MovieChat Forums > Europa Report (2013) Discussion > Last shot of the 'report' tanked the ent...

Last shot of the 'report' tanked the entire film. Obvious spoilers.


It was already is serious trouble by the end, using horror movie cliches to keep the story interesting, but the last shot of the beast was the smack in the face. Up until that final shot, the film pretended to have a brain. The point I really want to make is that the film wants so badly to be competent science fiction, but it really is just a boring horror movie.

About the beast itself-
A giant squid with lights all over it, existing in an ocean on a moon with no atmosphere, adapted to break through the ice to grab prey that had not existed before man set foot on it. I mean, surface prey COULDN'T exist, yet this thing(s) is fully capable to hunt that way, and does successfully three times out of three.

So rather than have a smart science fiction film with just the obstacles of space travel be the main problem, we get a creature feature in disguise. It can be argued that the alien was meant to inspire our imaginations about life elsewhere, and not be some movie monster antagonist, but the moment the credits roll the creepy "The Thing"-esque music starts playing. Is that really the emotion the filmmaker wants the audience to leave with? Dread? Fear of a foreign world? What a waste of a concept that could have been really moving.

reply

You do know NASA was involved directly in the making of this right, so they gave their ideas of what life elsewhere in the universe could look like. Also it was more curious than hunting as said in the film with the light and it only got do that on the thin ice, plus we do not know what it ate, so maybe it did eat the single cell creatures on the surface. You can't think things according to only we know them on Earth and ignore any other possibilities.
The music gave more a more mysterious and unknown feeling; for a discovery of complex life elsewhere would be ground breaking and did not feel the least bit of dreadful, in fact in some parts it felt magical and beautiful to me with the light strings and the soft piano. Europa does have an atmosphere mate; tenuous albeit, but still has one.

HI F-ING YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
2013 Rankings imdb.com/list/2-zx4cThbEY/

reply

"You do know NASA was involved directly in the making of this right,"

This better have been done OFF THE CLOCK. Else someone needs to fired.

Neon blue space squids. Right.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Sure it is possible that there is life, even abundant life in the universe overall, but we have no way of knowing for sure. Finding out for sure is a huge step as it would mean that intelligent life could develop elsewhere. As for Europa itself, the "water-like" substance in the film is actual water. And no anti-freeze is not required, as it is believed by scientists that Europa may well have an ocean underneath the ice sheet. This is because there are very few craters on Europa and lines in the ice that show that it is constantly being moved around and replaced, i.e. likely an ocean underneath.

Regarding the life itself, well it is likely that you wouldn't find life forms a whole lot different than what we find in our current oceans. And an octopus-like creature that produces light isn't implausible as there are creatures that live in the deep Earth ocean that produce light on their own.

And what are these "resources" NASA discovers that it "exploits for huge profits?" NASA is not any for-profit organization, and it has a tiny budget.

reply

Pretty much Ditto to you, broadsword.

I would add that when you look at all the unlikely places life
has survived in on Earth - the only known, proven source of life
in the universe as we know it - then the fundamental rule is clear:
**Wherever life can exist, it will exist.**

Perhaps not in each and every tiny niche, but within a given biome
or habitat - If it's habitable in the first place then any known
example of said biome can be considered "inhabitable" and life will
arise there if the seeds of it are sown by comet, bio-chem, electro,
or whatever means that will be successful. So if we find a form of
lichen on Mars or a sea slug on Europa it should come as no surprise.
Because wherever life can exist, it will exist.

*But,...I would like to point out that of the millions & millions of
known species to have thrived on this rock only one can update their
Facebook status, order a pizza, or reply to threads on IMDB.com. If we
can extrapolate the pre-conditions of Life then perhaps we can ponder
the implications of how rare Intelligent Life is on Earth. I could
suspect that there might be a 1,000, 10,000 worlds out there of sea
slugs before we get one that can shoot back. A lonely galaxy after all,
.... perhaps.

reply


The soundtrack overwhelms too often. The action that is shown is too confusing. Much of the dialogue is mumbled, incoherant. If there was no subtitling option, I'd have missed much of what was said.



Thanks, glad to hear someone else had trouble with the dialogue! I have low hearing, and I wondered if it was just me. I did enjoy the film, faults and all, and need to watch with CC next time.


Next time you see me, it won't be me

reply

And the denouement...oh, brother. A ton of money spent to send people into far reaches of space to show/prove existance of life, other than on Earth? Puh-leez, anyone w/ half a mind could've told you that for free. I'm thinking our own galaxy is huge enough to have life (as we would recognize it) somewhere in it. I'm thinking the discovery of it wouldn't change a damned thing for most people's lives here. "Oh they found life, that's nice. Honey, get the kids ready for school."


Aside from the points made by others who responded to your post: Yes our galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars is likely to have life other than that on Earth. However, if we find other life within our own Solar System, that would speak significantly as to how common extraterrestrial life is in our galaxy. Instead of maybe in a handful of star systems besides our own, it could exist in nearly every one with planets--or be a lot more common than we thought. And life that has evolved to our level of intelligence (or beyond) may be more likely as well, if some sort of life evolves in a lot of star systems rather than just a few.

I'm with you that I have to believe there is some other life in our immense universe, even our immense galaxy within it--it just seems too large for us to be the only ones. But the question is still "how common is life exactly?" And finding it evolved independently somewhere else in our own Solar System--in a very different kind of environment no less--would point to it being fairly common in the galaxy.


"No more half-measures."

reply

WesIsaLeo2 wrote:
However, once again we have a movie based around "found footage." Good Grief, is this gimmick running on tread-less tires or what? The film proceeds at a pace of a potboiler action film, vs. a thoughtful sci-fi one.

How else should the crew's activities have been presented? By a high-quality conventional movie camera, or a shoulder-mounted steady cam right up in people's faces, like a regular movie?

For me, capturing the crew's activities with handheld and wall-mounted cameras made the movie look just like something from Apollo, Shuttle, or International Space Station missions. It's what we are used to seeing from space, so it seemed that much more realistic.

There's something wrong when we dismiss sci-fi that is realistic because we want something that isn't, and then we blame that sci-fi for it.

The soundtrack overwhelms too often. The action that is shown is too confusing. Much of the dialogue is mumbled, incoherant. If there was no subtitling option, I'd have missed much of what was said.

You may have watched a poor quality recording. I had little problem with mine.

Of course it was no secret that something unexpected and bad was going to happen to this expedition, to the crew. But did the film have to go down that same old "and then there were ____" road of killing off characters?

The supposedly found footage is edited together and shown to us in a way that makes the events as clear to us as possible. It is possible that characters might have been killed off nearly simultaneously, but in order to clarify events, they are shown to us in sequence.

You complain that the sound wasn't clear enough, but then you turn around and complain that they simplistically presented the characters' demises one by one for purposes of clarity?

And the denouement...oh, brother. A ton of money spent to send people into far reaches of space to show/prove existance of life, other than on Earth? Puh-leez, anyone w/ half a mind could've told you that for free. I'm thinking our own galaxy is huge enough to have life (as we would recognize it) somewhere in it.

The problem there is that what someone with half a mind might tell us isn't really worth much.

And what you think might be the case isn't science. It's just speculation. Rather, we need to know what the data actually demonstrate.

I'm thinking the discovery of it wouldn't change a damned thing for most people's lives here. "Oh they found life, that's nice. Honey, get the kids ready for school."

Fortunately, science isn't completely restricted by the likes of the idiotic, self-absorbed, nearsighted masses. Science is able to do some good work despite them.

I do wonder which is the greater tragedy here though: that all of this crew and its ship were lost, or that so many people wouldn't give a damn either way?

And what kind of life did they discover? Just the obligatory "micro-organisms" and an angry glowing-blue octopus, happily living in a water-like substance that just happens to be liquid at near absolute-zero temperatures. That was some anti-freeze that "life" lived in.

Near absolute zero? Hardly. Freezing or near-freezing, perhaps.

There are sea creatures that live near the North and South Poles on Earth, as well as in the deepest oceanic trenches. They do indeed have antifreeze proteins in their bodies which enable them to avoid freezing to death. So...what's your point about this Europan cephalopod being able to do so?

Also, do not forget the numerous times that we were told in the movie about underwater geothermal activity. There are currents of much warmer water down there beneath the ice in this movie. Pay attention!

The over-riding feeling I got from this, especially watching the end, was "oh, those poor, brave, intrepid explorers...oh, well let's analyze the data they lost their lives for, better them than us, right guys?"

It's only an hour-and-a-half-long movie. Of course it's going to move from one element to the next.

And yes, the management said its piece about both the sacrifices of the crew and their collected data. Both were worth discussing.

But the data was the most important part. That's why the crew made their sacrifices: to collect it. The pilot lady Rosa deliberately drowned herself in the end to get the best shot she could of the creature for the people back home.

It's an alien concept for many. But there are people who put the mission first, and who do not balk at others who do so, as well. Who needs glowing cephalopods when such dedicated human beings are already so foreign, so strange, so exotic to so many of the viewing public, I guess?

reply

And what kind of life did they discover? Just the obligatory "micro-organisms" and an angry glowing-blue octopus, happily living in a water-like substance that just happens to be liquid at near absolute-zero temperatures. That was some anti-freeze that "life" lived in.


You do realize this is very possible and it is a fact for Europa. The ice is very thick but Europa (just like earth) has geothermal energy which warms up the ocean underneath. Jupiter's gravitation probably has a significant part to play in this as well as the rotation causes friction in tectonic plates and ice sheet probably creating quite a bit of heat.

reply

It's ok if you didn't like it. This film wasn't intended for you.

reply

I believe you make a very good point about the creature's capability. I am no biologist or anything but it would be interesting to know how such a creature would behave. I am more inclined to think that it wouldn't grab people from the surface. But I am no biologist or any other type of animal behavioral expert so...

reply

you are assuming the "beast" suddenly developed the skill/ability to break through the ice, after all there are sea creature on earth that have to mate or reproduce on land so breaking thru the ice could be an instinct. and I can think of a few other reason besides reproduction the "beast" might develop the ability.

Official Sock Puppet of Harry_Plinkett ®

reply

Maybe the creature is attracted to light - might make sense if it lived in schools/herds or needed to find a mate since we see that it is bioluminescent (or technological and those are engineered lights). Or it feeds on the algeae that hang out at the areas of thinnest ice where sunlight penetrates into the water below.

Anyway, all the flashlights and thrusters of the landing craft are sure making a pretty bright target and it goes to check things out.

I saw no footage where the creature actively grabbed anyone. Rather the ice broke because it was thin. The creature was under the ice in these spots because of the lights shining from above.

Bottom line, it is conceivable that what we see is the normal behavior of this creature given the stimulus it is given.

The Anne Sellors fan club: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1856457/board/threads/

reply

Exactly. The creature didn't grab anyone. It was just following the glow of their lights. Also it doesn't matter if there's no atmosphere if we're talking about liquid water. That's the atmosphere, along with the ice cover.

Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else?

reply

Your complaint about the biological nature of the beast and its predatory behavior is quite logical. However I do not know why you and others insist on comparing it to squid, when the tentacle dexterity and quantity is much more similar to an octopus. Squid tentacles are like fingers whereas octopus tentacles are like arms, they do much more with them.

reply

I liked this movie a lot. Space Squids on Europa is probably a lot
more possible than the giant worm living in the asteroid that swallowed
the Millenium Falcon. Or astronauts hurtling thru time-warps via giant
Monoliths floating in orbit around Jupiter (and "2001" is considered a
benchmark in Sci-Fi realism in film to many). So I say lighten up ,guys.
You want realism go get a job at NASA. Don't expect it from Hollywood.

All that being said, you guys are right that there is a line between
fantasy and sci-fi. It's hard to know where exactly to draw that line.
Because the movie is obviously not a Big Budget flick I give it slack
just because I love any sci-fi movie that focuses on space travel,
space exploration and "deep space". "Alien", "Supernova","2001" ,
"Silent Running", and "Solaris"(Tarkovsky vers.) are some I would put
in that category. There are others.

As for the acting, editing, and direction -Well, you get what you pay for.
Or anyways, I give a bit of a pass to what is really a "B-Movie". I
thought the visuals were superb - a hard SF must. And everybody knows
that life in the oceans of Europa is one of the current darlings of exo-
biologists so it's not suprising that somebody made a movie about it.
Beats having an alien going Trick-or-Treating like E.T. did. Editing
and Direction were weakest points I agree. But props for the effort.
$10.00 from Wal-Mart and some food & drink made for a fine evening.
I have no complaints.
-Andrew

reply

its predatory behavior


That wasn't established. As others have said above, it was probably instinctively attracted to light. Maybe it thought there was a potential mate (or rival, or territorial invader) nearby, then when it hit the ice layer trying to seek it, it was confused and excited and broke through the ice to get at it. As far as we know the people weren't "eaten" when they fell through the ice--although apparently they were pulled under (either the force of the water from the thrashing tentacles, or the creature did actually pull them down out of curiosity or whatever), because in their pressurized suits they would likely float otherwise.


"No more half-measures."

reply

What makes you think Europa has no atmosphere?

reply

My God! Yeah would be better with yet another Paranormal activity crap! Where NOTHING happens! This movie needed a pay off..Why not just look at discovery documentarys?

If you want to make me puke, play some Rap music

reply

What discovery documentaries? They don't have them anymore, just endless marathons of reality television. Same with TLC, and History, and for the most part, Animal Planet.

reply

About the beast itself-
A giant squid with lights all over it, existing in an ocean on a moon with no atmosphere, adapted to break through the ice to grab prey that had not existed before man set foot on it. I mean, surface prey COULDN'T exist, yet this thing(s) is fully capable to hunt that way, and does successfully three times out of three.


Totally agree on this one, how could it grow so big that it can pull down a space shuttle under the water when there is no other type of life for it to eat on the planet? or does it live on tiny microorganism to grow that hugh?

nah i dont buy it...NASA fails on this one in my opinion and this is one of the most lame "creature sci-fi movies" out there...

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

reply

It never pulled anything under, and it was never hunting surface prey.

"From a phylogenetic perspective, we are all fish!"

reply

My good God, none of that remotely happened.

The creature was attracted to the biologist astronaut's helmet light and broke through the ice, presumably at a very thin, weak spot, to try to reach her. Why? Quite possibly to mate with what it thought was another creature like itself. And the astronaut, surprised, fell in.

The next two astronauts fell through ice cracked and weakened by the ship's weight, but not before they had succeeded in restoring communication with Earth. The Russian astronaut was the first to see the creature's light -- if the creature had attacked the other astronaut, he would have said so. But he doesn't mention any creature.

(It's a little bit of a stretch that they went through the ice before the entire ship, but we presume they got lucky and landed on the edge of a solid section, and that in order to do the needed repairs they had to venture out onto much thinner ice.)

The final astronaut opened the hatch, drowning herself intentionally (since she was just an hour or two from meeting the others' fate), hoping the strange life form would swim into view of one of the ship's many cameras before the data upload was completed. Which it did.

The final shot is a very satisfying payoff: they all died, but they succeeded in transmitting back to Earth evidence that highly advanced life, not just microbial life, exists in Europa's seas. Each of the five deaths on Europa contributed to that success.

It's amazing that people have seen so many stupid movies, that when they see a smart one, they recast it as stupid.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

I totally agree. We obviously watched the same movie. I think it's a solid movie from start to finish. The payoff is like you said and is the culmination of many acts of valour by the crew. I don't know what some of these other people like? I like to watch sci-fi to explore the as yet unexplored in a what if? scenario. I think this well and truly hits the mark. I wonder if these people liked the movie Sphere (1998)? They might be more the Transformers type of Sci-Fi fans.

---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

reply