Science Behind the Scenes in Hollywood

Summer blockbusters in air-conditioned theaters are an antidote for soaring temperatures — a way to escape not just the heat, but also reality. Still, people often ask me why movies veer quite so far afield from real science, and, does it bother me? It’s easy to see the science mistakes, but what’s harder to spot is the huge amount of time that often goes on behind the scenes to bring science into filmmaking and television.

Hollywood has always been mostly made of imagination, with facts serving less as gospel and more as anchors to keep the story moving. Blockbusters, after all, are a form of entertainment, and sometimes good science doesn’t play well on screen. For example, there are no sound waves in space, so a passing spaceship wouldn’t make those deluxe sonic experiences you get from a blockbuster. If the taxpaying public gets excited by this exposure to a rocketship (even a fictitious one) enough to want to support funding science, then I say, good for science! Good for the public! And good for your film’s box office!

Maybe there are times when Hollywood goes too far. Talking dinosaurs pop into mind. In David A. Kirby’s excellent book, Lab Coats in Hollywood, he explains the talking dinosaurs along with many more illuminating case studies. He tells the history of the relationship between the film industry and science consultants. As you might imagine, the interaction is complicated, with hierarchies, expectations and politics that must be carefully navigated. But when it works, the result can truly be spectacular.

Watching the two cultures collaborate in Kirby’s book is fascinating, with one of my favorite parts being the idea that some scientists are shocked that the Hollywood industry is as detail-oriented as their own field. It’s great to see such tangible results, and I’m thrilled to be working in the field now myself.

In his book Kirby mentions an organization called the Science and Entertainment Exchange. Science House founder James Jorasch and I recently became futurists at the Science and Entertainment Exchange, a program of the National Academy of Sciences that connects entertainment industry professionals with top scientists and engineers to create a synergy between accurate science and engaging storylines in both film and TV programming. Since launching in November 2008, the organization has worked on over 700 films and television programs including THE AVENGERS, STAR TREK: INTO THE DARKNESS, LOST, CASTLE, BOURNE: LEGACY, THE GOOD WIFE, and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER.

"By influencing the quality and the quantity of the science featured on screens big and small, and shifting the depiction of scientists and engineers seen onscreen, we shift public perceptions and increase awareness and understanding,” said Rick Loverd, the program director for the Science and Entertainment Exchange. “The Exchange's mission is to to achieve this end by connecting cutting edge scientists, engineers, and doctors to writers, producers, directors, and actors in Hollywood in a free exchange of ideas.”

Kirby suggests that the next step for the Science and Entertainment Exchange is to help its network monetize its increasingly deep connection to Hollywood. I view the organization differently. I see it as an opportunity bureau with members who are in different circumstances and will be more so over time, as the relationship between Hollywood and science deepens.

Some of the members are consultants, others are academics. Some are being given an unexpected opportunity to deliver his or her own theories, even if they are competitive views, directly into the public imagination. Some are motivated by altruism or dazzled by proximity to Hollywood glamour. At least a few of the Science and Entertainment Exchange members, no doubt, would like to make a living contributing to the box office success of Hollywood by generating extremely engaging content that also serves to educate the public about the spirit of science, if not the factually accurate lab results of bona fide reality (whatever that is). It is up to the members to develop the business acumen to maximize those opportunities.

What We Do

At Science House, we brainstorm, just like we do with all of our clients across all industries. We then rank and prioritize the creative results and recommend a path forward. Working with Hollywood and TV clients is opening a new chapter in my career as a futurist and James’s as an inventor. What visual stories need is visual novelty, preferably a new twist on what the audience has already seen--and maybe something that’s really entirely new and surprising.

In the inventing space, this is called “novel and non-obvious.” As an inventor named on over 550 patents (568 right now, but hey, who’s counting?), James knows that you can’t get a patent unless you can prove that the technology you seek to protect is “novel and non-obvious.” This determination is based on several factors, one of which is called Prior Art. At the beginning of the inventing process, the inventor must diligently research the Prior Art of other patents and publications to see if any of them are too similar--in which case the patent is not allowed.

His years as an inventor prepared him well for the unique challenge of working for Hollywood. Sometimes you have to generate a hundred ideas to end up with one or two good ones. Ninety of them may have already been thought up, five may be technologically infeasible and three might have problems from a marketing standpoint. But the remaining one or two might be interesting or even spectacular. The goal is to generate thousands of ideas so you can filter the list down to a handful that survive the test of being effective as well as novel and non-obvious. This process also works similarly for gadgets and technologies that can be used in films, although the constraints are different.

Science House already has an extensive database of new gadgets that we call the Prop Room of Ideas. Film is a powerful way to tell the human story and drive it forward. Yes, I’d personally love to see only scientifically accurate films, but if you feel the same way, you have to realize that we’re in a very tiny minority and even we might wish Hollywood had taken the liberty of exaggerating some of it to impress us with something beautiful that we’ve never seen before, and never will again. Because it’s not real. It’s imagination that nevertheless constructs signposts, pointing us in a direction that we might be headed.

Image credit

@RitaJKing, Science House