 "Photo: Ilustration by Erin Logan")
I was watching the previews for “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” the other day, trying to decide if it was worth watching the movie even though the plot is different from the book, when I had a revelation. You see, in the book, it’s not explained why food falls from the sky; it just does. In the movie, it’s the result of a scientist’s attempt to solve world hunger.
The results are the same, people running for their lives as the food gets bigger and more dangerous, but the plot change made me realize something: Hollywood gives science a bad name.
Try to come up with a movie that involves science in a positive light. It’s mighty hard to do so. Just about every movie I could think of portrays science as something sinister or, at best, comedic. Whenever science is taken seriously in a movie, it’s because something terrible will come of it.
“Jurassic Park,” “28 Days Later,” “The Island,” and any movie with giant mutant animals, even children’s movies like “Wall-E” and “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” — all show science going wrong. Whenever science is tossed in with comedy, it’s nearly always about some wacky, mad scientist on the loose, like the “Nutty Professor” or Steve Urkel in “Family Matters.”
Why is that? I can’t begin to imagine why science is such a bad thing in the minds of Hollywood filmmakers, but I suspect this is part of the reason why people in real life have a low opinion of it. Stem cell research, cloning, evolution theories, fossils; the list goes on. While some people seem to dislike these and similar topics because they have a Bible of some sort obstructing their views, I think it goes beyond religious beliefs and into pop culture.
Movies and TV bombard people with the idea that science is bad — a subject best left for comedies and bad horror movies. It’s no wonder people think evolution is laughable when the only “research” they’ve done on the subject is to watch “Encino Man.”
And who do we have fighting the fight on the good side of science in films? Indiana Jones and Lara Croft don’t count because there is no real science in those movies. That leaves us with “Star Trek” ... uh ... Donatello from “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” ... and that’s about it. You know, stuff instantly branded as “geeky.” Whenever scientists do save the day in a movie or TV show, they are the awkward, unlikable characters who will never move beyond the title of “sidekick.” Right, Velma?
What science needs to get a boost in popularity is a couple of good movies that portray it in a positive light. Everybody wanted to be a “profiler” after “The Silence of the Lambs” came out, just like everybody wanted to buy a potter’s wheel after watching “Ghost.” Same principle. If you build a blockbuster out of it, people will come. A great movie with some good science would go a long way toward encouraging kids to dream about being astronauts again.
The world would be a more productive place if people had dreams of becoming chemists instead of rappers, or histologists instead of world champion “Halo” players. But in order to make science desirable, Hollywood needs to change its tune. After all, where would they be if the movie projector had never been invented?
-Karen Ingram is a sophomore in English. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
Everyone has more respect for a smart athlete than a dumb one. I think the problem is more that kids in school hate it (I know I did, and I always got in trouble, and we rarely did anything really cool or fun or interesting), and those kids have a lot more fun playing sports and video games. I only got interested in math when I had to use it to beat my friends in a card game. I refused to learn to read until I was way behind everyone else in my grade. Everything about academics should be converted into competitive, interesting games if you want kids to get excited about it. Also, avoid making them bored at all costs, and let them meet some unsuccessful athletes and world of warcraft addicts working in crap jobs and some well-off engineers.