Martian Podcast: Thoughts from 207
In this week’s installment of Thoughts from 207, the international relations and social justice within the narrative of Andy Weir’s The Martian is discussed.
Listen here.
Featuring the voices of Dillon Blain, Eric Vazquez, Jasmine Moody, Johnathan Bowen, and Nate Wagner.
Refreshments and preliminary research by Jasmine Moody.
Editing by Eric Vazquez.
Equipment and location by Dillon Blain, Nate Wagner, and Johnathan Bowen.
Listen here.
Featuring the voices of Dillon Blain, Eric Vazquez, Jasmine Moody, Johnathan Bowen, and Nate Wagner.
Refreshments and preliminary research by Jasmine Moody.
Editing by Eric Vazquez.
Equipment and location by Dillon Blain, Nate Wagner, and Johnathan Bowen.
Your podcast was great! You provided very good insight into the book, and how you feel about certain topics. Three areas you did very well were being a cohesive group, relating the topics you spoke about to real life, and making the podcast easy to find. You all spoke an equal amount, and you said whether you agreed or not and why. I think it was good how you asked questions, but also had conversation, not just one answer and then on to the next question. Almost every question and answer that you guys had, you had an example where it could be related back to real life. I think this was very good for you guys to do because it helps listeners connect more to the podcast. Going on to the blog, it was very easy to find your podcast, and I enjoyed how you made a name for yourselves with Thoughts from 207. Very creative. One area I think you could improve on technically, would be speaking louder or closer to the microphone. Some people could be heard very clearly, but others sounded like they were far away from the microphone. It had to be turned up to full volume to sound like you were speaking at a normal volume. Overall, I think you all worked together and produced a cohesive podcast that would be very enjoyable to listeners.
ReplyDeleteOverall, this is a very well thought out and well executed podcast. Everyone had a chance to speak and brought up good points to keep the discussion flowing. Towards the beginning of the podcast, someone brought up the point that after all the time the Ares 3 crew had spent together, they would either be enemies or friends. I had not thought about this before, but they could have in fact grown a resentment among them that might have swayed their willingness to rescue Watney. The book mentions no such thing, however, and instead we are told that the crew is essentially a family that would do anything to save one of its members. A few other points that I found particularly strong were about the effects that rescuing Watney had on NASA and America as a whole. Someone said that failure to rescue Watney could make America a laughingstock, which is very true. Other countries might be less likely to collaborate and trust America with their astronauts if America was unable to rescue one of their own. Another person also pointed out that the publicity that NASA received increased Watney's value. The whole world was hearing and talking about Watney being stranded on Mars, and so it would break the hearts of 8 billion people if he was not rescued. One minor thing that could be improved is the volume, the podcast is a little too quiet and hard to hear at certain points. Other than that, it was a very good podcast and I enjoyed listening to is.
ReplyDeleteOver all I think this was a good podcast. They discussed a lot of different topics ranging from the emotions of the crew members who left Watney behind to an analysis of the political motivators that made NASA put an enormous amount of effort into saving Watney. The members did a good job connecting the events from the novel to historical events and sayings. An interesting point brought up was the military saying, “No man left behind”. This saying can emotionally connect a lot more people, as many more men and women serve the military compared to those who become astronauts. This was an excellent point and opened the discussion to deeper dialogue. This group also brought up an interesting question, “Would NASA have saved the astronaut if they had been a different ethnicity or nationality”. I thought that this was a really good talking point. They talked about how Germany or the other country would need to be involved in the process of saving the astronaut. However, it would have been beneficial if they had brought in some scientific reasoning for why people may be more invested in the saving of someone from their own country or ethnicity. This group had really good questions and topics, but they could have given more evidence for their reasoning and dedicated more time to some of the overarching themes they discussed. I enjoyed their podcast and think they did a very good job.
ReplyDeleteAnna Loch
As a whole, this podcast was very well done. I think this group really excelled at making this more of a conversation rather than just having one person answer a question then move on to the next question. Also, I like the fact that it tackled gender and race issues in relation to the novel. It was great to hear the speakers' opinions on what would have happened if the situation was about someone of a different skin color or from another country. The idea of putting yourselves in the characters' shoes and sharing what you would have done in that particular predicament was an excellent component. The part where you guys talked about other countries helping the United States was very interesting. I had never considered that thought before. As far as non-content details go, I thought the podcast was very easy to access, given that it was posted on Blogger and shared through Group-Me, and the title of the podcast was quite creative. The only major thing that could have been improved upon was at some points during the podcast certain members of the group sounded like they were talking into the microphone from further away than other members.
ReplyDeleteThis was a well done podcast, so, well done. You had a good series of topics that are very well connected with present day issues. You delivered some interesting arguments, particularly bringing up the “no one left behind” philosophy used in the military. This was a very strong point that likely resonated with lots of listeners, due to its being such a recognizable philosophy. The rest of your points were introduced and explaned fairly well. As a group, you were very cohesive. Everyone spoke on most every subject, and they spoke well. It was also a creative touch to give yourselves a group name, unlike most of us I think. Kudos for that as well. You also did well by sounding not as scripted as certain other podcasts. It delivered better results in this way by feeling more natural. The biggest problem I had with this podcast, and I’m sure you’ve heard it already, the volume was very problematic at times. When speaking, some of you would get very quiet. It was just a minor distraction, but it still hindered my enjoyment of the podcast somewhat. Even so, there were plenty of redeeming qualities with this podcast, so no real harm done. Good job. You worked well as a team, and delivered a quality presentation. Yay.
ReplyDelete