I watched Project Hail Mary recently, and it reminded me how much the science matters in certain kinds of science fiction. The film is enjoyable, but a lot of the sharp, science‑driven detail that made the book so strong didn’t make it to the screen. I found myself wondering how well the story lands for anyone who hasn’t read the novel — the Beatles, the nitrogen problem, du Bois, zenonite, Taumeba… all the things that made Andy Weir’s work feel so clear and so clever.

Seeing the adaptation made me appreciate the book even more. Neil deGrasse Tyson once said something along the lines of: real science makes fiction more fun — and that’s exactly how I felt watching it.

And yet, I’ve always loved the softer side of sci‑fi too. Star Wars and Star Trek were part of my childhood: big universes, big ideas, big emotions. They’re not about physics; they’re about wonder. They’re brilliant in their own way.

But I’m not a Weir‑style writer. I’m not building engineering puzzles. My work sits closer to The Expanse — stories where the physics matters, the world behaves properly, and the consequences feel real, but the plot is driven by people, pressure, and the systems they’re caught inside. The science supports the story rather than being the story.

Watching Project Hail Mary reminded me how much I enjoy that balance. When the science is missing, some of the weight goes with it.

I explained a few of the gaps to my wife, and we still enjoyed the film, but if you love sci‑fi, I’d strongly recommend reading the novel. It’s one of those stories where the science is half the adventure.