…and this is a 
Randy Olson on science and media
Category: Communicating science
Posted on: May 23, 2008 10:37 AM, by PZ Myers
Randy Olson doesn't like you. He says some very harsh things about the science blogs readership on the Skepticality podcast — you guys are all just so darn mean to him. This is all very unfortunate, because he does have some good things to say, but he's also taking disagreement very personally, and is seeing things only through the lens of the filmmaker,which is skewing his perspective away from some significant points, at the same time that it's giving him some useful and interesting views.
For instance, he criticizes my response to the event in which I got kicked out of a movie theater — the problem, he says, was that I was drawing attention to an event in which I had nothing to sell, while they did, and that's a mistake. I certainly do have something to sell: myself (which I find personally important, even if no one else does), the blog Pharyngula, and the science of evolution. I don't have a movie, but most people don't; it's a case of the Olson blinders to think that the only thing that matters is your movie. I managed to sell Pharyngula quite well, and got a lasting 30-50% increase in traffic, as well as more attention from the media.
The other thing he's missing is what we accomplished with Expelled. Again, we don't have a competing movie to promote, so we couldn't very well peddle a positive message about our alternative cinema experience. Instead, we had to show that Expelled was a profoundly dishonest movie on all levels; we impeached its credibility successfully. The reviews tell the story, that they all point out how wretchedly false the story of the movie was. We can't stop people from attending the movie, but we can weaken its utility as a tool for the creationist movement.
And that's where we won. The podcast continues to falsely claim that the movie was a success, quoting box office figures. Wrong message. This movie was a flop: it lost money. Even more significantly, it failed with its intended audience. Remember, creationism is huge in this country, and a movie that taps into that base has got an automatic edge, which is how it managed to get millions in gross receipts. However, that's also where it failed. It did not get any momentum at all with the evangelical audience, with a steady, rapid decline in attendance from day one. This is a movie that is coasting on Christian gullibility, but is getting no traction at all. Part of it is that the movie started with no credibility, but I suspect another part of its failure was in its marketing: ads on The Daily Show sound impressive to us, but weren't going to draw in likely attendees, and using a rock-and-roll soundtrack and the image of rebelliousness is also not going to woo the evangelical crowd. Daily Show ads would have probably been very effective for Olson's movie, Flock of Dodos, but they were wasted effort for this one.
One thing Olson is entirely correct on is that likability is important. I have no illusions that I'm a charming fellow, but in my public talks you may have noticed that everyone complains that I don't breathe fire or eviscerate any creationists on the podium. That's intentional — going all Lewis Black only works when you've got an audience that already agrees with you. However, the other essential component of a successful media strategy has got to be strength. Haven't we learned that yet from years of watching Republican political tactics? They don't win on just presenting perspectives agreeable to their electorate, but by being vicious bastards who won't compromise. Olson is telling us to be like Jimmy Carter, and ignoring the fact that the environment right now is dominated by the likes of Dick Cheney, unlikable thug. Even worse is that he's forgetting that it was Carter vs. Reagan, who was both likable and put up a good illusion of strength.
What we really need is someone who is fiercely likable, someone who can be admired while they're fighting for science. I fear that what everyone else is calling for is the scientist as friendly, unchallenging wimp who will make the public feel safe and able to go on believing whatever nonsense they want … when what we really need is someone to shake up the bogosity of the general public's delusions.
Education & Careers
Comments
I saw Flock of Dodos... not that great of a movie. It was a little too Michael Mooreish for my taste.
The extended interviews were interesting though.
Posted by: JimboB | May 23, 2008 10:45 AM
I agree with PZ. The nice quiet ones don't cause any trouble, but no one listens to them either. Also, publicity like that may have been good for an immediate boost in ticket sales, but ultimately led to its sharp decline. Keep it up, PZ!
Posted by: BadMA | May 23, 2008 10:48 AM
They need to be SHOUTED down. It's sad but true. If you want a prescient example see the Chris Matthews clip where he corners the young dude spouting off about appeasement and Chamberlain. Me, I would have just cut the guy's mic.
You are not going to 'reason' with people who believe that religion is reasonable or that torture is reasonable.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | May 23, 2008 10:51 AM
So where's Carl Sagan when we need him?
What do you mean, he's dead?! Lousy excuse if you ask me...
Posted by: armillary | May 23, 2008 10:53 AM
What about Richard Dawkins? He seems to fit the needs.
Posted by: folgsam | May 23, 2008 11:02 AM
Too British
Posted by: Dennis N | May 23, 2008 11:04 AM
I find Dawkins to be an extremely likable person. However, (so I'm told) he's got a reputation as being a fantastically arrogant and snide pompous ass. This shows to me that it's not how you say it, it really is the content of the message. I suspect that if Dawkins had gotten famous for writing books about chipmunks, he would be perceived by the very same people as a lovable Brit.
Also, look at TV chef Gordon Ramsey. He's far ruder than even the most 'militant' atheist- but he's a housewife's favorite.
I suspect that most 'militant' atheists are actually no ruder than anyone else with a cause to push. In fact, I can't think of any famous atheist who I wouldn't want to have a coffee with. (Umm, with the possible exception of Hitchens after a three night bender.)
Atheists are considered rude only because they break the social taboos proscribing critical analysis of religion. But, throughout history it's always been rude to talk about any civil rights issues.
Posted by: Christianjb | May 23, 2008 11:05 AM
i'll drink to that.
Posted by: alex | May 23, 2008 11:06 AM
I found Mr Olson's comments depressing because if the fight for science becomes a campaign of glitz and style then who will care about the truth? I don't really want to get into an escalation of who's got the best, funniest video or who's got the most charming, likeable spokesman.
That aside: I vote for Michael Shermer. Or Phil Plaitt. Or Dr Sanford.
Posted by: ellazimm | May 23, 2008 11:11 AM
As long as we're making nominations, how about Neil deGrasse Tyson?
Posted by: simmi | May 23, 2008 11:13 AM
Not answering attacks is about the worst tactic imaginable.
Dukakis thought he could ignore attacks, Clinton knew that he could not. Which of the two did better?
Olson simply doesn't seem to know much about down and dirty fighting.
None of us particularly cared if Myers boosted attendance at Expelled, because Myers was going to undermine its message. Well he probably did boost attendance, and it seems that while very few uncommitted folk have been persuaded in favor of ID, many seem to recognize that Expelled is sleaze.
I have sometimes wondered if it would have been better if the movie had even greater attendance, since ID really came off badly in the movie and in discussions of the movie. In any event, while the movie had moderate (money-losing) success in simply causing a ruckus, they've ended up being defensive over what the movie portrayed, hence it probably has hurt them.
It wasn't certain from the beginning that the movie would hurt ID, it required a forceful response. Fortunately, it received just that response.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 23, 2008 11:15 AM
I found A Flock of Dodos likable enough, but it must be viewed as a failure in all ways that count (earnings, impact etc.). So, I can't really understand why people turn to Randy Olson to get advice on how to fight the anti-science hordes.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | May 23, 2008 11:17 AM
Whats wrong with having a level playing field here.
Imagine if Randy Olson had got a pro-evolution millionaire to give him 15 million to make and promote a movie and to hell with making a profit.
What if he could make a special deal with cinema chains such that they wouldn't lose money no matter how poorly it played.
Imagine if he was able to actually pay people to see the movie.
Imagine if we gave him a marketing budget of millions and a well known celebrity to be the face of the movie, appearing on CNN, Fox and all the other TV stations to promote it.
Imagine if the movie that Randy produced contained the same level of scientific integrity as Expelled, had exactly the same number of movie-goers viewing it and got exactly the same sort of reviews.
Would we call it an astounding success?
Or would we call it an embarrassing failure of monumental proportions?
Posted by: Sigmund | May 23, 2008 11:18 AM
My major concerns with Olsen are that he does view things as a filmmaker and does not seem to place value on the fact that our side is the one with the evidence and (dare I say it) the truth on our side.
Some of his skepticallity comments were odd, such as his claim that Expelled was a success because it was produced, marketed, and had ads in the Daily Show timeslot. While impressive, these are not signs of success, these are signs that they spent a LOT of money to push the movie.
Now that being said he does have some good points about the need to present ourselves as well as possible and to think more about what's going on as opposed to what we want to be going on.
Posted by: Hypatia | May 23, 2008 11:18 AM
Here are some telling things Olsen said in the podcast:
"Thin-skinned evolutionists aren't interested in the truth," and they "spend too much time in the laboratory."
So creationists are winning presumably because they're spending less time in the laboratory.
According to Olsen, scientists are double failures. First, by failing to communicate Evolutionary Theory to the masses.
And second, by not recognizing the first failure as a failure, and so failing again.
Did it ever occur to Olsen it's not so much that biologists have a problem explaining evolutionary theory to the public--any more than physicists have a "problem" getting across atomic physics or physicians body mass index--but that numerous religious sects have a great big honking problem with...wait for it...DARWINISM? To the extend that they overtly engage in a concerted well-funded campaign of cognitive dissonance and outright lies in the media, government, and education.
Here's another Olsen gem: Dawkins, Eugene Scott and PZ Myers "allowed themselves to be interview unknowingly?"
Not only does this make zero sense, it's specious.
Posted by: caynazzo | May 23, 2008 11:23 AM
I listened to to Randy Olson and the Skepticality Poscast. While I enjoy Randy's comments in general, he was absolutely dead wrong in his analysis of the success of Expelled (as you have pointed out).
Both Olson and Eugenie Scott (in a previous Skepticality podcast) believe that Expelled was a success at the box office, or at least did very well.
This premise is wrong wrong wrong, as you have stated.
Just a quick look at the box office numbers dispel any notion of success for that movie, if you know movie budgets are spent. The so-called success of the movie is just spin put out by Premise Media.
It's true that Expelled will have some sort of life on DVD (if it can dig itself out from the current injunction for copyright infringement), but its "glory days" are well behind it. The producers only hope is to find a distributer willing to take it on despite all of its baggage.
Anyway, the thing that pissed me off about Olson's comments is that he is thinking and talking like a PR flack. Now I work in the entertainment industry in Los Angeles, and I can tell you that the one thing that all publicity and PR professionals want to do is control the message of the product. This is fine when your message revolves around some piece of fluffy entertainment. It simply won't work when the ideas (evolution, creationism, etc.) are larger than your product.
It is naive to think that the science community should react according to some "best practices" PR plan. The world ain't like that, and the idea of evolution has been around long enough and is supported by enough scientists that you are going to see a diversity of reaction.
And this is a good thing. Science is NOT monolithic and its response to attacks like Expelled shouldn't be as well.
Randy's comments about 'not talking if you have nothing to sell' is short-sighted and simplistic. We're selling the general concept of the scientific method and specific idea of evolution, and I am willing to bet a lot of people got a pretty good education about both topics due to diverse reaction of the science community on the 'net and in print.
Posted by: semi | May 23, 2008 11:24 AM
It's kinda odd, considering that Flock of Dodos made fun of evolutionary scientists as being too nerdy, which I took to mean "calm and scientific." Olson presented the creationist wackos as the kind of folks you'd want to have a beer with (he literally had a beer with one of them) and scientists as wine-drinking pedants who didn't seem to be excited enough about their science to bother engaging anyone about it. Now PZ gets "engaged," and Olson doesn't like that either?
Posted by: Archaeopteryx | May 23, 2008 11:25 AM
If anyone thinks Randy is a great judge of these matters, note what he wrote on Pharyngula soon after Expelled was announced:
I called bullshit on him then, and no, he didn't like me, and others who did the same. So what? He was almost entirely wrong in that post.
So they spent some money? They're really a clueless mess, with little cleverness seen throughout. "Bad to the bone" and Ben pretending to be a rebel were funny, but not in the way that they wished.
It was not a powerful piece of mass communication, it was a series of blunders.
You'd think after that predictive failure that Randy would learn to keep quiet, or at least to learn a bit more before he opens his maw.
But no, he's still acting like he's an expert, when thus far his expertise in predicting success vs. failure has been in telling it like it isn't.
He's done some good things, so I don't want to simply dump on him. Predicting how Expelled would do, and the effects of PR, however, have not been part of his successes.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 23, 2008 11:26 AM
The example of Gordon Ramsey is interesting.
Here in the UK he has a TV program where he visits restaurants that are failing and attempts to get them thriving. He does not hold back in his criticism of what is wrong and the staff and/or owners often get upset. If we were to accept the Mooney/Nisbett/Olson line on this we would conclude that Ramsey now had no chance of turning the restaurant around, having alienated those he is trying to influence. What follows shows us why the Mooney/Nisbett/Olson argument is flawed. Those who have been criticised in the show often sulk for a bit, but then they tend to get their act together, realise Ramsey knows a thing or two about running restaurants and cooking and take his ideas on board. There are a few times when he fails to get through, and the restaurant closes. But in most cases it starts making a profit. Yes he is rude, far ruder than Dawkins or PZ are when dealing with creationists. It seems to work though. I do wish the likes of Nisbett and Mooney would see the program to get it in their heads there is nothing wrong with robust criticism.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 23, 2008 11:26 AM
I want to be sympathetic to Olson's point of view here, mostly because I do wish there were some great science movies and culture out there.
But I really don't see his point. I don't see how Expelled could have done any WORSE than it did, given how much money they put behind it, given their subsidizing of their own tickets, given just how much money they put into promotion (far far and away more money than Olson ever had to promote his own movie), given on how many screens it opened.
And the real measure of success here is not whether the film did decently for a documentary. It's whether it had any cultural or political or educational effect. I don't see much evidence of that, and Olson hasn't provided any.
So we're back to where we started: some of the anti-evolutionary dudes have a lot of money, and they can throw it around from time to time to try and make a big splash. They made a big-name film with tons of promotion, and did okay for a documentary of that scale. But there's still no evidence that they made a return on their investment, or that they had the desired effect of sparking a movement behind their position.
Posted by: Bad | May 23, 2008 11:28 AM
This makes me think of those blurbs on the side of Vitamin Water. One of the flavors has a tirade against scientists getting grants, and calls them nerds and says they never get jokes. I wonder if anyone else has seen that one. That was the last time I bought a Vitamin Water. It has as much sugar as a can of Coca-Cola.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 23, 2008 11:29 AM
I have no illusions that I'm a charming fellow, but in my public talks you may have noticed that everyone complains that I don't breathe fire or eviscerate any creationists on the podium.
Maybe you do harbor some illusions about your charm. I mean, I actually think you are a charming fellow. You probably just deal with too many rabid religious freaks to appreciate this. Surely I'm not alone here.
Posted by: Clayton | May 23, 2008 11:31 AM
I don't think anyone has argued that Expelled was not competently put together, with regards the quality of the footage and editing.
The Daily Mail is a competently put together newspaper in that respect. The layout is OK, there are not many typos, the stories and articles are written in decent English most of the time. None of that stops the Daily Mail from being a vile right-wing paper with a hatred of foreigners, gays, academics and anyone not white and middle-class.
Likewise Expelled is a total pile of crap with regards its content. It would seem Olson values form over content a little to much.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 23, 2008 11:32 AM
What bugged me most about Olsen in that interview is insistence that they (they the scientists) need to get out there and make their own movie, play with the same media, that he saw this coming, etc etc. It was all someone else's responsibility. Yet, he's the film maker scientist, he has the contacts, he understands the process, etc. He knows it all so while, why isn't he doing it? Or getting the ball rolling? He needs to either shut up or step up, plain and simple. Oh wait, he's just trying to sell himself, right?
Posted by: Patrick | May 23, 2008 11:33 AM
Nice job re-framing that...
Posted by: dcwp | May 23, 2008 11:33 AM
I mentioned it on Mooney's post about the podcast, but really this communication burden should be placed on communicators, not scientists. Mooney and Olsen are in a perfect position to do precisely what they're telling others to do. They know communication; they know science; they know communicators; they know scientists.
Quite frankly, it's a little depressing. So much so that I'm wondering if I spoke too soon. Maybe they're not the ones for that job.
Posted by: pough | May 23, 2008 11:34 AM
I haven't seen Flock of Dodos, but I seem to remember people complaining that it presented creationists at their rhetorical best and scientists at their personal worst. Quoth Abbie Smith,
(My shriveled, prescriptivist heart wants to add apostrophes, but my scholarship argues against it.)
PZ wrote,
That's the sort of image which evangelical parents might want to employ to convince their pre-teen children that Christianity is "cool" — same principle as "Christian rock" and church-basement coffee houses, I suppose — but you have to sell the movie to those parents first. That task requires a different set of images.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 23, 2008 11:34 AM
The movie is creationist propaganda intended to motivate the country to discuss an issue, attack science, and demean Atheists as anti-Christian Nazis. It got shown throughout the nation, made over $6 million, got discussed throughout the media, spurred legislation to promote creationism in the schools. No, I'd say it was a complete success.
A success isn't completely determined by how much profit is made but whether or not goals are achieved. Expelled had huge financial backers and like the Washington Times, it solely existed for propaganda efforts. So Olson was right on this aspect.
Posted by: Doug | May 23, 2008 11:36 AM
What we really need is someone who is fiercely likable, someone who can be admired while they're fighting for science.
Like a cross between Harrison Ford and Mr. Wizard. Someone who can act all Chuck Norris but with Bill Nye's brain. You're absolutely right. The US desperately needs a tough-acting yet smart science role-model. Know any?
Posted by: Bostonian | May 23, 2008 11:37 AM
"Like a cross between Harrison Ford and Mr. Wizard. Someone who can act all Chuck Norris but with Bill Nye's brain. You're absolutely right. The US desperately needs a tough-acting yet smart science role-model. Know any?"
I am told Abbie Smith, of ERV fame, is a kick-boxer. I would not hurt that does not look like the back-end of a bus either. :)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 23, 2008 11:41 AM
Olson on Shifting Baselines (around March 12):
I'm guessing that he said that, then the movie did better than he expected it to do. Then he had to blame someone, so he blamed the people who undermined the credibility of the film, which was necessary. Credibility is everything, and the lies of the film were well exposed on Pharyngula and in many other blogs, and eventually was splashed across a host of movie reviews.
One should remember that the NCSE and other pro-science organizations were almost certainly quite helpful in debunking the film so that film critics could write their pieces. But where did the NCSE and other pro-science organizations get their information? Well, they definitely discovered plenty on their own, yet I don't doubt for a second that they picked up a lot from the constant critiquing of what the Expelled bunch were doing, which happened a lot on the blogs.
And if Olson thinks that Dawkins' review wasn't helpful to science, he's missed how positive the little trip to Bloomington actually turned out to be.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 23, 2008 11:43 AM
Semi said: "I am willing to bet a lot of people got a pretty good education about both topics due to diverse reaction of the science community on the 'net and in print."
This is true for me at least. As a kid I was very interested in biology and genetics, but my highschool/college education took a different path. I had not done any real reading on scientific subjects in a long while(too busy, low inclination). Hearing about the movie and getting involved in a nerd fight with Joel Borofsky on Facebook really got be back into a very interesting world of liturature.
Posted by: Josh West | May 23, 2008 11:45 AM
According to IMDB.com the budget for making the film (and I'm assuming promotion goes into that) was $3.5 million.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/business
The total revenue was listed as $7.2 million. So even if we tack on an extra $1.5 million in undisclosed marketing efforts it still comes out as profitable, or at least if it didn't make money chances are it really didn't lose much.
Posted by: Doug | May 23, 2008 11:45 AM
Richard Feynman. But he's dead.
Posted by: Monte Carlo | May 23, 2008 11:47 AM
To empty theaters.
Barely covering its costs.
Where by "discussed" we mean "got fewer positive reviews than Battlefield Earth".
Legislation which has been in the works for years and which has, in one state after another, failed to be ratified.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 23, 2008 11:47 AM
That's $7.2 million in gross box-office receipts, not all of which go to the studio.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 23, 2008 11:50 AM
Because you need me, Scienceblogs! Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Friendly Agnostic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a Militant Atheist to trumpet secular humanism, brutalize creationists, and rule you like a king!
The above is done entirely cheerfully and with a respectful twinkle in the eye, (and acknowledging that PZ is not necessarily proffering himself up as a candidate) :).
Well, I'd vote for ya!
Posted by: ChrisG | May 23, 2008 11:53 AM
The example of Gordon Ramsey is interesting.
Yeah, but the metaphor only goes so far. Ramsey is honest in his criticism, and the people he criticises have an honest interest in finding out what they did wrong and correcting it. Even though Ramsey is blunt and confrontational, he's acting in a way which will improve his clents' businesses.
A scientist is equally justified in declaring a Creationist's ideas to be crap. However, the creationist has no interesting in listening to this criticism and reacting constructively. Their whole economic and ideological career is based on preserving the lack of scientific rigor of their methods. The only way they can react to honest criticism is to ramp up their dishonesty.
So you can't really hope to impress the professional creationists, you have to really play to the audience who may be watching the interplay between scientist and practitioners of pseudoscience. But then again, maybe Ramsey isn't such a bad example, because as nasty as he ever gets, you never get any idea that it's ever personal. He just really cares about food and people doing their jobs with integrity. I get the same idea from reading PZ's commentaries on psuedoscience. [substitute science for food, of course]
Posted by: Mark B | May 23, 2008 11:53 AM
What we need, realistically, is, in the primaries, an unchallenging wimp, but who after winning the office, steps forward as a champion of the truth. We all know truth cannot win an office. There is too much ignorance out there for an enlightened mind to win. A great leader today is going to have to lie to his/her constituency in order to get in office. This might require several levels of vote mongering before a candidate gets to a level of power where s/he can make a difference. This is the brutal truth of American politics.
The problem lies in the idea that after so many year of supporting the lies, the politician might forget the truth and believe the lies.
Yours,
A Stupid Person
Posted by: Ignorant Atheist | May 23, 2008 11:53 AM
You mean like the science equivalent of a Falwell or Robertson? Someone who will demonize religious people, especially minority religions like the Amish, and make pronouncements of the impending doom of civilization if continue believing without evidence; fund think-tanks to come up with ways to inject science into politics, subject politicians to a pro-science litmus test, and ask fellow scientists to aim their research at wiping from the earth all manifestations of faith and superstition?
Posted by: caynazzo | May 23, 2008 11:55 AM
Whoops, lost the <sideshowbob> tags.
Posted by: ChrisG | May 23, 2008 11:56 AM
I'd like to also note that I saw, what seemed like anyway, a million advertisements for Expelled on the Science Channel. Usually tucked in during one of their broadcasts of Cosmos. They tended to broadcast the ad every single commercial break. I also think I saw an ad for it on Investigation Discovery at one point too, during Most Evil.
Also, whoever said Neil deGrasse Tyson? I agree with it.
Posted by: Felicia | May 23, 2008 11:57 AM
t@33: the $3.5m budget does NOT include promotion. It is the production cost only.
Posted by: tony (not a vegan) | May 23, 2008 12:01 PM
Not only are you counting gross, not net, but your figures for their costs are badly off, at least according to those associated with the film:
And it could have made money, and still would have made ID smell in the eyes of the public. Of course there are buffoons who liked it, we always knew there would be. And "academic freedom" bills may have had a temporary boost from it in states wedded to ignorance, but thus far they haven't done well in the legislatures. Does anyone suppose it is unlikely that the DI's "academic freedom" bills would not have been pushed eventually, even without the film?
The movie was about convincing people, which indeed is what matters most. I can see no evidence that it convinced more than a few uncommitted dolts, at the expense of IDists being exposed once again as the charlatans that they are.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 23, 2008 12:01 PM
See my comment earlier about knowing how to read a film budget.
Gross receipts are split (roughly 50/50) so the film got only half of that money.
The producers spent $2 million on striking release prints for their opening weekend.
Do you think all those ads on TV were cheap?
Do you now want to revise your statement?
Posted by: semi | May 23, 2008 12:04 PM
"Boffins! Boffins! We need more boffins! MOAR BOFFINS! - Scientists shouldn't engage with the public except to make silly equations to shill some product to the public in the tabloids."
I think you're charming. And Dawkypoo, too. As others have already said.
Posted by: Sili | May 23, 2008 12:05 PM
There is one thing i can add to the topic... around the world
nobody cared about the movie, at last, only we scientists knew about it.
I agree too with the movie was a scam, and that so called
success was just hot air pumped with the creacionists
dirty religious money. Anyone can buy adds, but the real deal is than just the IDiots saw the movie... just thinking about normal people being compelled to believe that crap sickens me.
Anyway kicking out PZ out the movie theater was the dumbest thing to do, that destroyed all the credibility they could had
left.
Im always amazed with this fighting between real science and religion there on the states. I dont understand how that could happen today on the 21th century in a country what i supposed would be leading progress. At last the misbelieves of your huge poblation of morons doesnt influence at all the rest of the world.
PZ i really liked to see you impale a couple of IDiots on a conference... that would be awesome, breathing fire sounds just as great... what about some rays and thunder ?
*Forgive the bad grammar, im still improving my english*
Posted by: Miguel Opazo | May 23, 2008 12:05 PM
It's not by accident that fundamentalists go around provoking people with a never ending series of pointless lost causes, one right after another, from Dover, to the current crop of 'truth in education' bills, and so on.
The leaders of these efforts don't honestly expect to 'win' any of these battles. Look know further than how quickly the DI divorced itself from Dover just as soon as things escalated and actually got real..with real depositions and real trial dates.
Distilled to the essence, all that really matters is that they see themselves as engaged in battle against an enemy. In this case, the enemy is methodological naturalism (which they conflate with a godless secular culture) and the threat it represents to their group. The battle is important because it defines who are the outsiders, and having outsiders is essential to nurture the inner cohesiveness that fundamentalist groups must have to exist.
They are a bit like the reckless alpha boy wandering around the neighborhood on a lazy summer day with a pliant pack of followers. He's the one who isn't afraid to go up to a yellow jacket nest, kick it over, and excite the swarm, willy nilly the danger involved.
The act itself serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to set him apart from all of his misfit friends.
Which is precisely the whole point.
Go ahead and argue with these people. Just do so with the understanding that, through engagement, you accomplish little more than facilitating their effort to use you as the outsider foil that they exploit to define the margins of their culture:
"You see what that acerbic atheist college professor said! They are all like him! Stay away from all of them! They'll eat your babies raw! And even worse, you'll lose your Saved Soul!"
Posted by: TJM | May 23, 2008 12:06 PM
Olson's argument reminds me of all the discussion regarding whether Keith Olbermann is too opinionated whilst conveniently omitting the fact that Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly are essentially outright propagandists who are not above spreading any lie they can to further their goals.
BTW- I don't like being told that 'Olson doesn't like' us. I don't know the guy, but I doubt that he has anything personal against us. He disagrees, and that is fine. (As always, I'm happy to be proven wrong.)
Posted by: Christianjb | May 23, 2008 12:13 PM
PZ, you're taking this perseonally. You'rer taking this very, very personally. This is business.
The salient point to take away from Olson's remarks is that when you make your debut on the silver screen, you've got to entertain as well as inform. Was it Horace who said "instruct by pleasing" or was it the mighty Stagirite?
Just one thing: leave out the nude scene.
Btw, I heard you on the Austin Athiests podcast and you ruled!
Posted by: Rev. Bob "Bob" Crispen | May 23, 2008 12:14 PM
The production budget typically does not include marketing, and the film's producers have said that they spent a "multiple" of the actual production budget on marketing, so the total cost of the film is likely in the $10-12 million range at the low end.
And, as Blake notes, the box office figures are grosses. The producers will typically get only 50% or so of that.
Put it together, and the filmmakers have likely lost on the order of $6-10 million on this film. There is absolutely no doubt that this film has been a financial disaster.
I completely agree. Randy may be a nice guy and all, but what evidence do we have that he understands what's involved in making a successful theatrical release film? Did Flock of Dodos even play in any sort of wide release? Did it actually recover its costs? Why do we take him to be an expert, rather than someone who's actually made successful mass-market films?
And the notion that Expelled should be fought with another documentary that is pro-science is just absurd -- talk about tactical blinders.
Posted by: Tulse | May 23, 2008 12:19 PM
I heard the Skepticality podcast and he does have some useful pointers about how science can't exist in a vacuum separate from the unwashed masses so much anymore. In an age where the understanding of science is needed to make informed decisions for the future of our planet, this is serious business.
However I don't think that PZ suffers from these symptoms since I came to this site through the Expelled debacle, and have enjoyed his candor when dealing with these dolts. Sometimes I feel like we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs since Carl and SJG left early. PZ might have the left hook that we've been missing.
I think Olson's new film could be funny.
Posted by: Phantom hugger | May 23, 2008 12:25 PM
I am confused on how Randy defines the success of the movie, this movie has made 7 million dollar which mean what in terms of how many people saw this movie 700,000 to 1,000,000? If the average ticket price is $10, I am just guessing here... my point is compare that number to the number of people who have read the blogs, movie reviews and articles in both magazines and newspapers condemning the movie nation wide. I believe the pro-science point of view is the louder of the two in the market place of ideas.
It was just a movie and now its gone... the fight continues because the fight will never end but expelled was a dud..
Posted by: Thethyme | May 23, 2008 12:32 PM
I fear that what everyone else is calling for is the scientist as friendly, unchallenging wimp who will make the public feel safe and able to go on believing whatever nonsense they want ... when what we really need is someone to shake up the bogosity of the general public's delusions.
Sagan and Gould actually struck a good middle ground. Both were engaging and mediagenic, yet stuck to their guns. Both were effective communicators of evolution to the persuadable middle. We need more people like them.
My only exposure to PZ is through this blog, but I get the impression he's too combative to be as effective as Sagan and Gould. However, there's a place for his sort of take-no-prisoners rhetoric, too.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | May 23, 2008 12:33 PM
Watching a video of Ken Miller shows that he is an extremely effective explainer of evolutionary biology. No, not because he's Catholic or a theistic evolutionist. Those aspects do not impinge on his presentation in any way; he'd be equally effective if he were an atheist.
For some reason Americans seem to demand nastiness in Brits - Gordon Ramsay, Simon Cowell, Anne Robinson (Weakest Link). Dawkins might fit into an American conceptual box of "snide Brit" through little fault of his own. On the other hand, David Attenborough, with his good-natured and avuncular persona, didn't fit the stereotype. But for some reason Dawkins attracts anger; he certainly did in the 90s from certain brands of left wing academics.
Posted by: Colugo | May 23, 2008 12:33 PM
It's been shown on Showtime and reached a bigger audience there than in theaters. I suspect it did recover its costs and make a profit for Randy, but I don't actually know.
It's not in Expelled's league, though.
Posted by: Paul W. | May 23, 2008 12:35 PM
I nominate Gaius Baltar:
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/photos/uncategorized/baltar_1.jpg
Posted by: DaveX | May 23, 2008 12:44 PM
I second Niel deGrasse-Tyson for science czar.
Posted by: True Bob | May 23, 2008 12:44 PM
I'm getting a little tired of the endless analysis and reanalysis of how scientists portray themselves and their fields. Sagan got dumped on throughout his career, yet who here would argue that he wasn't, on the whole, one of the best spokespeople for science the last century has ever seen?
It's unfortunate, I know, but scientists are real people too. That means some of them are going to be arrogant, uncompromising, irritating, argumentative, passionate, profane, loud, and public. And occasionally, they're the kind of people one would love to have a beer with. I've done that myself, more than once.
If Randy thinks he's got a handle on making movies about science, then he should continue to do so. That'd have a far greater effect than wasting time telling others like PZ what they should and shouldn't say.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 23, 2008 12:46 PM
I cannot get my head around the idea some people think Dawkins is an unpleasant individual. I met him once, when he was giving a lecture during an British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, and I was working as a computer technician charged with making sure he has the AV equipment he needed. He was the epitome of graciousness. Anyone who has seen him in "The Root of All Evil" will surely have picked that up as well. Not many of us good stand next to Ted Haggard and be as civil as Dawkins was.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 23, 2008 12:46 PM
Bottom line: There needs to be an Evolution documentary.
Posted by: Geoff | May 23, 2008 12:47 PM
But if these are your criteria for success, and if you don't care about how the movie was received critically, whether it made a profit, whether it appears to have changed anyone's mind, etc., then Expelled was destined to be a success from the moment its financial backers signed on. There's simply no way that a heavily marketed, big-budget (by documentary standards) film on a controversial subject wouldn't get substantial media attention, generate attention, and get viewed by a large number of "true believers."
Why do I get the feeling that if some pro-science group dropped several million dollars on a pro-evolution movie that got utterly ripped by the critics as being dishonest and unpersuasive, died out quickly in theatres, was mired in litigation, and appeared to have lost money, the same people who are "concerned" about the "success" of Expelled would be shaking their heads sadly and moaning about the failure of this pro-evolution movie being another example of how "our side" doesn't know how to communicate?
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 23, 2008 12:47 PM
I nominate Gaius Baltar
So you're in favour of a leader that talks to entities in his head?
Why wouldn't we all just convert to Catholicism then?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 23, 2008 12:48 PM
carnazzo @ 15: Did it ever occur to Olsen it's not so much that biologists have a problem explaining evolutionary theory to the public--any more than physicists have a "problem" getting across atomic physics or physicians body mass index--but that numerous religious sects have a great big honking problem with...wait for it...DARWINISM?
A good point. But we're never going to win unless evolution is accepted by at least a plurality (40%) or the population. Anti-evolutionists aren't likely to just up and realize the error of their ways. We're not winning because we don't have an effective communication strategy.
According to Olsen, scientists are double failures. First, by failing to communicate Evolutionary Theory to the masses. And second, by not recognizing the first failure as a failure, and so failing again.
I tend to agree with Olson, particularly his second point. It's not the failure to communicate, but the failure to effectively communicate that matters. Effective communication changes minds and wins votes.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | May 23, 2008 12:49 PM
It occurs to me that all this is self-regulating. Eventually objective reality will smack the faithful down. God's love will reveal itself in the form of an asteroid or a plague and faithful and atheist alike will join the fossil record.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 23, 2008 12:51 PM
I like Niel deGrasse-Tyson's enthusiasm but his humor strains into the schoolyard a bit too much for my tastes.
Sometimes his Death by Black Hole book felt like Cosmos with fart jokes.
Posted by: Phantom Hugger | May 23, 2008 12:51 PM
#61
People hate documentaries.
No, there needs to be an evolution romantic comedy, with someone like George Clooney playing the role of Darwin
Posted by: me | May 23, 2008 12:54 PM
I respect Mr. Olson, but I think he's wrong - and not for the reasons he talks about.
In any conflict, be it war or philosophy, you join the conflict with the tools you have, not the tools you wish you had.
We should have had our own movie? Great. I think so too! But we didn't. That doesn't mean we give Creationists a free pass. It only means we work with what we have - which in my opinion is still nothing to sneeze at.
Posted by: Calladus | May 23, 2008 12:54 PM
So why aren't all those who are capable of recognising that science hasn't been effectively communicated going out and effectively communicating science?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 23, 2008 12:55 PM
Nonsense. Just because the creationist folks made a movie does not mean that the best way to counter its effects, or creationism in general, is through a single mass-marketed film. Given that Expelled was a huge financial and critical flop, I would think that would be strong evidence against the efficacy of such an approach.
It seems that some folks are just dazzled by Hollywood -- "Look, the creationist made a real movie! With a star and everything! Man, that seems soooo cool! We should have a movie, so we don't feel like science dorks!"
Really, there are more thoughtful responses to the popular presence of creationism than just copying their ineffectual media strategy.
Posted by: Tulse | May 23, 2008 12:55 PM
"A rotten public image"?
"Enough with the negativity"?
"Don't use foul language"?
"Don't be so condescending"?
"Which of these people do I like better"?
"Read George Lakoff's book."
Another Matt Nisbet clone else saying "shut the fuck up".
So what else is new?
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 23, 2008 12:55 PM
"I tend to agree with Olson, particularly his second point. It's not the failure to communicate, but the failure to effectively communicate t