That's the contention in Dan Vergano's recent USA Today article, which Phil just blogged. Based upon the experience of writing about scientists in Hollywood for Unscientific America, let me just say of the USA Today piece...well, it's a great read, but I'm skeptical.
Don't get me wrong. Vergano does a great job highlighting a phenomenon that others have also recently noted: There appears to be a new emphasis in Hollywood on the role of science in driving plots, and on the value of having scientists as characters. This, in turn, appears to have something to do with the powerful influence of the late Michael Crichton, through Jurassic Park, ER, and so forth. So far, so good. But speaking as someone who thinks positive depictions of science in entertainment media have incredible potential to help our society grapple with scientific issues more broadly, what I don't see in a piece like Vergano's is any detailed discussion of how this new wave of Hollywood products is expected to affect audiences. I mean, if every Hollywood movie contains a scientist, but each time it's in the role of geek or a villain, does this really help change anything? Moreover, how seriously can we take this trend if Roland Emmerich--of The Day After Tomorrow fame--is its poster child? In other words, if we hope to evaluate Hollywood's apparent turn towards science, I think we need to make some fairly rigorous intellectual distinctions. Those would include answering questions like: Is all science-centered entertainment content good, no matter what? Or if not, then what do we value more, films characterized by scientific plausibility/accuracy, or featuring positively portrayed scientist-characters? Or both? I have many thoughts about all of this, but I'd like to hear what readers think.
