Mars

:

Season 1
Season #: 2, 1
User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 70 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 70
  2. Mixed: 14 out of 70
  3. Negative: 24 out of 70
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. m0skit0
    Dec 25, 2017
    3
    I only needed 1 episode to stop watching "Mars". Unlike other negative reviews here, I find the format appealing. The interviews are good enough, probably the best part of the show, although not deserving more than a 6/10. The absolute disaster is the actual 2033 Mars mission. Only people unfamiliar with good sci-fi literature can somehow like this. It pretends to be realistic andI only needed 1 episode to stop watching "Mars". Unlike other negative reviews here, I find the format appealing. The interviews are good enough, probably the best part of the show, although not deserving more than a 6/10. The absolute disaster is the actual 2033 Mars mission. Only people unfamiliar with good sci-fi literature can somehow like this. It pretends to be realistic and scientific, and, despite having several excellent sci-fi books to draw inspiration from (Red Mars trilogy, The Martian...), the show runners decided to write a "plot" which can only be described as an idiot plot: "a plot which is kept in motion solely by virtue of the fact that everybody involved is an idiot". Unfortunately an absolute waste of money and time.… Expand
  2. Charlemagne
    Dec 21, 2016
    0
    Unwatchable... neither fish nor fowl. Half a fluff documentary and half a fluff miniseries put together. They have no content and instead fill the time with fake grandness.
  3. Doctorwho12
    Nov 12, 2018
    0
    Billions in tech and equipment and what does them in is... human stupid variables. Unreal. Oh well, maybe indirectly show wants to demonstrate notion on hoe bad judgments and little human factors can destroy everything but the obvious... Ah, could do more than one trip in Rover! Ah, push the load so have to walk... are you kidding me? Just hope the real team actually stupid proof beforeBillions in tech and equipment and what does them in is... human stupid variables. Unreal. Oh well, maybe indirectly show wants to demonstrate notion on hoe bad judgments and little human factors can destroy everything but the obvious... Ah, could do more than one trip in Rover! Ah, push the load so have to walk... are you kidding me? Just hope the real team actually stupid proof before put in front of a miniature city of equipment.… Expand
  4. JudyRocks
    Dec 10, 2018
    0
    Horrible cringy show. FAR from realistic or based on any actual science. Poorly contrived problems and really bad decisions made just to add "drama" to the plot. Star Wars is more believable than this trash. This show brought to you by Greenpeace and no one with any studies in actual scientific or engineering field. They selectively get quotes from some famous people to support theirHorrible cringy show. FAR from realistic or based on any actual science. Poorly contrived problems and really bad decisions made just to add "drama" to the plot. Star Wars is more believable than this trash. This show brought to you by Greenpeace and no one with any studies in actual scientific or engineering field. They selectively get quotes from some famous people to support their anti-corporation narrative. And why do they even interview journalist and activists?? Those people are out of place and got more screen time than most of the actual scientist and engineers! It's also like the writers have never watched any sci-fi in their life!… Expand
  5. Injun
    Nov 28, 2017
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well done for trying to mix the documentary side with the science fiction. The documentary side is well done and I found myself wishing it was all documentary as the fiction parts are just terrible.

    In one episode they are lowering one of the party into a Lava tube by a winch to find a suitable place for a base camp. Why there is an echo when the astronaut speaks when she has a helmet on and all the comms are inside the helmet drove me mad. Surely people who make these things have at least half a brain....apparently not.

    And to top it off as she descends into the darkness unable to find the bottom with just the lights on her helmet to see, she finally reaches the bottom then walks backwards and nearly falls off a ledge. I mean come on, people actually get paid to write this tripe. I am positive a professional astronaut would not behave like that and if they did they wouldn't make it very far on the way to Mars. Oh and then she produces a light stick to throw over the ledge to see how far down it is! Why didn't she use that initially on the way down. Awful, utterly unbelievable dogs**t!!!!!!    … Expand
  6. FallenPhoenixRA
    Nov 15, 2016
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. WARNING MATH AND RANTING AHEAD: I think that it's a fairly good show but the fact that it isn't realistic is what angers me. The Circuit board that was tested hundreds of times on earth, fails just before reentry and they also didn't have a backup system for one of the most important systems on the spacecraft! Also the configuration of the seats would of killed some of the astronauts from negative G forces as they were put in a ring around the center which the ones on the side facing the heat shield would of been pulled out of there seats and slammed even harder than the guy stupid enough to go and attempt fixing a PCB during reentry. Another note is that when they land they said that they are 72 Km from the base and the Russian base which on the map didn't appear to be much closer than the Main base. And seemed to travel at a ridicules rate to get to the Daedalus with only three days of oxygen remaining. That is the next point. They sent a ship to Mars with a 3 day oxygen margin! And also your telling me that they couldn't continue to scrub the CO2 in order to get Oxygen? That doesn't make sense at all and the fact that during the early stages of reentry one of them said that they should abort. What do you mean ABORT! You didn't have enough fuel to break into orbit because you barely had enough to land a ship with that was going 1,000 KM/H and you wouldn't have had nearly enough fuel to get on a return to Earth especially when the planets are out of alignment for a return. So there was no way to abort. End of story. There ship is a piece crap and the rover which would be 2,000 Kilograms overweight is also crap. 2,000 kilograms is 4,400 pounds or 2.1 tons a six person crew would weigh together around 1,200 pounds if we go off an estimate of 200 lbs per person which probably isn't the correct weight for any of them and then maybe 400 lbs of gear that they brought down in duffel bags so that would be a total of 1600 lbs give or take a few hundred. So I don't see where they could of "OVERLOADED" the Chassis of the Rover as I can see that they would need the rover for hauling heavy materials for base building. So overall this is a horribly set up show that I could go on and on about how they did it wrong and I am amazed that they got Jim Lovell, Elon Musk and Andy Weir to interview for. When I read Andy's book the Martian it was filled with facts and the movie was pretty much up to Par with the book which is not normal for a modern movie. So why can't they get anything right?! Someone answer me and correct me on this. For god-sakes the 30 minute BEFORE MARS video was better than the actual TV Show!… Expand
  7. DrumAlert
    Nov 21, 2016
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I so wanted this to be good, but it's not even mediocre. The cuts to the 2016 documentary sections quickly become an annoying interference. You can only listen to gushing comments about human endeavour so many times before you hear yourself saying "yeah yeah whatever". On top of that it's so factually inaccurate that you have to wonder how the hell it ever got the OK. This could so easily have been a gripping story of heroism and human relationships as the first Martian colony is established, but instead its just a weird hotchpotch of boring interviews and crazy bits of unbelievable drama, like the Captain (yes, the Captain) un-strapping himself during re-entry to go and fix a blown circuit board (no it seems there was no back up for that particular critical system). This show represents a great opportunity missed. Such a shame.… Expand
  8. NotchFilter
    Nov 17, 2016
    3
    I watched the first episode of Mars last night.

    I guess that since the show was appearing on the National Geographic channel, I was expecting to see more science reality and less science fiction. But no. Who puts lights on the *inside* of the helmets? I mean, really. And that's just the beginning of the ridiculousness here. Scientific reality, well, for this series you can kiss    I watched the first episode of Mars last night.

    I guess that since the show was appearing on the National Geographic channel, I was expecting to see more science reality and less science fiction. But no.

    Who puts lights on the *inside* of the helmets? I mean, really. And that's just the beginning of the ridiculousness here. Scientific reality, well, for this series you can kiss it good-bye.

    For the first episode, Mars has started to look as if the plans were being laid for a science-fiction soap opera. Scenes were played for suspense, to hook the viewers.

    I cannot see myself wasting any more time watching a b-grade sci-fi show, so I removed it from my DVR's recording schedule. This series belongs on TLC as a low-grade pseudo-reality sci-fi series.

    NatGeo, c'mon, you can do better than this over-hyped mediocrity. I know you can do better.    … Expand
  9. Sammyghhg
    Dec 13, 2016
    3
    If you take out the interviews, this would be a great show for idiots.

    The plot description as far as I can make out is "What would happen if you put a group of total morons through a training program and then let them loose on Mars." Their decision making process is that of a 3 year old and they seem constantly surprised that things are able to NOT go perfectly according to plan.    If you take out the interviews, this would be a great show for idiots.

    The plot description as far as I can make out is "What would happen if you put a group of total morons through a training program and then let them loose on Mars."

    Their decision making process is that of a 3 year old and they seem constantly surprised that things are able to NOT go perfectly according to plan.

    They are insistent that despite fuel to re-launch and 3 days of available oxygen the are allowed to "abort". And most command decisions are made just because **** it..... we can.

    As such, the story is a total waste of time for anyone remotely familiar with science.... except for the interviews, which are interesting.

    As to my Score, I have given this a 3/10 simply because the interviews are informative.... kind of.

    They are also heavily edited. :(

    If this were a movie lacking interviews or just a stand-alone narrative, I'd give it a 1/10, just because I'd feel like a total dick giving it a 0.    … Expand
  10. JonClarke
    Jan 2, 2017
    2
    I had high expectations of this, given Ron Howard's previous efforts such as "Apollo 13" and "From the Earth to the Moon". I was sadly disappointed.

    Several major issues stand out: 1) The split present day interview/future drama format did not work. 2) The interviews were mostly lightweight, apart form Zubrin (who covered well trodden ground) and Jen Heldmann. Most had ho real    I had high expectations of this, given Ron Howard's previous efforts such as "Apollo 13" and "From the Earth to the Moon". I was sadly disappointed.

    Several major issues stand out:

    1) The split present day interview/future drama format did not work.

    2) The interviews were mostly lightweight, apart form Zubrin (who covered well trodden ground) and Jen Heldmann. Most had ho real expertise about Mars. The best were those with astronaut Scott Kelly and his charming daughter. The nadir was Ann Druyan and her statement that human space exploration is the modern equivalent of human sacrifice.

    3) The future drama was very poorly realised -uninteresting characters, flat story, unconvincing assumptions.

    4) Mars, as realised by the special effects was completely uninteresting, nothing like the magnificence of the real Mars we have seen in images from orbiters and rovers.

    5) Numerous scientific and technical errors.

    6) The soundtrack. Nick Cave? Really?

    7) The ending was a most improbable Deus ex machina.

    I was left with a feeling of "Why bother" with this program - and with Mars. And I am a planetary scientist passionately committed to exploring Mars.

    Were there any good points? I liked the international crew. But this was balanced by them being completely uninteresting and that the factual interviews were almost entirely US-centric. Some aspects of the technology shown was good - the spacecraft was impressive, though improbable for many reasons. The suits were good,although the helmets and life support systems were improbable.    … Expand
  11. kimler
    Nov 21, 2016
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The concept was highly intreging and interesting and the sections that are actually the mission to Mars are good. Having said that, the overall rating for the first two episodes is dismally low for several reasons: there are way to many commercials, at one point there was over 6 minutes straight of commercials, the flashbacks were mostly boring and did not really provide substantive foundation for the mission, some of the premises were not realistic in any way for a mission on Mars. A crew would not able able to traverse the landscape as they did on foot, especially in in Martian night where temperatures reach -90-100 degrees without freezing, the series is half quasi-documentary and half vaguely plausible.
    All in all, I probably will watch the first half of episode 3 and if the trend continues I won't watch the rest of the series; Monday night football is better, so are reruns or the Big Bang Theory.    … Expand
  12. Msand
    Jan 24, 2017
    2
    I love a good docudrama but just found this to be slow and really not worth the effort. The show is not really a documentary or a drama, just a mish mash of the two. Disappointing as I was really keen to watch.

Awards & Rankings

58
#58 Most Discussed TV Season of 2016
25
#25 Most Shared TV Season of 2016

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
59

Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 14
  2. Mixed: 8 out of 14
  3. Negative: 1 out of 14
  1. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Robert Lloyd
    Nov 14, 2016
    50
    Both the documentary footage and the staged footage set in 2033 smack of a generous budget; it’s easy on the eyes. But though the alternating elements get equal time, they aren’t equally interesting, and the series is engaging and frustrating by turns.
    Read full review
  2. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Daniel Fienberg
    Nov 14, 2016
    50
    The six-part event series obscures a reasonably engrossing, science-star-studded documentary about future exploration of the Red Planet with a far less interesting scripted drama about Mars travel that plays as basically The Martian without the personality or poop potatoes.
    Read full review
  3. Cleveland Plain Dealer
    Reviewed by: Mark Dawidziak
    Nov 14, 2016
    70
    What Mars lacks in consistency, it makes up with scope and scale.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »