Talk:Europa Report

Cleanup
I word-smithed the summary and plot sections; and omitted some minor details, as documented in History. But I was just polishing what already is a very good article. I also looked at the image description page and the non-free-image policies, which are really complicated and go on forever. I checked the movie distributor's press-kit but there seemed to be no free-license images there. The image description page seems to conform to the policy as well as I understand it. So, how does one get another look by the quality assurance folks? Deangup (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Progress Update?
I know they had at least one focus group screening a few months ago. Any updates on the post-production progress of this film? Freddicus (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a discussion about why this movie was released as VIDEO ON DEMAND before the premier date and why such a limited nationwide release in theaters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuntManMike2 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No info about extremely limited release
I'm curious if anyone would like to dig up and add information about this film's extremely limited theatrical release. (Seriously, I had an easier time finding multiple theaters for Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie than I've had finding one for this film.) I'd like to know what made this film's distribution so pathetic. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

2061?
The first paragraph of the article says that the movie takes place in 2061, but I don't recall the movie actually saying that. Can anyone confirm it? Xenomrph (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm 99% certain the film does not say that. The only clue to a possible year in the film that I'm aware of is when one of the scientists says you could say the mission started when Galileo discovered the Galilean moons, which was in 1610, "400 years ago." So I'm quite certain the film intended for its time setting to be a version of the present day when it was made. The person who made that edit was probably confused by a fan trailer on YouTube called "2061: The Europa Report" which is premised around mashing the film up with Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2061: Odyssey Three. So, I'm going to remove it. DanyaRomulus (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to lie, it'd be pretty clever if they'd set the movie in 2061, as a nod to the Clarke book. Xenomrph (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the official website says the movie is about a "contemporary mission" to Europa. Elanguescence (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Creature
The user Sebastian Beroe has repeatedly tried to introduce the idea that the creature encountered looks like a comb jelly (ctenophore), with one edit even going so far as to claim that the creature is not an alien life form, changing "extra-terrestrial life" into "non-alien life" (something that was fixed again by another user). This is rather problematic. It is quite a stretch to claim similarities between comb jellies and the creature on screen. The latter features prominent, massive, sucker-equipped tentacles like an octopus, something ctenophores do not have. Also, the special effects team of the movie has stated in an interview that they "modeled the creature after an octopus crossed with a squid" - so yes, it is inspired by known animals, but not the ctenophores.

The movie itself does not talk much about the creature, and does not compare it to any Earth animal at all. Any such claim is therefore the viewer's interpretation, and the ctenophore-interpretation is contradicted both by a cursory comparison and the statements of the film makers. Thus I am beginning to suspect that it is actually an intentional attempt to misrepresent the movie, hence vandalism. I have fixed it for now, and hope it stays that way. Elanguescence (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. While the creature does strongly resemble an octopus, the above statement by the Europa Report special effects team makes it sourced information. If someone feels this is in error, they should probably explain it here on the talk page. &#32;- Syd (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an edit war developing over whether the creature more closely resembles an octopus or, as in one editor's opinion, a comb jellyfish. In the reference provided by Elanguescence, the people who built the creature specifically state that their main inspiration were squid and octopus, not jellyfish, and its swift locomotion and prehensile tentacles would seem to support that. Personally, I think that any description beyond "a creature" is not necessary to describe the plot.


 * If there is opposition over how to specifically describe it, and there does appears to be, I feel that "a tentacled creature" is an acceptable compromise that everybody can agree upon. If comparison to real-life animals is desired, that would be best done in a short separate section, which could then list several similar animals and the qualities they possess which one might expect to find in theoretical Europan life. &#32;- Syd (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I strongly object to the ctenophore comparison, though I am perfectly fine with not mentioning any Earth animals at all.
 * Regarding the edit war, it is a bit unfortunate that the pro-ctenophore editor(s?) has yet to discuss this matter on the talk page. The history page is not really suitable for deeper justifications. To justify my own stance I would like to address the points made by the ctenophore-side:
 * "the filmmakers mistook an image of a cydippid ctenophore for an octopus": The filmmakers did not put a ctenophore into the movie and claim it to be an octopus, they created the alien on a computer, based on an octopus and a squid (see aforementioned link). At most one could claim that their artificial creation accidentally resembled a ctenophore, which I believe it does not.
 * "octopi are not bioluminescent": A few actually are, like Stauroteuthis syrtensis. Regardless, I do not claim the film creature to actually be an octopus, it is designed.
 * zoology books and articles: Intermittently there were two references given to support the ctenophore resemblance, "Living Invertebrates" by Pearse et al. and "On the natural history and distribution of oceanic ctenophores" by Harbison et al. Thanks to my university library I can state that neither shows a creature like in the movie or supports the claim in any other form. There are numerous discrepancies, the most prominent one being the tentacles: ctenophores, in particular the cydippids, have at most two tentacles, and these are thin ribbon-like structures, retractable into the body and as far as I understand mostly lacking in musculature. They drift in the water, and the ctenophore needs to swim around to position and reset them, and if prey gets caught the ctenophore needs to swim in order to bring its mouth to the prey. Conversely, the movie creature has at least five octopus-like tentacles (maybe more, it is only partially visible), and they are thick and muscular, capable of moving in different directions, including upwards against gravity.
 * That being said, I would not rule out that the designers also used some ctenophore influence for the eight luminescent ridges on the body. But so far there is no source confirming this, and given the substantial differences I find it extremely far-fetched to liken (or even identify) the movie creature to a ctenophore. If the pro-side really consists of marine biology experts on ctenophores, maybe this is a case of having a hammer and thus seeing nails everywhere? :) Elanguescence (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User 71.174.143.126 appears to be a single-purpose account dedicated to describing the alien at the end of the movie as a specific type of jellyfish. This is original research, as the only cited source specifically describing it suggests otherwise, and general consensus is pretty clear that the description should either conform to sourced information, or be a neutral description.


 * I would like to assume good faith, and as I earlier stated on the talk page of Sebastian Beroe, a new section could be written (here or, since the page is already pretty long, perhaps on a more appropriate page and then linked to) mentioning the importance of bioluminescent ocean life in speculative Europan fauna, which would be an excellent place to mention ctenophores. Unfortunately, 71.174.143.126 has not discussed the matter here on the talk page, and does not seem to approve of the neutral description, resulting in an edit war. As they are an IP address I am not sure if it is appropriate to make a user talk page to attempt to contact them, since the IP could represent a public terminal used by any number of people.


 * I am still a relatively inexperienced editor and have never been involved with the dispute resolution process before, so I am asking for a second opinion here. If anyone else feels it would be helpful, I will take the matter to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which seems to be the proper next step for resolving an editorial disagreement when talk page discussion has failed. If anyone can suggest a better solution, or can confirm that creating an IP user talk page is appropriate, I'd be happy to try that instead. &#32;- Syd (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What I'd like to see happen here is the collaborative creation of an excellent article that motivates people to see the movie (so it, and its producers, get recognition they deserve), and satisfies questions of people who saw it and want to learn more about it. What I actually see happening here is a coup battle over a nit.  Until one of those contributors dies or loses his internet connection, we're kind of stuck.


 * But dispute resolution sounds like a good way to get the article locked so we can't work on it any more. Before we resort to that, let's see what we can think of to make everyone happy.  I already tried a species-neutral description of the creature; it seemed like a reasonable compromise, but noooooo.  So, what if we instead move the topic out of "Plot," where it really doesn't belong anyway, to a new heading such as "Analysis."  This could read something like:


 * WHAT DID DASQUE SEE? At the and of the movie, Dasque opens the ship to the water and an alien sea creature enters.  It has a bulbous, bioluminescent body and tentacles.  Some viewers think it is similar to an octopus, reasoning that ... and cite these references ... .  Other viewers think it resenbles a ctenophore because ... and cite these references ....


 * Or can someone else offer a better compromise? So we can move on and do some good here.  Thanks.    Deangup (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In theory that sounds good to me and might be worth an attempt - not quite sure about having an Analysis section (is that common?), maybe it could be worked into the Production section. In practice I am a bit afaid that even after moving it out of the Plot section, the plot wil still have to mention the creature in some minimal form, and the pro-ctenophore side will continue to change this reference to their liking.
 * I agree that by now the thing has become a bit silly. I would just like to point out that the original ctenophore editing claimed that the creature IS an actual Earth ctenophore, and that the ground crew was amazed to have found Earth life on Europa, thereby twisting the movie quite significantly. Elanguescence (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You may notice, reading the page of the editor who made that original edit, that his surname is derived from a certain jelly fish genus. This makes the whole thing a bit fishy, imho. Diego (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Anyways, I've been looking through the Wikipedia guidelines and from what I understand, locking the page would be far too drastic of a measure, that is reserved for the worst edit wars. Even semi-protection would be overkill, and it only restricts editing by anonymous IP users. But I did notice a better alternative to Dispute Resolution, Request for Comment, which is like getting a Third Opinion on matters involving more than 2 people. A veteran editor might have good advice, and know how to get 71.174.143.126/Beroe (assuming they are the same person) involved in the discussion process instead of reverting everyone elses edits.


 * All of the your observations are good, Deangup, and there's a lot of hard work being put into making this a good article, I'd just like 71.174.143.126 to be part of that process instead of making hit-and-run edits with no attempt at cooperation. Even assuming good faith, that user does not seem to understand the Wiki definition of sourced references... since Elanguescence is the only one to provide a proper reference identifying the nature of the creature they are going to have to show a modicum of compromise, as other editors have. I'll post a RfC sometime in the next day or two just to get some outside input without escalating anything. &#32;- Syd (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a Request for Comment[], I hope I'm expressing the majority opinion. I also hope I did it right! Remember, the point isn't to lock or restrict the page, but just to get Beroe to use their user page and the talk page to discuss the matter and hopefully help make a better article. &#32;- Syd (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, looks good to me - not that I really know much about these things. ;) Elanguescence (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with not using the term "ctenophore" unless we have references. If we need to combine references for the description, we can create a kind of note (like what is at Panic Room). Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * and, what do you think of the change to connect the basic description to a more detailed note? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That information belongs to the Production section, rather than the plot. I've restored it there and expanded it with more information from the interview about other elements of the design. Diego (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I like this more detailed note in the Production section. Thanks to both of you, much appreciated. Elanguescence (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The FX magazine interview even mentions box jellyfish as an early inspiration, so a centophore mention would not be off-topic in the Production section., I once proposed that to , as he described himself as a marine biologist of great renown. A paragraph or two on the importance of bioluminescence in the movie, and in both terrestrial and possible Europan ocean life would be great, and could link to relevant pages for interested readers. But if that or another editor is not willing to write that, I agree with that a detailed description belongs in the Production section.
 * But I like your idea, and propose a small section for The Creature, in which a centophore mention would not be off topic, describing the expected characteristics of Europan life and perhaps even a (slightly meta) explanation of how those few frames of video would be exhaustively analyzed by biologists, which would require several interesting links and citing of xenobiologists. Or just leave it as-is and WP:KISS? &#32;- Syd (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned that an early version was based on jellyfish. To mention centophores, we still need a reliable source mentioning them with respect to the movie. And again, we can't include an explanation of how the frames "would be" analyzed by biologists - we need an actual professional reliable biologist making that analysis in order to quote it. Diego (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I am a professional marine biologist. Sebastian Beroe, PhD Ctenosid (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic chat
Mistakes

There were a few mistakes in the movie that stood out significantly. One that comes to mind is when they state the moon's surface is absolute zero and then claim the tempature is dropping seconds later. While negative tempatures below 0 degrees kelvin were just recently proven they only exist in labs, space's natural tempature is 3 degrees kelvin. That means it would have been impossible for the moons surface to fall below 3 degrees kelvin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.39.41.2 (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an European mission (Europa Ventures) to Europa, so they measure their temperatures in Celsius. 0°C means the melting point of ice. Though it would be more common to use Kelvin as a scientists. 212.255.235.57 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, but I don't think it's a mistake, at least not a mistake of that magnitude. The impression I got was that zero degrees was in reference to the air temperature in the lander's command section, which is one area where they might conceivably use Celsius instead of Kelvin. Remember that Blok had previously disabled the lander's life support systems, making it a location where one might logically expect to find a temperature of 0°C and dropping. It also makes sense that Dasque would report this to Blok, to stress the limited amount of time he has to repair the communications module before she can no longer operate the controls, even if the fracturing ice holds. &#32;- Syd (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I just watched the movie and was also a bit confused by the reference to absolute zero. Absolute zero is absolute zero and I cannot think of any context where it would be used to reference a temperature of 0°C. Unmasked (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the subject. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another big mistake is to remove the security cable while you are still in open space. The film presents the two protagonists out in space, using cables then after 30 seconds cables are gone and one of them is flying in space. Such a rubish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.104.185 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europa Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130725052735/http://www.empireonline.com.au/news/articles/2013/5/europa-report-teaser-online to http://www.empireonline.com.au/news/articles/2013/5/europa-report-teaser-online/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed section
I've removed the following section from the article:


 * Similarities
 * 2010: Odyssey Two, the 1982 novel and second in a series of four by Arthur C. Clarke features a strikingly similar plot-line omitted in 2010: The Year We Make Contact, Peter Hyams' 1984 sci-fi film adaptation and sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the 2010 movie, a Russian unmanned probe mysteriously disappears near the surface of Europa, yet in contrast, the novel details a premise featuring a space race to Jupiter with the joint Soviet-American mission following a faster Chinese ship, the Tsien that must land on Europa to refuel with water from the icy moon. The Tsien is ambushed and destroyed by an indigenous Europan life-form attracted to lights stranding the only survivor, Professor Chang who radios the story to the Leonov spacecraft.  Conversely, the novel's Leonov does not have the "luxury" of gravity, yet Syd Mead's Leonov spacecraft design in the movie features centrifugal force artificial gravity similar to the Europa One mission in Europa Report and other science fiction.
 * The story is also very similar to the science fiction book The Enceladus Mission by Brandon Q. Morris.

There is absolutely no sourcing of this comparison/evaluation present anywhere in the section. What we need are reliable sources explicitly noting these things, as us editors are not allowed to do so. None of the above can return to the article without the aforementioned sort of sources. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Katya Petrovna
Does it mean that she is Russian? Than her name is a big mistake. Katya is a diminutive form of Ekaterina (Catherine) and Petrovna is a patronimic, not a family name. Diminutive form is not used with patronimic in formal speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.195.255 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)