New sci-fi film The Europa Report

[Star One]

This appears to have been out on disc in the US for a while now but no sign of UK release, maybe not enough interest.

[Blackstar]

The timeline cutting makes it unclear how much time actually passed

No. 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.

[Lars_J]

The timeline cutting makes it unclear how much time actually passed

No. 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.

Basic film language applies here. It is not a continuous shot. We see the the ship nearby, a quick cut, and then the ship is further away. Another cut, even further away. This happens several times. So significantly more times passes than "a minute or so".

[IRobot]

I think the movie required an extra half hour to fill some gaps and increase viewer's submersion.
Other than that, I liked it a lot! I would remove some "artificial noise" between camera shots as it becomes a bit repetitive. Also in a multi billion dollar spaceship I think they could afford a tilt and pan camera and some wide angle lenses, so there could be some wider shots from time to time.

[p51]

I watched it the one time when it came out and just watched it for the 2nd time today.
It makes so much more sense the second time around!

[yg1968]

I just saw the movie on Blu Ray. It's good. It reminds me of the Canadian mini-series, Race to Mars.

[Zannanza]

It's quite a good space flight thriller for the coast phase, but the latter half gets pretty weird. [spoiler warning]I'm not talking about the giant space octopus that can emit radiation[/spoiler warning], but, just look at the ascend of Europa lander. The craft is intact and they got wrong fuel mix ratio? huh? Do the crew run pre-launch check?
Maybe I'm too mean, it's just a movie, but shouldn't they use a better excuse for crashing the lander for hard sci-fi film?

[p51]

It's quite a good space flight thriller for the coast phase, but the latter half gets pretty weird.

I think this comment is quite fair. I, too, wondered about some of the 'plot twists' that didn't seem to make much sense. The attempted liftoff from the surface was the oddest of them.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I finally watched the movie on Netflix after people here convincing me to give it a chance. Unfortunately it was everything I would expect from a found footage movie. Lots of bad camera work and a predictable ending. I also think that they missed some opportunities by not showing anything that makes spaceflight beautiful.
The visual effects were great and the technology was relatively plausible. In fact, I think the technology shown was a bit behind the times (e.g. cameras, electronics).
All in all, it was a waste of time.

[Zannanza]

In 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.

[Robotbeat]

In 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.

A lot of spaceflight stuff /is/ a decade or so behind the times. It takes a while to get everything working reliably in that kind of environment, and if you're on a tight budget...

[savuporo]

Iron Sky was more of a movie than this.

As dry as a drywall.

[KelvinZero]

Iron Sky was more of a movie than this.

As dry as a drywall.

So dry.. and yet so wet..



(sorry, there was really very little justification for that )

[laszlo]

Question:   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 also have enjoyed 2001, but have always had a hard time getting past the fact that the moonship is shown approaching the moon during 3rd quarter, yet we see sunrise over Tycho a few hours later. Even if the whole lunar orbit thing is too much for a film producer, just having someone look at the approach image and point out a brilliantly lit Clavius and Tycho shouldn't have been too hard.

And when TMA-1 wakes up, the configuration of monolith, Earth and Sun overhead is totally impossible.

Then there's that moon shuttle. Could it really have carried enough reaction mass to fly a horizontal low altitude trajectory to Tycho?

I'm willing to give them a pass on the lunar weathering since no one had actually landed on the moon yet (though the Luna, Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor programs should have given some hints as to what to expect).

So while it's a great movie, it's nowhere near as scientifically accurate as the press releases made it out to be.

[KelvinZero]

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.

[laszlo]

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.

You're right, it was a movie, not a documentary. If it wasn't for the claim of extraordinary scientific accuracy I would probably have ignored most of the gaffs, but not the lighting. Being a lunar astronomer and the fact that the plot of both 2001 and the short story that it was based on were pivotal on the discovery of a buried solar powered alien artefact makes it impossible for me to ignore.

On the other hand, it does sound as if Europa Report has enough potential to make it worth watching. Thanks to everyone for the heads-up.

[saturnapollo]

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.

Yes, 2001 does have its flaws - several in fact, but still the most realistic portrayal of spaceflight in my opinion.

I'm assuming you are talking about the Moonbus. As far as I know it was presumed to be hovering/skimming above the surface as the main engines point downwards. The crew would therefore be in 1/6G. It certainly wasn't going fast enough to be on any sort of ballistic trajectory.

Keith

[KelvinZero]

Moonbus is a much better word.
I just went and had a look at the movie again, I agree the speed looks too slow to be ballistic in some shots.

I would dismiss those as artistic licence...

Then I saw the glaring error...
There is a shot where one man pours coffee into an open cup. Arrgh. That proves gravity, and it is wrong anyway since Im sure we would stick with covered, spill-safe cups even if there had been 1/6th gravity.

I still cling to the Ballistic theory, relegating that coffee flask to a crime of the prop department. Im pretty sure that Ballistic is the only sensible way for a moonbus to fly, hovering for a rocket would be extremely wasteful of propellant mass that could have been used to get you to the destination faster. What they are displaying is actually very very close to what you should see.

Space craft are often displayed as moving slowly in space. Some of the slow shots are exactly what I would expect from a low ballistic trajectory because it is difficult to judge scale on the moon; they could be 5km up. There is no blatant evidence of thrust (apart from the coffee flask) .They are not swerving around low peaks, there is no evidence such as dust picked up that they really are that low. It would look to me like a perfectly good artist's interpretation of a scientists description of a low ballistic trip.

..really, they did pretty well compared to all the slip ups in the Apollo shots..
(Im kidding  )

[robertross]

I got to see this movie on the plane over the holidays. Was actually happy at the chance, as I did not see it listed at the theaters in my area.

I thought it was reasonably good. Much more down to earth than Red Planet.

Basically it's a sci-fi docudrama.

I'd give it a B or B+

[Elmar Moelzer]

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