MovieChat Forums > Europa Report (2013) Discussion > About the science of this science fictio...

About the science of this science fiction film ... ask a scientist.


Someone in another thread suggested that this isn't a film for the "smartest guy in the room types". I think he was using the term with his tongue firmly in cheek, but it did get me thinking. Many IMDB posters aren't impressed by the science. What do actual scientists have to say?

So I googled, and the following seem to be pretty representative. Broad approval. Occasional geek-love.


There are a few mistakes here and there, but I have to say it's well above average in terms of scientific accuracy. I love this sort of documentary-from-the-future way of framing the movie. The Europa Report is singularly believable film, from the conflicts within and among characters, to the premise of the mission and what it might look like.

There's a balance the writers and directors tried to achieve: They wanted enough realism to make it believable, but needed to advance the stories and characters to make the movie enjoyable. I thought they did a good job of developing characters you could get emotionally invested in. They were multidimensional, and I could identify with them. That's hard to do. (Kevin Hand, astrobiologist and expert on Europa at NASA's Jet Propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. in Popular Science - Dr. Hand served as a science consultant for the production)


Britney Scmidt, planetary scientist at UT Austin who led a study of Europa's surface that found evidence for vast bodies of liquid trapped under the surface of the ice - submerged lakes - reviewed Europa Report for Scientific American. She noted scientific errors, but also stressed that they were few in number. According to Dr. Scmidt, "The producers said they cared about the science, and they proved it." She goes on to conclude "The movie is fun. It’s beautiful. [...] Overall, the film is an enjoyable voyage not short on awe for those who care to jump on board."

Astronomer Salman Hameed, Associate Professor of Integrated Science & Humanities at Hampshire College, Massachusetts, declares that Europa Report is mostly successful in effectively commuminicating "the fear and joy" of exploration. He says that, for him, the film evokes the golden era of polar exploration. He cites the ill-fated Shackleton Expedition as an example.

Just saying. This is science fiction for scientists.

reply

Well I'm a scientist, a physics major, and really liked the movie. They showed real pictures of Europa in the beginning and it indeed was well made science wise.

reply

that I need to watch it again.

reply

I'm not a scientist, but let me explain why this film is dumb- to the point is almost unbearable to watch.
First off, it is about a mission to Europa. Very expensive mission- with no doubt- most diligent preparation, procedures, etc. Yet in the film, we have the crew on board acting like it is some kind democracy, with everyone deciding what to do by themselves, with no order and effective hierarchy. In my opinion, sending 'characters' to monkey around how they please would be fitting for a reality show, but not for any serious mission/ serious sci-fi.
Second: every next step in the mission is rushed. Nothing happens with preparation. The launch is on a day when some parts are delivered to the launch site, the descent down to Europa is as soon as they start to orbit it, and then they start drilling the ice as soon as they land. Also- maybe I do not understand this, but shouldn't there be something visible- ice, liquid, vapour- coming out of the drilled hole?
Third: it is painful to watch the crew. When they are not relaxing, they either risk their lives for no reason, or tell each other empty sentences that are there to include 'scientific words', and one-second conclusions like 'thermal vents are closer than expected','this is a much more complex ecosystem than we'd thought'.
There are also other minor points, which retract from immersion: launch is on 'breaking news' of a secret(?) tv chanel; radiation meter in space suits seem to have useless linear radiation scale, etc. I'm sure there is lot more illogical stuff in it which I have missed- I was fast-forwarding some parts, and I also have no serious knowledge in the field of space exploration. And I agree that there may be a lot done right in this film (my guess- in concept, and visual department). However, 'static' information done right does not outweigh the stupid dynamic of this film. Failure is not in sci-fi- it is mostly in writing and directing stupid plot in sci-fi environment.

reply

Duly noted. And, of course, your impressions and responses belong to you.

I do have to note that, in the reviews I referenced above, we see favorable reactions from scientists whose expertise lies exactly in the areas you believe to have been wanting. I'm wondering if your notions about what to expect - from the environment, the onboard dynamics, and human behavior - may be less realistic than you suspect.

Frankly, from a story perspective, I love it. For what it achieves and for what it attempts.

reply

[deleted]