The film has a very clear target audience, and 100% of this target audience will self-identify as the group of nice fashionable reasonable science-believers. The other tribes will probably never see the film, or if they do, they’ll see themselves portrayed with such disdain that they’ll just end up distrusting scientists even more. Nobody will update. I’m afraid the main effect of this kind of film is to further entrench the [belief in X] ~ [cool/uncool] correlation, which is generally a bad thing.
My impression was that the comet was a metaphor for climate change specifically, rather than x-risk in general. It turns out that I agree climate change is a serious threat, so I’ll consider it a good thing if spectators take it more seriously after seeing DLU. But there is nothing in the film-making process that automatically steers the writers towards legitimate issues. It could have been a “GMOs cause cancer” plot line instead (there are scientists who say that in real life, but nobody takes them seriously – just like in the film!).
I think the film has other value, but anyway, I think you’ve got a point here. One thing really jutted out at me: the “science side” mentioned at least twice “peer-review” as an important feature of science, which it mostly isn’t, and in context it read to me like an applause light for the audience. Though, an alternate reading is that the DiCaprio character was doing the applause lighting to the in-universe audience (I’m not sure this makes sense in context, e.g. it might’ve been the J. Lawrence character instead, and it would be a sort of sophisticated reading....). I think there was another thing with this flavor, though I forget what it was.
I found this especially grating because he used it to criticize engineering. Peer review is only very dubiously an important part of science; but it’s just plain confused to look at a plan to build a bridge, to build a spaceship, or to prevent a comet from destroying Earth and say “Oh, no, it hasn’t been peer reviewed.”
I noticed the same thing, and realized that I was feeling the LW-tribe feeling of “people say they like real science but like fake science, only me and my in-group like real science”. It was also annoying for me as I watched it, but I think that responding specifically to that phrase is as much a tribal signaling thing as using it is.
The other tribes will probably never see the film, or if they do, they’ll see themselves portrayed with such disdain that they’ll just end up distrusting scientists even more. Nobody will update.
That’s my feeling as well. It grated on me because it was an opportunity to reflect that maybe playing on simulacra level 4 isnt good even when your ingroup does it.
In my (cited by OP) review I say “I think on net it has everything it needs to raise the discourse level”, but something about your comment got me more pessimistic! I’ve been disappointed that I didn’t love it was much as I wanted to since the moment I watched it, but it’s possible I’ll dislike it more over time.
I share OP’s love of Big Short, and I could tell Vice was a regression from that accomplishment. DLU is also a regression from that accomplishment, not just from a filmmaking perspective but from a self-indulgent partisanship perspective.
Vice is a regression from Big Short w.r.t. focusing on systemic problems, but I think part of the message was about how much individual choices can matter. (I liked it prolly more than Big Short, but in case you didn’t notice from parts of my review, my taste is not trustworthy/applicable to others)
The film has a very clear target audience, and 100% of this target audience will self-identify as the group of nice fashionable reasonable science-believers. The other tribes will probably never see the film, or if they do, they’ll see themselves portrayed with such disdain that they’ll just end up distrusting scientists even more. Nobody will update. I’m afraid the main effect of this kind of film is to further entrench the [belief in X] ~ [cool/uncool] correlation, which is generally a bad thing.
My impression was that the comet was a metaphor for climate change specifically, rather than x-risk in general. It turns out that I agree climate change is a serious threat, so I’ll consider it a good thing if spectators take it more seriously after seeing DLU. But there is nothing in the film-making process that automatically steers the writers towards legitimate issues. It could have been a “GMOs cause cancer” plot line instead (there are scientists who say that in real life, but nobody takes them seriously – just like in the film!).
I think the film has other value, but anyway, I think you’ve got a point here. One thing really jutted out at me: the “science side” mentioned at least twice “peer-review” as an important feature of science, which it mostly isn’t, and in context it read to me like an applause light for the audience. Though, an alternate reading is that the DiCaprio character was doing the applause lighting to the in-universe audience (I’m not sure this makes sense in context, e.g. it might’ve been the J. Lawrence character instead, and it would be a sort of sophisticated reading....). I think there was another thing with this flavor, though I forget what it was.
I found this especially grating because he used it to criticize engineering. Peer review is only very dubiously an important part of science; but it’s just plain confused to look at a plan to build a bridge, to build a spaceship, or to prevent a comet from destroying Earth and say “Oh, no, it hasn’t been peer reviewed.”
Hard agree, it felt iffy to me.
I noticed the same thing, and realized that I was feeling the LW-tribe feeling of “people say they like real science but like fake science, only me and my in-group like real science”. It was also annoying for me as I watched it, but I think that responding specifically to that phrase is as much a tribal signaling thing as using it is.
That’s my feeling as well. It grated on me because it was an opportunity to reflect that maybe playing on simulacra level 4 isnt good even when your ingroup does it.
In my (cited by OP) review I say “I think on net it has everything it needs to raise the discourse level”, but something about your comment got me more pessimistic! I’ve been disappointed that I didn’t love it was much as I wanted to since the moment I watched it, but it’s possible I’ll dislike it more over time.
I share OP’s love of Big Short, and I could tell Vice was a regression from that accomplishment. DLU is also a regression from that accomplishment, not just from a filmmaking perspective but from a self-indulgent partisanship perspective.
Vice is a regression from Big Short w.r.t. focusing on systemic problems, but I think part of the message was about how much individual choices can matter. (I liked it prolly more than Big Short, but in case you didn’t notice from parts of my review, my taste is not trustworthy/applicable to others)