'Project Hail Mary': Real Space Science, Real Astrophotography (wcvb.com)
- Reference: 0181180842
- News link: https://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/26/03/29/2216247/project-hail-mary-real-space-science-real-astrophotography
- Source link: https://www.wcvb.com/article/heres-some-of-the-science-facts-behind-the-science-fiction-film-project-hail-mary/70866851
And last weekend it had the best opening for a "non-franchise" movie in three years, [2]adds the Associated Press — the best since 2023's Oppenheimer :
> Project Hail Mary , which cost nearly $200 million to produce... is on an enviable trajectory. Its second weekend hold was even better than that of Oppenheimer , which collected $46.7 million in its follow-up frame.
But the movie is [3]based on a book by The Martian author Andy Weir, [4]described by one news outlet as "a former software engineer and self-proclaimed 'lifelong space nerd'... known for his realistic and clear-eyed approach to scientifically technical stories."
> Project Hail Mary has plenty of real science in it, whether it be space mathematics, physics, or astrobiology... The film's namesake project is even comprised of the space programs of other nations, such as Roscosmos from Russia, the Chinese space program, and the European Space Agency...
>
> The story relies on work NASA has done regarding exoplanets, or planets outside our solar system... [This includes a nearby star named Tau Ceti approximately 12 light years from Earth which is orbited by four planets — two [5]once thought to be in " [6]the habitable zone " where liquid water can exist.] Tau Ceti has [7]long been the setting used by sci-fi authors and storytellers. Isaac Asimov used it for his [8] Robot series . Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama" spacecraft came across a mysterious tetrahedron [9]in the Tau Ceti system . Authors Ursula K. Le Guin and Kim Stanley Robinson also set stories in Tau Ceti, and it also serves as the extrasolar setting of the 1968 Jane Fonda film Barbarella. Most recently, the Bungie video game Marathon is [10]set in the far-off system , serving as part of the background story for the extraction shooter, about a large-scale plan to colonize the Tau Ceti system.
The movie also mentions 40 Eridani A, according to the article, a real star about 16 light-years away that was said to be orbited by the fictional planet Vulcan, home to Star Trek 's Mr. Spock. It's also [11]mentioned in Frank Herbert's Dune as the star system of the planets Ix and Richese ("noted for their machine culture and miniaturisation," according to the [12] Stellar Australis site's "Project Dune" page ).
And in a [13]video on IMAX's YouTube channel , the film's directors explain how for a crucial scene they used non-visible-light photography, which is also an important part of modern astronomy. "Even the credits incorporate real astrophotography into the final moments," the article points out, using the work of award-winning Australian astrophotographer [14]Rod Prazeres . "The only difference between his work of capturing space data in images and what ended up on the big screen was that he gave them 'starless versions' of his photographs to make it easier to place credit text over them."
Prazeres [15]wrote on his web site that he was touched the producers "wanted the real thing... In a world where CGI and AI are everywhere, it meant a lot..."
[1] https://variety.com/2026/film/news/project-hail-mary-global-box-office-amazon-mgm-highest-grossing-film-1236702246/
[2] https://apnews.com/article/box-office-project-hail-mary-375a52c0dab0db48d822e17ad1971bde
[3] https://amzn.to/4bVjOOY
[4] https://www.wcvb.com/article/heres-some-of-the-science-facts-behind-the-science-fiction-film-project-hail-mary/70866851
[5] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07514
[6] https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanets/habitable-zone/
[7] https://www.barnesandnoble.com/blog/visiting-tau-ceti-with-four-science-fiction-authors/
[8] https://asimov.fandom.com/wiki/Aurora
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Revealed#:~:text=The%20Rama%20spacecraft%20rendezvous%20with%20another%20Node%2C%20an%20enormous%20tetrahedron%20near%20the%20star%20Tau%20Ceti%2C%20designed%20to%20research%20any%20intelligent%20life%20capable%20of%20spaceflight.
[10] https://www.marathonwiki.com/Lore:Tau_Ceti
[11] https://www.stellaraustralis.com/about/
[12] https://www.stellaraustralis.com/project-dune-stars/
[13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3i8WgxeKi0
[14] https://www.instagram.com/deepskyjourney/
[15] https://rpastro.square.site/s/stories/phm
Re:AI Editor Slop (Score:4, Funny)
Nice to see you commenting, Jak! (I haven't seen the movie, so I'm glad someone did and weighed in on whether it's worth seeing.)
I've updated that sentence so it describes 40 Eridani A as "mentioned in Frank Herbert's Dune as the home of Ix and Richese ("noted for their machine culture and miniaturisation," [1]according to the Stellar Australis site's "Project Dune" page [stellaraustralis.com]). Hope that's more informative for you than the original version (which was taken straight from the original article). No AI involved -- and I wasn't dictating it [on] a phone while walking in the market either. :)
[1] https://www.stellaraustralis.com/project-dune-stars/
Worth reading the book than seeing it (Score:4, Informative)
I ended up hearing about this movie coming out from the same author that did the Martian whose name is Andy Weir.
So I immediately got the book and read it and after that went to see the movie. I ended up reading his other book, the one that was in between about the girl at the space station and that was pretty enjoyable so.
This movie's definitely enjoyable and we want to see it in a nice theater where we have dinner and drinks and it was definitely worth it. Since I read the book week in advance, it was a nice little visual representation of the book and it was very faithful to the book.
The author definitely captured the ability of doing hard science space stories and making them appealing in book form and also in visual movie form.p
Re: Worth reading the book thEn seeing it (Score:2)
Yes, it's worth seeing the movie.
Sorry about the bad grammar in the original subject. I was dictating it and the phone while walking in the market. I didn't see the mistake.
Good but they 'summarized' al the science. (Score:3, Informative)
Anything that wasn't action, drama, or comedy was largely dropped and almost all of the science was quick summary explanations.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly the same as the approach to the movie version of The Martian.
Re: (Score:1)
You're forgetting that most of the country has the reading comprehension of an 8th grader.
Re:Good but they 'summarized' al the science. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Anything that wasn't action, drama, or comedy was largely dropped and almost all of the science was quick summary explanations.
I think that's necessary. Providing explanations of depth comparable to the book would require a 10-hour movie. Squeezing the story down to feature length requires cutting a lot of exposition. In many books there's a lot of description that can be replaced with visuals, but it's pretty hard to do that with a lot of the science.
I read the book (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't seen the movie but I did read the book since there has been so much hoopla, and meh. A completely unremarkable book. At about halfway through I was starting to skim it. Written in the first person, the protagonist moves through a long series of improbable difficulties. Which he solves of course, with the help of his trusty alien sidekick. It gets a little tiresome.
The alien is so remotely unlike us that it's a little hard to believe it would have a thought system we could understand and communicate with. Plus it is blind. Nonetheless, communication happens almost immediately. The alien swiftly sets up residence in the human starship and they are cozy as bugs. The unbelievability factor ramps up from there.
I generally like science fiction and have read a lot of it, this book moves through some very well explored literary imagination. There are a few fragments of creativity but nothing at all special.
Re: (Score:2)
> The alien is so remotely unlike us that it's a little hard to believe it would have a thought system we could understand and communicate with.
I thought exactly the opposite. I think Rocky is far too "human". I didn't mind it, though, because a lot of the humor would be lost if Rocky was properly alien.
Re: (Score:2)
His behavior is human for sure, emotions and all. But physically (according to the book) his blood is mercury and his atmosphere is ammonia under very high pressure. No eyes and it was never clear how he actually perceives things other than something to do with sound. He is ashamed of his 'eating' process which consists of splitting his body open to remove a waste sack and stuff in some new consumables.
And yet he somehow fits right in, which is critical for the story but so very unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything in the story was highly implausible. I think you just have to suspend disbelief and enjoy the storytelling.
Not actually hard science fiction (Score:2)
A fun movie, but the movie wasn't in any way hard science fiction. I don't think there was any real science in it, other than the distances to various stars. It was hand-wavium from beginning to end.
But, heck, that's par for the course for film science fiction. If you try to find the science in "Dune" or "The Last Jedi", good luck.
Not falling for it (Score:2)
Every time Hollywood sells a movie as 'realistic', it's turned out to be bullshit. The trade mags and entertainment reporters repeat the lie, but that doesn't make it true.
I'll be watching this movie soon, it looks fun. I will not expect them to get physics anywhere close to correct enough that someone with a decent high school physics class under their belt won't see where they got it wrong.
Andy Weird is a hack sci-fi writer (Score:2)
It's sci-fi for your mom and dad.
Was hoping for a more serious film (Score:2)
Spoiler bits... I didn't know anything about the story apart from it was by Andy Weir, and that it had the premise that life on Earth was under threat from something. No-one warned me it wasn't a serious movie, which I assumed it was, given the above. I wish I had known this and I would have viewed it differently.
So I was a bit nonplussed at it being somewhat corny: The alien goes "Rocky! and not the movie!" amongst the things it has learned from Gosling. The religiosity bit with "Do you believe in God" wa
Read the book, forgive the movie (Score:2)
I've read the book already and I'm re-reading it prior to going to see the movie. The book has about as much "real" science as any Asimov or Heinlein or Pournelle book, and meshes that fairly seamlessly to the "what if" science and plot portions of the book.
My big challenge is to see if I can get my kids to read the book before going to see the movie, and if I can get them to do that while it's still showing in IMAX.
I'm tired of seeing (Score:2)
for profit commercial garbage. People can tell the difference between a quality film and a film where the nice exec's step in and rewrite it for profit, and they will vote with their movie tickets, or stay home.
It's a good film. But it's not this (Score:1)
It never really explains how anything is achieved - the book does to a greater extent, the movie skips virtually all the "science" and what does exist is basically an aside. But an computer generated voice said "amaze" and apparently that is good so everyone approves.
Science removed = Space fantasy movie (Score:2)
Yeah, TFA is not what this movie was. It's a space fantasy movie. It's fine for what it is. But any science was left in the book.
Has Anyone Here Seen It? (Score:2)
I certainly won't be going to movie theaters for this. I'll wait a couple of months for it to be available on Prime.
Has anyone here actually seen it and able to do a review. Ryan Gossling causes to set my expectations on Underwhelming.
Re: (Score:3)
Not yet but I’ll go see it soon What makes me really sad though is that being a “non franchise movie” is now enough of a thing for it to be pointed out specifically. All the big productions these days are in some “universe”, part of a franchise, a sequel or prequel or reboot. God forbid a studio dares to allot a blockbuster budget to an original work.
Re: Has Anyone Here Seen It? (Score:4, Insightful)
I did and really enjoyed it. Worth seeing in the cinema, imho.
Re: Has Anyone Here Seen It? (Score:5, Informative)
I saw it and was very much entertained. It remained true to the book but can also stand on it's own.
Re: Has Anyone Here Seen It? (Score:2)
I saw it and loved it. Definitely worth seeing in the big screen IMO.
Re:Has Anyone Here Seen It? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I saw it. I also read the book. I preferred the book, but I also enjoyed the movie a lot..
The movie was quite faithful to the book, and even though it was a long movie (over 2.5 hours) it didn't seem long and it moved along quite nicely. The alien creature was pretty much exactly what I had pictured while I was reading the book, and they did a good job imbuing it with personality.
I think the movie was worth seeing in a movie theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw it in the theater and while the movie was good, I do think the cinematography doesn't warrant seeing it on a big screen. It seems to have been shot for TVs primarily, so you're not going to be missing anything by seeing it at home.