This bad propaganda film for creationism is going to come out soon, so I can sympathize with this call to put together an honest science movie in reply. However, I have huge reservations, particularly with the idea that we need to get people who understand science to write the movie. People who understand science might very well be the worst possible people to write it; the first priority ought to be get people who understand movies to write it. Someone like, for instance, John Rogers or Randy Olson — somebody who knows the movie business and also knows the science.
Then you run into another problem: these guys are professionals. You don't go up to a pro and tell them that you've got a really important idea for a movie, could they please write it for you? For free? And, by the way, we don't have a budget or any capital lined up, we just think it's the right thing to do.
I'm afraid the place to start isn't with soliciting manuscripts from scientists — it ought to be with an idea, something more specific than simply countering some other film that's going to be a box-office flop, and getting backing so you can do it right, and do it professionally. And that means no amateurs from the ranks of scientists trying to do a job they aren't trained for.
Can you imagine if Charles Darwin were asked to write the movie of his work? It would be five hours of barnacle anatomy and pigeon breeds.
P.S. I don't mean to be discouraging, but there really is expertise in the entertainment industry, and it does not help our cause of trying to emphasize the importance of knowledge of science to be so cavalier about other people's knowledge.
- Log in to post comments
I think a better idea would be 'Sweding' Expelled.
Intriguing topic PZ...
Hey Randy,
It's funny, this really interesting film I around New Year's comes to my mind...Maybe you can elaborate?
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Flight of the Pigeons....narrated by Morgan Freeman.
David Attenborough would be the man to present/narrate it.
Gadgets Galore - Cephalopods is on BBC iPlayer at the moment which he narrates. He's fantastic and a British national treasure. Plus he's smart enough to see ID for what it is!
why would you make a response to a flop?
nothing gives the impression that they deserve to be taken seriously quite like a big-budget reply.
With the death of Arthur Clarke, folk in various spots are waxing lyrical over 2001, so maybe "five hours of barnacle anatomy and pigeon breeds" would work.
PZ, your comments regarding a film to respond to the other soon to be released work are well taken.
My hope is that the scientific community takes a pro-active approach to the IDiots film, and refutes its lies and distortions at every possible turn.
The film may turn out to be a "box office flop", but may still serve as a focal point for a renewed attack by the IDiots. Watch the letters in your local paper, pay attention to your school board meetings - the IDiots will rally, citing the film as evidence that they are being muzzled, censored and otherwise kept from teaching their version of evolution.
Barnacles and pigeons aren't the only thing in The Origin. Since everybody loves a good poopstory, maybe Chuck's research into the spreading of plantseeds by sticking to the poop on birds' feet might make for good material.
Maybe we can get Leonard Mlodinow to do a movie. I loved his book - 'Some Time With Feynman' and he used to write for Star Trek Next Generation. Though I wish Carl Sagan and Douglas Adams were still alive... a collaboration between those two would have been a galactic blockbuster.
In fact its time some did a movie on the life of Darwin! Or is one already out there?
PBS already did this. The recent episode of NOVA titled "Judgment Day" presents some of the best arguments against teaching Intelligent Design in school I've ever seen.
They cover the case in Dover, Pennsylvania where the school board first tried to force their science teachers to teach ID in school. Eventually after the teachers walked out they dropped teaching ID and instead wanted them to read a disclaimer in class rehashing the old "Evolution is just a theory" argument. The teachers refused and the lawsuit ensued.
It's a two hour special and one of the best NOVAs I've ever seen.
Dare I ask what "Sweding" means?
Ditto RayCeeYa (you beat me to it),
We don't need to reinvent the wheel -- just repackage and release the NOVA on the Dover trial as a documentary.
As PZ notes, Expelled (I presume that's what we're talking about here) is going to be a box-office flop. That will speak for itself about the film's merits, and it won't cost us science proponents a dime.
To be a philosopher of science, you must be a philosopher first. Yes, you must know your science, but philosophy must be your forte. Above all, you must understand the philosophy of science. Same with making a movie about science. You must know your science, but you must know moviemaking first and foremost. You must know movie science. This is a tall order, and there's no sense in throwing money at it if it is not well ordered to begin with.
Science is boring to the average person, and the average person is who goes to movies, on average. Battles, explosions, sex, plot twists -- that's what gets people into the theatres. A pro-science movie won't fit this criteria easily.
Not that it couldn't be done. But it needs to be done professionally, for the right reasons at the right time. As just a retort to Ben Stein, it would be a waste of time and money. We've got bigger cephalopods to film.
Isn't Charles Darwin already going to be in an upcoming movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SzwGGOttCY&feature=related
#10
There is Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which can be watched online here. It's a combination of a dramatization of Darwin's life intercut with interviews with people like Dan Dennett and Stephen Jay Gould.
I think BBC's "Earth" is a damn good start. It looks amazing, and has a lot of fantastic information. It got me up more than a few times to do additional reading about some of the topics, and galvanized me enough to try re-learning some of my old high-school biology lessons. I've been comfy enough with it lately to try teaching my 8-year-old daughter about taxonomy, and about definitions of life. Gotta say that film was a kick in the pants.
I nominate Woody Allen.
But there are already hundreds of 'reply' films!
The real problem with the idea is trying to put 'Science' up against 'ID' Well, ID is such a simple idea, that it easily fits in a smallish pamphlet. And religion is also a small idea. Sure there are many books about the bible, but in the end, there is just one medium sized book.
Science is huge! You can make an entire movie about nothing other than climate change (Thanks Al) Or an entire movie about any other topic, and just barely scratch the surface of the knowledge.
If you made a move about nothing other than the scientific method, and how it came into being and where it is now, that might be a decent story. In the end, I think it would have limited viewer ship. Preaching to the choir as it were. The reality of science is that, while it's exciting to those doing it, it can be terribly boring for those watching it. And science on the whole has no huge controversy, like the religions of the world do. Religions seem to thrive on conflict, and conflict makes a great story. Science thrives on careful unbiased observation and testing. Not terribly exciting movie stuff.
The only real option I could see would be a movie depicting every great battle religion has waged against science, and how religion had to back peddle, make excuses, then accept the science. Start with Giordano Bruno (or perhaps start with Epicurus as the narrator) and go through flat earth, geocentric earth, and all the other silly little battles, up to global warming (which I'm glad that battle with the religious is finely over, and we can get on with working on it) It could be like a series of short stories. Science shows a theory, religion decries it as false, science proves beyond reasonable doubt. Religion accepts. Rinse repeat up to ID, tell 'both sides' and end the movie with the question:
Why should this time be any different than all the rest?
Forrest Prince:
Barnacles Gone Wild?
I agree with some of the earlier posters, and have the added benefit of being a film industry professional myself. No one, except for perhaps a brief "church bus bubble," is going to go see Expelled. The movie will simply die due to indifference, and if the "trailer" that's already made the rounds is any indication, the few critics who bother to review it (and of course they won't screen it in advance for critics) will not be kind. There's no reason to think this movie is worrisome enough for the pro-science side to hurry up and get a rebuttal documentary into pre-pro.
Suffice it to say that far more people saw Judgment Day and the Evolution miniseries than will ever see Expelled, unless its producers do the inevitable thing of sending out pallet-loads of free DVDs to churches after its brief theatrical run fizzles out.
Sure, that's what the first draft would be, but after the studio got their hands on it there'd be boobies and car chases and an assassination plot involving Samuel Wilberforce.
I write science and history films for a living and the problem as i see it is that Expelled can cause a stir because it bills itself as uncovering some evilutionist conspiracy to keep down the heroic pioneers of creation science.
Our version wouldn't have the mystery or the conspiratorial edge as we would just be saying 'uh, these guys are making things up, evolution is simply correct and here's some pretty convincing evidence.' Their premise sounds so reasonable - we want to give kids a balanced education - and then they hit viewers with the whole EVIL SCIENTISTS WON'T LET THAT HAPPEN!!!
As other commenters have pointed out, there are already great films out there that knock down ID, especially around Dover, but even without them i would argue that we already have some pretty awesome films giving our side of the story. Pretty much every natural history film ever made takes evolution as read and mentions it frequently, certainly here in the UK. We already have vast libraries of beautiful films that have inspired and moved many many millions of people - if Expelled is the best they got i'm not going to lose sleep over it.
It's already being done. Sublimely.
Discovery Channel's MythBusters is the best thing going in terms of pro-science film.
They take real-world situations and develop rational hypotheses and specific experimental tests. It's all done with incredible humor and fun.
The kids love the show. I love the show. I work all day testing hypotheses in the lab, only to come home and watch it all on TV.
I had no idea what it was until my son turned me on to it over a year ago. I'm pretty sure that show is mostly why he says his favorite middle school subject is science.
He 'get's' science because of that show. He questions things and is developing a finely honed sense of skepticism because of the show.
get penn and teller to make the movie. they are big fans of science, have experience in show business, even have their own movie. they devoted an episode of "penn & teller: bullshit" to creationism. i bet they would enjoy the idea.
PBS' special First Flower is rebroadcasting on April 17. It's another wonderful show about how evolutionary science works, how and why scientists both disagree and collaborate within the field, and it's a darned entertaining romp through botany.
In addition to the ones already listed, what about Flock of Dodos? It's not specifically just evolution, but I thought it did a decent job showing what idiotic arguments the ID people make.
Really great PS, PZ. As much as "PR" is denigrated in this forum, the soft and creative skills which make for good politics and propaganda (in the noblest sense of the word)are the ones which are needed to sway the masses. Also heartened by the tip to the worth and dignity of those of us who are not cut out to be research scientists.
Shape-Shifting Armoured Hermaphrodites With Penises Longer Than Their Entire Bodies Gone Wild?
I was looking through John Rogers' old blog posts and ran across a quote that looks like it sprang from PZ himself...
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2008/01/pretty-much-turtles-all-way-down.h…
"Religion's meant to fill in the gaps of the Unknowable, not contradict the Knowable But Makes You Uncomfortable. There's a fossil record, assholes. Join the Enlightenment."
He officially gets my vote. :D
@24; I dunno, I'm getting the sinking feeling that Mythbusters is about to jump the shark. I liked the unscripted dialog and single-experiment focus of the first couple seasons; there aren't nearly as many "Science Content" warnings as I seem to remember.
At Sam Harris' forums, there is a thread about rebutting points about this movie from creationists. IT is predicted that after Expelled launches, forums at Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins - and maybe even Pharyngula comments may see an increase in traffic from IDists and Creationists using points from that movie to open debates.
In the Sam Harris thread at http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/9594/ it is suggested what "we" invite spokespeople of authority - like PZ, Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins to comment personally.
While I understand the potential pit falls of getting involved personally in a public venue, those pharyngula fans (and PZ if inclined) would be welcomed to present their own firm rebuttal points there.
Sadly there are no prizes, and not much fame to be garnered - but you may be helping fellows of reason who may be confronted by [i]straw-herrings (tm)[/i] produced by incoming Expelled traffic.
Re: Can you imagine if Charles Darwin were asked to write the movie of his work? It would be five hours of barnacle anatomy and pigeon breeds.
More likely he'd insist on filming the really interesting book first, The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Actions of Worms. It wouldn't take much to persuade Hollywood producers they could market it as a sequel to Dune.
But 'Expelled' is not about Intelligent Design, its about 'Academic Freedom' - a very different topic (or at least a very different line of attack).
Making a movie about the evidence for evolution is beside the point.
Shawn Otto, of ScienceDebate2008 is reading Terrible Lizard by Deborah Cadbury at my request. I have read the criticism of the book, but with good science advisors on the film I think it would make a good, subtle answer to Expelled because it shows the process of applying science to try to prove the metaphysical claims of creationism; and it was approached by the leading "Undergroundoogists" of the early to mid 19th century. It has a good subplot on the struggle for a scientist trying to gain entry into the closed societies of the Victorian age, it has a creationist whose may have gone mad when he realized the implications of his discoveries, and it has a villain who used vindictiveness to try to suppress or steal the discoveries and conclusions of an outsider who is actually using science.
Shawn wrote the adapted screenplay for House of Sand and Fog which won an Oscar. If he agrees to work with me on it and can find a producer who would respect the science, I think that this would be a more effective response than a "counter" documentary. It would attract the people whose worldviews are being shaped by the Expelled brand of paranoia and persecutionism.
(I realize that I am taking some risk in floating this idea on a forum so large, but this is date-stamped and would establish primacy.)
Sorry to insert ad here, but this is where I work:
http://www.tangentdigitalmedia.com/
and we do nothing but science-related media.
The one downside? We would need money, not to mention a focus, but given that, a really slick movie would result.
Personally, I think Bart's idea (although he himself seems to dislike it) of a history of scientific thinking/development of scientific methodology would be an excellent idea for a documentary film, as there would be no end to the opportunities for human-interest asides, and historical examples to illustrate major points (Clever Hans and controlling variables, Leach-treatment and falsifiability etc). Even some of the more intrinsically boring stuff, like the development of statistical analysis could be illustrated in an entertaining manner by some quick animations (such as the famous milk vs tea first experiments).
We await you word, oh cephalopod overlord!
I don't think the movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," is going to make the kind of cultural splash that some people fear (or hope) it will. Ben Stein's blog and articles in support of the film are pretty pathetic. I blogged on it: Ben Stein: Crouching theocon, hidden nit-wit, and I think all you really need is for PZ, Dawkins and others who get "interviewed" in the movie to post comments about their real views. When the traffic from IDists and Creationists using points from that movie turn up, the comments from PZ and Dawkins can be linked to.
Perhaps the film you want to see has already been created.
Last night I saw a film about E.O. Wilson: "Darwin's Natural Heir", produced by Neil Patterson. It was shown at the National Geographic Society in D.C. as part of the Environmental Film Festival. Dr. Wilson and Mr. Patterson, both present for Q&A after the film, somewhat comically overcame the disadvantage of poor hearing to give their thoughts on nature conservation generally and species preservation in particular.
It was a truly inspiring and informative film which I recommend to all. [ Spoiler: Ants. Lots of ants. ]
"But it needs to be done professionally, for the right reasons at the right time. As just a retort to Ben Stein, it would be a waste of time and money."
My feelings exactly. Why would we want to swell Ben Stein's head any more?
Some kind of time machine adventure where the guy uses science in some way to stop a future full of religious loonies. That way you can have evolution, gadgets, women in skimpy costumes, dinosaurs and religious loonies (can you imagine the poster for that!!!).
Why not make a hollywood blockbuster that gets the science right. It will get a lot more coverage than a documentary.
Even better...tv series.
As someone in the film business for 30 years, I have to say your note was very perceptive, PZ. Scientists would be pretty much a negative when it comes to writing such a film. You'll get another example of "preaching to the choir," like you do with Expelled. Of course you're talking about a feature length theatrical release. But if you look around you'll see countless examples of highly respected, loved, and watched shorter formats, especially in broadcast formats. My own personal journey into film making happened largely because I loved watching science films in schools. When so many others slept it was the highpoint of my day.
You know, maybe it's a festival that might serve your purposes, one that highlights science and reason.
Okay, whoever suggested "Barnacles Gone Wild," -- Hollywood does in fact need your talents. The rest of you, who knows.
As PZ said, the Hollywood thing is indeed very difficult and elusive. It's not as simple as, "let's make a film that does this ..." An awful lot of klunkers begin with that approach.
But that said, the real starting point is with leadeship and unity, which is something that's difficult among academics (especially scientists), but PZ and the other evolution grass roots folks (Genie Scott, Ken Miller, Barbara Forest, and others) have shown amazing ability with this. I have spent the past 5 years involved in two topics -- ocean conservation and evolution education. The former is bogged down by a terribly destructive competitive situation (environmental groups fighting each other for donor dollars) that has lead to large scale failure, while the defense of evolution, lead by those figures, has an amazing spirit of cooperation and collaboration that is responsible for the string of major victories such as Dover and Kansas.
So the bottom line is that it is entirely possible to create a piece of mass media like a movie and use it for large scale rallying of the evolution defense forces. We did this to some extent with Flock of Dodos. It would be great to do it again in a bigger and better way.
But there's also a difference between basic entertainment media and more focus agenda-driven media. PBS and National Geographic aren't going to produce any agenda-driven media. The Dover special from Nova was a factual retelling of the story, but not something to arouse and motivate the troops. That sort of media is going to have to be independently produced, and that unfortunately takes a lot of money.
The sort of money needed does exist in Hollywood. One specific example is Participant Productions, founded by Jeff Skoll, founder of E-Bay. They produced the Al Gore movie, Syrianna with George Clooney, and a number of other excellent movies that relate to issues. I contacted them recently to see if they might have any interest in a sequel to Dodos, but they said they are more focused on social issues with "action agendas."
This is a problem with the issue of evolution in general. It is seen as a little too academic/esoteric. You don't really see any Congress members who embrace the issue in a big way. So its hard to find the constituency for it.
But that's no reason to not change things. This is one of the reasons I have avidly supported the Science Debates 2008 concept. Its time for the science world to assert its own voice, and in so doing develop the ability to more clearly explain to the public why it is important to defend evolution.
And in the meanwhile, you need to develop the pitch for Barnacles Gone Wild. Best title of the year. There's an Oscar with it's name already on it somewhere.
Who is the audience? If the audience is the antiEvol crowd, you are going to have trouble getting them to pay for tickets. If the audience is the creationists, it will have to be carefully designed to counter their most popular canards in an effective way from THEIR point of view. The PBS series etc. don't do that, and so don't have the impact they could have.
It needs to be a movie about the EVIDENCE, not the EXPLANATION which they arn't ready for. It can't just be a picture of Archaeopteryx with a textual explanation that must be taken on trust of scientists which they do not have.
You have to undermine the memes that be, and the ignorance that supports them, and undermine those memes. Examples:
"Archaeopteryx is a hoax"? Demonstrate that some 7+ fossils have been found by different people.
"Archaeopteryx is a bird"? Go into details of the skeletons showing affinity with reptiles.
Make sure you have someone who used to be a creationist reviewing the thing for effectiveness.
etc.
#10: "In fact its time some did a movie on the life of Darwin! Or is one already out there?"
Well, there is the 1978 TV series The Voyage of Charles Darwin.
Otherwise I think pretty much everything David Attenborough has done is the response asked for.
You're say what, they know how to frame the issues?
*runs*
Dawkins Does The Galapagos:
"The Lava Lizard's Tale"
"The Giant Tortoise's Tale"
Re: #20
Monty Python does molluscs:
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/molluscs.htm
There are several ways to put out a positive film about evolution and science - and one good way has already been broadcast, but not released, "The Voyage of Charles Darwin" in 1978. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216517/usercomments for details.
Surely it would be relatively inexpensive to persuade the BBC to release this, or even re-edit it and update it for the upcoming Charles Darwin anniversary? Perhaps the Friends of Charles Darwin could lend a hand?
What about Joss Whedon? I believe he is an atheist, feminist writer. He could make something awesome about freedom and rationality if hollywood would let him.
Myth Busters is TV, not science.
That's the problem with the fanatics, they start with the TRU BELEEF and them attempt to put it into entertainment. As John Stewart said (and PZ hinted), "first comes the funny".
I've got a feeling that if we respond with a film of our own which demonstrates how Expelled is misleading and intelligent design is not science, most members of the public are going to start feeling like a child in a divorce. There will be two parties trying to discount each other's authority in order to garner control. It won't be pretty and the public is going to resent the ordeal and probably end up siding with whichever position makes them feel good first. I don't think we can afford the public to side with science on an every-other-weekend schedule.
My fiancee is not nearly as much of a fan of science as I am. She's what I consider to be a normal person, an average American in regards to science knowledge. When I try to convey the awe I have for the universe around us (which is too often), I often get pretty specific. From my point of view I'm just trying to give thorough explanations because that's where the beauty lies. From her point of view I'm preaching, trying to show how smart I am, and trying to give her more than she asked for. I think most people are like her and not like me (and probably you). I can spend an entire day watching science documentaries and try to pick them apart for accuracy or date them by the extent of what science knew when they were made. The public doesn't have a long attention span for science and there's no single thing that is going to change that. We have to acknowledge this is a long term problem that requires a long term solution. Right now many good things are being done. There are wonderful bloggers like PZ and others who attempt to convey good science to the public. There are videos on popular sites like YouTube.com that attempt to explain good science. We need to keep these efforts up. There is a problem though and that is that the public mostly doesn't know how to distinguish between the good science and the bad. To solve this I suggest the following:
-We need to get the public off it's addition to relying on authority as a means to judge claims. There really needs to be a movement to teach the public the pitfalls of fallacious logic. If this is done the public will fall for fallacious arguments which are at the heart of pseudoscientific and nonsense claims. In addition, we need to be more vocal against fallacious arguments that keep the public from being interested in the first place...like evolution = social Darwinism = Nazis.
-When addressing the public members of the science community need to repeat the following mantra: this is what we know, here's how we figured it out, the following resources are available for you to learn more and verify our work. The more scientists do this the less the public will trust those who don't or can't.
(.)(.)
The importance of evidence should be the theme of any answering film. "Forensic Files," CSI, and the like are fairly popular shows. Evolution should be shown as a kind of forensic exercise, one that is vastly superior to garbage like "Psychic Detectives" and other flim-flam.
Certainly answering tit-for-tat would be ridiculous, since it takes far longer to explain why their BS is wrong than it takes for them to make their superficial "case".
Juries and audiences like DNA evidence and other cool little evidences that turn the tide of accusations. Maybe show what evolution can do in a court case, and compare and contrast with what ID can do--nothing at all. Be careful not to caricature ID in the doing, try as earnestly as possible to try to make ID useful, and it'll still totally bomb.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
This is the movie that should be made. The reign of terror of fundie religious fanatics against scientists and state officials over evolution. On body counts they are way ahead. Routine, Xians in the past and fundies today have a history of settling doctrinal disputes by firing, exiling, or killing their victims.
PS I should add that a few people have contacted me with stories. Death threats are common and most do not even bother to publicize them. Not well documented info indicates that a lot more people have been fired then have been fired and made the news.
This would certainly be a long-term solution, but there's a wonderful program at Montana State dedicated to making filmmakers out of scientists and those with science backgrounds. Here's the website: http://naturefilm.montana.edu/index.php
As a former student, I can say that there are a lot of positive things coming out of this program, and if you are interested in shaping future science programming, this is one good way to get a foot in the door.
The book for the Barnacles movie has already been written: Rebecca Stott's Darwin and the Barnacle. Starring Mr Arthrobalanus! Do wonders for invertebrate cladistics and you will learn that there is more to barnacle sex than huge penises, some barnacle males are like miniature anglerfish males, reduced to little more than bags of sperm attached parasite like to females.
If the Alien franchise can take a deep sea beastie like phronema and make megabucks then surely the same can be done for barnacles?
#49 > Myth Busters is TV, not science.
http://xkcd.com/397/
You can argue that their testing is not strict enough, or that they don't always control all possible variables. It is TV, after all; they have budget and time constraints. But the fact is that they have some hypothesis and then proceed to test it, and that is most definitely science.
Actually, the thing that impresses me most is that if someone points out a major flaw in their methdology, they'll go back and do the experiment all over again. Is there _anything_ more scientific than that?
If you want a narrator to counter Mr. Stein, I'll propose Lewis Black:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g
Hell, the clip above should be counterweight enough to the vacuity of Expelled.
For those who don't know here is phronema:
http://www.sciencemadecool.com/2007/06/friday_parasite_1.html
Scale up, make black and shiny and terrestrial and you have Alien. You don't think someone *designed * it, did you?
Hat tip to the Beeb's excellent Blue Planet series, The Deep episode in particular. It also has the Dumbo Squid so is well worth watching. Available on DVD ;-)
Forrest Prince #14
Battles, explosions, sex, plot twists -- that's what gets people into the theatres. A pro-science movie won't fit this criteria easily.
Yes it will. This is the history of life in a nutshell...
Missprism #29
Shape-Shifting Armoured Hermaphrodites With Penises Longer Than Their Entire Bodies Gone Wild?
That's an oxymoron surely.
Someone has mentioned Douglas Adams. For what it's worth, Adams is exactly the kind of person we non-sciency types need for projects like this. Slight drawback: he's dead.
You may be pleased to know that the BBC is doing a followup series to Last Chance to See (with Stephen Fry, I believe); that may be more about conservation than evolution, but if it's anything like the first series, it will get a lot of people interested in biology and evolution, too -- that's how you deal with the "but Science is huge!" problem. Make the aspect you're looking at exciting enough for people to want to find out more. There is something important to learn from the old Last Chance To see; it began with the WWF sending authors to visit endangered species and write articles about them, accompanied by zoologists - one of them was impressed enough to hang on to the topic. If you want to do something like this, get professional writers to work for you; their perspective will help communicate your ideas to other nonscientists.
The question is, a movie about science, or a movie responding to the claims in Expelled?
I see potential benefits and problems with both concepts.
For a movie about evolution there are a number of different routes, but many of these have already been done as series, 1-2 hour specials, etc. Also I'm not sure that you could put together a program that could do this adequately without losing some of the audience. We still have people who think that *poof* one day a "monkey" had a funny looking baby. Americans are stupid.
As a response to Expelled there are two ways of looking at it. One is that it is a bit disgusting to dignify their movie with a response, but, it also would be good for pro-science advocates on school boards, in classrooms, etc., to have a response to the bogus claims made in Stein's movie. It could be titled, Flunked, not Expelled: How the Intelligent Design Movement Fail to Qualify as Science. I've seen topics and statements similar to that, but a case by case refutation of the claims made by Stein, including interviews of people who appeared in Expelled would be a pretty powerful tool for science education.
I agree JohnB. I caught a newish episode just recently after not having watched for a while and they were doing exactly that, going back and revisiting things after criticisms/suggestions. As you say that is the essence of good science and I agree it doesn't matter if it is not super robust, what matters is the METHOD, the IDEA and that they have ENTHUSIASM. Besides the new woman they have on is HOT.
To the person who asked, "Who is the audience?", you're asking the wrong question. The question to ask is, "What is the story?" If you tell a truly great and entertaining story, everyone will show up. That was my concern about "Expelled." Had it been a truly great and entertaining story you would have had pro-evolution folks attending (and thus supporting) it. Fortunately they took care of that concern on their own.
1) Get a budget line for $10 million or so in the NSF budget, for public education.
2) Parcel the money out to Nova, Attenborough, and so forth to let them do more of what they do on a regular basis.
If you want to generate ticket sales, call the movie either "Science Disproves Darwin?" or "Creationism Proved Correct?" to attract the fundies, and then spend the rest of the movie on experiments and demonstrations that disprove creationist claims.
This guy says he's making a movie rebuttal to Expelled:
http://360.yahoo.com/profile-ft3Y5044duiKWjG_Yo_trI8YBA--?cq=1
This is what he says about it:
Of course I have no idea of what kind of film maker he is. But it might be worthwhile for anyone interested in a movie response to contact him.
Glen D
Randy Olson wrote:
Then you might want to approach it from the point of view of where the battle, the action, is taking place; in school boards across the country. Joining a school board is something that a lot of people can do. Those are the forces you want to inspire.
The other thing to note is what is at stake, what happens when American students leave school with not just a mistaken academic/esoteric notion about the history of life on Earth, but a crippling mis-education on what science actually is.
Will it have economic consequences?
Just throwing around a few plot points.
I think science documentaries, while welcome are overdone for the science category in particular, so maybe a dramatization is in order to draw in new crowds.
Since good movies have some sense of conflict and drama maybe we should have a collection of short stories compiled into one big film.
Like an old philosopher/scientist in the near future(maybe an even older Daniel Dennett type character) telling a kid about the past great scientists and then with every story a flashback into the past.
We have a dramatic portrayal of what the Catholic Church did to Galileo.
We could touch on Albert Einstein and at the same time visit the World War 2 era and set the record straight on evolution's non-role in it.
Also a nice little slo-mo side to side shot of a Nazi belt buckle with the a yellow subtitle saying "God is with us".
We could visit ancient China and show the making of gun powder and the other stuff they invented.
We could go back to the pre-Islamic Middle East and show strides in Mathematics.
And maybe go straight back to the "beginning" showing some visual representations of the effects of the Big Bang and then fast forward to the formation of our own solar system and then a fast forward through the evolution tree until we're right back where we started with the old scientist and the kid.
and for an epic feel i think John Williams should produce the musical score for the movie.
This bad propaganda film for creationism is going to come out soon, so I can sympathize with this call to put together an honest science movie in reply.
What, as well as
* Life on Earth (1979)
* The Living Planet (1984)
* The Trials of Life (1990)
* Life in the Freezer (1993)
* The Private Life of Plants (1995)
* The Life of Birds (1998)
* The Life of Mammals (2002)
* Blue Planet
* Planet Earth
* Life in the Undergrowth (2005)
and
* Life in Cold Blood (2007)?
"Yes, but apart from all that... what has David Attenborough ever done for us?"
Randy Olson wrote:
And stories are about characters, people struggling against the odds... I see the main character as a biology teacher struggling to teach the subject.
@ 42: "Who is the audience?"
The ideal target audience is (always) the middle -- the undecided, and the decided-but-swayable. No need to preach to the choir or preach to the hardcore reality deniers. The trick is to make the message accessible, and make the audience understand that they have an interest in embracing change.
Aaron @ #50 gives a really good example of what happens when the message isn't accessible.
Randy (@66) and Norman (@69) raise good points about needing a compelling story. Human-interest angles and conflict are both eyeball-grabbers, documentaries, no matter how well done, are not as effective. Galileo's persecution has lots of costumes, drama and conflict; Carl Sagan walking into the ocean saying "billions and billions," not so much.
I guess I should also point your attention to Matthew Chapman.
He is the great great grandson of Charles Darwin and also an accomplished film writer and producer.
If anybody will do this film, he would.
http://www.matthewchapman.us/
Getting back to the NOVA special on the Dover trial...I think you could make a pretty damn good feature film out of that story. The documentary was gripping and dramatic. Plenty of interesting personal dramas, great courtroom scenes (how about Behe and that pile of books on the evolution of the immune system?), and high stakes (science education in American schools). Plus it's still an ongoing issue in our culture.
Sure, it's not "Die Hard", but neither was "Quiz Show".
You might want to show how you can use evidence to distinguish between a designed object, and a "natural" object in any such movie. Involving a forensics issue, you'd be wanting to distinguish between, say, a "naturally evolved" organism and something that a criminal has engineered to do something specific and not to the benefit of the engineered organism.
The IDists have occasionally tried to make something of the fact that we might indeed wish to identify "design" in organisms in the fight against terror, suggesting that ID would be useful for this. Of course it would not be, rather it would come up with a "positive" finding for every last organism, and would not be able to distinguish between "wild type" species which are naturally selected, and the rationally engineered organisms that terrorists would use.
Using such a theme, one could tie in people's interests in forensic evidence, current events, and the bleeding obvious fact that organisms have all of the earmarks of evolution, none of design.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Bureacratus Minimis wrote:
Don't forget, however, there have been a few documentaries that have raked in the big bucks. Moore's films do well, and then there was "March of the Penguins" which took in a surprising amount of money. Those docs are not story-less. Documentaries can tell of characters struggling against the odds too.
The problem is saying "get ___ to do it". Why should they if you won't? The real problem, from what little I know about the movie business, isn't getting people so much as knocking about putting the deal together. The production money, the distributor(s), the promotion. Al Gore's movie had the help of insiders with lots of extra money and contacts.
Otherwise it would be simple; you'd just have John Sayles write it up over a weekend. But that's the least of it.
I just emailed a link to the ATBC board to the guy that wants to make a rebuttal movie to expelled, since "Nomad" paid the ultimate price last night and sacrificed some brain cells by actually sitting through a screening of Expelled last night.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=47e1565d…
Prof. Myers might be interested in a comment by his favorite framers, Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet on the formers blog stating that he should ignore Stein and the movie Expelled, rather then comment on it on the grounds that if it is ignored, it will go away.
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/
I thought Flock of Dodos was the movie that Expelled is responding to? After all, it debunks the academic freedom claim of Expelled?
There are some very interesting ideas for movies however, who is responsible for putting science in a positive light to a general audience and who do you know who will put up the money to pay professionals to create movies that cast science in a positive light and are actually engaging to the general public?
The primary lie message of Expelled isn't that creationism and ID is true, but that creationism and ID is unjustly suppressed, right?
So isn't that blatant lie what a response should primarily address?
FW wrote:
I haven't seen the movie, but everything I've read about it indicates that your view is right. But I'd go farther, they make out ID suppression as suppression of religion itself and even drag in Nazis. Most everything Stein has written that I've read is awful. I don't think even the ID guys will be able to support it in the long term.
But even they don't claim that ID should be in science classes and in laboratories if it isn't science.
So it might be better to show what science is and what it can do, rather than to directly respond to charges of "suppression." Cut the premises, the legs, out from under ID and other pseudosciences, and ID collapses (one might not want to credit the charges too much, by directly answering them, anyhow).
Sure, most of the busloads of sheep shipped in to see the movie won't be swayed by anything. But it might do some good for those who think that where there's smoke, there's fire, for a good answering film to exist. Fighting smoke with smoke, at least for those who don't bother to watching any of the movies.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I notice that no one knows about this movie (Expelled, that is). There is literally zero buzz. It should flop.
I am just hoping that you guys (the real scientists, and the teachers of science) will keep your tongues in your mouths when the movie comes out. I know it will be difficult.
But PLEASE; don't give this movie free publicity.
You know, like Guiliani did with the Elephant Dung Virgin Mary -- I personally know about three people that saw it, but only because he had informed them that it existed.
The catholic league did the same thing for "Life of Brian" (although Monty Python was pretty well known already.) As John Cleese said, "They are making me a rich man!")
Of course, if there becomes a groundswell of support for the movie, I would even support an "answer" movie, but as of now having an answer movie would just give it free publicity.
If you want an effective movie about evolutionary biology that people will flock to see, it should be called SEX! and be nothing but an exploration of the reproductive tactics of a broad variety of plants & animals.
.
"Discourse on virtue and they pass by in droves, whistle and dance the shimmy, and you've got an audience."
Diogenes the dog
.
That's certainly a sound position, and it has been thrashed over on various forums.
Here's the Dawkin's forums' discussion about whether or not there should be a response
I think you have to sign in to see the discussion.
Glen D
I would say that making a movie as an auto-response to a shitty one made against evolution is perhaps not the best way to go. It will seem tit-for-tat, a simple reflexive action. Kinda like that idiot who made the anti-Michael Moore movie where he followed MM around to poke fun at him as some sort of response to the substance of F9/11. To me it would feel like he-said-she-said.
I say, strategize a response, and if a movie is a good answer, go for it, and get good documentary film makers to help. The key is to not fight on their turf. Plus, how many times have people here been in a social situations discussing movies, and people question the validity of something because it was in a movie? With the general emptiness of Hollywood movies where substance is concerned, a pro-evolution movie could end up moving the ball very little.
But then, there are tons of people that believe things from movies if the special effects are good enough, so what the hell, maybe it would work. I just want the response to be as thoughful and well-constructed as the subject of the defense is.
Then you've got the problem of your movie glossing over the suppression of dissent. It would be like making a movie to tell Saddam Hussein's side of the story vis-a-vis the Kurds.
It was enough to make Leni Riefenstahl envious. Brillian propaganda, "Judgment Day."
Considering who funded the project, Paul Allen....ah, crap, wait, now I'm giving you ideas.
Oh, Cowardheart has oozed in here!
Got the slightest shred of evidence for this "supression of dissent" you're talking about? Or just more whining about your fellow cultists not being rewarded for refusing to do their jobs? Have you ever had anything but lies to offer, Cowardheart?
Can't we just do what they do and protest it outside with big stupid banners and sit in circles and sing we shall overcome or something and accost people in the street to tell them not to go see this film only to have the go see it because they hadn't heard about it otherwise...oh wait...can't we just sue? Isn't that what they do all the time?
"Help help I'm being repressed."
Ah, let it flop.
Sure, take a listen to NPR's Intelligent Design and Academic Freedom
Also, if you don't agree, please respond with a link showing NPR's retraction of this story.
Thanks.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned:
http://youtube.com/user/potholer54
This guy states the science better in 80 minutes than anyone I have ever seen.
William Wallace wrote:
Panda's thumb has more posts on Sternberg than I can link.
Norman Doering, where is the NPR retraction?
And, the NPR piece is on more than just Sternberg.
Panda's Thumb is just not as reliable as NPR.
I should just add one thing. True, the movie has garnered little attention thus far, but clearly most of the promotion is going to happen a few weeks before the movie officially comes out.
Even Stein should not be discounted, even though he's not much of a celebrity. He does have access to news outlets, he's gotten an apparently undeserved reputation for being an intellectual (smart he may be, however he seems not to know much about the subjects upon which he pontificates), and it's virtually certain that they're not only going to be advertising a lot more in the near future, they'll try to get free publicity using Stein and the rest. Its very connection to ID should help to raise its profile, and controversy will be played up in order to try to pique people's interests.
Exactly what this will all do, I can't be sure. I just know that it's not going to be as quiet in about a month as it is now.
The fact is that if a response is made to Expelled, it should probably be of the kind that we might wish was made at any time, something that shows how evolution is important to understanding life and specific situations (like engineered micro-organisms, in my scenario). Evolution really ought to have its value presented to the public much more regardless of whatever movie is coming out, and if we're lucky this might be the jolt needed to make a decent case for evolution (if not necessarily with a movie).
One thing that should not be forgotten is that Attenborough is in the process of making a series on evolution to appear next year, the anniversary of Darwin's birth (IIRC). That should be good, and more or less incidentally it will be a response to Expelled (he may be making the series partly to counter anti-evolutionists, but I think not in order to answer Expelled as such).
I cannot say for sure that a movie should be produced at least partly to counter Expelled. All that we know at this time is that many more people will be aware of Expelled in the near future, and we'll need to be able to respond. Our responses might be far more specific and targeted than a movie might be, but then again it's not inconceivable that making a movie would be the right thing to do (obviously no well-done regular-length movie will be done when the movie comes out, but one might still be responsive to Expelled by coming out later.
And oh yeah, Wallace, NPR is proof of your stupid charges.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Glen Davidson wrote:
I suspect that NPR piece that William Wallace is pushing is linked to the film. You should probably be able to respond it.
Are you just trying to waste my time, Norm?
It's an old (pre-Dover) story, NPR has been criticized for tilting too much toward Sternberg, and it seems that they mostly let Sternberg, including his claims of "persecution" because people ragged on him over the paper that has been retracted.
Anyhow, as Eugenie Scott points out in the segment, he didn't lose his job or suffer official sanction, indeed, all he's whining about is that people complained about and to him.
Behe pretends that ID is akin to the Big Bang theory, and why can't ID be considered? Well, in fact it can be, and I've heard Behe himself say that. He pointed out at that time that magic (he didn't call it that) isn't allowed by science, which of course is true, mainly because it's bunk.
"Some professors who favor intelligent design are being publicly humiliated, and sometimes punished for their ideas." What, is that an honest statement from NPR? Yes they're humiliated--by hanging onto BS ideas. Punished? Is it "punishment" to be against granting tenure to a proponent of pseudoscience?
They do have one person on there who makes basically the argument that I did.
Then there's an IDEA club, and they mention the Bibles brought to their session. Then Crocker's whining that it's not allowed to question evolution. Well, everyone who's seen her garbage knows that it isn't "questioning" evolution, she was indeed teaching creationistic nonsense, just as the students say.
There's a lot of whining from students who have been ridiculed for believing nonsense. One female student is quoted complaining that a professor says that evolution is fact. My God, a professor accurately portraying the status of evolutionary theory? When will the persecution end?
Well, okay, those are basically the highlights of it. There's little wrong, except that I disagree with the particular quote mentioned above. NPR hasn't retracted it? Of course not, it's a fairly reasonable piece, though one that I think is too keen on "balance" vs. accurately portraying the situation wherein a bunch of whiners are complaining that BS isn't taken seriously in academia.
The twisted mind of Wallace is required to see the piece as "evidence for this '[suppression] of dissent'". The fact is that it is a report on the claims of the IDiots, vs. what a number of the anti-IDiocy side say in response to those charges. It does not, of course, claim that there is evidence for this purported evidence for this purpoted "[suppression] of dissent". There's nothing supporting Wallace's BS, just academics actually teaching and promoting science and a gaggle of whingeing morons, who nevertheless get to complain more than I think is warranted.
Thanks Norm, there's 15 minutes of my life wasted on Wallace's twaddle;)
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
And don't forget earthworms. They're hermaphroditic, you know. I'm sure any filmmaker worth his salt could take this and run with it. (Every movie needs a little sex, whether it strictly belongs or not. As an example I give you Angelina Jolie's role in Beowulf.)
Here's a link to some of the junk that Crocker was using:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1…
That isn't "questioning evolution" as that egregious liar was claiming, it was presenting rank religious pseudoscientific nonsense.
Of course NPR didn't have access to that hideous nonsense when it was doing the piece that Wallace linked us to. But had they been really thorough, they might at least have interviewed one or more of the students who called her on her creationism. I know, time and budgets constrain NPR, so I'm not saying that they did wrong, but I am pointing out that Crocker did get to make her claims of persecution without anyone telling what nonsense she really was teaching.
Glen D
Seconded (though I second the nomination of NOVA's "Judgment Day" too. I'm promiscuous that way.)
My daughter (11) and I agree that Adam and Jamie have the best job on the entire planet.
Glen Davidson wrote:
Do you think "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" will be anything other than exactly that same kind of twaddle? It will be another waste of time. I'm pretty sure the film does use Nazis and then Sternberg as an example of repression.
Whether you respond to it depends on many people are ignorant enough of the real story to be taken in by them.
Random, disjointed thoughts:
I guess the idea of a "counter-movie" is okay, but I would hate to see it turn out to be a "flea":
http://richarddawkins.net/article,896,Flea-Circus,RichardDawkinsnet
I find that type of thing extremely distasteful, regardless of whether or not I might agree with the content. "Don't hand your opponent the club with which to bludgeon you" is a good axiom to follow.
Why not just string together a bunch of Thunderf00t videos?
To make it explode? :o)
On a more serious note, Terrible Lizard sounds great. Can't wait for it.
And anyone who calls himself William Wallace has an inferiority complex longer than his entire body. I mean, please.
Stein is making the same pig-ignorant comments he's made before, but with the addition that since we don't know how planets stay in their orbits, intelligent design is a reasonable hypothesis. Cross-posted from Talkorigins:
Funny. When I tried to play the video embedded at the CBN, the screen would disappear. Just as well, I would have spent my time yelling at my computer.(I know this is irrational. You should her me yell when I hear dubya's voice.) And this would have been a few minutes of my life wasted on Stein's twaddle.
You didn't miss much, Janine, really.
I just don't know why it didn't work for you, though. I went back and tried again, and it's still working for me. Whether it's a matter of systems, or if you just happened to try when it was overloaded, or what, is a mystery to me.
Tell you what, it must be the Designer intervening yet again. I'm just not sure who the Designer's protecting, though, you, or the IDiots.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I am the embodiment of pure evil. Nothing that comes from a righteous source will work for me. But I am sure that it is like the Bill O'Reilly interview of Ben Stein. I was less than impressed by Stein's gasp of facts there.
Brevity being the soul of wit, the "movie" should be no longer than three minutes and preferably in the form of Tex Averyesque animation. Taking more time to rebut Expelled is really giving it more credit than it is due.
If we are talking about religious America, it's not an anti-'Academic Freedom' movie from scientists that's needed.
It's a pro-'Academic Freedom' movie from Satanists.
#109 Eric Paulsen wrote:
Wow, when you've studied the facts of that case, the NPR show seems, well, stupid.
Guy snuck in a substandard paper for a friend that was well under par for publication, got rightfully criticized by the people he worked with (well, worked around), gave up his key because they were doing construction, and stepped down from a post he was leaving anyway. Oh, and then went straight to the media yelling "help, help, I'm being oppressed!"
That about right, William Wallace?
.................
Wow, I just read a little more on the topic, and it's even worse: Hiding his peer-reviewers, then it's finally revealed that it's himself and his DI buddies! The secrecy, the cronyism, the lies, then him trying to get the DI to pony up $300000 for his "losses" from a nonpaying job. Snap.
Listen, WW, it's not "suppression" when you try to introduce woo as science and the fact-based community does not let you get away with it:
*Academic failure is the price for intellectual dishonesty and laziness*
Could you please provide a link in which NPR retracts the story.
Thanks.
DI?
Discovery Institute
Me too.
An allegation has been made that Sternberg demanded $300000 from the DI. I would like to look into this further. Please provide a reference to back up this allegation.
So, Cowardheart, is it your claim that the story (or at least your spin on it) is absolute truth, despite all evidence to the contrary, unless NPR retracts it?
Does that apply to every NPR story, or only the ones that feed your persecution complex?
Thanks for admitting that the facts of the matter are completely irrelevant to you, Cowardheart.
And we all know you'll run away from this question, Cowardheart, but where's your evidence that this "PT-Mafia" you speak of actually exists outside your own delusional paranoid fanatsies?
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't falsely accusing innocent people of criminal acts a form of libel?
Jason's either got that wrong, or mistyped; it was the Smithsonian from which Sternberg requested a $300k research grant, to be paid over a period of 3 years. The Smithsonian denied this request on the not unreasonable basis that it doesn't actually provide grants.
Phantomreader42,
I think I'm covered by Merriam-Websters.
Meanwhile, it is duly noted that you have dodged the following:
1. An allegation has been made that Sternberg demanded $300000 from the DI. I would like to look into this further. Please provide a reference to back up this allegation.
2. Please respond with a link showing NPR's retraction of this story. If you don't like NPR's story, take it up with their editorial staff.
Thanks MartinM.
So, Cowardheart, you can't provide the slightest shred of evidence for your paranoid delusions, so you resort to attributing to me an allegation that I did not make.
Since you seem to have problems with reading comprehension as well as honesty, try these questions again:
1) Is it your claim that the story (or at least your spin on it) is absolute truth, despite all evidence to the contrary, unless NPR retracts it?
2) Does that apply to every NPR story, or only the ones that feed your persecution complex?
3) Where's your evidence that this "PT-Mafia" you speak of actually exists outside your own delusional paranoid fantasies?
If you use quotation marks, please be more careful. It's the "PT-mafia", loser.
Once again, no evidence from Cowardheart. Why am I not surprised?
Off the top of my head, I can think of few things more irrelevant than the capitalization of a nonexistent organization. Is that really what's stopping you from answering such a simple question, or is it just that you're a demented fuckwit without a single functioning brain cell?
Once again:
1) Is it your claim that the story (or at least your spin on it) is absolute truth, despite all evidence to the contrary, unless NPR retracts it?
2) Does that apply to every NPR story, or only the ones that feed your persecution complex?
3) Where's your evidence that this "PT-mafia" you speak of actually exists outside your own delusional paranoid fantasies?
THere were rumours of a Darwin/Voyage/Fitzroy/Beagle film about 18 months ago from one of the smaller Universal studios, with Cathy Schulman (Crash) producing. Contacted them offering Beagle rebuild, but after a couple of replies they went quiet and no more news.
It would be helpful if screenwriters would not habitually write scientists as eccentric sociopaths.
You can get my email from my blog. Why don't we exchange personal information there. Then we can meet and see who the coward is.
What are you, four? This is fucking elementary-school bullshit. You're like the brainless playground bully who never grew up. At least this explains why you don't have even a high school level understanding of biology, your mind (and I use the term loosely) is still stuck a decade before that.
But thanks for demonstrating that you'd rather resort to macho posturing and impotent threats than answer simple questions.
Yet again, with some new content, not that I expect an answer at this point:
1) Is it your claim that the NPR story you linked to (or at least your spin on it) is absolute truth, despite all evidence to the contrary, unless NPR retracts it?
2) Does that apply to every NPR story, or only the ones that feed your persecution complex?
3) Where's your evidence that this "PT-mafia" you speak of actually exists outside your own delusional paranoid fantasies?
4) What do you think Dr. Myers "did" to get himself kicked out of the screening of your propaganda film (given that every rationale you gave for his removal has been shown to be laughably false), and where is your evidence in support of this?
5) Since when do "don't be stupid" and "don't lie through your teeth" constitute an "ideological test"?
6) Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
[ maybe the immediately prior exchange has died down by now - at least in this quiescent thread ]
Re #84 (using the biology of "sex") ... the print equivalent of this was Judson's semi-popular book Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice for All Creation. "Semi-popular": it was one of the few current science titles my humanities students regularly confessed to having read. And it's been adapted for television according to its website drtatiana.com, and this is very popular - in the rest of the Engish-speaking world and in France. But not the US, where it was judged too risqué for release.
Other film: well, for ten years the sci-fi weekly Star Gate had an overall theme of rejecting blind faith and false gods ... and no true gods were found necessary. I'm thinking it had a salutary effect in popularizing that perspective. Unfortunately the show's science was mostly as magical (i.e. nonsensical) as that found in most sci-fi.
To make it explode? :o)
On a more serious note, Terrible Lizard sounds great. Can't wait for it.
And anyone who calls himself William Wallace has an inferiority complex longer than his entire body. I mean, please.
I say just get Cosmos reruns to air, and we're pretty much done...