One small step before we begin using science to design a better economic system

[Boojatta]

The entertainment industry is just one small part of the economy. The movie business is just one small part of the entertainment industry. The making of a single movie is just one small part of the movie business.

In this thread, post any ideas that you have for using science to design one screenplay for one movie. Let's make it a comedy, because that somehow seems appropriate.

[bluerum]

1. Lets script the religious fanatics to instill fear and hatred of science. eom

[RandomThoughts]

2. Disco.

Producers found the common elements popular of all music, and created Disco.


It is riding the tips of waves, but there must be a motive. You find the parts of something that stick out as a pattern in many things with the same 'feeling' in them.

In the movie metaphor, you could look at what movies were liked most. I figure that is what Spielbergs secret is. He follows the same patterns that are emotionally agreed on.

Then the movie becomes a reflection of what people think society should be like. And a feed back loop can occur making society better. But only if people learn why such ideas are better, and how they can model them in society.


However knowing that some that want a worse society move into movie industry and try to use it for its feedback effect to control, not for what people think is better.

Interesting question.

Basically if people are allowed to see what they think is better, then also what they think is better is what is on TV and movies, society will get better, and status qou will change, since it is a reflection of a democratic system, since not based on having to have much money. That would hurt money first status quo, since that is not democratic ideals.

So some use the 'effect' and give people what they want them to think. The reason for all the cop shows and prison shows, to set up a security state and blind belief in authority. If people could choose the law and order shows would not be the shows they would watch most, if there were many other examples. And to be fair there are a few other examples.

On a side note there are many good topics discussed in those shows, can even be said to be a form of news, but it is within a structure that supports authority as heroes. It is opposite of the non controlled forms from the 70s Rockford files, Barreta, Starsky Hutch.

It goes against the idea of underdog and fixing status quo to create support of system of authority.

Shows like heroes, buffy, angel, and others are more individual or small group of underdogs, and they have lots of other concepts in them also. And the 'fights' are not always about law but about questioning the ideas of what is right. (with many flaws also)



Thinking on spielberg films.

Poltergiest, an average family fighting strong bad forces to save a single family member.
Saving private ryan, rag tag squad to save a person, then to save a bridge although emotional importance of ww2 equates that as saving innocent people.
Et a bunch of children, again less powerful underdogs, save the alien and get him home fighting authority.
Toy Story, a bunch of toys fighting the big bully to help the scared toys.



They are all the same story. And all popular, because people know that small groups of people need to stand up, even if they feel small or powerless like children, to fight authority that is entrenched in ways most disagree with, since power corrupts, creating the change of status quo to keep things getting better. However I think fighting can be trying to help society learn, and not hurting people, while trying to learn yourself.

[Fumesucker]

3. When we have a society free of Glibertarians, Randroids and Prosperity Gospel Wackos..

Maybe then we can start using science to devise a better economic system..

I'm *not* holding my breath while waiting for that moment.

[Confusious]

4. Science is based on facts which are not subjective

Humor is always subjective. Jerry Lewis, genius, the french.

( While he might be funny, genius? )

[90-percent]

5. Jerry Lewis

I'm going to snopes and look up if this is really true. It seems like a French Conspiracy to mess with American's heads. A big national goof at our expense.

-90% Jimmy

[Boojatta]

7. You left some gaps in your reasoning.

#1 Science is based on facts.
#2 Facts aren't subjective.

Does it follow that science itself isn't subjective?

Our movie could be a biography of a comedian, with special attention to the comedian's comedy work. Suppose that it is not merely "based on a true story." Suppose that careful fact-checking is done to ensure that all events depicted in the movie actually occurred. In other words, the movie would be based on facts. Perhaps we're using the phrase "based on" here with a meaning slightly different from what it has in your statement that "science is based on facts." Other than this wrinkle, we seem to be in familiar territory:

#1 Our comedy movie will be based on facts.
#2 Facts aren't subjective.
Therefore ...?

[Tikki]

6. The Spinal Tap philosophy of 'it's one more' could work and..

it'll be the affirmative number 11 just around the bend.

Tikki

[Boojatta]

8. Kick