Why Movies Never Actually Show Science
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 тра 2018
- Watch all my videos ad-free and get exclusive content on Nebula: go.nebula.tv/thomasflight
(Signing up using my link supports my channel)
// Please consider supporting my patreon: / thomasflight
In this video I examine how some of the ideas Aldous Huxley laid out in his essay Literature and Science apply to film today.
// Research Papers Cited in the video:
"Films and Science: quantification and analysis of the use
of Science Fiction films in scientific papers"
(Luciano Guillermo Levin and Daniela De Filippo, 2014)
"The Future Is Now: Diegetic Prototypes and the Role of Popular Films in Generating Real-World Technological Development"
(David A. Kirby, 2010)
// Music licensed from Artlist (use this link to get 2 extra months for free): artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...
You can also support me and other content creators by signing up for Flattr: flattr.com/@thomasflight
// Follow Me on TWITTER: / thomasflight
// WEBSITE: www.thomasflight.com
// I edit my videos using Premiere Pro: amzn.to/2FJwU2u
// sponsorship and business inquiries: thomasflight@standard.tv
// questions, feedback, press, or anything else: contact@thomasflight.com
#VideoEssay #ThomasFlight - Фільми й анімація
What are the best examples of science in film that I didn't include?
I think an interesting one is Contact, which explores and suggests a relationship between faith and science, which are often seen to oppose each other. Has many parallels to Interstellar I believe, especially the initial attention to scientific process, which is deviated from later to add a uniquely profound curveball. The difference between these I think is that Interstellar relies on science for the fulfillment of the goals of the characters, before falling back to "love" and more theoretical/paradoxical science in order to fulfill the plot. Contact depicts the achievement of the character's goals through science, and then a curveball is thrown into the outcome of these goals, forcing the audience and characters to reinspect their desired conclusion and choose whether to view it through a different lens.
I really liked the procedural nature of Contagion. Showing the systematic work of cdc-workers faced with a global pandemic.
A.I
Moon
Pi
The killing room
The Matrix trilogy
World war Z
Gravity
The Fly
Aliens
Mr. Nobody
Solaris
Thank you for creating and sharing these brilliant contents
ARRIVAL
Gattaca
I noticed a clip of Arrival, but you didn't mention it as an example of a film about doing science-the science of language. I think it is refreshingly process-oriented in its story, and of course the hook is the revelation that the movie's human drama is intricately tied to that process, so it manages to avoid compartmentalizing the science and the emotional character arc in a novel way that perhaps could only be accomplished with this story in particular, a trait that I admire in any art.
I actually had it in the video as an example in some early drafts but ended up taking it out because it was kind of a complicated one to dissect in the midst of the video.
I agree that the movie is refreshingly process oriented, but there’s this weird thing it does where it almost tries to have a science vs. language theme (there that scene early on where Renner’s character tells her that she’s wrong “language isn’t the foundation of society, science is.”
But I agree it’s definitely one of the ones I see as at least partially bridging the gap.
Ehh... I think it’s a good depiction of _scientists_ but the actual science is glossed over in montages.
@@ThomasFlight That quote annoys me to no end... language research *is* a field of science
We should notice that these observations apply to literaly anything, not just science. Imagine: if you're making a movie with a car race, why will the core of the movie not be the technicality, the engineering of the car? Or even the technicality of how to prepare the streets? if you're making a movie about a musician, why will the core of the movie not be the technicality of the instruments? And so on. Whateaver it may be, the drama is drama and follows the rules of drama, it's core is the human condition, not the technicalities or scientific speculations. The is a problem when the core of the medium shifts and becomes something else, becomes rethorical (leaving behind the poethics as outlined since Aristotle). With regards to this aspect in films, the line between the authentique and the false is more blurred than in the other forms of art. But in literature, for instance, the differences jump from the page. If you use literary theory to evaluate Aldous Huxley (like you do with film theory in this channel), it becomes pretty clear how mediocre he was as a writter, even though he has relevance in other matters.
You win the most thoughtful comment award on this subject.
Exactly, to put it simply, most of the audience will not care about technicalities, they will care about what happens.
Wow brilliant and underrated comment
Other than some of the movies that you already mentioned in your video, my heart immediately thinks of the "square peg in a round hole" scene from Apollo 13.
I actually have been toying around with a concept similar to this for a while, I think it's clear that depictions of things in cinema gives a certain glory or romanticized feeling to what we see, it's part of why the conversation has been shifting about depicting actors smoking cigarettes for example. So I'm saddened that scientists are either just some dorky comic relief, tool for exposition, or are the bad guy in most movies. I think there's a lot of missed potential there.
Could be a good video essay topic for you in the future. =)
That "love" scene in interstellar was so frustrating to watch as an astrophysics student.
It was all good until then.
Definitely an awkward conflict of themes and plot drivers happening in that movie.
I completely agree XD If all that bullshizzle wasn't in that film, I wouldn't be ashamed as much to call it one of my all time favourites :P
I don't know why people have a problem with that moment. The way I see it, characters refer to love as a concept that surpasses space and time is just their interpretation of something we don't understand yet,, just as myth were for ancient Greeks. The movie never explicitly tells us that love really guided Cooper.
You have to think about emotions (specifically our strongest emotion "love") as a dimension, a 5th dimension, then it all makes sense.
If the logic on dimensions is based on how we connect with each other:
To meet someone physically u need all 4 dimensions: A Specific location and a specific time. But you are missing a 5th connection: the Emotional connection.
Because you can still be at the same spot at the same time and not even being aware that you are with someone specific, you need an emotional connection also to feel the other person is there with you.
If not you're just emotionless zombies bumping into each other, or feel you are talking to a wall.
But what's interesting about emotional connection is that it's not restricted or bound by the rules of the 4 other dimensions:
Cooper in the film has an emotional connection with Murph no matter her age or her location (3 dimensions), but also no matter what her age is (4th dimension).
He can talk to Murph through a video recording that neither is representing where she is at the present specific time nor location and still have a connection with her.
Emotions, and (specifically the strongest emotion: Love) is a personal connection with someone that doesn't need to exist in neither a specific time frame (like past, present or future) or a specific location (at home, far away in space).
Somehow we can also feel a connection with someone that is dead, or someone we have not met.
Now one can argue these emotions are biased and only a personal illusion, but we humans somehow can be in situations where we get to know each other as children, grow up into adulthood, meet up again, and continue our friendship as if we never were apart. That aspect of humanity can be tested.
Even after evolving into a different human being, both intelligently and physically, with that simple test we can conclude scientifically that love/emotion connection exists through both time and space, despite us not knowing how it works.
@@MarkFilipAnthony that's where ur wrong tho. Love is an emotion and emotions are not information. Everything that exists in this universe is information and emotions are not a part of it. The theory that the 5th dimension was crated because of coopers love for his daughter is simply wrong as black holes take in only information (which is why black holes dont expand on space since space is not information) and as mentioned, love is not information.
There is nothing wrong with ur movie centered around love but to say that love is greater than science like it did in this movie where dr brands lover was right choice over Martian guy and then emphasizing that science < love and the whole exploration having only because of science are conflicting. If movienstuck with either it would have been fine but ir tried to do both and it...........just didn't work.
One film which springs to mind as another good example of bridging the divide between the mundanity of 'The Andromeda Strain' and the various fantastical Hollywood depictions is 1989's 'Fat Man and Little Boy' (aka 'Shadow Makers'). It depicts the work inside the Manhattan Project to create atomic weapons during WW2 and does an impressive job of showcasing some aspects of scientific work which are often overlooked. The challenges of translating theoretical work into practical results, interdisciplinary communication, ethics of certain scientific endeavours (clearly apparent in the development of atomic weapons, but also applicable in some other fields), external pressures (such as time, government, institutions), and the egos/personal relationships of those involved are each given consideration.
As a neuropsychology student and avid cinephile, this really struck a chord with me. I hope that filmmakers like Shane Carruth continue to bridge the gap between film and science. Fantastic essay!
Hooo, boy...
Top UA-cam comment that didn't age well
Thank you for this essay, you are so right and it frustrates me to no end. One of my biggest pet peeves is movies depicting scientists as some kind of all-round knowledgable MacGyvers, instead of being highly specialized in one field. And as a neuroscientist, another thing that I find glaringly annoying is people are operating a MRI scanner and they show the colourful blobs in brain scans representing brain activity in real time.
P.S. One thing that would be an improvement upon your essay is if you could add the title and year of the movie you are discussing into the video or description, since I had to rewind and crank up the volume to accurately hear the titles.
That scene in Interstellar just so rubs me the wrong way... I just wanted to slap the film over its head and say "NO! You wanted to make me believe in you! You wanted me to take you serious! How the hell did you get to be on this mission in the first place?!"
It's the same in Gravity. Where a nervous wreak gets flown up to do multibilliondollar work and as the hardships escalate the protagonist becomes suicidally apathic... On multiple occasions.
I just have so many problems with accepting screen characters like that when the movie wants me to root for them as heroic.
Both of those movies looked terrible so i skipped them. Lucky me!
I've been interested in video essays for a while now! I didn't know if anyone was really doing them! Keep up the great work! :) Peace, JR.
A film which I think is made only for people who actually enjoy science and the scientific process is Andromeda Strain from the 70's. An almost detectice like film but that uses actual science (some of which not widely known to regular audiences) to solve the puzzle. Even though the solution is sort of simple and something real scientists would maybe have considered right off the bat, it is a great exercise I have not seen much alike on film.
One of the things that I like about Steins;Gate is that while the science in it doesn't make sese with real life science, the process the characters use to figure out the rules of time travel is showing them actually do science.
Another advantage of that is that the audience can do the science with the characters. If the characters were professional physicists doing real physics, the audience wouldn't have the background the knowledge and the story wouldn't have the time for the detail to describe the science well enough for the audience to really understand what's going on. By making the story about a fictional thing that the characters are encountering for the first time, the audience is put in their headspace and can follow along with the process of iterative tests to determine rules and think about what the rules might be. (not having them figure out anything very mathematical helps as well)
Great video essay Thomas! Enlightening
This is a great subject to discuss. Depicting scientific work is naturally difficult due to its repetitive nature and slow progression. Yet depicting characters engaged in it ought to be possible. Primer is a great example. From the top of my head there are two others . Fortitude (first season, 2015). I origins (2014).
Thank you Thomas Flight for this excellent video.
I like how you put Donny Glover in the thumbnail. Nice and topical :)
*Donny
Thanks
Danny is his father -not
Arrival! Great blend of emotion and science and making the scienctific method exhilarating.
A fantastic observation! Great video!
I love Primer, so happy it's referenced here! That movie is very good at portraying how scientists (or in their case engineers) could approach a discovery like that.
I actually interpreted Interstellar the same way that you interpreted The Fountain: that love is the motivator of the scientific act. Sure, the space in the black hole was made-up, but the idea is that Cooper's love for Murph guided him through what would have otherwise been impossible to navigate for anyone else. So when Brand says her speech about love, I didn't read it as the film directly telling me that "love is metaphysical", but rather that it is an important feeling that shouldn't be ignored. So it isn't really about emotion replacing science, but rather emotion motivating science.
But other than that, I really like that you made a video about this topic! Very interesting!
Just a thought: Star Wars is not science fiction, it's "science fantasy". Imagine Lord of
the Rings or Game of Thrones...Star Wars is the same genre and setting, but in space...
True, I would even just call it "space fantasy" because science really does not play a role in the slightest in star wars, it's kind of absurd that it is often described as science fiction
@@horstdieter10 Thank you! I actually found the correct term, and it's Space Opera - a play on the term Soap Opera xD
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera
Its not "science fantasy". it is a space opera.
@@Albanez39 oh, you already said it 😅
@@Albanez39 I never got that connection. Space opera and Soap opera are related genres but aren't directly related, they're less like a parent/child and more like siblings or cousins, both related to operatic drama. Space operas are direct descendants of pulp fiction scifi and early 20th century science fiction with an added dash of romanticism whereas Soap operas are descended from radio dramas which in turn descended from conventional theater. They both are related to operatic dramas with their melodrama and somewhat grand settings, but they both branched off in separate directions rather then one splitting from the other.
As of August 2021, barely overcoming COVID-19, this video gave me hope of future scientific heroes in fiction in order to inspire more trust in those who seek big answers in a deeply ignorant world.
I think you hit the nail on the head: stories are about people, their experiences, their relationships, and their psyches. Science or scientific concepts can be a great tool to facilitate those stories but is not interesting as an emotional story on its own.
I think a movie that incorporates science really well is The Fugitive. In the opening montage, Kimbel is called away from his soon to be murdered wife to perform some vascular surgery apparently linked toa side effect of the RDU-90 trials. Later, the dots are connected from (the break-in) Sykes to Devlin-McGregor to Provasic. Kimbel finds the falsified research (sample 1430 et al.) from Bones at Chicago Memorial, and Kathy (Jane Lynch) confirms the evidence. Like short of showing, I don't know, Richard saving someone in the control/placebo group, that's a pretty in-depth deconstruction of a drug trial. And it's essential to the motivation of several characters and it gives a framework for the larger detective story and villain misdirection.
Reminds me of Atul Gawande's books on medicine. Obviously there's no shortage of medical dramas, but there's nothing that gave me as much insight into the human side of medicine as his books.
“Last week, I operated on a woman in her forties who had a tumor in her abdomen. We opened her up and found the thing was huge. It had latched onto everything; we couldn’t get it out. So we sewed her back up, and I had to sit down and explain to her that this was, well, it was the end of the line. At the end of this conversation, she just sat there looking at her belly. There was our incision, which had been no good whatsoever. And she asked me, “Did you do that?’ And I said, “Yeah, I did.’ And she said, “It’s beautiful.’”
i wonder if it's even possible to make a decent film about null hypotheses
Wow. You are very smart.
Thanks for sharing.
As a Biochemist myself, i think the main problem of writers/filmmakers with science in fiction, is that they think of it as a plot device, a mcguffin, or even worse; a constrain to some idea or concept that they want to write or show. So they go don't write or show the science behind, or purposely show a wrong interpretation of the science behind, spreading wrong facts into the public opinion, or this very common idea that science is boring, or that any metaphysical explanation is better than the facts.
There are few writers and even fewer film makers that understand that science and discoveries open an almost infinite array of relevant a very human storytelling, and that even the scientific process is an story in itself. You don't need to imagine an impossible to be awed, you just have to look at research about natural phenomena and the boundaries that are been pushed in the frontiers of knowledge to be amazed.
So the main problem with writers/filmmakers is they don't tell the kind of stories you think they should? Seems to me the main problem is arrogant people thinking the world has to align itself to their preferences.
Where I come from, they're called bullies.
I can see being irked by bad interpretations of science or outright falsehoods about it when they're egregious, and I don't particularly like that myself. But that's not a "problem," main or otherwise. That's a personal preference in taste. Storytellers have the right to tell whatever stories they want, and if you don't like what they're pumping out, write your own damn stories!
If you think about it, most every science fiction story doesn't get the science completely right, on purpose. That's why it's called science FICTION. There's no real science in the Star Wars universe, but hot damn! Aren't the first trilogy movies great storytelling?
I remember watching a movie on early drosophila genetics. About this guy who worked in Thomas Hunt Morgan's lab. It was really cool. But I guess it all boils down to how palatable you can make your art work to the general audience. I'm sharing this video on FB with my scientist friends.
You also gotta consider why we love stories: to give us feelings we don't get enough of irl
If I were to say this argument is the reason I started reading Berserk, what would that imply?
Technobabble is my love language.
But jokes apart, I think this is a great essay. An interesting movie that depicts the true philosophical nature of science will be fascinating to watch.
What movies where the clips in the video from? I do not recognize a lot of them.
You just earned a subscriber
What was the film from 6:20 to 6:30?
Hey Thomas, thanks for the video ! I was wondering why you didn't talk about I Origins ? It'ss a film that depicts perfectly what you were talking about in the end. The whole narrative is based on a scientific process, but the motivations of the characters are love. If you didn't see the movie, I can't recomend it high enough, it is trully beautiful in my opinion.
Take care.
I Origins was an interesting film, and I just totally forgot about it!
You know a lot of scientists just want to make light sabers ;P
"The Falcon doesn't depict much science itself" - which film is this? I can't find it.
The movie Archive also depicts a guy inventing a humanoid robot. I really like that movie.
This channel is very different from my own channel but it's nice.
The cause of this video?
Love
Not saying it goes nearly as far as it could have, but i think Hideki Anno's Shin Gojira takes the scientists somewhat seriously, as they try to unravel the monstrosity that humanity has wrought.
I wouldn't call Star Wars science fiction, it's fantasy set in space. It's more like Lord of the Rings than Star Trek, because it pivots on a plot device that is essentially magic. Science has nothing to do with Star Wars.
The main problem with filmmakers shying away from the non-charicatured fantasy version of science that I see is that noone really actually tries. Or at least almost noone. When filmmakera do actually try it almost always becomes a breath of fresh air.
"No one really actually tries" because that's not the story they want to tell, not because there's a "problem" with it.
As I've said in multiple comments here, if you don't like the stories films are telling, make your own damn film! We're not your bitches catering to your every whim.
@@DMichaelAtLarge
There are two major counterarguments I have to ye olde response of "do it yourself then".
Firstly. Look at it from a more generalised perspective. If we don't know how to do it ourselves, we get someone who we think can do it. Be they painterly artists. Architects. Farmers. Astronauts. Etc. Especially we go to those who advertise they can do the thing we want. If they however advertise that they do realistic portraitwork, but deliver a cubistic impressionism of a flooferberry... We would be in our right to be a bit dissapointed. At least at first. We could be persuaded that the flooferberey works better. But the artist is setting himself up for an argument when what is delivered don't resemble the advertisement.
Secondly... As we oftenmost don't know how to achieve what we want, we also don't know what we want. This is why we go to experts. We can even ask for something and expect something contradictory. If the expert knows what is what he can ignore the request in verbatim and deliver what we didn't know we needed. Opening a doorway of trust for more exchanges.
If I however go to a carpenter and ask for a chair. And he reacts by handing me a log of wood and a hammer and chisel and a snarky remark to do it youself if you want what you want.. I may end up with a chair-like object I will never trust to sit on... Or I'll go to a vendor that can deliver chairs I want.
I know that was a rambly jumble of paragraphs. But it is what I think of when I try to understand the mentality of "just do it youself then!". But to bring it back to science in movies. I watch movies to see things I haven't thought about play out in ways I haven't conceived myself. In the case of hard science, I want my rickety laymans knowledge challenged in ways that sticks to known laws but results in new exciting conclusions. I a plot presents itself as hard science but is more akin to prof. Flooferberry's wishful thinking... Then I feel robbed of a good opportunity to flex my admittedly feeble mental muscles.
Now, if you excuse me. I have to find myself the exit of this here orifice I've gotten myself lost in. It may be my own, but the odour is still unbelievably wretched.
@@jmalmsten I fail to see how these two objections are any different from complaining to content creators that they aren't writing your stories and you insist they do. Ultimately the same conflicts can still arise.
But mostly, you're not making an important distinction. I'm talking about creators who choose their own projects to work on, whereas you sound more like you're talking about works for hire. Two very different things.
And I would say, a work for hire is exactly how you can go about it if you're not in a position to do it yourself. A group of likeminded people can pool their resources to produce the type of product they want to see. The Christian market for films is an example where a niche market, instead of relying on Hollywood, pool their resources to create the stories they want to see.
That's why I wrote my first published novel. In the niche market I wrote in, I didn't see any stories that appealed to me, so I wrote the type of novel I'd want to read.
With the advent of crowdfunding, this is a doable thing for niche interests that are not being served by the mainstream. The ones among the niche group who DO know how to do it can come forth and crowdfund a project. Or anyone could, really, then hiring those who know how to do it.
What's that film with the blond lady shifting the form of her hand?
Or when people go back in time, depends on when/where, there's never a mention or smells or languages & rarely clothing??
can you name all the movies you use to make this video?
Actually Interstellar did a really good job at putting science into the spotlight. Kip Thorne (who won a Nobel Prize) was a consultant on the movie and he wrote "The science of Interstellar" which is a must read if you want to know more about the scientific theories that the movie builds upon. I mean the whole movie's premise is based on real scientific facts and theories so I disagree with your putting it away in the categories of movies that misrepresent science
The Martian > Interstellar
But the Arrival is and likely will always be my favourite Scifi
Primer - check
The Fountain - check
Boi he ain't seen tenet yet
a mother gives birth to a child fully. so is our galaxy
Asimov's works are anything but passionate, and yet every tale is a ripping page turner.
It's very possible to tell these tales and to tell them well.
Someone needs to make a movie on how science is not as "cool" as is shown to the lay audience.
Most of what people call sci-fi these days is just fantasy set in space, or with magical characters and magical tech that 'came from space' or by means of 'scientific discoveries' that are however inexplicable by science and clearly violate everything we know about how the universe works.
I think, depicting scientific discoveries in the form of action packed adventures/thrillers/horror/mystery (e.g. space exploration movies) is a very legitimate way to do sci-fi. But even those are a tiny minority.
It's called "soft science fiction" and is as perfectly legitimate subgenre.
"Violate everything we know about how the universe works" is a bit overblown, don't you think? What, are they all using the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system and the four-element theory of chemistry? Do all the doctors bleed people with leeches? They violate "everything we know"?
You nailed it in the beginning: science is "boring." I love science personally, but laying out scientific theories in film just loses the audience and appeals such a niche crowd.
Although not a movie, anime Dr. Stone does science is a fantastic way. Still very much fiction and even a bit exaggerated, science is primarily the main focus and it uses real science in a fun and creative way (as long as you get past the laser stoning in the beginning).
I LOVE Dr Stone
@@Kometheus it's one of the best anime out there!
I think it's that science works much better in a TV format rather than a film where you have maximum about 3 hours to tell an entire story. So if the story doesn't revolve around science it's going to be a *lot* harder to inject that kind of detail into a busy film
And then oppenheimer came
If you don't show and explain the science, then you don't have a science fiction movie. John Carpenter's The Thing is only horror because the actual real science that Campbell's novella had was removed in the film and the film's "science" is never nor can it ever truly be quantified and explained. I will say the 2011 film for some reason seems more close to a science fiction movie. Maybe it's the setup.
"I love this book about a dystopia brought about by technology the people welcomed into their lives. Anyway, give all your information to this billionaire who will monitor everything you read for the rest of your life. If you do, that billionaire will give me a nickel!"
niceee
They can't show it because it doesn't exist. It's not that complicated, Thomas.
You expect them to show the science behind installer space travel? You know humans can't do this yet (if ever), right? Same with an Iron Man suit. And the magic spider that bit Spider--man.
ua-cam.com/video/Bp-GlBRr1-0/v-deo.html What film is this shot from? I thought it was Blade Runner, but there's no shot like this in it.
Contact
That line in Interstellar prevents me from ever recommending the movie. It utterly undermines the character and expresses palpable contempt for the audience.
Am I in the minority if I think that Primer isn't really that great? I found it extremally boring to watch exactly because the characters are kinda flat and undevelloped in favor of bombarding the viewer with tons of dialogue about science that ultimately doesn't matter. In fact it only makes the movie less understandable in my opinion.
I doubt that movie is even intelligible. It certainly didn't have artistic or entertainment purposes.
Hard disagree. I found Primer an intriguing and beautiful film, and a total breath of fresh air. It just needs to be approached in a different way than most movies... and watched multiple times. In the week that I had it on loan from Blockbuster, I watched it 3 times, including once with the director's commentary, which really helps - and I've watched it several more times since then, learning something new each time. I thought the cinematography was great, and what it achieved on its extremely limited budget is absolutely remarkable. You're not meant to follow every word of the dialogue while they are inventing the thing, in fact I think Carruth specifically made it hard to follow because it's not there for exposition but background, context.
I found it so tedious, I couldn't finish it.
Wait is this KaptainKristian?.. 👀 I
first
Physics envy.
you have a different voice
Even though you (grudgingly, it seems) admitted that "there's nothing wrong" with films that don't tell the story of the scientific process that you wish they would, the title of this video reveals your true attitude: "Film's Awkward Relationship with Science." So if we don't tell the kind of stories about science you wish we did, our films have an awkward relationship to science? Arrogant, much?
I'm going to tell you what I say to anyone who complains that the kind of movies they want to see are not being made. People who object to content that offends them or doesn't, to their (biased) satisfaction, depict their particular religion/politics/philosophy/whims/etc.
If the kind of movies you want to see are not being made, go fucking make them yourself!
As an author and screenwriter, I consider it highly offensive for someone to demand I tell the kind of stories they want to see. I'm a storyteller because I want to tell the kind of stories that matter to me. To quote Neil Gaiman's comment to the fans of a certain fantasy series, "George R.R. Martin is not your bitch."
And neither am I. I'll write my stories, and while I can see how a film focused on the scientific process done right could be interesting, I have no interest in writing them, even when I write science fiction. I write to explore the human experience, and when science is involved, I'm interested in the impact it has on the human experience, not on the development of the science itself. Even when I develop the workings of an imaginary science for a story, I don't want to tell the story of the development. That's backstory and part of my world building before I start telling the story.
And I especially have no interest in writing stories about science AS a spiritual experience. Science is a fascinating intellectual experience for me, but as a spiritual experience, it's falls flat.
The only awkward thing here is your condescending attitude toward the science fiction films that are being made. Go ahead and advocate for more films to address science as you wish they would. But your attitude that such films are the only proper and acceptable relationship for films to have with science is arrogance.
Imagine writing all of that about a video when you didn't even understand the title. How embarrassing.