New movie with far-fetched “Big Bang” scenario released today
May 13, 2011 | 9:57 am
The Big Bang, a sci-fi particle physics inspired film, opens today.
Picture this: The abandoned underground tunnels for what would have been the world’s largest particle accelerator get taken over by a billionaire/physicist duo that plans to recreate the Big Bang and bring about the end of the world as we know it.
Sound like great movie fodder? Director Tony Krantz certainly thought so. It’s the basis of his new movie, The Big Bang, a neo-noir thriller which comes out in theatres today (view the trailer online. Caution: Not safe for work).
According to the movie synopsis, a Los Angeles private eye (Antonio Banderas) is on a hunt to find a Russian boxer’s stripper ex-girlfriend. Along the way he meets some interesting characters, including a particle physics-obsessed waitress, played by Autumn Reeser, and the folks who are intent on destroying the world. It all sounds very complicated.
Now don’t you worry, all you physicists and folks out there who appreciate good science. I see you scratching your head with a confused look on your face. And understandably so, as the particle physics scenario put forth in this movie is not feasible at all.
But is that really a bad thing?
“Well, obviously it’s not sound science,” said Jennifer Ouellette, science writer and former director of the Science & Entertainment Exchange. “People hear ‘recreate the Big Bang’ and they think ‘Explosion!’ and that’s actually a function of them not really understanding what the Big Bang was, that it happens at very tiny, small sub-atomic scales.”
Although she hasn’t seen the movie yet, she had a thing or two to say about the issue of mangled science in films. While serving on the Science & Entertainment Exchange, she worked to bring more accurate science to Hollywood.
You have to bear in mind that the story is first and foremost, and “any science that’s in there has to be in service to the story,” she said.
This means you can’t expect Hollywood directors to jump at the chance to provide detailed explanations for the scientific concepts put forth in the movie.
But neither can you expect them to refrain from embellishing the science, even to the point of it being completely wrong, completely… fictional (that’s why it’s called science fiction).
Some scientists fall off the rocker when they see bad science on the big screen. But Ouellette thinks we need not respond this way.
“You can sit there and shake your finger and cluck your tongue and say this is really bad for science,” she said. “Or you can say, ‘This gives us a great opportunity, we can write blog posts, we can give talks, we can show clips in our classrooms from this movie and get a good laugh and talk about why that’s not so.’”
Fanciful science found in movies can also inspire young children to explore the wonders of science as they grow up, which can lead to future scientific advances, Ouellette said.
“Science inspires sci-fi writers and movie makers, and they in turn write these futuristic, creative takes,” she explained. “Then budding young scientists see those and grow up and want to invent those devices. It’s a very nice symbiotic relationship when it works.”
Okay, but couldn’t that be accomplished by using true science? I mean, there are people out there that will walk away from this movie thinking that high-energy particle physicists are out to destroy the world.
“The bottom line is that what [movie makers] ultimately are going to care about, and what audiences care about is characters and emotional resonance and good story,” Ouellette said.
And while, yes, it would great if the science presented in movies were at least somewhat accurate (or at least didn’t make us cringe), “good science is not why we go to the movies,” she added.
Good point.
So if you’re looking for a movie that accurately portrays what high-energy particle colliders can accomplish for society, you’re going to want to pass on this one.
But if you’re looking for a neo-noir racy sci-fi thriller with some fanciful particle physics ideas mixed in, (which could lead to nerdy science talk amongst friends), then it may be worth your while!
See what others have to say about the movie here.
– Christine Herman
Symmetry Intern
Posted in Uncategorized |
5 Comments »
May 13th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
I must say I disagree with Jennifer. This is the same point we continually hear:’be grateful there is any science content at all, no matter how incorrect – sure doesn’t it give us something to discuss’. It seems to me that here are several assumptions here that should be examined:
1. Where is the law that says it is more difficult to portray science that is correct rather than flagrantly incorrect?
2. If movie directors insist on using incorrect science, is this better than none at all? Is it a given that misinformation is better than no information?
3. Historical movies that are laughably inaccurate don’t tend to do well. If movie directors can work to that constraint, why not to reasonable science constraints?
It seems to me that scientists should stand up for science
May 17th, 2011 at 10:29 am
I think the seeds for movies like this are planted in directors minds when they see attention grabbing headlines in publications. Headlines that state “Physicists will recreate Big Bang” not to mention the attempted lawsuit to prevent the collider from starting up at CERN, over concerns about the possible formation of Black Holes or Strange Matter.
I have noticed people will read the headline and not the content of the article, and draw up their own conclusions from the title. Science communicators eager to have people read their article are guilty of overstating the headline to grab a readers attention, not realizing the reader may not read the article which in many cases bears little. resemblance to the sensational title.
Most Science writers do a very good job at communicating Science to the public. Others overstate. Perhaps a very good Science writer out there could take the time to write an article for the public about how to “read” a
Science article, how to recognize the good articles from the sensational.
Recommend certain publications that produce good Science writing.
Remember, the people who read those articles also vote. Citizens who are fearful of Science because of movies like this or articles that lead a person to be confused about what is fact or fiction is most damaging at the polls, voting for representatives who also mistrust Science, who then cut funding. Sadly, I’m sure many people who watch this movie will come away believing “it could happen”…… it’s the movies, right?
May 17th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
I have to disagree as well, but more mildly. Yes, science fiction writers (I know more about the literature, both the reading and the production of it) do take some liberties, but in good science fiction they extrapolate to plausible advances and examine the effects those advances might have on societies and cultures (as embodied by really good characters in a compelling plot, ideally). They actually don’t Just. Make. Stuff. Up. Even good fantasies need to have internally consistent fantastical milieus to be considered good.
It sounds like this movie–were it a book–might not survive the “throw it across the room” test. On the other hand, if it’s got good eye candy–think “Sunshine.” Cillian Murphy. *sigh* Actual science? No. But–Cillian Murphy….
May 17th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
I tend to agree with the previous commentary
There is extremely right verb used – to portray.
The science gets portrayed not replicated or described in details in a movie or in a book. The point of sci-fi is to build a tale around some fictional scientific stuff. Here we must see clearly when the fictional theory ends and faking the fundamentals starts. Good sci-fi is perfectly accurate in both portraying and following the rules of the chosen theories.
May 28th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
I’ll have to disagree with the author here. The movie was specifically titled “The Big Bang”. Despite a cheesy action movie plot that could have easily been about any catastrophe at all, they instead chose this one, and they specifically chose to focus attention on it to the point of titling the movie after it.
If they’re going lift the concept to such lofty heights, they clearly have an agenda. My mind immediately jumps to a classic case of the fear-mongering media successfully infecting the minds of a Hollywood bent on cashing in on the hype. And I have no reason at all to endorse that. It’s worthless drivel supporting unjustified fear.