Judging the Beauties...With No Second Takes:
Jan. 31, 2008. Shooting the Science Fair for Beauty and the Geek
TV listing describes me and my colleague in UCLA Astronomy,
Alice Shapley, as "discerning critics"
CW press release
Episode Aired on CW April 1, 2008
Deconstructing "Decoded": Astronomy Debunks 2012 Prophecies
Forget weird blue stars! Let's talk about impacts from asteroids and comets!
So in mid-interview, we just started talking about other-more realistic-extraterrestrial
threats. (Countless TV shows-some of them quite good-have already been done on the
threat of impacts from outer space). Thus without any planning, the subject of the show
started drifting in a completely different direction. But it gradually became clear
that my 'scientific' inputs were just going to be mixed in with a heap of extremely
speculative interpretations of ancient "prophecies". I got really worried that my comments,
and even my participation, in a show straddling the boundary between serious and flaky,
could turn into a real embarrassment. So I didn't tell anyone about the show before
it aired on Jan. 13th, 2011. And this is not the kind of show my friends tune into by accident.
Overall Review of the Episode:
It turned out to be a mixed bag. I did not feel badly about what I said, or how it was
presented (aside from my weird camera angles). The 3 stars, Buddy, Scott, and the
lovely and eligible (Cynthia) McKinly, are all excellent, and very sharp. On the other
hand, in this episode of Decoded, we all seem to be floating in a sea of vague fantasies
from, well, crackpots. Given the very confused origins of the show, it comes over as
very disorganized, almost incoherent. You can hardly tell why they drove that Porsche
(and a bunch of vans of equipment)
over to UCLA to talk with me in the first place. The show never says what they are
driving at (pardon the pun). I didn't find much of interest in the 2nd half of the show,
until they get to the sensible conclusions, which we spontaneously decided to do in UCLA's
lovely sculpture garden.
Cosmology at UCLA's Visualization Portal:
Visit one of the coolest computer graphics facilities in the West
Photo and Info about Visualizing Numerical
Simulations of Galaxy Formation and Evolution
Summary of invited talk at 2003 Annual Meeting of Astronomical Society
of the Pacific, in Berkeley: Popular Public Lectures: Blasts from
the Centers of Galaxies
Are We Alone?
The ETs Lecture: Powerpoint Slides from an Astro 3 class
Summary of October, 2003 talk at Sloan Screenwriters Conference:
Public Lectures: Popular
Misconceptions about Science and Scientists
Summary of June 4, 2006 talk at Categorically Not:
Public Lectures: An Astronomer
Contemplates the Concept of "Transparency"
Textbooks:
Zuckerman, B., and Malkan, M.A., 1996, Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
"The Origin and Evolution of the Universe"
INFO about the book Origin and Evolution of the Universe,
including how to buy it for less
Active Galactic Nuclei, a Summary
5-page reference article, general enough that it's still current in 2008
Taking too long to finish your Astrophysics dissertation?
Do not despair! UCLA College Library Reserves has old copies of Astro 2a Exams OnLine
Click here for PDFs of 2a Exams
EReserves also has old copies of Astro 2b Exams (and also for other Astro courses and instructors)
Click here for PDFs of 2b Exams
Old Copies of Malkan's Astro 3 Exams, (midterms and finals)
Click here for PDFs of Astro 3 Exams
A very impressive, highly professional production.
As I'd noticed on the few other network TV sets I've seen, only a superbly
coordinated army of experts could pull this off under such extreme time pressure.
The attention to production quality issues (sound, lighting, set design) is extraordinary.
The upstairs church auditorium was magically transformed into ev of a high
school gym set up for a science fair, with each detail of presentation carefully chosen.
On the other hand, there is hardly any time to think about the CONTENTS of the show.
For this genuine reality show, the virtual absence of any script, the fact that nobody has
any idea of what is going to happen when the cameras roll, is probably good. Because
there is no talking or interaction beforehand, and the cameras are far away and hardly
noticeable, the first recorded take really does give an authentic record of spontaneous
actions. The big challenge is editing all of this down to something watch-able and
entertaining.
In spite of initial worries, the experience was far more positive, and more fun, than I'd
expected.
The 5 hours on the set went by in a blur, felt like one hour. It's a wonder to see the
choreography that keeps the motions of each participant coordinated and (almost) on
schedule. The continual chatter of walkie-talkies monitored every detail: "Beauties
coming up the staircase"..."Geeks enter the auditorium"..."Scientists move to your marks"
[I loved getting called that, more times in one day than in the previous decade.]
Mr. Richards (this is the only way he is addressed) is witty and charming; his humor
entertained everyone during the delays while the next shot was set up. As Host, he nails
every sentence effortlessly. His dress seemed surprisingly casual, but he carries it off
perfectly when you see him on the screen.
Who is the science-fairEST of them all?
The stars of our segment of the show were the Beauties, all the way. They may have
gotten a lot of help from their partner Geeks in preparing their presentations, but for the
crucial Q and A, they were entirely on their own. This is when we found out what they
had really learned, and as it turned out, that was QUITE A LOT!
My UCLA Astronomy colleague Alice Shapley and I were VERY FAVORABLY
IMPRESSED with how much most of the Beauties had learned, and were able to explain
under intense pressure. A few of them were so nervous they could barely speak at first,
yet nobody lost their poise at any point. Some of their demos didn't work too well; I
didn't hold that against them, since this kind of thing can happen to anyone, and
sometimes does in my lectures. Prof. Shapley tried to put the Beauties at ease by making the first
question pretty straightforward, and many of them gave good answers. I was more of the
"bad cop" (bad scientist?), coming up with questions that--although they were relevant
and fair--we did NOT expect the Beauties to be able to handle. But many of them DID
give decent answers!
Contrary to some viewer's impressions, there was some real
science learning in the Science Fair
Viewers might not realize this, since the editing focused more on their weaker answers, going for
entertainment value. We all know that many high school kids (girls and boys) do not get
much of an education in science. But the Beauties proved to me that--with the right
motivation--they definitely have enough smarts and common sense to pick up and
understand basic scientific concepts. For example, in response to my
question Tara managed to estimate the electricity consumption of a city. Without even
one second of preparation, she worked out in her head an answer that is correct to about a
factor of ten, which is often good enough for astronomers. I know of many UCLA
students who would not have been more accurate. (The reason she came out low was that
she assumed the average person uses the equivalent of one 75-Watt lightbulb,
whereas we actually use about ten times that. But I was darned impressed with her instant
quantitative reasoning skills. Even her "mistake" that was shown, when she
attempted to multiply 75 by 4 in her head, was not bad at all. She must
have figured that 4 75's has to be a bit less than 4 hundreds, and just came
up with a rough guess of 390.)
Last year, when the History Channel started making a new series to be called "Decoded",
they told me they wanted to do a section about a highly unusual blue star that had
recently been discovered, and the (wild) claims that it might threaten the Earth. A little
research came up with a half dozen reasons why that was nonsense, but they still
wanted to go ahead and shoot an interview at the UCLA Planetarium. No second takes.
It didn't take me long
to give my arguments, which basically said that the entire premise of this episode
of their show was...silly.
One of my favorite programs at UCLA is our Film School's
Sloan Science and Film. A truly outstanding group of screenwriters
and film makers has produced some brilliant films that prove
you can combine accurate science, realistic characters and plots,
and great entertainment.
The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation deserves a great deal of credit
for supporting this highly worthwhile project.
Here is one example I really like:
Short Film "California King" (originally title "Laws of (E)Motion")
Astronomy 278: Graduate Seminar on
Observations of Galaxy Formation and Evolution