Mission to Mars

Factual error: Ship explodes. Crew evacuated to the REMO, but Tim Robbins slips from the REMO after attaching the lifeline. They tell his wife she has insufficient fuel to reach him. Velocity is determined by fuel, not distance. She could have used 25% of remaining fuel to reach him, 25% to arrest speed then 50% to get them both back to the REMO. It's not like a car - once in motion, you remain in motion.

Libshoppe

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: It's not saying that she has insufficient fuel to reach him. It's saying that she has insufficient fuel to reach him, arrest them both, and get back to the REMO before they are caught in the Martian gravity well.

LorgSkyegon

I disagree. Had she not used thrust (wasted fuel) to stop and shoot a line (wasted time) she would have continued her velocity, arrested at rendezvous and could have saved him. They never inferred the decision was based on time, nor would that have been valid.

Libshoppe

More for Mission to Mars

Mistakes

Factual error: Their complete and utter disregard for the most basic scientific facts in this movie is amazing. It's already been said that Gary Sinise couldn't possibly have recognised the DNA sequence as human (that segment may have been enough to produce a single protein common to any lifeform). The thing that gets me is that he recognises that the DNA is missing a couple of "chromosomes" to complete it. DNA is made of units called nucleotides (remember A,T,C,& G?); chromosomes are formed by huge strings of DNA wound together (not the other way around). You don't need a degree in Biology to know this, you just need to have stayed awake in high school.

More mistakes in Mission to Mars

Quotes

More quotes from Mission to Mars

Questions

Question: How, in the year 2000, did this film manage to secure a PG rating? The graphic violence of the final death shown during the vortex scene near the beginning was verging on R-rated.

Phaneron ★

Answer: There was no actual blood or graphic display.

No graphic display? A man is shown on camera being violently torn to several pieces by high G-forces, and there was indeed blood visible. There's also a scene later in the movie where shrapnel completely pierces the palm of a man's hand, complete with a zero-gravity blood spurt.

Phaneron ★

I remember watching it for the first time thinking it was a pretty graphic death scene for a PG rated film, but I think it's a stretch to say it was verging on R rated. There isn't that much blood, the guy is in a space suit, and it happens very fast. Studios can lobby the MPAA for what rating they feel the film deserves, and it is likely Disney argued for a lower rating than PG-13, and the MPAA agreed.

BaconIsMyBFF

Well, by "verging on R-rated," I meant that even in a PG-13 film, that scene would have been pushing the envelope. I would imagine there were a lot of parents at the time who took their young children to see the new Disney film about going to Mars and were not pleased with that scene.

Phaneron ★

A PG rating does not mean family friendly. A "Parental Guidance" rating warns there may be strong language, sexual content, violence, or graphic images. No one should expect a G-rated Disney film. I watched the "twister" clip on YouTube and wouldn't say it's gruesome. It's not a close-up shot of the rapidly spinning body being pulled apart; it's rather blurred, and there wasn't much blood. I realise it's a matter of opinion regarding what is considered too violent.

raywest ★

Yes, but you're also an adult, and you watched the clip having an idea of what you were about to see. If you read the comments on that clip, you'll see a lot of people saying that scene traumatized them as children. Violence like that from earlier PG films is why the PG-13 rating was later invented, and it just struck me as odd that that was able to get a PG rating in the year 2000.

Phaneron ★

My point is that parents were (or should have been) aware of the PG rating before taking their children to see it and that it might be unsuitable for younger audiences. It falls upon them to make sure they do not take their children to a film that could contain disturbing scenes. By 2000, movie violence had become far more graphic and mainstream.

raywest ★

More questions & answers from Mission to Mars