Frank Capra pioneered the "science entertainment" program. Back in 1956, Bell Telephone had him produce the first of four such programs, "Our Mr Sun". *
Capra (who graduated Caltech in chemical engineering) knew how to hold an audience's attention. Instead of having some expert "lecture" the audience, he has Frank Baxter ** and Eddie Albert engage in a conversation with animated characters -- the Sun (Marvin Miller) and Father Time (Lionel Barrymore). Their give-and-take keeps things moving along at a lively pace. And if the audience is paying attention (it would be hard not to), it actually learns something.
"3 Scientists Walk into a Bar..." couldn't possibly be more unlike Capra's work. It's the pits.
The writers (if there are any), don't care about presenting the material in an organized, coherent fashion. There's no sense that the material starts somewhere, goes somewhere, and comes to some conclusion.
The presentation jumps from one topic to another, apparently on the assumption this comprises a lively, engaging approach (it doesn't), and that the average viewer has an attention span of less than two minutes. If that much. ("Mythbusers" breaks its experiments into chunks, but its presentation is always coherent.)
The Bell programs generally present the subject matter from an historical perspective, showing how ancient civilizations perceived the universe, then how specific scientists discovered the rules that describe the way things work.
The first three episodes of "3 Scientists..." are incoherent trash, not worth watching even once. They are neither entertaining (in the sense of holding one's attention), nor do they show how scientific thought works or develops. They're loud, abusive assaults on the viewer's sensibilities. "An empty vessel makes the loudest noise."
Most science programs have errors, and this one is no different. I was particularly bothered by the "explanation" of why all objects fall at the same speed. I'm pretty sure it was wrong, and was used because the correct explanation required simple math (multiplication and division), which the writers no doubt assumed the viewers were incapable of understanding. The discussion of lightning is at best, misleading.
I'm not condemning "3 Scientists..." because it doesn't follow Frank Capra's format. Rather, it's simply a lousy program. It doesn't teach science (which is a way of looking at the world, rather than a collection of "facts"), and it has no respect for the audience's intelligence. It's the intellectual equivalent of a wind-up cymbal-playing monkey that makes a lot of noise, and little sense.
I've never produced a TV program, but I could do a hell of a lot better than whoever put together this mess.
ADDENDUM I recently watched episode 7. The show is getting less-bad. The animated sequence on the evolution of freeze-resistance in trees was extremely well-done. But the cute, oh-so-hip tone remains, as well as the refusal to go into the detail that reveals how you get from A to D. I'm also bothered that, in discussing ice polymorphs, they don't mention Kurt Vonnegut! (They're probably never heard of him.)
* It was followed by "Hemo the Magnificent", "The Strange Case of the Cosmic Rays", and "The Unchained Goddess". "Hemo" is the film the kids in "Gremlins" are watching.
** Though billed as "Dr Research", Baxter was actually a popular English professor.
0 out of 7 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
