But one scientist has had enough and is calling on filmmakers to temper their creativity by obeying the rules of science.
Well, maybe he should sit down and write exciting movie scripts, then.
At a recent meeting of American scientists, physicist Sidney Perkowitz suggested a new rule: every film should be allowed just one major suspension of belief for the sake of the story.
Since most people are not scientists and don't want to be, it doesn't matter if what they see is true.
And for those who think the rules of the laboratory have no place in cinemas, Mr Kirby points out movies often tap into contemporary attitudes towards science and can shape people's thoughts. That's why recent films have focused on things like genetic engineering, the environment, epidemics, and the end of the world.
I think that's exaggerated. People see a film as taking place in "movie world", especially when they are action films like the examples below. Now a serious drama including science topics would have to be a bit more careful, but other films may focus on currently discussed aspects of science, but hardly shape opinions on them.
But Steven Le Comber, an evolutionary biologist at Queen Mary, University of London, is at pains to point out scientists don't always make bad movie-going partners. While he does notice "bad science" in films, particularly when it's in his own subject area, it doesn't necessarily ruin his film-going experience.
DEEP BLUE SEA (1999)
Starring: Saffron Burrows, Samuel L Jackson
The plot: A team of scientists find a cure for Alzheimer's disease using a protein found in sharks' brains. So to harvest more of the useful protein, they create a breed of super-intelligent sharks - their intelligence meaning they have lots of brains - which promptly attack the scientists' underwater lab.
Silliest science moment: A scientist sticks a syringe directly into a shark's brain, extracts some cells, places them under a microscope, and watches as the cells regenerate... complete with computer-generated sparks. "When we're talking about neurons firing, there's not any actual lightning," notes Mr Le Comber.
What should have been: Chemicals from one organism - usually plants - have been known to have either therapeutic or toxic effects on other species. But even if scientists were able to isolate and identify an Alzheimer's-curing protein in sharks, they would need to grow it in a controlled environment. The solution might be to raise the protein in a bacteria, in large vats in a laboratory, in a way similar to how the first synthetic human insulin was created.
Yeah that certainly would have been a similarly exciting and kickass thrill ride like DBS was
The lab-based solution would eliminate the epic battle with the sharks - and be "not quite as exciting", Mr Le Comber admits. And any scientist knows that such a procedure would entail extensive research and requests for funding - a lengthy process overlooked by the film's rogue scientists.
Oh okay, at least he admitted so
*MySmiley*
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.
Three films that would make Einstein blush.
- 23/02/2010 02:44:46 PM
722 Views
Aah, scientists, my favorite kind of people 
- 23/02/2010 03:21:30 PM
368 Views
- 23/02/2010 03:21:30 PM
368 Views
He actually got a few things about each of those films wrong...
- 23/02/2010 04:52:58 PM
352 Views
Re: He actually got a few things about each of those films wrong...
- 24/02/2010 02:44:46 PM
370 Views
Take a number. History has a prior, and probably more relevant, complaint. *NM*
- 01/03/2010 08:14:11 PM
188 Views