realistic science

Science Consulting for the Movies

vlicata — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:39:00 +0000

Science Consulting for the Movies

I recently read David Kirby's new book on science film consulting. This book is an absolute must-read for anyone even remotely or subconsciously interested in being a science consultant for the next Iron Man or Transformers, or smaller budget real-life dramas with real-life science in them. His book is both easy and interesting to read - and is filled with information. He explores the history of science-consulting, going all the way back to "Woman in the Moon" and of course the still canonical "2001: A Space Odyssey", and discusses a large number of recent examples. He does not glorify the status of the movie science consultant - on the contrary he discusses both the positives and negatives in interesting and substantial detail. He also spends a significant amount of text delving into academic/communication studies issues connected to science consulting, such as the concept of science films as "virtual witnessing technologies", and the design of as yet unknown science as exercises in "speculative modeling"...and such - and even makes these more academic sections accessible and interesting.

Kirby interviewed a large number of consultants and filmmakers for the book, and he makes it clear that the science consultant is just that: a consultant, someone who can give advice which is as often, or more often, discounted than it is utilized. He discusses the highly variable relationships with directors: some of whom hire science consultants seemingly solely for the purpose of ignoring every single piece of advice they offer, and some of whom rely heavily on science advisors to help them shape the drama, the story, the setting, and the characters. He emphasizes that there has not been a single science advisor in the history of film who has walked away from a film saying, "Ah, everything was accurate" - never, ever, ever. When the director does take accurate science seriously, the result is always a hybrid of real science and cringe-worthy gobbledygook. Probably one of Kirby's most illuminating conclusions is when he notes that scientists often think there is a tension in film-making between the story/entertainment content and the science-accuracy content. Kirby says this is a myth that lives in the minds of scientists - there is no such tension between science and entertainment: entertainment issues always win: always. When the science enhances the entertainment or story, it gets included.

But all this is not to say that Kirby, or the many science-consultants he interviewed for the book, view science-consulting as futile or from a predominantly negative perspective. Quite the contrary - he sees science consulting as an effective way to get a variety of scientific concepts into the mainstream consciousness. And while he cautions that science in the movies, for some of the reasons described above, will never be fully accurate - that scientists should count any enhancement of science accuracy in the movies as successful. The realistic picture of science consulting that Kirby paints is tremendously useful to anyone considering doing paid or pro bono science consulting. If you have any need or desire for real creative control on a project, then science consulting is probably not for you - and you'd be best off working on your own "entertainment" projects, like an increasing number of scientists are doing. If, however, you want to experience the fun of working with the talented teams of people who put together both big and small budget films, and if you want to help make the world of cinema a little more science-savvy and a little less science-cringe-worthy, then science consulting can be quite enjoyable, and sometimes lucrative. As for how to become a science consultant: according to Kirby, this often involves google-induced phone calls from producers to unsuspecting scientists, but Kirby's book also describes a number of different ways for scientists to try to purposefully get involved in this growing new form of science outreach.

vlicata Sun, 04/08/2012 - 18:39

Ape Culture and Science Culture on the Planet of the Apes

vlicata — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:47:10 +0000

Ape Culture and Science Culture on the Planet of the Apes

Even in the small theater where I saw Rise of the Planet of the Apes, it was clear that this is, to some degree, a father and son movie - there were several father and son pairs in the audience - more than I've seen in any other movie. "Yes, son, now you will see why our planet eventually will be taken over by apes." "Yes, dad, now you will see how CGI replaces this Roddy McDowell person you keep talking about."

Caution: spoilers.

Andy Serkis's Caesar and the rest of the ape-men were wonderful, as was slow build of the story. I also loved that the apes' goal was not world domination but to spend some time in the Muir Woods (although apparently this changes later in the series). The filmmakers clearly spent a lot of time getting the apes and orangutans and chimpanzees "right". I was a bit hesitant about seeing it at first since I don't like James Franco's so called "acting" (really mostly a lot of frowning) - but the ape-actors and the rest of the ensemble so overshadowed him that I barely retched at all. It was also nice that the writers and the filmmakers concentrated all of their inaccuracies into his character - somehow it seemed easier to take a bad actor playing a badly written character (and compared to Caesar, Franco's character, and the portrayal of science in the movie, seemed to have been written by a monkey).

The character of Caesar is beautifully complex and conflicted; simultaneously altruistic and cruel, understanding of group dynamics and yet with strong personal needs. We get to watch Caesar as a playful toddler and as a sulky teen - it is a wonderfully written and played part. The only "major" problem with the apes seemed to be their superpowered ability to jump through glass windows without ever being cut - it was surprising no one noticed this beneficial side effect to the drug. (It would be nice, however, to hear a primatologist's take on the characters of the apes in the film.)

Sadly, in contrast, if the filmmakers had spent even an hour googling "drug discovery" or "pharmaceutical development" they would have been able to write a less ridiculous portrayal of the scientists. A decent science advisor could have spent 2 hours with the script and made it far less embarrassing. Where to begin:

At the start of the film, Franco's scientist notices the only positive result with his drug over a five-year period, and instantly goes into a board meeting to request human trials for his drug. The writing is so bad that within a minute or two after he notes that this is the only positive result in five years, he tells his CEO that he has five years of support data (no one caught this contradiction in the script?). And here's a google search word for the writers: "FDA" - you see in this country pharmaceutical companies have to build up a multi-year case they submit to the FDA to request human trials (oh, wait, it's not just this country, there's a similar process in EVERY country). And it was wonderfully inane when Franco's character convinces the CEO of the company to restart testing in chimpanzees: something that would be carefully and critically evaluated in any real biotech company - especially since testing in primates can run into the millions, but in this movie it occurs during a walk down the hallway where the "scientist" reveals that his data, collected on his own father, is both illegal and undocumented in any way. I believe that even abused pet-shop monkeys know more about drug discovery than these screenwriters did.

While there are mounds of inanely inaccurate science details in the movie, a vast majority of them fall into one major pattern: they portray the science as long periods of total inactivity, followed by a single, sudden, spectacular result (often with no documentation) that then sparks profound action (like restarting a multi-million dollar project). For example: after 3 years of playing with Caesar at home, suddenly Franco's character has a modified viral drug that works! To some outside observers, science must actually look like this - but what most sci-fi and sci-reality movies have done recently is more accurately portray the mounds of work and data that fill those "apparent empty spaces" between the major discoveries. The screenwriters for this movie must have missed that major ongoing push in the arts.

All in all, the movie is definitely exciting, and the plot is both emotionally and "humanly" satisfying in many ways, and even with the plot reboot it effectively connects to the original series in satisfying ways, but if, as several science outreach studies have noted, the public gets a fair amount of their "science education" from popular media, then sadly, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a definitive de-evolutionary step in this process.

PS: Take a look at this really nice (and similarly themed) Planet of the Apes review over at the PsiVid blog at Scientific American.

vlicata Sun, 08/14/2011 - 06:47

Science in the Movies: Two Approaches

vlicata — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:31:33 +0000

Science in the Movies: Two Approaches

The National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences each are spearheading programs designed to get more accurate science into the movies, and they have two somewhat different approaches to this same "problem". Each presented its plan during a couple of sessions at this year's AAAS National Meeting. The National Academy of Sciences had a session on its "Science and Entertainment Exchange" program, which is celebrating its one-year anniversary. This program acts as a matchmaker service for Hollywood producers and directors, who can contact the Exchange and ask for an "expert" in some field to help with a film project. The National Science Foundation had a session that at first glance seems very similar: they are partnering with the USC Film School to create the Creative Science Studio: which pairs scientists with filmmakers to make more scientifically accurate films. Both are fantastic and long overdue efforts at tapping into the fact that much of the general public now gets its informal science education from entertainment. A number of elements in the two efforts, however, are quite different.

The Science and Entertainment Exchange has thus far largely centered on getting more plausible science into science fiction films. They acknowledge that Sci-fi is far from real science, but also acknowledge that Sci-fi films almost always contain a nugget of real science from which the fantastical non-real science is grown, and that even Sci-fi films with no accurate science in them can provide "teachable moments" - where one can discuss (with a class of students) the physics of how the Flash might really be able to stop a bullet, or what the gravity on Krypton must be like in order for Superman to have the apparent flight power he has on Earth. They also clearly understand that many people go into science because of really good science fiction, like Star Trek. The bulk of what seems to be going on so far, however, is helping filmmakers maintain some semblance of logic in their Sci-fi (which, unfortunately isn't quite the same as getting accurate science into the movies) -- although all of these efforts are highly laudable. ~~Another of their higher profile activities currently is their involvement with the show~~ In the AAAS Session they also talked about "The Big Bang Theory", which ~~again~~ they noted is a mixed bag: the show clearly has tidbits of highly accurate and sophisticated science scattered throughout it, but has also been criticized quite a bit for its very unflattering portrayal of astrophysicists.

The other effort, by NSF and USC, was just being unveiled at this year's AAAS Meeting and is called the Creative Science Studio (or CS-squared). The speakers in this session included the director Ron Howard, who is part of the collaborative, and who spoke about the preparations and hours of study he puts into films like "A Beautiful Mind," "Apollo 13", and even "Backdraft". Oddly, the moderator, upon introducing Ron also listed "Angels and Demons" among his "science films", but almost the first words out of Ron's mouth were that while he loves working with Dan Brown, that he really would never put "Angels and Demons" in such a category, even the first 8 minutes of it. The CS2 was effectively born at this session, so it doesn't have a track record yet, but their stated goals are to focus on movies about and containing real science, and to stay away from science fiction. They also state that they want to help scientists make better documentaries and better visual based teaching tools. To me, this sounds like a fabulous collaboration - and it will be very exciting to see how this effort develops.

Note: ~~Strikethroughs~~ and text in italics added after the original post, to correct and clarify the original post.

vlicata Mon, 04/05/2010 - 16:31

Categories

Education

In defense of Big Bang Theory... The unflattering portrayal isn't "astrophisicists" so much as Techers (as in Caltech). On that, it isn't all that unrealistic either ;)

On the general point... maybe some better basic science requirements in school would be the most effective approach. Not only make sure that people in film school have a clue, but also the audience.

Movie science is a thorny issue, and I'm quite torn on which is the best way to improve the representation of science in movies, mainly for two reasons:

- much of the 'problem' stems not from the representation of science, but of scientists. Rather than applying the scientific method to problems, movie scientists often just make authoritative statements without revealing their reasoning - but this doesn't happen because scriptwriters don't know better, it happens because they consciously use scientist character's authority to cover up plot holes. (i.e. the scientist character has to state "This is A! That must mean that B is the case!" not because that conclusion is really inevitable (or even logical), but because it's the easiest way to move the plot towards B.)

- is "better" science really preferable to bad science in a movie? With the Frankenstein/Godzilla class of B-movie science, there is at least little risk anyone is going to take it serious. If you strive to improve science in movies without going the full mile, you might end up spreading "almost science" - still basically wrong, but with enough of the trappings of actual science to be taken for the real thing by the audience.

FYI, the Exchange has nothing to do with The Big Bang Theory. Bill Prady and his writers found their tech consultant by chance and it's one of the best collaborations I've yet seen between Hollywood and a scientist.

And you are greatly over-simplifying what the Science & Entertainment Exchange is about. The Exchange is about much more than tech consulting. That's part of it, to be sure, but the idea is to foster creative collaborations of all kinds between scientists and Hollywood. It's not about fact-checking or finger-wagging, but of demonstrating to both scientists and the entertainment industry that each has much to learn from the other -- and getting them all in a room together so that interaction can happen naturally and real relationships can form. We also hold in-home salons, special events, screenings/panel discussions, and so forth -- anything that fosters collaboration and enhances understanding between these two incredibly smart, creative communities. I say this over and over and over again, in interviews, in talks, etc;, but somehow all anyone ever seems to take away is "They want to get accurate science in movies."

Film and TV are entertainment. Nobody wants to turn them into documentaries, least of all the Exchange. We want plausible yet inspiring stories that incorporate science (and scientists) in a fun memorable way without clubbing everyone over the head with a "message."

BTW, I'm excited about the USC/NSF program, too. I think it's a fine complement to what the Exchange is doing, building on what we've already done. Except, once again, you misunderstood the intent of that program. They are not providing technical consulting for what you describe as "movies about and containing real science, and to stay away from science fiction." That also falls under the Exchange's purview.

Anyone interested in a more thorough writeup of the Exchange's AAAS session, can find it here: http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2010/02/of-sci….

Sadly, most of the science press coverage of this session focused primarily on the talks by Jim Kakalios and Sid Perkowitz (and taking some of the latter's comments out of context). I love Sid and Jim, they always give fantastic talks, and they've been incredibly supportive of the Exchange. But hardly anyone in the science press (with a couple of exceptions) even mentioned what the Hollywood writers had to say -- it didn't fit within the pre-existing "frame", I guess. That's also part of what we're trying to change.

Corrected link (without the period):
http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/cocktail_party_physics/2010/02/of-sci…

Hi Jennifer,

I'm glad you commented. I certainly don't want to "diss" on the Science and Entertainment Exchange. As I said in the post I think it and the CS2 are both "fantasitic and long overdue efforts". But I would have to say that based on your comments that the Exchange does a very poor job of presenting themselves. I saw the presentations at both the 2009 and 2010 AAAS meetings, and in both meetings all anyone talked about for the entire time was Sci-fi films and helping them be more "consistent" with their science. One talk in 2009 presented "getting a Kimwipe box on the set in Jurassic Park" as a key accomplishment for accuracy. In 2010, you yourself spent part of your introduction talking about the "Big Bang Theory" which is why I got the impression the Exchange was involved (and you even noted that the portrayal of astrophysicists on "Big Bang Theory" is problematic, which I thought was a really nice point in your talk). And Sid Perkowitz's talk (both times) focused almost exclusively on Sci-Fi, and now adding Jim Kakalios talk on superhero science, and the producers of "Heroes" in 2010 -- well, I'm sorry, but you really very very strongly set up a super-glued association between the Exchange and "better Sci-Fi". I personally have been wantng to talk to you and Ann Merchant about how I might participate in the Exchange (I've had several science plays produced and one recently published), but each time I get close, and I go to your website, and look at the notes from the AAAS meetings, I decide that it is too much about Sci-Fi and too little about real science. I really want what you say in your comments to be true!!! But the way you guys have been portraying yourself, and the projects you've interfaced with, and the speakers you have at your presentations, all strongly contradict this. No matter which perception is accurate -- I still want to emphasize that even the perception I have of the Exchange's accomplishments so far still make me believe it is a "fantastic and long overdue" effort that I strongly suport -- and certainly to improve the public understanding and appreciation of science, and to make more young people want to go into science, will take lots of different approaches-- it just doesn't appear to me to be the same effort that I am involved in, or that the CS2 presented itself as wanting to become involved in.

The Exchange didn't have a session at the 2009 AAAS session, Vince -- we were barely 3 months old -- so I don't know what you're talking about on that score. We kept the 2010 session focused on the superhero theme because it was just that: a theme. Since you can't even keep straight who's doing what at which meetings -- never mind the missions of two different but complementary programs -- how can you expect me to take your critique seriously? Don't use "poor messaging/presentation" as an excuse for your faulty assumptions and poor reporting, please.

More broadly: We get a lot of requests for sci-fi because those are folks who first think to call us, and they're the most high-profile to date (and the projects coming out this year), Many of our other consulting efforts are still in development and hence we cannot legally discuss them publicly because of various non-disclosure agreements still in effect. But if you followed our blog, The X-Change Files, and read about the salons and screenings, those have decidedly NOT been science fiction. Because we very much want to convey to Hollywood that science is not just for sci-fi. I say this over and over and over again in talks, interviews and so forth, in many different ways. I just have no control over what people choose to report. And invariably, particularly with the science press (perhaps because they tend to be sci-fi fans), that's what they all hone in on.

And incidentally, if you've been wanting so badly to know more about the Exchange, why HAVEN'T you contacted us, instead of making assumptions and then not probing further? I was at the AAAS meeting, interacting with folks, for three whole days. You could have approached me for a quick coffee at any time if you were interested in learning more.

There's no need to become involved with the Exchange if you don't feel it jibes with your interests. The CS2 program very much needs the support of scientists, too, and there's plenty to go around. But it bugs me that you seem to have some sort of "purity test" for the kinds of things you will become involved with. What do you mean, "real science"? It's all fiction. it's all entertainment. (Unless it's documentaries or CS2's excellent mission of bringing Hollywood filmmaking talents to bear on the atrophying field of educational films/materials.)

And frankly, if you're truly interested in reaching out to Hollywood, you can't just insist it's only on your own terms. You'll fail. If a writer or director needs you to consult on a sci-fi film or series, and you say no because you're "only" interested in working on "real science," you've just lost a tremendous opportunity to forge an ongoing relationship with that person -- a relationship that could lead to a film or TV project with your beloved "real science", and perhaps even a film version of one your plays.

Hi again Jennifer,

Yes, it looks like the 2009 session was hosted by NSF, it was called You Ought to Be in Pictures: Science as Entertainment in Movies and Television (on this page you need to scroll down to session 71, AAAS cut the individual permalinks to each session). Sorry about that, I had assumed the Exchange had something to do with it since you guys handed out flyers to everyone who entered that session. That's two things I've credited to the Exchange that it didn't do. I'm sorry that I'm not keeping straight your particular slice of the ongoing efforts, but I've gotta say, it certainly isn't easy. If I, and "invariably" the science press, and "anyone" and everyone (according to you) keep getting the same (incorrect, according to you) message, this does begin to somewhat implicate your messaging. I'm actually trying hard not to make any assumptions about the Exchange, because my assumptions want to see the Exchange as much more "pure" (i.e. about pushing for "real science" movies), and the message I keep seeing is that it simply is not. I did approach you and Ann Merchant at the 2009 meeting and you guys just handed me another Exchange flyer and said you had to run at that time. And the early apparent focus hadn't seemed to change in 2010, and seemed, as even your own linked article shows clearly, even more heavily Sci-Fi centered. I agree you cannot choose who contacts you, but you can put some up front requirements for your services. As I understand it (although please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong), this is public money from the National Academies -- you don't have to work with every Sci-Fi film that calls you, especially if the eventual efforts are only marginally more accurate science (only time will tell). Giving Hollywood some free scientist set designers might be a necessary place to start, but eventually we need to see some real improvement in the science literacy of Hollywood movies, otherwise it's just free consulting. I find it unfortunate that I've seemed to upset you, since I really am, as objectively as possible, responding to the message I've been getting about the Exchange. And even in a single session I didn't get the same message from CS2, nor have I seen the same message from the Sloan Foundation, nor from the Imagine Science Film Fest, nor even from the Sundance Institute's science centered film efforts -- all of which do seem to be pushing quite clearly for more and improved "real science" movies. I'm also sorry if I've upset you, because I do believe you are one of the most active, visible, and productive people in trying to crack the nut of the portrayal of science in the movies. Perhaps I just don't understand your particular language, and I'm sorry if I don't, but it is the message I'm getting. Like I said, however, it's going to take many approaches to eventually crack this nut.

very good