tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post6307442319297921996..comments2024-01-02T10:55:10.607-06:00Comments on Angry Astronomer: I'm not sure I like this ideaJon Voiseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11550625188837528980noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-29991050885405974412011-05-10T18:24:38.493-05:002011-05-10T18:24:38.493-05:00One of the things that i like about Star Trek is t...One of the things that i like about Star Trek is that, within the extensions to science that they have, they're more consistent than most shows. So, the suspension of disbelief isn't so difficult. And it got to be more consistent by having science advisors. Now the advisors can't save every plot, but they can reduce the pain. And, sometimes these guys end up writing their own scripts. And they're entertaining.<br><br>I've read quite a bit of Jennifer's stuff. She's not ignorant. This can only help.<br><br>Eureka moments aren't terribly interesting. Discovery is. And discovery happens by accident, by sleuthing, and so on. Even biographies can be interesting.<br><br>But let's ignore science for a second. What about music in the movies? I mean, movies with musicians in them. Was Amadeus (Mozart) accurate? Not terribly. The trouble is that Hollywood thinks that since most people are ignorant of the details of Mozart's life, that they can get away with it. But they really needed a musicologist to help keep them from driving it over the cliff. That way the music community could get behind the movie. Some writer gets an idea that's clever, but clearly wrong, a good musicologist could say, "it's wrong, but there was something just as exciting that isn't wrong..."Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03934169832326108710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-16631511828329696532008-12-05T21:46:00.000-06:002008-12-05T21:46:00.000-06:00One of the things that i like about Star Trek is t...One of the things that i like about Star Trek is that, within the extensions to science that they have, they're more consistent than most shows. So, the suspension of disbelief isn't so difficult. And it got to be more consistent by having science advisors. Now the advisors can't save every plot, but they can reduce the pain. And, sometimes these guys end up writing their own scripts. And they're entertaining.<BR/><BR/>I've read quite a bit of Jennifer's stuff. She's not ignorant. This can only help.<BR/><BR/>Eureka moments aren't terribly interesting. Discovery is. And discovery happens by accident, by sleuthing, and so on. Even biographies can be interesting.<BR/><BR/>But let's ignore science for a second. What about music in the movies? I mean, movies with musicians in them. Was Amadeus (Mozart) accurate? Not terribly. The trouble is that Hollywood thinks that since most people are ignorant of the details of Mozart's life, that they can get away with it. But they really needed a musicologist to help keep them from driving it over the cliff. That way the music community could get behind the movie. Some writer gets an idea that's clever, but clearly wrong, a good musicologist could say, "it's wrong, but there was something just as exciting that isn't wrong..."Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03934169832326108710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25327006.post-26603267178265384762008-11-20T23:09:00.000-06:002008-11-20T23:09:00.000-06:00I somewhat disagree with you on this. While Holly...I somewhat disagree with you on this. While Hollywood has done a poor job with science, if they are looking for assistance to increase their accuracy, I see no harm in providing it. <BR/><BR/>Sure they may ignore any advice given, but they do that when it comes to medicine, police work, the legal systems, etc.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, as scientists, its not enough to just provide scientific insight but also be able to understand the intricacies of plot, character, drama, and so forth.<BR/><BR/>Eric AitalaEric Aitalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04337704779304410018noreply@blogger.com