Just saw the Incredible Two-Headed Transplant again last night. Really bad movie.
Made me think about the reasoning of movie scientists. Grafting an insane killer's head onto a superhumanly strong body has drawbacks that are obvious to you and I, but not to Bruce Dern.
The other peculiar thing is that great discoveries are often considered worthy of a pardon for really illegal and unethical practices. I mean, experimenting on a healthy, but mentally handicapped man, killing a wanted lunatic, covering it up, mutilating the body, and experimenting with the head, obstructing the police investigation of the subsequent murders.
The experiment might well be a success, but what is the good doctor supposed to tell people that won't get him thrown in jail and viewed by the public as an all-around rotten guy?
Still, he maintains that when people see what he's trying to do, they'll understand.
What other examples are there of scientists who simply don't think their experiments through?
The Skanky Female Scientist in Sabretooth comes to mind...
Just about every variant on Frankenstein you can come up with...
The sweaty, tick faced scientist in BATS ("It's what we do.")
A good variant of the crazed, just doing it to do it scientist was Kevin McCarthy's character in Piranha. I think he is one of my favorite 'mad' scientist and I tip my hand to John Sayles for thinking through the releasing of Piranha into the river, which, although created by the scientist, was NOT his fault. His irony laden retort "YOU release them into the water and blame ME, incredible." is a wonderful example a good screenwriting, or smart storytelling.
Oh, and dotty old Dr. Logan in Day of the Dead. "Reward is the key, of that I am certain!"
Still, he maintains that when people see what he's trying to do, they'll understand.
What other examples are there of scientists who simply don't think their experiments through?
It's such an oft-used cliche as to make listeing them pretty impossible. Everything from creature features with run-away, mutant creations to cyborg thrillers with...um...run-away, mechanized creations.
What other examples are there of scientists who simply don't think their experiments through?
There's actually should be two categories
1) 'Scientists' who do ethically questionable things under the grounds that the means justify a greater end. In a sense they may understand the physical consequences, but be blind to or disinterested in the moral consequences. Like a scientist who is trying to build a better race of humans, and is not above a little kidnapping, and human experimentation to get the desired results.
2) 'Scientists' who are 'caught up in the moment' of what they are working on that they do not see the physical results. Like a scientist who builds a super robot without an off switch ("Eve Of Destruction") Oops! Robot's really cool, but we have a problem you hadn't thought of
Maybe I should rephrase the question. What are your favourite examples of scientists who failed to see some really obvious and dangerous flaws in their experiments?
"Deep Blue Sea" - Making sharks bigger, more aggressive and more intelligent will not end well.
Saddly there are entirely too many real life examples of scientists who don't consider the consequences of their actions or the possible ramifications. Tak for example oh nuclear scientists, The Curies killed themselves as did Openhiemer vis a vis radiation. Most forms of technology had a basis in some labratory at some point in time so the internal combustion engine, pesticides, GMOs, Toxic waste, Global warming, many forms of unique cancers unheard of prior to the 20th century and who knows what is yet to be discovered as a direct consequence of science's lack of thorough investigation. Or deliberate corporate diregard for the consequences.
I never understood why people felt they had to make up consequences to scientific efforts to illustrate the dangers. They're abundantly obvious.
Thanks for the downer, Funk E.
This Island Earth- I've never understood the point of Exitor's plan. All that work to get those scientists to his planet, where they really can't do anything to help, and the place is destroyed and he dies. It's like, "Welcome to my home. It's being torn apart. Bye-bye now.".
In many movies the scientist creates a monster or robot and expects it to immediately accept him as its master. Methinks he saw one to many cartoons where a baby animal tags along with the first person they see, thinking they're its mother.
Saddly there are entirely too many real life examples of scientists who don't consider the consequences of their actions or the possible ramifications.
It's been going on since the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel. It's human nature to ask "what will happen if I..." and quite often the answer is 'you die!' And sometimes not, and sometimes we're better off for the question. But that's the way we are, it's not the province of scientists, governments, or corporations. It's just who we are.
Yeah... as I wrote that I immediately had the counter argument in my head...
The advancement of knowledge by definition requires that one be on the edge of the unknown and as a result it is impossible to predice ALL the concequences. I don't think science is bad or anything, but boy do we stick our foot in it sometimes.
J.R. wrote:
>
> This Island Earth- I've never understood the point of
> Exitor's plan. All that work to get those scientists to his
> planet, where they really can't do anything to help, and the
Why did the Metalunans need help from human scientists? They had interstellar travel, energy weapons, the miraculous interociter, the thought transformer, an engineered servant race, a planet-wide energy shield, and devices to change the density of a living person. So, they seek help from a bunch of scientists messing around with vacuum tubes, capacitors the size of a car battery and really crude nuclear technology.
Of course, the whole Metalunan thing was made up for the movie. The whole original story (can't remember the title) was about Meecham figuring out the interociter, and coming to realize that it was a sophisticated test. The story ended with him leaving to join the mysterious group of scientists. It made more sense than the movie.
Sorry to jump to the head of the line but I really just wanted to reply in relation to this particular movie -- there's another point that's even wackier that I've never figured out -- supposedly the Bruce Dern character is actualy FOND of the retarded guy -- so why would he WANT to graft the head of a homicidal maniac onto his shoulders? Is it supposed to HELP him? They don't even TRY to reconcile that one!
>The whole original story (can't remember the title)
The Alien Machine by Raymond F. Jones. (I looked it up)
"Just because you can do something, does not necessarily mean that you should."
Wish I could remember where that came from, since it seems to me that I am only parroting the idea. Still, paying attention to that little sentence would save many movie scientists from lots of pain.
>Wish I could remember where that came from,
Jeff Goldblum said something similar in Jurassic Park. I believe the line was "Your scientists were so concerned with whether they could do it that they never stopped to consider if they SHOULD do it"
I think it was also used in LOTR
A.I.:
"They built us too smart, too quick and too many."