fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 9 天前Lmaomander.xyzimagemessage-square273fedilinkarrow-up1807arrow-down110
arrow-up1797arrow-down1imageLmaomander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 9 天前message-square273fedilink
minus-squaresp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·9 天前Haven’t seen it yet, I appreciate the nonspoiling =D
minus-squarebort@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·9 天前iirc that detail they are refering to, didnt make it into the movie.
minus-squareWhirling_Ashandarei@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·9 天前Yes, correct, they skipped a lot of the harder science for the movie to keep it a reasonable length. Movie was still very good though!
minus-squarebort@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·7 天前yes. both are good in their own. It’s definitely worth to both watch the movie, and also read the book.
minus-squarewolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·edit-29 天前Definitely read the book. The book is about the existential elation at discovering a solution to a dire problem, so knowing a poorly-communicated version of every solution will likely ruin the book for anyone serious about the hard Sci-Fi.
Haven’t seen it yet, I appreciate the nonspoiling =D
iirc that detail they are refering to, didnt make it into the movie.
Yes, correct, they skipped a lot of the harder science for the movie to keep it a reasonable length. Movie was still very good though!
yes. both are good in their own. It’s definitely worth to both watch the movie, and also read the book.
Definitely read the book. The book is about the existential elation at discovering a solution to a dire problem, so knowing a poorly-communicated version of every solution will likely ruin the book for anyone serious about the hard Sci-Fi.