Europa is a science fiction adventure that follows a contemporary manned mission to Europa – the fourth moon of Jupiter - the place thought by scientists to hold the greatest probability for alien life in our solar system. When unmanned probes suggest that a hidden ocean exists underneath the icy surface of the moon and could contain single-celled life, an international crew of six embark on a privately funded mission to the edges of our solar system to confirm the data and explore the truly revolutionary scientific discoveries that lie in the Europan ocean.The long and ambitious journey tests the psychological and physical limits of the crew as they travel further into the depths of space.By incorporating real world scientific research, ship design and mission planning, the film presents an authentic vision of what the next step in human exploration will look and feel like, putting the audience inside the ship with our international crew. Through the perspective of the astronauts, the audience will experience space as it truly is and marvel at the beauty, the vastness and the unknown.
From the movieweb.com reportQuoteEuropa is a science fiction adventure that follows a contemporary manned mission to Europa – the fourth moon of Jupiter - the place thought by scientists to hold the greatest probability for alien life in our solar system. When unmanned probes suggest that a hidden ocean exists underneath the icy surface of the moon and could contain single-celled life, an international crew of six embark on a privately funded mission to the edges of our solar system to confirm the data and explore the truly revolutionary scientific discoveries that lie in the Europan ocean.The long and ambitious journey tests the psychological and physical limits of the crew as they travel further into the depths of space.By incorporating real world scientific research, ship design and mission planning, the film presents an authentic vision of what the next step in human exploration will look and feel like, putting the audience inside the ship with our international crew. Through the perspective of the astronauts, the audience will experience space as it truly is and marvel at the beauty, the vastness and the unknown.This actually sounds quite intriguing -- perhaps a modern-day 2001?
I've got to say that I'm not sure. It looks like it has the same overall concept of Apollo 18 - human astronauts being killed off one-by-one by nasty space monsters far from home.I'll wait until the reviews start coming out here in the UK before I make a final decision.
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.
I'm cautiously optimistic about this. I really really hope this isn't just "Apollo 18 on Europa"... We need some good hard sci-fi films being made.
I am not sure there is a big enough market for hard sci-fi films these days.
Quote from: NovaSilisko on 12/13/2012 03:26 amI'm cautiously optimistic about this. I really really hope this isn't just "Apollo 18 on Europa"... We need some good hard sci-fi films being made.I am not sure there is a big enough market for hard sci-fi films these days.
Developed in close collaboration with NASA, JPL, SpaceX and other leaders in the scientific community, the film imagines the next step in manned space exploration and is based on recent scientific discoveries and theories.
According to io9.com, it might be a very good space movie:http://io9.com/europa-report-at-last-a-space-thriller-worth-taking-s-493192948
Do not have much faith for Hollywood movies after reading Russian signs on Alexey Leonov spaceship in Space Odyssey 2 - the dumbest was AK-47 Bullets (!) in Russian painted on one of the bulkheads.
Recommend grass roots short film "L5". Sound quality slips at the end. Overall a surprising effort to produce near-space near-future near-TRL hard science fiction. Most crucially, not a fan film, not exampled, unprecedented (afaik). Shelf-ready CGI in the hands of genuine space exploration enthusiasts, where sets, props and cast are the limiting factor.
The trailer looks good. I just hope it's good science and good engineering mixed in with a good story. I just can't stand it when you have the first two and it then devolves into a horror story set in space.
2. You can already guess that everybody dies in the end. So why bother watching it?
Question: do you guys think 2001 was a good "science and engineering" film?
One big technical omission from 2001 were the radiators for the Discovery's nuclear engine. According to "2001:filming the future" these were omitted because they couldnt find a configuration that didnt look like wings. Personally I think that decision was a pity artistically as well as technically. The sail-like look implies long slow voyages to me, which is exactly right.(edit: before anyone nitpicks on the word 'slow', I think that is an appropriate description for a journey that is uneventful and where the view outside changes extremely gradually)
This reminds me of that movie Apollo 18 (shudders) I hated that movie, how can they take something as great as the Apollo program and turn it in to a horror movie.
Quote from: Falcon H on 06/02/2013 12:03 amThis reminds me of that movie Apollo 18 (shudders) I hated that movie, how can they take something as great as the Apollo program and turn it in to a horror movie. I don't really understand why screenwriters resort to the tired trope of encountering aliens that serve no purpose but to pick off characters one by one. Is it that difficult to write a hard sci-fi that is entertaining and doesn't devolve into horror?
Quote from: MattJL on 06/02/2013 04:53 amQuote from: Falcon H on 06/02/2013 12:03 amThis reminds me of that movie Apollo 18 (shudders) I hated that movie, how can they take something as great as the Apollo program and turn it in to a horror movie. I don't really understand why screenwriters resort to the tired trope of encountering aliens that serve no purpose but to pick off characters one by one. Is it that difficult to write a hard sci-fi that is entertaining and doesn't devolve into horror?There is a lot of agreement on that. I think it would be a great goal for space advocacy groups to fund more positive realistic sci-fi. I think you could do quite a bit with say a 100k prize for best hard-scifi short. You could get a whole bunch of professional-looking short animated films on youtube, and perhaps some of these could be seeds for a successful series.
THE VERDICTThe sci-fi fan in me wants to love every second of this found footage space trip, but the film critic in me can’t help but groan at the super slow turn of events and awkward time jumps in Europa Report.
Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey easily sets the highest standard in this department. However, we recently screened the new movie Europa Report, and were taken aback by its respect for audience intelligence while still offering a thrilling, edge-of-your-seat story [watch the trailer below]. It's clear director Sebastián Cordero and writer Philip Gelatt did their science homework. Their characters behave like real people on a believable mission to search for life on Europa -- an icy moon of Jupiter that astrobiologists yearn to explore.Here, we pick the brain of Kevin Hand, an astrobiologist and expert on Europa at NASA's Jet Propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and one of the film's volunteer science consultants, on how to create a truly realistic space film that won't bore viewers to tears.Spoiler alert: Key scenes and plot elements are mentioned here, so bookmark this article if you want to watch the movie first.
New trailer for it.http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=104446Apparently you can get a manned vehicle to Europa using an Atlas V, well according to this trailer you can. Looked like the launch of Curiosity they were using.Not many sci fi films where you can see a quote from Popular Science on the trailer.
***SPOILER ALERT***I've seen it twice and I still don't get what happened to the Russian who got back to the airlock (where the guy from District 9 shoved him inside). They make it sound like nobody made it home, but what happened to that one guy? I didn't quite get whatever happened to him...
You can already guess that everybody dies in the end. So why bother watching it?
I realize that the jumping around in time is confusing, but you clearly see him on the ground with them when they land on Europa.
***ARRRR, HERE THERE BE SPOILERS***Quote from: Blackstar on 08/08/2013 08:40 pmI realize that the jumping around in time is confusing, but you clearly see him on the ground with them when they land on Europa. Thanks, I didn't realize it was the same guy who was also on the ground, it looked like he was still in the "CSM" while the "LEM" was on the surface if you watch it with a linear mindset. At least in the series "Defying Gravity," they had more than one lander, I assume one could have rescued another in some cases (except for Venus). You'd think a spacecraft this large, going this far, might have had more than one lander, not that it really would have saved anyone from what happened once they got on the surface.
I liked the first half of the film, which seemed to be pretty scientifically accurate. Then all hell broke loose and they pulled a Sunshine.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 05/18/2013 07:02 pmYou can already guess that everybody dies in the end. So why bother watching it?Because what is important is not that they died, but what they did while they were alive.
Quote from: Blackstar on 08/08/2013 08:42 pmQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 05/18/2013 07:02 pmYou can already guess that everybody dies in the end. So why bother watching it?Because what is important is not that they died, but what they did while they were alive.Your observation is worthy of a bumper sticker! To Elmar: I hope your sentiment is confined merely to movies. I like this thread. Maybe I'll start daydreaming about a "nominal" mission screenplay.
It was also a bit hilarious how nobody thought... Hey, an astronaut is drifting away slowly - if only we weren't in a spaceship with thrusters that would allow us to try and go get him.
Quote from: Lars_J on 11/17/2013 06:00 pmIt was also a bit hilarious how nobody thought... Hey, an astronaut is drifting away slowly - if only we weren't in a spaceship with thrusters that would allow us to try and go get him. But that was not the problem. The problem was that his spacesuit was covered in hydrazine and they could not let him in the airlock or he would kill the other crewman and himself and contaminate the airlock. If you watch it again, note that he's dead very soon after he floats away.
The timeline cutting makes it unclear how much time actually passed - didn't he state he had at least 15-30 mins of air left? They could at least have made an effort to catch up to him while figuring out options. Surely hydrazine also evaporates in vacuum conditions, so the toxicity would be reduced over time.Anyway, a contrivance of the plot, for sure. (Just like a certain event in 'gravity')
The timeline cutting makes it unclear how much time actually passed
Quote from: Lars_J on 11/18/2013 02:50 amThe timeline cutting makes it unclear how much time actually passedNo. You see him floating away and there is dialogue. Within a minute or so he's dead. The timeline cutting is not relevant here because there are no flashbacks during that scene.
It's quite a good space flight thriller for the coast phase, but the latter half gets pretty weird.
In fact, I think the technology shown was a bit behind the times (e.g. cameras, electronics).
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 12/13/2013 02:39 amIn fact, I think the technology shown was a bit behind the times (e.g. cameras, electronics). Agree, assuming in mid 21st-century mission, the artificial intelligent Icarus II flight computer of the film Sunshine better represents realistic electronics technology at that time frame. At least a talking, interactive, integrative and apparently intelligent flight management computer, not unlike a super-enhanced IBM Watson.
Iron Sky was more of a movie than this.As dry as a drywall.
Quote from: grondilu on 05/25/2013 11:53 pmQuestion: do you guys think 2001 was a good "science and engineering" film?I saw it as a kid, and it was long my gold standard for science in science fiction, at least as far as movies went. In terms of accuracy, it was obviously light years better than, say, Star Trek.Then, several years ago, I happened to see the last half of 2001 again and I was distracted by the numerous technical errors, such as* The motion of stars seen through the Discovery's windows;* The lack of the Coriolis effects that would arise from the small size of Discovery's centrifuge; and* The lack of acceleration of the pod due to escaping air when David Bowman blows the hatch.I once read The Making of 2001, which described a technical error in the film. Specifically, Heywood Floyd is shown aboard the Earth-to-LEO shuttle sucking mashed peas from a small seal container through a transparent tube. As he finishes, the residual peas in the tube are seen to be drawn back into the container. According to the book, this would not actually happen microgravity. To me, on the contrary, it seems that simple suction could easily cause the draw back shown in the movie.Still, I can't think of a more accurate space-themed sci-fi movie.
I find the lighting angles only slightly bothersome, because they are artistic choices rather than plot ones. They are still a bit bothersome.That low altitude trajectory might make sense. From memory it wasn't thrusting. They might have been on a ballistic path just slightly below orbital velocity. I remember them as behaving as if under gravity inside, but I think the film assumed people would be more comfortable emulating gravity with sticky shoes or whatnot. Now we are used to shots of people in ISS clearly comfortable just floating.
That low altitude trajectory might make sense. From memory it wasn't thrusting. They might have been on a ballistic path just slightly below orbital velocity. I remember them as behaving as if under gravity inside, but I think the film assumed people would be more comfortable emulating gravity with sticky shoes or whatnot. Now we are used to shots of people in ISS clearly comfortable just floating.
I think that most spacecraft shown in 2001, including the moon bus were using some sort of advanced NTR propulsion. That and some artistic license makes the "hovering" acceptable. I also think that Collier had a similar image when they showed von Braun's space and moon exploration concepts.http://www.rogersrocketships.com/UserFiles/Image/RRS_New_Docking_Bay_Images/DB_009_Round_the_moon_ship2.jpg