…and this is a 
SEED asks about cinema science
Category: Entertainment
Posted on: August 3, 2006 10:39 AM, by PZ Myers
The SEED question of the week is this one:
What movie do you think does something admirable (though not necessarily accurate) regarding science? Bonus points for answering whether the chosen movie is any good generally....
Hmmm. I know I've posted a few movie reviews here. Let's see, what have I said…
After careful analysis of the Pharyngula cinematic history, I've come to a few conclusions. My taste in movies is indefensible, and doesn't seem to have much to do with science, so I'm not going to try. The representation of science is generally execrable. The Day After Tomorrow was appallingly bad; X-Men 3 had less serious intent, but it's treatment of genetics and evolution is abominable. Scientists are generally portrayed as cold, soulless creatures with goals that transcend conventional morality—movies aren't good at explanation, but at least they try to flatter us.
The question asks me to pick out a movie that does something admirable regarding science, even if it isn't very accurate. I'm afraid I'm going to have to choose Underworld: Evolution, because it shows that vampire scientists are very clever at coming up with hi-tech solutions to defeat a werewolf infestation, which may come in very handy in the coming apocalypse, and because, well…Kate Beckinsale in skin-tight black leather. There's a whole grand lesson in evolutionary biology, mammalian physiology, and materials engineering right there.
For the bonus points, no, the movie isn't particularly good, except that it's got Kate Beckinsale in skin-tight black leather.
I'm afraid I haven't seen any serious mass-market movies that do much of anything for science. There's something about trying to be entertaining to a mass market for a whole hour and a half or two that is antithetical to actually presenting the real process. Perhaps part of the problem is that people want a story with a beginning and an end, and science is this ongoing event that lacks such discrete and conclusive conclusions. Maybe it's a good thing for movies to confine their treatment of science to issues in how to resolve a werewolf problem.
Comments
In the early days of Mystery Science Theater 3000, the host had his robot friends tell "one good thing and one bad thing" about the movie they saw that day. The source of humor was how deeply the 'bots had to dredge to find good things to say about the movies the Mad Scientists subjected them to.
I could say bad things about many movies and good things about a few, but in terms of relating to the science I've done on a true emotional level, one movie stands out.
I did my undergraduate thesis on weakly ionized plasmas: electrons scattering about inside a gas of atoms and small molecules. I found a way to employ genetic algorithms to the problem, extracting data about microscopic properties (cross-sections of individual atoms, say) from the macroscopic measurements one could take in the lab (e.g., how fast a charge pulse traveled through the gas mixture). I had my GA program spew massive loads of numbers to the screen while it executed, so I could watch my population of virtual noble gases diversify and evolve.
One evening, not too long before my thesis was due, I had a simulation running back in lab while I went to visit some friends. They had a giant-screen TV plugged into a computer so they could watch movies off their terabyte RAID array; not able to leave my work alone, I popped open a terminal window and logged onto the lab computer via the TV set. While I leaned close to the stream of flickering green-on-black ciphers, scrutinizing the atomic parameters as they mutated and felt selection pressure, a friend walked up behind me and said, "Hey, you're turning into the guy from Pi!"
So, as far as realism goes, I have to give the prize to Darren Aronofsky.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 3, 2006 11:10 AM
Well, perhaps it's not in the spirit of the question, but _An Inconvenient Truth_ managed to present a lot of data in an entertaining fashion, as well as conveying the idea that it doesn't take special powers to begin to understand science, just the desire and a decent amount of intelligence.
Posted by: JakeB | August 3, 2006 11:17 AM
Good Morning PZ,
I agree, the movies mentioned may have been OK as a movie, but not great science movies at all.
Not on the list, but I LOVED Jurrasic Park, especially the 1st one, as I had just read the book when it came out, and I'm a dino nut. Appollo 13 was pretty good too.
Posted by: Rocky | August 3, 2006 11:17 AM
I've got one for you: Contact, with Jodie Foster, based on Carl Sagan's novel. It's not perfect, but it portrays scientists in a more positive and realistic light than any other blockbuster I can remember.
Posted by: Troutnut | August 3, 2006 11:21 AM
I never liked science-fiction movies. I love sci-fi novels and short stories though. There's a wider variety, and they're not as clichéd (is that a word?).
Posted by: j | August 3, 2006 11:26 AM
For the bonus points, no, the movie isn't particularly good, except that it's got Kate Beckinsale in skin-tight black leather.
Well, in my book, that DOES make the movie good.
Posted by: gwangung | August 3, 2006 11:27 AM
How about "The Andromeda Strain"?
Posted by: griftdrift | August 3, 2006 11:27 AM
In RoboCop 2, there's a scientist who insists that the corporate plan is immoral and that he doesn't want it being done in his lab -- he's threaten with being replaced. He's wearing a lab coat and generally a stereotypical 80s movie scientist, weak willed, and most likely thrown in just to show that those with intelligence thought the plan was doomed to failure (so you can see exactly how EVIL the bad guys of the movie, OCP, are).
Plus, it's got that awesomely bad brain-smashing scene at the end.
Posted by: Andy | August 3, 2006 11:28 AM
Last night I watched Outbreak (it was on television here in the UK) with my girlfriend, who is a microbiologist. She even wanted to watch it, at first, but 5 minutes in was screaming at the fact that the on-screen display indicated that the virology department where the movie starts was doing work on those famous viruses anthrax and salmonella.
From that point on it had to be a matter of "ignore the microbiology", which is quite difficult in a film about infectious diseases! Is it any wonder I've never felt the urge to watch AI: Artificial Intelligence?
Posted by: Ithika | August 3, 2006 11:30 AM
I'd have to say Deep Impact for anything recent. I know the whole "send an expedition to blow up the asteroid" thing is generally overdone (i.e., Armageddon and Space Cowboys) but they at least tried to do it within current technology and presented the very real problems involved. It also has pretty good portrayals of the advantages and pitfalls of how we do science (the asteroid stays unknown too long because of something as simple as a traffic accident) and when it does we see the interaction of science and politics on important issues in a pretty realistic fashion (and with a sympathetic President, too.) Finally, unlike other "destruction from space" movies, even success is pretty bad for us, since the whole eastern seaboard is wiped out. I know it has some fudges of the science, but not very many and it still tells a pretty decent tale.
Posted by: Stwriley | August 3, 2006 11:31 AM
How about the following list:
October Sky
The Right Stuff
Apollo 13
GATTACA
AI
Code 46
Posted by: Dark Matter | August 3, 2006 11:39 AM
One of my favorites is Gattica. I know that going into space is a bit odd (but a nice metaphor for the antiseptic world depicted). What I didn't like is that's too close to becoming true.
Posted by: Glen | August 3, 2006 11:40 AM
I liked "Fat Man and Little Boy". Oppenheimer (and all the scientists) are very sympathetic, and the science isn't total crap.
(Disclaimer: my sophomore physics prof (a recent Nobel Prize winner) appeared in the movie and was rumored to have done the chalkboard equations.)
Posted by: John | August 3, 2006 11:42 AM
Movies that show scientists in a good light ?
"Them !" - the scientist not only had NOTHING to do with the giant ants, but was actually helpful in getting rid of them.
"Day the Earth Stood Still" - Klaatu decided it was better to talk to the Earth's scientists instead of the military or politicians.
"Contact" - Dr Arroway was a normal person that did very good science [except for that math error in the beginning - by her calculations, our galaxy has no life in it].
Posted by: Paul Poland | August 3, 2006 11:42 AM
I really liked Kinsey from a few years ago; Liam Neeson was good at capturing Kinsey's curiosity about nature and about people. It's the only scientific biopic I've ever seen, so it becomes the best by default.
"Copenhagen" was a debate between Werner Heisenberg and Niels and Anna Bohr about their roles in the war effort. It's mostly about ethics and the personal relationships between the characters, not the science.
Peter Greenaway directed "Darwin", a set of tableaux accompanied by narration. I haven't seen, but would love to.
Are there other scientific biopics? I vaguely recall hearing about a black-and-white Marie Curie one.
Posted by: amk | August 3, 2006 11:44 AM
I am with PZ on Underworld: Evolution. "Kate Beckinsale in skin tight black leather" says it all. And if you think about it there is a lot of biology and behavioral science involved in that. Is that enough rationalization??
Posted by: Ken | August 3, 2006 11:48 AM
I don't think you can legally say "Kate Beckinsale in skin-tight black leather" twice without linking to pics.
Like [url=http://www.leninimports.com/kate_beckinsale_gallery_15.jpg]this[/url].
Posted by: Hans | August 3, 2006 11:48 AM
Not on the list, but I LOVED Jurrasic Park, especially the 1st one, as I had just read the book when it came out, and I'm a dino nut.
I went to this movie as part of a large group from the university compsci department. Two thirds of the way through the movie, with the tension racheting up nicely, the characters turn on a computer, and there's this sort of neat 3D GUI. Then the little girl pipes up "Oh, I know, this - it's a UNIX system"...
... and a whole row and a half of people burst out laughing.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | August 3, 2006 11:53 AM
Blade Runner. Science and technology is pervasive throughout the film, but it's used matter-of-factly. It's no big deal to stop at a kiosk to buy a synthetic eyeball.
I do it all the time at the mall.
Posted by: Doc Bill | August 3, 2006 11:54 AM
my favorite is Twister. It shows scientist as people with personal problems; some are shown (Kerry Elwiss) as schisters, and others as noble with a goal to help mankind. It shows us as people first and I like that.
Posted by: Dior | August 3, 2006 12:00 PM
Damn. You beat me to it.
I just want a Spinner. Is that really too much to ask for?
And Deckards apartment.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 3, 2006 12:03 PM
I'm going to say "Lorenzo's Oil," crappy Nick Nolte Italian accent and all, because it seemed to me to represent the sould of science: A problem to be solved, hypotheses, research, experimentation. Now, in real life the rapeseed oil "solution" didn't actually help that much, but as an example of how a scientific process might work, I can't recall having seen it laid out better in a movie.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | August 3, 2006 12:07 PM
I can't advice you on good science movies, but I found "Barnyard: The Original Party Animals," which I watched with my kids during a promotional screening earlier this week, infuriating: The movie depicts both male and female bovines as cows, complete with protruding, prominent udders. I don't know what this means. Where the filmmakers afraid to show bulls and cows as distinct bovine genders? Nobody mentioned to them that cows are female? You don't have to be a farmer to know that. Why such a shameless biological misrepresentation? It's definitely an imponderable since I'm pretty sure I spotted in the background an actual bull who sported horns.
Posted by: Aris | August 3, 2006 12:12 PM
How about 2001? Slightly more science than Bladerunner, but they treated the space stuff and AI psychiatric problems well.
The BBC (I think) made a TV film about Crick and Watson a few years ago that was pretty good. Jeff Goldblum played Watson.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 3, 2006 12:15 PM
Aris: the generic term for a bovine is "cow." it applies to both male and female. the word "cow" also means a female of any species where the male is called a bull. so you have bull elephants and cow elephants, bull whales and cow whales, and bull cows and cow cows. In the last, we usually just say bulls and cows. Cows of both sexes have horns. It's just cow farmers saw off the female cows' horns.
In Texas we just call them cattle.
Posted by: frumious b | August 3, 2006 12:27 PM
Since MST3K has been mentioned, I might as well ask, while I'm here.
I liked Contact and Apollo 13.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 3, 2006 12:28 PM
My first thought, too, was of Jurassic Park. Defienitely the first one; the second one sucked, and the third, eh, whatev. But the first movie did, I thought, an interesting and admirable job of bringing science (OK, bad science, but not horrible, scream-at-the-screen-it's-so-bad science) to the masses. While I don't really understand chaos theory, I'm pretty sure Crichton doesn't either. And I realize that the reality of extracting DNA from bugs to make dinosaurs is a real stretch, but it seemed grounded in at least hypothetical pausibility. Plus, it was a great "movie" movie. Laura Dern; Samuel Jackson; velociraptors; 'nuff said.
I actually had a molecular biology class in college in which the final exam consisted entirely of passages from Jurassic Park that we were to analyze for scientific merit, based on our coursework, and explain the good and the bad. (This was before the movie, but obviously after the book, which I had not read.) I thought it was a neat, unexpected direction for the class, which had been pretty hard up until then, although anybody who had read the book might have had something of a leg up. Problem was, all the quizes and the mid-term exam had been very straightforward, detail-oriented, short answer type deals, so no one was expecting it. Needless to say, the gunner pre-meds FREAKED; I remember one girl who, after going up to the proctor with questions multiple times, simply burst into tears and left. As I recall, I did better on the final than I had on the tests up 'til then.
Of course, I lost all respect for Crichton with his global warming "analysis", but that is another story... (Anybody else notice how the coverage of this heat wave has not been linked to climate change? I realize one month does not a trend make, but I figured the MSM would do the same song and dance they did after Katrina, with Fox News dissassembling madly, etc. I think everyone is just too scared of how fucked we all are to talk openly about it right now...)
I also thought Gattaca and Contact were good.
Posted by: Keith Wolter | August 3, 2006 12:28 PM
Someone pitched 2001: A Space Odyssey already--my favorite--so I'll throw in two of the films of Andrei Tarkovsky: Stalker and Solaris. A lot of people don't like Tarkovsky, and while I do I cannot explain exactly why, except to say that I love his painstaking construction of mood and story. Also, the 1950 French film Les Yeux sans Visage (Eyes without a Face) is a classic, although it features the requisite "mad scientist."
Posted by: Kristine | August 3, 2006 12:31 PM
I also liked "Twister," even if the grad students seemed over the top.
Has anyone seen "Infinity," a 1996 love-story biopic about Richard Feynaman? Mathew Broderick is the lead, but doesn't seem like he'd grow into the Feynman I knew.
Otherwise, I'd say "Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World," for the accurate portrayal of a Darwin-like surgeon/biologist.
Posted by: David Lewin | August 3, 2006 12:32 PM
Science and technology as problem solving techniques are sometimes also depicted well on TV - so perhaps by extension in the movies, though rarely. Science fiction aside, what about MacGyver? Or the Bloodhound Gang and Mathnet segments of 3-2-1 Contact and Square One TV? I can't think of any movies, alas, that haven't already been mentioned. Well, does Stephen Hawking's Universe count?
Posted by: Keith Douglas | August 3, 2006 12:36 PM
Contact and Twister, both because they portray scientists as human beings.
I regard both as wildly improbable, especially the latter. Forget riding out the tornado belted to a water pipe - what red-blooded man would leave Helen Hunt for some braindead weathergirl?
But I've known scientists who correspond to every one of the characters in either.
Posted by: frank schmidt | August 3, 2006 12:37 PM
I liked "Sphere," overlooking the Michael Crichton aspect of it, but it was directed by Barry Levinson and everyting he directs is pretty much worth watching on some level.
Posted by: craig | August 3, 2006 12:39 PM
frumious b: the generic term for a bovine is "cow."
My understanding is that the primary meaning of "cow" designates a female animal, usually bovine, but also, as you indicated, the adult female of other large mammals. "Cow," as both male and female, seems to me to be a rather less common usage.
However, semantics aside, as I mentioned above, both male and female animals in this movie have udders. Big, protruding, prominent udders; not nipples, but bulging, pink udders. I don't think male bovines have udders, even in Texas -- but then again, Texas is a whole different country from what I hear...
Posted by: Aris | August 3, 2006 12:41 PM
Barnhardt: Have you tested this theory?
Klaatu: I find it works well enough to get me from one planet to another.
Now that's science. The Day the Earth Stood Still. And Contact. I liked Enemy Mine, which is a combo space opera/extraterrestrial anthro movie. Too many others to mention really.
But back to The Day the Earth Stood Still. Look at Barnhardt, the scientist played by Sam Jaffe. Look at the way he approaches the alien and the problems/solutions the alien brings:
Klaatu: You have faith, Professor Barnhardt?
Barnhardt: It isn't faith that makes good science Mr. Klaatu, it's curiosity. Sit down, please. There are several thousand questions I'd like to ask you.
Barnhardt: One thing Mr. Klaatu, Suppose this group should reject your proposals. What is the alternative?
Klaatu: I'm afraid there is no alternative. In such a case, the planet Earth would have to be... eliminated
Barnhardt: Such power exists?
Klaatu: I assure you, such power exists.
and my favorite:
Barnhardt: Tell me, Hilda, does all this frighten you? Does it make you feel insecure?
Hilda: Yes sir, it certainly does.
Barnhardt: That's good, Hilda; I'm glad.
Now that's a scientist!
Posted by: QrazyQat | August 3, 2006 12:46 PM
An excellent question. My vote is for movies like "Erin Brockovich" and "The Insider" which portray scientists who defy the corporate system.
Note how few of these movies being suggested are not documentaries or based on a true story or real-life character, though. That's expected, but sad.
Posted by: Polymath | August 3, 2006 12:47 PM
Back in Grade 10 Chemistry, a test question was "Other than Carbon, name an element with 4 valence electrons". Because of a Star Trek episode that had a "silicon based life form", I guessed silicon and got it right. So Star Trek provided me with some (in this case accurate) science info.
Posted by: KP | August 3, 2006 12:50 PM
i'm pretty sure that's skin tight LATEX, PZ...
i may have to rent it again, though... just to double-check.
Posted by: dr. dave | August 3, 2006 12:53 PM
So I'll be the first one to mention The March of the Penguins. :)
Posted by: Y.B | August 3, 2006 12:54 PM
I'm surprised no-one's yet mentioned Primer.
Low budget, geeky, confusing, it's got lots of things to dislike. Yet it's the only movie in the last ten years for which my first reaction on finishing watching it was "I've got to see that again, right now."
It captures the stumbling, fumbling nature of discovery better than any other movie I can think of. (And its got a cult following. http://www.google.com/search?q=primer+movie )
Posted by: John Aspinall | August 3, 2006 1:10 PM
I gotta agree with amk. Kinsey was a fabulous movie and it really did a good job portraying that joyful scientific slightly-manic curiousity. Overall it really felt truthful and human -- rather than over the top or stereotyped.
Posted by: Colin | August 3, 2006 1:12 PM
As a member of that collective mass of fabulists called "screenwriters," I had to chime in here.
The portrayal of science in movies is never going to be "great." Since movies are about drama, conflict and, with big blockbusters, visual whizbangs, the needs of the story are always going to override the literal truth of things. "Reel" life as opposed to "real" life.
Screenplays need conflict, conflict, conflict, so everything in that story gets slaved to that purpose. While it's not impossible to tell a good science story within that structure ("Contact" leaps to mind), it's just much, much harder. (Even "Contact" took liberties.)
If reality doesn't work, change it on the page to what does, mix in a bunch of really cool sounding terms misappropriated from the real world and bang, you have the verisimilitude you need to make it all sound plausible, even though it isn't.
It's a lot like Intelligent Design.
Those of you who are science educators should be aware of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's efforts to increase the amount of media out there with positive and fairly accurate representations of science and scientists in them.
They offer grants and fund programs at numerous film schools, festivals, and New Media departments for ventures that treat science honestly. I'd encourage you to read up about those programs and point any of your students with a love for both science and writing their way.
Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta get back to my script. The Evil Scientist is just about to find out if his efforts to genetically engineer DNA from an Old One with a human worked. Don't fret though. The Good Scientist is not that far behind and will arrive just in time for the showdown.
And yes, she will be dressed in skin tight black leather and sporting a very big gun.
Posted by: Jody | August 3, 2006 1:12 PM
FYI. "Primer," mentioned above, won a Sloan Foundation Award at Sundance the year it premiered.
Posted by: Jody | August 3, 2006 1:14 PM
Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032413/)
And I cast another vote for both Contact and Underworld... now, if we could just get Jodie Foster into skin-tight black leather. Or Kate to the VLA, for that matter.
Posted by: Ragutis | August 3, 2006 1:14 PM
I liked the original Flash Gordon (unless it was Buck Rogers?) from the 1930s or 1940s. The special effects are laughable; they are flying their spaceship between planets while the sky behind them is blue, and the sparks fall downward from their rocket engine while the sparks go up.
Anyway, the part I liked is the respect paid to the scientist in Flash's group. They get captured by one of the warring sides, and its "off to the dungeons with them, we'll behead them in the morning."
"Wait, I'm a scientist."
"A scientist, eh? Come right this way, there's this little problem we've been working on..."
Posted by: quork | August 3, 2006 1:15 PM
The Day the Earth Stood Still is excellent. Other good quotes:
"I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason. "
"I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. "
Oh, and is that latex? Ms. Beckinsale, you'll have to remove those items and allow me to examine them more closely.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 3, 2006 1:17 PM
"Contact" is my front runner. After 50 years of movie fare featuring shrieking Mad Scientists, this was the first that accurately showed SANE scientists and shrieking mad RELIGIONISTS.
Written by Carl Sagan, it depicts a powerful conflict between religion and science, and there are moments when Jodie Foster's character Dr. Ellie Arroway is pressured by both religious and political forces to give up her mental integrity and her goals.
The movie is prescient in including a now-believable insanely-religious suicide bomber, but it also has a gentle, smarmy, "nice" religionist - as well as a believably nasty anti-science politician - all of which pressure Dr. Arroway to admit that God (or politics) trumps all science. She never gives in. She wins through by patient force of personality and unbending allegiance to her understanding of the IMPORTANCE of real science.
The movie contained mystical elements, but was decidedly ANTI-mystical, pro-science.
...
Opinion from a native Texan and former cowboy: When cow people talk about cows, they're talking about the females. If they're talking about a group of males, it's steers or bulls. If it's a mixed group, it can only be "cattle," which is the real generic term for bovines.
The word "cow" specifically means female bovine and is never, never, applied to bulls. To call a bull or steer a "cow" is forgivable only when used by city people or children.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 3, 2006 1:19 PM
http://www.leninimports.com/kate_beckinsale_gallery_15.jpg
Yup. That's latex.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 3, 2006 1:20 PM
Because it does seem to meet the test of being a movie, I'm going to agree with JakeB: An Inconvenient Truth does something admirable with science...
It tries to explain and it tries to tell the truth while presnting the best consensus position it can.
Posted by: Lettuce | August 3, 2006 1:21 PM
I particularly liked one of the recent James Bond films, the one where the Korean guys change their appearance using 'DNA therapy', which is given through laser treatment. In fact, come to think of it, they did quite a lot of fantastic stuff with lasers in that film, and defied many laws of physics. What ever happened to stunts being performed by real people, or at least being believable.
Also, wasn't that the same film where he stopped his own heart through will power alone, then electrocuted a couple of guys with the defibrillator, despite there not being a completed circuit?
Well, he is James Bond I guess, not just an ordinary mortal like you or I...
Posted by: Eliza | August 3, 2006 1:25 PM
I am not quite sure what problem you have with "AI: Artificial Intelligence" Ithika, the fact that it ignore the "current" state of AI? Or maybe its the planet getting frozen, which only happens at the end? Oh, I know, its the rediculous mistake 90% of the people that see it make, in assuming that its aliens that show up at the end and thaw out the child AI... Ok, it does have a corny, "We can grab something from out of time and bring it back for 24 hours..." speal, but again, this is at the tail end of the movie.
It really would have helped if MS, and the other two parties involved, hadn't deep sixed the book deal for the complex story they ran online as a promotional for the movie. Lot of things get filled in with that. For example, an artifical plankton is developed, which is able to use some AI style technology to talk to each other more efficiently, it was designed to alter its physical characteristics to either reflect more sunlight or allow more to be absorbed by sea water, to help control global warming. This mutates, starting to behavoir on its own. Seems it develops a strain that prefers cold, so ignores instructions and starts adjusting itself to increase reflectivity, thus actually freezing the planet very fast. The whole story line for the promo centered around a corporate cover up, in which an AI gets programmed to kill Evan Chan, who stumbled over what was happening, while the companies scrambled to quitely and secretly try to "fix" it. The scientist that creates the kid actually gets mixed up indirectly in this and they crash his aircraft, which leads to a whole mess of other things.
The "aliens" turn out to be the "descendents" of AI that where working on a deep space project in orbit, when everything went south. Suddenly one day they stopped recieving new instructions, and everyone was a bit too busy with the planets rapid freezing to tell them anything. You could argue that a week is "too little" time for the entire planet to freeze.. Ok, fine, but this is Sci-Fi, not climatology and what would happen if the entire ocean started reflecting all the sunlight back into space? Anyway, they followed the last instructions they did know, which was to complete the project, which was very close to complete anyway, then launch on their mission. The whole end of the movie is premised on them coming back to find a world locked in ice and lacking guidence, "evolving" over time, until they had the means to mount a sort of archeological expedition onto the planet they had left. Note, there is a gap between the creation of the AI child and these events, long enough for other near human class AI to be built, some of whom where on the ship. They came back looking for their origins. The entire movie is really a sort of replay of the "life" of the first true AI, which they where all to some extent based on.
In any case, yes, it had some corny bits, like all of them, but you need to know both stories to really know what is going on, and thanks to some stupid arguments over who had rights to the "story" in the promo, the book that was going to come out about it never did. Instead, the whole thing is buried in online archives, which don't do the story, or the puzzles in the online game, most of which are broken when not run on the orignal servers, justice.
Still, the story wasn't about the "technology" in the first place.
As to the original premise of this post.. I am not sure. Ironically, given the current development of possible jumbo jet carried high powered lasers... How about "Real Genius"? Most of it is fairly reasonable. About the only unlikely bits are the basis for how the laser gets so powerful (don't know enough to say for sure how goofy it is, but the new super lasers use a mass of toxic chemicals, with limited use and are probably cooled too) and the idea that a prism could scatter the light enough to pop a lot of popcorn, instead of just vaporizing the prism. It even pokes fun at the religious clown in the group, who despite making a really good mirror, is a total ass and is easilly convinced that "God" is speaking to him. lol
Posted by: Kagehi | August 3, 2006 1:27 PM
Hollow man would be one of my choices, but for different reasons.
The science is horrific, the movie awful, and presents teaching moments.
An injected drug that causes tissue to become invisible would have affected the outer layer of the skin, connective tissues and bones last (also parts of the eyes), which would have left a literally hollow person. It wouldn't have made for the neat visual ape CGI scene. The heart, lungs, liver and kidneys would have vanished firts. The contents of the intestines would have also have been visible for some time, as well. But that wouldn't have been very nice to look at.
I don't remember if it was included as part of the movie, but having light entering on all sides of the eyes would have made vision a practical impossibility under any condition.
Further, nobody would get permission to work on a gorilla, nor would anyone even consider it. Any primates used would be small, and without the ability to see where their eyes are, accidentally making eye contact would be a very bad thing, and a good way to get a handful of feces in the face. Animal testing had obviously failed, and in this case, a mad scientist was in truth a "you would have to be mad" scientist.
The computer simulations of molecular modeling were hysterical, and my favorite moment was when the hero set a timer on a centrifuge, but not for it to spin for that length of time, but rather to start spinning when the timer stopped.
The only thing it lacked were the open bunsen burners, set to a long bright yellow flame a la Darkman.
Posted by: Robster | August 3, 2006 1:31 PM
"Bovine" is an adjective, isn't it? The bovine animal.
The plural is "cattle," but there doesn't actually seem to be a word for that animal that chews its cud and says "moo". Cows are female large herbivores, from whales to bison to... these things.
Every once in a while the strangeness of that omission gets to me. The animal is synonymous with farm life and everyone knows exactly what it is, yet it doesn't have a name...
Posted by: eyelessgame | August 3, 2006 1:42 PM
A made for TV movie called "Glory Enough for All" was quite good. From the Internet Movie Database -
"Dramatised documentary of the 1921-22 Nobel Prize-winning discovery of insulin at the University of Toronto based on the books The Discovery of Insulin & Banting: A Biography by University of Toronto historian Michael Bliss."
Posted by: PK | August 3, 2006 1:45 PM
Bovine can be a noun or adjective.
Posted by: j | August 3, 2006 1:47 PM
(pedantic)Suppose it's math rather than science,(/pedantic) but Good Will Hunting.
"How ya like *them* apples?"
Blade Runner and 2001 as well, of course.
For folks into foreign films, "Until the End of the World" is fun, and the soundtrack is incredible.
Speaking (Blade Runner) of Philip K. Dick novels turned into films, anyone seen "A Scanner Darkly"? Any good? Rotoscope too distracting?
Posted by: Jud | August 3, 2006 1:51 PM
If films about medical science, or more accurately, medical technique are allowed, the a film not previously mentioned (and, I believe, not shown in theaters but only on TV) was the story of the development of the Blalock-Taussig surgical procedure that made open-heart surgeries the boon that ithey have become. The film is titled, Something the Lord Made (and is not at all about anything religious). It recounts the breakthrough in technique by Vivian Thomas, an unlettered black lab assistant to Dr. Blalock and is not only a true story of medical science but a thoroughly heart-warming movie as well.
Posted by: charles stores | August 3, 2006 1:56 PM
Gee, almost everyone else are writing books for answers. I'll just say two more words:
Star Trek.
Posted by: Sweettp2063 | August 3, 2006 1:58 PM
All this love for Contact, but am I remembering correctly that in the final scenes Foster is forced to admit her scientific conclusions are ultimately based on faith, and therefore no more valid than the sexy preacher-man's?
Posted by: Max Udargo | August 3, 2006 1:59 PM
A Beautiful Mind was the best - in terms of doing something admirable for science. (Okay, so I think Math is science)
Posted by: George | August 3, 2006 1:59 PM
I'll chime in for Kinsey for the portrayal of scientists, too. I've heard, although I don't know much about it, that Kinsey was fairly unhinged, and some of that did come through in the movie, but I liked how he was shown as a guy who was just curious and didn't understand why no one else got it. He (Neeson playing him) had an air of befuddlement the entire time, as to why people seemed to think it was SUCH A BIG DEAL when he was just finding DATA about REALITY. Kind of similar to the general response of evolutionary biologists to Creationists - a collective innocent look up from the petri dishes and saying "What?"
Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2006 2:01 PM
Max - Yes. I hated the end of Contact with the fire of a thousand suns because of that. I was all in girl-love with Jodi Foster until she did that sell-out at the end.
Posted by: Carlie | August 3, 2006 2:03 PM
The Arrival (1996) with Charlie Sheen, was a pretty good science fiction movie. It was about global warming too, so maybe it could do with a comeback.
The protagonist in the movie, played by Sheen, is a SETI researcher. When he loses his research job (due to conspiracy, of course) he takes a job as a satellite TV repairman, and modifies all the backyard dishes in the neighborhood so he can pressgang them into an array during the wee hours and continue his SETI work. Very resourceful and tenacious.
Posted by: quork | August 3, 2006 2:03 PM
Tourneur's "Night of the Demon" (British version)
.... a great movie, great discussion of science versus faith.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | August 3, 2006 2:03 PM
So no one here has seen The Calamari Wrestler? It says some powerful things about scientists, that they are able to transform a professional wrestler into a talking squid.
Posted by: quork | August 3, 2006 2:06 PM
My vote is for K-Pax, a movie complete with possible aliens, allusions to the Gospels, and a psychiatrist chararcter who, despite ample opportunities to go all supernatural ga-ga, maintains a steadfast course of methodological naturalism, and realizes that what appears to be impossible is probably just stuff that's beyond his understanding.
Science as it should be, in other words.
Posted by: Jim Wynne | August 3, 2006 2:10 PM
I liked the play, Proof. Saw it on Broadway, but haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment on it specifically. Deals specifically with math, and did a good job, I thought, of humanizing both the (dead) crazy math genius, and his conflicted daughters, one of whom was a math prodigy who (sort of) gave it up when her father went nuts and needed care, and one of whom is having a career in something else entirely, but was supporting the other father and sister financially. Lots of good stuff about sexism in math and science, too. Best, Marc
Posted by: Marc | August 3, 2006 2:12 PM
It's not a mass-market film but Haas's adaptation of Angels and Insects from the novella by Antonia Byatt is visually spectacular; a good intuition-builder on how different upper-class Victorian life was then (which works even for many undergraduates); discusses several core biological ideas; and gives a good orientation to the life of Alfred Wallace, co-discoverer with Darwin of evolution (i.e. natural selection).
And in its own way (Byatt's way) it's pretty erotic.
Posted by: thwaite | August 3, 2006 2:16 PM
I am a confimed Trekie, but since no one mentioned it, (and TV shows are being mentioned), I loved absolutely loved Babylon 5. Total different concept of the universe, and the interrelations of the creatures that inhabit it.
Jurrasic Park had many moments that were (unfortunately) dumbed down for the public, (I personally laughed at the beginning when they were just brushing the dirt of the Velicoraptor bones), ya GOTTA love the dinosaur visuals! Expeything before was a claymation Ray Harryhousen dino, good, but not up to newer computer graphics. I believe the Science Channel "Walking with Dinosaurs" series is popular for the same reason.
Posted by: Rocky | August 3, 2006 2:16 PM
Actually, I think you're both right:
Have you read the 2006 winners, runner ups, and dishonorable mentions of the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest? This one seems apropos:
Posted by: usagi | August 3, 2006 2:17 PM
quork--
Am I right in remembering that the aliens are interested in heating up and/or poisoning the atmosphere to make it more hospitable to them?
(I keep thinking that movie reminded me of Sturgeon's excellent short story _Occam's Scalpel_, in which Howard Hughes turns out to have been an alien with those goals.)
Posted by: JakeB | August 3, 2006 2:17 PM
OK, 2001, Blade Runner, (thanks for the Robo II love, I made the face of Cain articulatable; a colleague is working with the guy who made the brain out of gelatin and goo), Jurassic Park (SGI was a big sponsor, and, running Irix instead of Unix, had an actual demo not made for the movie called File System Navigator, accessed by typing fsn at the prompt. Took forever to load, though), Contact, another big vote for Primer (I shipped it back to Netflix after the third viewing), and from comp.ai.philosphy, here's my review of AI.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2006 2:19 PM
I've been reading The Quest For Consciousness recently. In it neurologist Christof Koch says that Memento has the most accurate representation of memory function in any film.
For myself, I have to agree with the shout outs for Primer, although it's more about the nature of engineering than science - the science itself is pretty hokey. I'll come up with my own science nominations when I've had a chance to think about them.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 3, 2006 2:19 PM
The ending of Contact was a big disappointment, and it wasn't the ending Sagan wrote in the book. So blame the director or somebody for that.
I second the other votes for "Twister" and "A Beautiful Mind."
If we're adding documentaries, definitely "An Inconvenient Truth" and "Flock of Dodos."
Posted by: Troutnut | August 3, 2006 2:24 PM
I was thinking about this the other day, In 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind', the device for erasing memories is described as a disruptor of neural connections in the limbic system. The entire mechanism, some type of portable 3-d visualization and zapping device that can burn off key neurons was theoretically plausible. And in general the treatment of the scientists at work had a realistic feel to it, with the junior lab assistant snippily saying "I already ran the diagnostics! Of course i thought of that!" then immediately looking chagrined that he'd spoken that way to his boss, the very published Doctor!
Posted by: Alex Fairchild | August 3, 2006 2:28 PM
Wait - wasn't Jodie Foster's realizatin that her experience as she remembered it a matter of faith because she couldn't prove it? I have not seen the movie for awhile, but did enjoy it.
1. Inconvenient Truth
2. Rocket Boys
3. Kinsey
4. Twister
5. Star Trek, First Contact, for its portrayal of Zefrem Cochrane
Not sure about the science aspect but for sheer enjoyment, no question: the entire Back To The Future series for its portrayal of Doc Brown, who it seemed to me was modelled after Oliver Heaviside
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | August 3, 2006 2:36 PM
Contact and Inconvenient Truth. Yes.
Regarding Contact, I'm in agreement with those who said the ending was lame and wishy-washy. I never read the book. I can't imagine Sagan wrote that crappy ending. Must have been (I hope!) Hollywood-ized? Anyone know?
Posted by: evolvealready | August 3, 2006 2:38 PM
No one seems to have mentioned The Dish. From the netflix description: "July 1969. Neil Armstrong is about to walk on the moon, and everyone's eyes are riveted to their TV screens. In Parkes, Australia, a radio dish antenna is slated to receive Apollo 11's video feed and send that historic sight out to the world ... that is, if the Australian staff (including pipe-smoking, absent-minded scientist Sam Neill) and their NASA supervisor (the tense, by-the-book Patrick Warburton) don't make any mistakes!"
Very enjoyable.
In my comments about Proof "the other father and sister" should read "the father and the other sister."
Best, Marc
Posted by: Marc | August 3, 2006 2:38 PM
A double bill matinee of Memento and Primer would keep everybody in their seats till they'd seen second screenings of each.
Rocket Boys (anagram for October Sky) is notable for being nearly point for point the exemplification of Campbell's Hero's Journey. Talk about yer "descent into the underworld" and "return with the elixir" and "apotheosis with the father."
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 3, 2006 2:41 PM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042393/
Destination Moon
I recall a Heinlein anecdote about the movie -- years later, he told an audience that he and his wife used a roll of butcher paper and spent many days, in 1949, with pencil and slide rule, to get the orbit and trajectory figured correctly. And some young person in the audience asked him "Why didn't you just use a calculator?"
http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/16/53/64m.jpg
Trailer:
http://www.imdb.com/rg/TITLETRA_BIGSTICK/maindetails/title/tt0042393/trailers-screenplay-E14135-10-2