Yes, it’s very funny*, and awfully close to the truth as well, at least in terms of the final product. More seriously, it is worth noting that what they get wrong is the blaming of it on audiences. It is actually more about the channels (not just the Science Channel) themselves and the sort of business models they run. We, the scientists who care to, must carry on contributing where we can as well as encouraging and supporting the film-makers as much as we can. It’s not really their fault so much as the people who call the shots at the head of the money food chain. Most of the film-makers I’ve worked with on the many shows I’ve helped with (either in front of or behind the camera, or both) are passionate about the science, are keenly interested in understanding it more so as to tell the story to the public as well as they can, and are capable of doing so. They most often can’t get their shows past the people at the top who believe that the material is too inaccessible or not interesting to the public. (I’ve heard the same complaint from science journalists working in the print media too.) On the other hand, I get recognized and stopped on […] Click to continue reading this post
Sketches, Drawings, etc
- Ceiba Speciosa
- Simulated meets Real!
- Pre-Oscar Bash: Hurrah for Science at the Movies?
- Ahead of Myself…
- Coming Along Nicely, Broadly Speaking
- Today I managed to…
- Has Hubble found the Culprit?
- Sometimes there is Smoke without Fire
- LAIH Field Trip: The Natural History Museum!
- Dijkgraaf on Light
- The Visitors
- Flowers of the Sky
- In Print…!
- Experiments with Colour
- LAIH Luncheon – Ramiro Gomez