Showbits

Big Bang Theory a show about a bunch of geeks, is not shy in parading scientific celebrities before the camera. Steve Wozniak, Wil Wheaton, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have all appeared on the show, matching the stars' fictional genius with authentic brilliance.

But there's just as much intelligence behind the camera, too. While Leonard and Sheldon debate over quantum physics and incomprehensible calculations, David Saltzberg is making sure the math checks out.

As detailed online at Scientific American, this UCLA physicist isn't writing BBT scripts but is double-checking the theories and equations discussed and displayed on the set. Since the show likely attracts a high caliber of viewer, it's sensible to ensure the crew doesn't get risk their credibility by getting caught passing off unbalanced equations. Even Star Trek, with a similarly brainy crowd, had its science and continuity checkers — though its futuristic setting allowed them to get away with more fantastic postulations. When asked how the Heisenberg compensators worked, Star Trek technical expert Michael Okuda famously replied, "It works very well, thank you,"

What I found most interesting in the SciAm piece was this passage:

There are parallels between Saltzberg's day job and his side job, he says, adding that "comedy is an experimental science." The show is taped in front of a live studio audience. If the audience doesn't respond to a laugh line, the writers immediately rework the script to make it work.

I knew the show to not use a laugh track, but I didn't realize that live shows could be so fluid in their scripts. To redo a line or scene while changing more than the delivery sounds more akin to improv, a talent very different from traditional acting.

But in the end, it's worth it — because is there any subject funnier than physics?

Star Trek has long been known for its technobabble — a quantum fissure ruptures space-time and is sealed by reversing the polarity and emitting a tachyon pulse from the deflector dish — but occasionally, its cast is concerned by dilemmas as low-tech as the equipment used to make the show. This was especially true of TOS, which once pitted Captain James T. Kirk against a slow-moving lizardman:

A cannon fashioned from bamboo, charcoal, sulfur, and diamonds? That's simply not feasible… or is it? The Discovery Channel's cult favorite, Mythbusters, tackles this classic scenario next Monday, December 28, at 9 PM. Here's a preview:

Poor Gorn. The lizardman had only the best of intentions:

For more of Captain Kirk's ham-fisted battle strategies, check out the independent film, The Kirkie.

(Hat tips to Dayton Ward, SCI FI Wire, and SciFi Diner Podcast)

Summer is a popular season not just for blockbuster films, but also for highly technical ones. Last year featured Batman and Iron Man, and their associated gadgetry, while the previous summer marked the 25th anniversary of Tron. My employer's sister publication, PC World, recently capitalized on this seasonal trend with an article blandly titled "Five movies starring computers". Showbits contributor and former co-worker GeneD. and I felt we could could compile our intimate knowledge of the genre into something better than a brief and unthematic list of 20-year-old movies. Since our outlet would be Computerworld — "The voice of IT management" — we chose a correspondingly relevant thesis: how sci-fi movies predict the development of technology, and whether reality is approaching or diverging from that future. We further categorized our topic into six specific kinds of technology: artificial intelligence; genetic engineering; virtual reality; cybersecurity; surveillance; and military.

GeneD. and I each tackled three of the six sections (can you tell which are mine?). We collaborated on the introduction and conclusion, I arranged it all into a cohesive whole, and editors Val and Barbara applied some insightful packaging, including the "At the movies/In reality" contrast. GeneD. and I are both pretty pleased with the final article, "Do sci-fi films get advanced tech right?", feeling it hits upon a variety of significant sci-fi films without requiring a previous knowledge of the more esoteric ones.

Though the article and the new Star Trek movie came out the same day, our piece isn't really about the science of Star Trek. Unfortunately, the flood of such analyses timed to coincide with the film's release made it difficult for our story to stand out. But if those are your druthers, there are plenty of great articles that focus specifically on Gene Roddenberry's pseudoscience, including "4 Star Trek technologies that are almost here (and 3 that are really far off)", as well as Phil Plait's review of the scientific accuracy of the new film.

If you like science fiction and technology, I think you'll enjoy our Computerworld article. What other genres of films (such as James Bond and his gadgets) or science (like space exploration) do you think would make for a similarly interesting read? Point us in the direction of our next article, and we'll see what we can do!

The 20th century witnessed some horrific acts, the consequences of which are felt to this day. Perhaps the most significant was the Manhattan Project, which, under the direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer, developed the atomic bomb that was later used against Japan, bringing an end to World War II. Whether science was used that day for good or evil, to preserve life or end it, is something to be considered by all humanity — but perhaps no more concretely than by the scientists responsible for creating the bomb.

Scientific American's Science Talk podcast recently attended a presentation by five surviving scientists who were assigned to Los Alamos. Their musings are more anecdotal than introspective, which disappointed me, as I would've preferred the historical gathering be used to preserve insights of greater import. But not being a history buff, I may've overlooked earlier opportunities these figures had to expound on such matters.

A less direct but more dramatic interpretation of their works has recently been performed as the opera Doctor Atomic. Not a lighthearted musical, this production is a serious and fully sung artistic rendition of the month leading up to July 15th, 1945, the day the first atomic bomb was detonated in what was known as the Trinity test. The full three-and-a-half-hour performance has concluded its run at the New York Metropolitan Opera and is currently playing at the London Coliseum through March 20th. A filmed recording of the live production aired on PBS in December and will likely be available on home video before too long. Here's a trailer:

Taken as a dramatic narrative, I'm surprised by how good a fit this story is to this medium. As the Scientific American host put it, "… this moment in history is really so suitable for an opera because it's almost… Wagnerian in this intent… These people are trying to work together to create this doomsday weapon. It's almost like a fictional story." I hope the opera does these men justice, and I look forward to seeing and judging it for myself. In the meantime, the only related DVD release thus far is Wonders Are Many: The Making of Doctor Atomic. Check it out, as well as the aforementioned podcast, which also interviews Patricia Steiner, a mezzo-soprano with the Metropolitan Opera Chorus who performed in the domestic production.

While hosting some out-of-town friends last weekend, I tried to get us into the Boston Museum of Science's IMAX theater. It was sold out, which isn't all that great a shame — the movie we were going to see, Roving Mars, has been on DVD for almost two years anyway. But it did remind me that I'd previously downloaded an episode of the MoS podcast titled "Inventing the Movies" (iTunes), which is also the name a book by Scott Kirsner, who is interviewed in this podcast.

This 23-minute episode covers the same topic as that book: the inventors and technologies that have shaped Hollywood in the last century. I was intrigued by this insider's perspective on the effect various innovations have had on the industry. If you're of a younger generation, it may be unfathomable that the lack of VCRs and DVD players meant that movies used to be seen in theaters and nowhere else — once they were gone, they were gone. But Mr. Kirsner's book eschews that consumer impact to look instead at how movie studios viewed such developments as threats. For example, Thomas Edison discouraged the invention of a projector, preferring his kinetoscope, which allowed silent movies to be seen through a hole in a box, creating a solitary and unshared experience. Later, silent movies were seen as a quiet respite from the busy world that "talkies" would disrupt. Often, it was competition from other markets that urged Hollywood to accept change: Technicolor (named in 1915 for its inventor's alma mater, MIT) was not widely adopted until seen as a response to the widespread adoption of black-and-white television.

The threat of progress extends to more recent times as well. I was a Blockbuster Video employee at the advent of DVDs, which had massive ramifications for the industry. You may not remember that movies used to become available for consumer purchase 3-6 months after they were released to rental outlets. Back then, each VHS tape would initially retail for more than $100, which only commercial entities could afford, before being lowered to a more reasonable mass market price. Once movies moved from tape to disc, their reproduction became much cheaper, allowing for simultaneous release to both rental and consumer venues and eliminating the window of exclusivity formerly the domain of companies like Blockbuster.

What changes chafe today's film industry? Digital cameras and projectors have spotty adoption records, but neither significantly changes the movie-viewing experience. The most volatile aspect of movies appears to be in the delivery mechanism. YouTube, Hulu, and the like are, within and without copyright, bringing chunks of video to your computer; Netflix and the Microsoft Xbox bring feature-length content right to your television; and, in a less technical manner, Red Box adds cheap rentals to your grocery list.

The podcast packs much information into a short period, encompassing not only the founding moments mentioned above but also more recent milestones, such as TRON (which I've already written about extensively and the sequel to which I am eagerly anticipating) and Terminator 2. This teaser has moved the book to my short list. The complete history of Hollywood is, of course, yet to be written, as technology will never stop progressing to meet (and create) new needs. Where do you see movies going?

I subscribe to quite a few podcasts, but I consider only two to be favorites. Though neither is showbiz-related, both often intersect from the topic, as evidenced by Showbits's previous references to both Major Nelson and Scientific American.

In a timely interview, yesterday's episode of the latter's podcast (iTunes) features M. Night Shyamalan, director of The Happening, which releases today:

M. Night Shyamalan's new film, The Happening, involves an environmental backlash, the limits of reason and the beauty of math. SciAm editor George Musser discusses the film with the director. Plus, we'll test your knowledge of some recent science in the news.

It's genius for Scientific American to capitalize on this current film by giving it a science angle. The general public can always benefit from more science education, as too many theatergoers accept science fiction as science fact. Such knowledge shouldn't stop us from appreciating the artistic license Hollywood takes, as long as we recognize it at such.

For more such analysis, be sure to check out movie and television reviews of Bad Astronomy by Phil Plait, who was recently interviewed on another excellent podcast, Point of Inquiry (iTunes).