matt Damon about Wadi Rum as seen here, but I was reverted. I am generally wary of cast and crew members talking up a film, including aspects of it. For example, Damon has spoken effusively about working with Scott on this film, but in expanding the "Production" section, I chose to leave that out as not neutral. I don't think it is appropriate to give weight to their positive comments as they make their publicity rounds. Any commendations of the film or the setting of Wadi Rum should come from independent assessments, such as film critics or other commentators. What do others think? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I too believe that ascription to Damon's enthusiasm is not necessary here. Note that MOS:Film says thoughts from the cast and crew "should be substantive and avoid a promotional tone". -- Chamith   (talk)  16:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, I chose the Matt Damon quote because I felt like any comments on Wadi Rum from independent assessments might sound irrelevant to the article... --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick search shows a CNN review here that says, "The scenes back on Earth provide a hectic, densely populated counterweight to the Martian aridity, which is magnificently represented by exteriors shot in the vicinity of Wadi Rum in Jordan." This is the kind of independent assessment that would work better. If it is said by someone outside the film, it has more weight. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't mind replacing that quote with that CNN quote review, but  I think its talking about thoughts from cast and crew specifically on the film... --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's talking about film's production in general (including locations, development, music, casting calls). Anyhow, quote from CNN seems like a better replacement. -- Chamith   (talk)  16:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Martian storm
In Plot can we change "intense storm" to intense Martian storm (Climate of Mars). Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Casting and race
Anyone who had spent time on the internet in the last few years will know the tendency of people to stir up shit (I don't know a better term). A few sources report that Mindy Park was meant to be Korean in the novel and complain that she was played by a Caucasian actress in the film. I own the copy of the book. Her race is never stated. In fact very few of the characters are described. Park is a British surname as well as a Korean one - I am British and I know people with that surname. Andy Weir, the definitive source, has stated in an interview http://www.mtv.com/news/2344611/the-martian-whitewashing-andy-weir/ with MTV that he never explicitly wrote her as Korean.

Could we please not join in the shit-stirring? It is demeaning to Wikipedia as a project to contribute to internet navel-gazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escape Artist Swyer (talk • contribs) 21:15, October 10, 2015


 * Reliable sources mention the group making these criticisms. It is appropriate to summarize coverage from these sources about the criticisms, as well as the author's response to the criticisms, per WP:NPOV, as Wikipedia neutrally describes disputes. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Variety, NBC News, The Guardian, and The Independent, and Deadline.com all report this issue. The author's claim does not nullify this. That would be like using Ridley Scott's excuse for Exodus: Gods and Kings to nullify the recognition that Exodus had whitewashing. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They've reiterated a claim, not declared it to be actual whitewashing. We can keep the claim in the cast section but we can't include the see also because the claim is not definitive. This isn't portraying a historical figure as white; it's casting a white actress as an ambiguously named character.  Calidum   18:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Space exploration technologies
The link space exploration technologies was removed from the "See also" section as seen here since it was the product of a banned editor who has used sockpuppets. The sockpuppet report can be seen here. The issue is also summarized at WP:SPACEFLIGHT here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

American film with British director
Lifted wholesale from the page, code stuff and all:

Talking about how to determine film nationality is fine and all, but it is of concern to us editors. It is inappropriate to involve readers - at least the page on "The Martian" is not a good place to hold a lecture on this stuff. CapnZapp (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree because when the film was released, some readers were adding "British" to the opening sentence due to Ridley Scott's involvement. There is no lecture being given in the lead section itself; the tag is an anchor that gives readers an opportunity to understand how the label "American" is being applied. It is hard to gauge how much of a difference it has made, but I think with hundreds of thousands of readers since, there has been only one instance that I recall of someone adding "British". Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric, I appreciate your efforts, but people adding things aren't readers. They're editors. And if you want to give them editing guidance, by all means do so, but do it on the talk page and not in the article. Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Readers and editors are not mutually exclusive. The note is for both. If a reader sees that the film is American and does not understand why, the note exists to explain. In any case, this is what I suggest. It was added before because of the "British" label being inserted. If it happens again, I will restore the note. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those kinds of edits are often called good-faith edits, as in people trying to help even if they're really not helping. But the only way to deal with those is to revert them and in the edit summary refer them to the talk page, over and over again, until the dust settles. We really can't have editing instructions in the articles themselves: it's completely out of place when somebody prints out a copy of our article that the paper tells them stuff like not to truncate a runtime of 90 minutes and 54 seconds to "90 minutes" when it should be rounded (up) to "91 minutes", to take an example from the Gravity (film) article.
 * So, please, Erik, don't persist in your belief that editing advice should go on the page itself. You'll only get reverted, souring your Wikipedia experience.
 * As for your (indirect) claim the note is for readers, I fail to see the relevance to the article. That doesn't mean there can't be a Wikipedia page on how to attribute nationality on films in general, only that this is inappropriate for any given film, be it Gravity or the Martian.
 * In short: if the note is there to influence how people edit the article, it's a note for editors, and if it is a note for editors, it belongs here on the talk page. If the note is there to inform readers, on the other hand, then it's in the wrong article.
 * Best Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of the footnote is to clarify to readers why the film is American. It is not to directly deter editing to "correct" the nationality. I am saying that we can surmise that there is confusion about the film being called American when the director is British. The readers who take the extra step to add "British" are a subset of readers who may be confused but do not actually carry out any edits. The editing deterrence is an aspect of clearing up that confusion. Footnotes have been used elsewhere, like at Featured Article American Beauty (1999 film). Edge of Tomorrow (film) is a Good Article with a footnote in the opening sentence to explain how Live Die Repeat has been used. What I am suggesting is that if another reader tries to add "British" without the footnote, it is indicative that there are multiple readers who may be puzzled by the "American" label. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Film genre in opening sentence
In the lead section's opening sentence, I find science fiction film appropriate to use per WP:FILMLEAD, which says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". In other words, not a mash-up like "science fiction survival film". This guideline exists to prevent mash-ups, and the film is much more known as a science fiction film than as a survival film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't spent a huge amount of time researching this, but the The New York Times lists is as sci-fi/adventure while Allmovie lists it as sci-fi/action and the sub-genre as "science-fiction adventure", so I agree that science-fiction seems to be the overriding genre here. If you want to be a bit more specific then "science-fiction adventure" would also be consistent with the sources too. I think "survival" is more of a theme than a genre personally. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , not sure if you were part of the discussion for that guideline, but did we mean "verifiably classified" to mean that the specific term should already exist as a genre? Like we would need to have science fiction adventure or science fiction adventure film to warrant using the term? Or is it more about sources calling the film something even if it is not a genre in the encyclopedic sense (warranting its own article)? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are instances where a basic genre doesn't adequately summarize the film and there may be a more helpful way of describing it. To take Jaws as an example which is a real genre mash and has been cataloged under a wide array of genres, editors are forever altering the genre in the lead but as Thomas Schatz notes "Jaws melds various genres while being basically a thriller film", which kind of settles the matter for me. The best sources for this type of thing are when somebody explicitly tackles the question rather than applying labels in passing. Unfortunately though with new releases there really isn't all that much to go on to begin with. These IMDB style catalogs are very limiting because there is no analyis and no context for those labels but if they are consistent they will probably suffice until something better comes along. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We can wrap this up now. Apparently it's a comedy: http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-85014263/ Betty Logan (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashing
The whitewashing in The Martian was brought up retrospectively this past month in TheWrap and Entertainment Weekly as part of covering whitewashing in Gods of Egypt. This demonstrates that it was not a passing matter and part of a trend, so it is appropriate to link to List of films featuring whitewashed roles in the "See also" section. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my comment above that using that link is not appropriate because we cannot definitely say whether or not the roles in question were whitewashed. Explaining the situation in the casting section is fine. Calidum T&#124;C 18:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've restored the "See also" link as appropriate as a tangentially related topic because the reliable sources I mentioned above mention this film. I've referenced both sources and quoted the relevant passages. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Despite the sources added, the link has been removed again here despite the sources' connecting this film with the ongoing whitewashing controversy for Gods of Egypt. The Martian is not as comparable to Gods of Egypt since it involves only a secondary character, but the link is appropriate as tangentially related per WP:SEEALSO. It is not good practice to pretend that The Martian is unconnected to the trend detailed in the list article when sources clearly indicate otherwise. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reporting an accusation of whitewashing is fine. We have reliable source for that. But stating it has whitewashing is not. Sources including Weir himself do not support this conclusion. Weir's intent is one thing, but what he wrote in the novel is another thing. The fact is that a "Park" in the U.S. can be white or Korean. But Weir did not specify. If it's Mindy Kim, it's another thing, but it's not. HkCaGu (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there are not "other sources" besides Weir. Weir is the source and contradictory at that. He stated that he perceived Mindy Park as Korean and is only saying he is allowing the flexibility of "Park" being non-Korean. The criticism of the casting comes from those who are not as flexible as the person who had a film made based on his work and is obviously not going to go against it. Again, the independent sources, better than Weir himself, connect The Martian to other films' whitewashing. Why should these sources be disregarded? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggest sentence about use of the Solar Panels during the trek
Suggest adding a sentence about Watney's use of solar panels from either the habitat or the Pathfinder Probe (which?) to enable the trek from the habitat to the Ares 4 site. This is fundamental to his ability to make such a long trek (1300km) in the battery powered rover - driving at night and charging the batteries by solar panels during the day. A critical survival technique. Tony (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Version of plagiarism
The film is based on the scenario of the Russian writer Mikhail Raskhodnikova sent to the 21 Century Fox studio in 2007. The work on the script involved a Russian astronaut Maxim Surayev. The prototype of the main character also made Maxim Surayev. Not having received from the 21 Century Fox studio no response Mikhail Raskhodnikov found sponsors in Russia. National Film Certificate issued by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the beginning of production of the film on May 6, 2011. Date of issue 6 October 2011,.ie at a time when supposedly he is writing a book Andy Weir. On the accusations of plagiarism, his lawyer said that Andy Weir knows Russian language and has never been to Russia, which should withdraw all charges against him. Title, synopsis and plot development, word for word the same. Only the replacement of the Russian expedition to the US.95.68.199.214 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please provide independent sources for your comments. -- Beardo (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A google search of "Mikhail Raskhodnikova" finds 0 hits (except this page). The above could be a troll. Given lack of sources we might consider deleting it from this page on grounds of WP:BLP (unsupported and probably false accusations of plagerism). --  Green  C  15:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Typo? I get search results at, which finds results sans the final a. --joe deckertalk 15:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No typo. This search. Missed it without the final a. Anyway, it's a real thing. Reliable sources include The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, The Independent. -- Green  C  17:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find much more beyond these initial claims in October. There is no evidence of an active lawsuit or that it went anywhere. Suggest we hold off until there is more sourcing that shows this is a real claim. Russia is known for anti-Western propaganda campaigns. -- Green  C  17:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * RT reported earlier that a Moscow court was supposed to hear a lawsuit regarding this in November, but the article hasn't been updated since then. I couldn't find any other sources reporting on this. -- Chamith   (talk)  17:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Rockets portrayed
It would be nice if someone can make a reference to what real-world rockets were portrayed for the NASA Iris and the CNSA Taiyang Shen. I actually wanted to look this up here. Soyasauce (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

OR
Could the plot section be considered original research, considering the fact that it is unsourced? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , consensus is that it is not. The guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT say that it is okay to write a plot summary as long as it is basic and no interpretative claims are made. Referencing is usually not necessary since the source is the film, which the infobox covers. (If the film was not available to the public, referencing is warranted.) Hope this helps! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 22:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Differences between film and novel
Here, I have only presented items from the novel that were omitted from the movie that affect the story. We all know that a lot of technical detail was removed from the script to make it fit into 2 hours, and I would strongly suggest that potential/future editors of this section refrain from adding anything like that here. Also, I haven't addressed matters like Vincent/Venkat or any racial changes, as that's been discussed elsewhere. That said, I believe that these alterations from novel to film are relevant and should be detailed. Ooznoz (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Ooznoz


 * Unfortunately, such sections that indiscriminately list differences are considered trivial; see WP:FILMDIFF. Needs to be differences that have been noted in secondary sources. See Apt Pupil (film) as an example. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , see above. Please do not synthesize the movie and the book to present what you think are noteworthy differences. There are secondary sources available to reference, and they need to be used to support content in the article. Original research of differences that without backing can be considered indiscriminate and cannot stay in the article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with this. If the differences between the film and the novel are not discussed by any reliable secondary sources then arguably they should not be discussed here per WP:DUE. Betty Logan (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in. To show an example, this is a reliable source that can be used to cover differences that have been highlighted by a third party. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Country of production
The BFI lists the UK as a country of production for this movie (besides the US, of course). Is it ok that the UK be included in the main page as a country of production? Daerl (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * , thanks for this update! If others agree, I would be fine with including "United Kingdom" in the infobox and just dropping "American" from the lead section's opening sentence. (To use "British-American" would be false equivalence per WP:FILMLEAD.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging editors who have discussed this film's country categorization in the past:, , , , . Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree to what Erik suggested. -- ChamithN   (talk)  15:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would wait to see what others show, like the AFI. The now archived previous discussion covers the country of production subject. - Gothicfilm (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But, at that time BFI didn't have the film in their catalogs. Pinging as I used her edit as a reference. --  ChamithN   (talk)  16:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see much of a point in waiting. As it stands, the one reliable source we have says American and British. If more sources come in conflicting that information, then we'll adapt. This is the most accurate info we have for now, so I'd say add the UK. Sock   ( tock talk)  17:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As discussed before, the production companies are American. Scott Free has a Los Angeles office. And TCM lists the countries as only US, as seen here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the TCM database capable of listing multiple countries or not? I checked for Blindness (film), a film I knew to be an international co-production, and TCM only identifies Brazil as that film's country. I'm not sure if TCM has weight here for multi-country discussions. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that the previous discussion was based on Toronto International Film Festival's categorization. ChamithN is correct that the BFI page was not available before, and I think this reference has much more enduring weight than the film festival's page. I'd be curious to see the AFI page too (and it does not exist yet; same for Lumiere). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lumiere is the single best source for this. BFI has often been the only one including the UK. I would wait for more sources. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Screen International just lists the US too. At the moment I would say the WP:WEIGHT of sources favors leaving the UK out at the moment. If the AFI were to list the UK too then I think that would present a compelling argument for adding the UK to the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Genre
There has been a recent spate of edits adding adding "comedy" to the genre in the lead. While I am aware that it won in the comedy category at the Golden Globes, the Globes do not reflect the common categorization of the film. As per WP:FILMLEAD the opening sentence should identify the "primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". This guideline should be used in conjunction with WP:WEIGHT which prohibits us fom giving undue prominence to a minority opinion. In the case of The Martian, sources predominantly regard it as "Action/Science-Fiction" (Allmovie), "Action/Adventure" (New York Times), "Science-Fiction/Drama" (BBFC). Even the non-reliable but often depended on IMDB considers it as "Adventure/Drama/Science-Fiction". Pretty much nobody but the Globes regard it as "comedy". Even The Hollywood Reporter has commented on this anomaly: "...Scott's $108 million sci-fi drama (or comedy, if you're a voting member of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association), starring Matt Damon as an astronaut marooned on Mars...". It is mainly regarded as a Science-Fiction film in the Action/Adventure/Drama sub-genres so the lead should reflect this, and left simply as "Science Fiction". Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with Betty and think it is most appropriate as a "science fiction film". The premise stated in the first lead section conveys the survival element of the film. I would be fine with having commentary about The Martian being treated as comedy rather than as a drama somewhere in the article body, though. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of commentary that could go somewhere in the body. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It might be witty, but far from a comedy. Most sources I've seen don't call it a comedy, so I believe it's a stretch to categorize it as such. "Science fiction" is the most verifiable genre. Cheers,  κ  ατάστασ   η  21:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should not be labeled a comedy. However, the fact that it has been categorized as such by one of the most prestigious award shows is notable in and of itself and needs to be described. The reaction should also be mentioned as it is quite strong. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

keeps adding "fantasy" to the opening sentence of the lead section. I've reverted them and wanted to bring this up here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a rough working consensus currently in place. If the editor does it again provide a link to this discussion in the edit summary and also at the user talk page, and then the editor has no excuses for avoiding the discussion. If they continue thereafter we can get an admin to SP the page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comedy? Fantasy? I'm not surprised to see people constantly adding such descriptions to this article when even valid points like my own (placed on this talk page) about the impossibility of using duct tape and plastic sheets to hold back a pressure differential of 1 Bar:10 milli-Bar (i.e. 100:1 at 1 atm.) were deleted by a certain user (vested interest?) under (WP:NOTAFORUM). I made a valid point that had not been addressed in the article, and if I don't get deleted again I might even bother to find some info about the properties of duct tape and plastic bags at -100 C at 10 mB to add to the relevant section.1812ahill (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly don't you understand about the phrase "science-fiction"? The film is not intended to be a NASA documentary. Science-fiction is a genre which fictionalizes an as yet unrealized scientific premise. Maybe in the film's version of the future they have super duct tape and plastic bags are made out of more durable materials than they are today. Betty Logan (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Naomi Scott as Ryoko"
Who is this? The character, I mean. She's in the character list on IMDb, but there's no one named Ryoko in the book or the script: http://s3.foxfilm.com/foxmovies/dev/films/104/assets/the_martian_screenplay.pdf-9551349672.pdf?ref_=ac_ac_ac_acd_scr_i_2 —WWoods (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Science fiction
Can we get sources to back up its classification as science fiction? Science fiction isn't just fiction that involves science; it usually implies the existence of some fictional or futuristic science. Considering the point of the film was to be entirely realistic, this is no more science fiction than a film about a contemporary team of physicists on Earth. Obviously, it's arguable, which is why if critics are going to call it sci-fi (as they inevitably will no matter what is correct), we should reference it to show that it's based on sources and not just Wikipedia's opinion.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  22:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact remains there are contemporary physicists on Earth but none on Mars as yet, so it is depicting a scenario we don't have the technological means to realize at the moment i.e. it is speculative fiction about the future. Both the New York Times and Allmovie has it down as "sci-fi adventure" which seems to be a reasonably apt description. Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As per this article, The Ares 3 mission requires a power source that would take up the whole passenger cabin. Therefore, with the parameters as currently described in the novel and the movie, the Ares 3 mission is science fiction. Phileo (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Science fiction isn't just fiction that involves science" No? I'd say it was, I'd say that was a pretty succinct and elegant definition of the term actually. There are all sorts of sub-genres if you would like to classify it into one of those (It fits pretty well into the realm of "Hard" Science Fiction, some would argue one of the "purer" forms of Sci-Fi), but to suggest that The Martian is not science fiction seems silly. Can't be Science-Fact because its a fictional story abut fictional events, and science is pretty central, not only to the story and how its told but also to the themes that the story represents.178.15.151.163 (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @ McLerristarr --- "Science fiction isn't just fiction that involves science; it usually implies the existence of some fictional or futuristic science." Is that true? Is that the accepted de facto definition of what SF is, or did you just make it up to suit your self? Hey I know what to do, any one of us can simply google the term and post the accepted definition here on the facking talk page. Here we go---


 * "science fiction
 * noun
 * fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets."


 * I just watched this film and it definitely answers to the above definition. Okay?


 * @ McLerristarr --- "Considering the point of the film was to be entirely realistic, this is no more science fiction than a film about a contemporary team of physicists on Earth."


 * Is that what the point of the film was, to be entirely realistic? You need to back that up with some proof or learn to shutup to not obscure the debate. It was *not* "no more science fiction than a film about a contemporary team of physicists on Earth." You tell lies. It was about a futurized team of physicists on Earth and a futurized crew of astronauts in space. At a minimum the least you should do is describe it accurately. Your relevance score there amounts to zero.


 * "Obviously, it's arguable,"
 * No it is not arguable. You misperceived its true nature. You got it wrong. Arbo (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The novel and movie certainly are lot more realistic than most SF movies. That doesn't mean it's not SF, actually it would be most appropriately be the subgenre hard science fiction, where the writer knows real science and not stuff cribbed from comic books or Star Trek. The science isn't all real though. All the spaceships for instance; the lander creating its own fuel from the atmosphere, are certainly plausible but a long way from being built. 202.81.248.219 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources say it is a sci-fi adventure, so we say it is a sci-fi adventure. If reliable sources say it is hard science fiction, a spaghetti western or a romantic comedy, we should say it is hard science fiction, a spaghetti western or a romantic comedy. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Casting controversy Asian roles were played by other races
Whitewashing and Racebeding occurs in yearly Hollywood films. Chiwetel and Mackenzie's castings is a huge example of this occurring in major movies. This issue needs to be more recognized and to be recognized the Casting controversy should have a section of its own in the article. Barely anyone will read it if it's clustered in with other details. IceBrotherhood (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you've actually read the book The Martian, the character Mindy Park's race is never mentioned. There is no description of her appearance, background, family. She's a young engineer who drinks coffee. We only know she's a female because of the pronouns. To state she is "Korean-American" as some have asserted, is just a guess. Park is a common Korean name, but not exclusive to Korea, e.g. see Surnamedb, which I expect is why the name wasn't changed in the film. The author may have thought of her as Korean, but he put nothing to indicate that in the text. 202.81.248.219 (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources provide significant discussion of the issue, so should we. If they do not, we should not. It's not about how important any one editor feels it is. It's not about whether or not we think there was whitewashing. It's all about WP:WEIGHT. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Tenacious British claims
We have some British IP editor(s) who is labeling any film with a connection to Britain as being a "British" film. Tellingly, they don't seem to care about other countries - they won't label it a Hungarian film despite being filed in Hungary - but if it was filmed in Britain, well then, it's a British film. Also, no sources provided, with edit warring using unsourced claims. -- Green  C  14:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The BFI have it listed as a co-production between the two countries. This is most likely due to the fact that Ridley Scott has his own independent production company: the BFI list all his recent films as US/UK co-productions, which makes sense if he produces them through his production company. It's not a universal view though, since the AFI lists films such as Prometheus and The Counselor as US-only films. Betty Logan (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! UK can be listed so long as its sourced. The editor was behaving so badly it transcended the issue and they are now blocked. Maybe in 30 days the discussion can be picked up again, now that there is a source. -- Green  C  04:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that the BFI tends to label many films with a tenuous connection to the UK as part British, whilst the AFI tries to keep them American. I'm not sure which is right, nor wrong, but if a preponderance of sources state a movie is 'xxx' country, while a single source says 'xxx+y' It seems in the best interests of Wikipedia to use where the bulk of the sources say it's from.  In this case, it would be American.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:9D7D:C017:3F2:DE5 (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have requested page protection. Another editor has requested that the IP editor discuss the issue here. Edit warring is not an acceptable substitute for discussion. (IMDb is not a reliable source.) Discuss. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't keep reverting multiple different IPs without violating WP:3RR. The IPs keep adding the British claim using a single source (BFI) which is not enough. The other source added, IMDB, is social media anyone can edit and not reliable for Wikipedia. If anyone else wants to get involved, this is a plea for help. -- Green  C  13:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The IP left a delightful message on my talk page. This is not the only film he is editing with British claims using a VPN to hide his identity and tracks. -- Green  C  14:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD discourages identifying more than one nationality because to have more than one (in this case, American-British) is to imply false equivalence. Different countries usually have different roles, and these roles need to be outlined in the lead section. In this case, the British connection is Scott Free Productions, which was one of the production companies under the studio 20th Century Fox. To imply these entities being on the same level is false equivalence. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted it here and had the page semi-protected. That should give us a break here. Page protection is an option on the other articles as well. If the editor is editing numerous articles, you might try a WP:SOCK case to see if a rangeblock is possible (not my area -- I really don't know). Other than that, I guess an ANI case to look for options might turn something up. IMO, this is one of the biggest weaknesses of the "anyone can edit model": There is no effective way to block someone working with shifting IPs over a wide range of articles. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah much of the vandalism I'm seeing is coming from one-off IPs. Typically with an edit summary like "Added content". They burn the IP after a single edit never use it again. --  Green  C  13:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)