Evacuate Earth (2012 TV Movie) User Reviews

A Good Description Of A Possible Doomsday Scenario, But It Wanders Too Often Away From Fact And Into Drama

[sddavis63 · 6/10 · 13 August 2013]

I appreciated the contributions of very real and obviously very knowledgeable people to this. "Evacuate Earth" deals with how humanity would handle a very real doomsday scenario. In this case, the movie opens with earth being bombarded by destructive asteroids, and as astronomers investigate where they're coming from they discover that there's a neutron star heading right toward our solar system that will literally tear the earth apart in about 75 years. Neutron stars are the collapsed shells of massive stars whose own collapse propels them through space at tremendous speeds. Possessing massive gravity, they literally destroy anything in their path. I appreciated that information.

The portrayal of how humanity would respond was very believable. The neutron star having been discovered, the response is to build a gigantic spacecraft which could transport humanity to some other world (ultimately, in this production, revealed to be an earth-like planet in orbit around Barnard's Star.) There's a good portrayal of the need for humanity to set aside its differences to work together on such a massive project, and some very good information on the possibilities for how to fuel such a massive ship, and how to achieve enough speed to make such a voyage possible. Ultimately using nuclear technology, apparently it's possible to reach a velocity of 7% of the speed of light, which would get such a ship to Barnard's Star in less than a hundred years. The means of developing artificial gravity were portrayed, and there was useful consideration of how to provide food and water for those making the journey, as well as how to govern the quarter million or so who would be on board. There's also some consideration of exactly who would make the journey - since it isn't feasible to get 7 billion people off the earth. Issues such as genetic diversity and susceptibility to disease have to be factored in. So it can't just be a lottery system, nor can you just pick the richest and most powerful people. The rich, of course, have their own resources - and it's pointed out that they'll probably try their own exit strategy.

What didn't work for me quite as well as all that? The time-clock countdown was one thing. Obviously added for dramatic effect, it came across as silly. I'm no physicist or astronomer, but from what I know I don't think that such cosmic occurrences can be timed quite so precisely, so that as the neutron star approaches the solar system, an astronomer watching can pinpoint almost to the second the destruction of Saturn. That just doesn't seem possible to me. Even the 75-year clock seems a bit too precise. This didn't add anything useful for me. It gave this a Hollywood action-movie feel. I honestly could have done without the fake news reports as well, many of which came across as less than believable - poorly acted, quite frankly. And those things did detract from this, for me at least. I was interested in a far more serious portrayal of what was going to happen and how humanity would respond. When "Evacuate Earth" stuck to that, it was very good. When it moved more into the area of drama, it was less enjoyable. (6/10)

Interesting premise, fair execution

[ridsouto-757-693859 · 7/10 · 6 August 2013]

This is a very interesting documentary. What if Earth was about to be destroyed? Not an Armageddon-type disaster, not just an asteroid or comet that could damage the ecosystem, but Earth itself (and the Solar System) getting utterly thrashed?

There's a serious effort to paint a realistic picture of an escape plan, and the pace is quite enjoyable. The film succeeds in conveying to the viewer the need to take care of many separate matters. This is not just about building a big ship and getting out of here. There are many issues to be resolved: propulsion, selection of destination, selection of passengers, ecosystem, impact of the construction on the world's economy, etc.

It should be pointed out however that, in order to create some drama and allow 75 years for the construction of the spaceship, some important sacrifices were made in terms of scientific accuracy. I was a bit surprised that, with so many astronomers consulted and testifying on camera, none had noticed that the premise was somewhat flawed:

The neutron star is in (almost) direct collision course with Earth, due to encounter it 75 years in. Surprisingly, the orbits of the planets don't get altered until the neutron star passes by and they're just pulverized by the star's gravity (Saturn's destruction is shown). Unless we're talking about a tiny fragment of a neutron star (and it's explicitly mention this errand is about 2 solar masses), its gravity would totally disrupt the entire Solar System without any need to get anywhere close to Earth. Planets would be swung out of their orbits way before any encounter. Actually, if it takes 75 years for the neutron star to reach Earth, and the first sign of it is a huge asteroid shower due to its gravity perturbation, one could assume that it has already reached a point near the Solar System (perhaps near the Oort Cloud) by then.

With this scenario, there would be no 75 year warning, no time for a ship to be built, hardly time for a prayer. The first sign of a neutron star coming close to us would be in fact a noticeable change in Earth's orbit (with the obvious climatic consequences). Not as spectacular on screen as a meteor shower, but far more scary and effective. Our planet would turn into a gigantic oven or a colossal freezer (or both, alternatively) that would kill all life on Earth before the first meteorites arrive, simply because gravity propagates at the speed of light, much faster than any asteroid shown in the film.

Physical inconsistencies continue with the depiction of the slow death of planet Earth, which is however somehow capable of sustaining life (despite some catastrophic events) until just a few years before the deadline.

Another aspect that was poorly explored was: when would the decision been made to build the ship? After all, if the neutron star isn't schedule to arrive until 75 years from now, this generation might just choose to ignore a danger that would not arise during their lifetimes. Would 2 generations sacrifice their economy and comfort to save the unlucky last one? It may sound selfish, but that's unfortunately the way many humans think.

And what about social unrest? It's just barely mentioned during the documentary, but it would be the biggest threat to the project. It's easy to envision a scientist dedicating his life to the project in the first decades, but what about those in the last 10-15 years? Would they just keep working as usual, despite the fact that their family would die soon? What would they think about working in a project to save 250,000 lives, and not having a chance of their families to go as well? And what about the millions of assistants, general workers, security guards, all in that complex? Even outside the project, all human activity in the last few years would need to be dedicated to the starship. Would you work tirelessly in a project to save a few from certain death, and then go home and look at your child knowing that he will not be part of those few?

From this long review, it's clear that the premise of the documentary is a great catalyst for a long discussion involving scientific, social and philosophical questions.

Cheesy and preachy propaganda for spacetravel enthusiasts

[krachtm · 4/10 · 29 August 2014]

Can the human race create an arkship that will allow a selected number of refugees to escape a doomed Earth? Apparently so, according to this documentary. The thought experiment involves a roving neutral star on a collision course with our solar system. We've got 75 years before Earth is destroyed, and we must reorganize society, revolutionize our manufacturing capacity, and maintain social order in the face of certain doom for all but a few lucky people.

It's a rather mixed bag, but the concept is definitely intriguing. The worst problem is that this documentary is laughably bad. The dramatic sequences are probably the weakest element; they are horribly melodramatic and very poorly acted, but I suppose they have a certain "so bad it's good" charm. The science is actually better than I expected. I guess if you're a stickler, there will probably be several issues that you can't forgive. For example, as the neutron star approaches Earth, there really isn't much gravitational effect. They do discuss this, but it generally doesn't happen until pretty late in the scenario. Seems a bit unlikely to me. Then again, I slept through most of my physics lectures.

Anyway, as the Earth adapts to this threat, we face several critical questions. Each of them are answered rather quickly and simplistically, perhaps to make way for more dramatic sequences. The balance was all wrong. A few well-placed sequences to underscore the drama would have been much better than the constant use of stock footage, melodrama, and bad CGI. Also, I really don't know that I agree with their story-based approach; I would have preferred something a bit more analytical. They could have asked and explored really deep questions instead of repeatedly showing people unconvincingly panicking in the face of bad CGI. For example, society could go in several different directions, such as dystopian or utopian responses to the threat. It seems as though the creators of this documentary had a specific vision for humanity, and they weren't really interested in exploring any other ideas. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree, but it's kind of intellectually lazy and preachy.

All in all, this is propaganda for spacetravel enthusiasts. If you're one of them, you'll probably love this, as it will reinforce all your beliefs and congratulate you for forward-thinking vision. If you're not an enthusiast, then you'll probably find it cheesy and preachy. The intriguing questions are answered unsatisfactorily, and any entertainment value is strictly unintentional.

Beautiful, but really, really unscientific

[miloglav · 1/10 · 27 October 2013]

This was the most ridiculous and least scientific presentation made since the movie 2012. Not only would we be able to create many O'Neill cylinders within the first 20 years, but they would be much larger than 15 miles in length. They wouldn't be built from earth materials, but from lunar and asteroid resources. Try reading Gerry O'Neill's works for a starter.

And destroying the multi-billionaire space ship on the pad? Really? They would very like fund the initial investments on the Moon to get things going. Maybe you should have interviewed Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett for their opinions.

Finally, travelling across the galaxy, even to nearby Barnard's star, would be absurd. Why jump into yet another gravity well with all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of living in space? Seriously? Producers Bruce David Klein, Lorri Leighton, Bill McClane, writer Bill McClane, and all you editors, you should be ashamed of this level of absolute garbage! And to the National Geographic Channel, if this is how you spend my subscription money, stop it!