Science is good versus Science is bad

Is the former and its Science Hero archetype growing more frequent? Or is the latter and its Mad Scientist archetype?

Mad scientists are more fun because they cackle more and do crazier, more outlandish things, so there will always be more of them.

I personally really like science heroes, though.

It's actually something I have to answer for class. I thought this the logical place to ask and extrapolate.

This thread should go in Trope Talk or On-Topic Conversations. I'll move it shortly.

Wait, no. I mean to ask within the context of Film.

Hmm, okay. I usually think of this forum as being about individual films, not film as a genre. I'll leave it alone.

edited 14th Oct '10 12:10:06 PM by Fighteer

Is a combination of the two allowed? Because I have noticed a rise in the Mad Scientist doing a Heel–Face Turn recently.

Oh? Could you give me a few examples?

I find the s-good vrs s-bad thing cycles as with most movies. If you want to be more specific think about all of the original science heroes they came around they came around in the 60s when someone who could solve problems was well heroic, the time of spaceflight, of revolution change, communication becoming that much easier ie the world shrinking. Before and After those times science going astray was considered the norm.

Also, note that one element can be excluded from the other if you have a mad bad scientist you have to have good scientist and vice versa otherwise the dynamic of the story changes dramatically, Ex. Dr. Quest(Jonny Quest) vrs Dr Zin.

In my opinion the science hero is making a comeback even if the trope is acting more like a sidekick. As for why, your guess is as good as mine there is plenty to go around.

Does Gordon Freeman count?

Despite having a PHD in theoretical physics he tends to solved most problems with ballistics.

Also, Half Life 2 shows cybernetic augmentation and possibly The Singularity as bad things.

Hard to tell, really.

What about the scientific inventions themselves- mainly robots? I think WALL-E has a very good depiction of Good Science (those robot who were smart enough to break out of their programming molds) vs Bad, Restrictive Science (ie Auto).

Star Wars and 2001SpaceOdyssey are also good examples in this sense.

In my humble opinion there is another cycle about good robot vrs bad robot depending on the perspective of the viewer of the media. Are the viewers willing to see robots being protagonist or antagonists, can you sympathize with a robot or not, what are your views of life ie trans-humanism is your body your life or another quality? can a robot have a soul? etc. and of course how much of yourself can you project yourself into the protagonists ie is this what I would have done if I was "borne" a robot?

Note the bias you introduced into your own statements that robots can only be good if they do not follow their instructions/programing/etc. by which I assume you meant that "if they have a mind of their own" another bias vrs bad robots that do as they are told or "do not have a mind of their own" a extension of the assumed bias. After all a robot that is designed fight fires can be very bad indeed if it decides to use it's abilities to bake people, even if it does nothing (or lallygagging) it chooses to do nothing when there is an emergency afoot.

Whether or not the robot is a protagonist or antagonist must also factor in. Perhapse the author is into dark anti-heroes, the fire fighter-bot stops crime by using it's armor strength and built in chainsaw to do stuff and the stuffy bureaucrats who cant see past their noses try to thwart this noble mission. Or, is fire fighter-bot a sign that there are things man was not meant to know, gone too far, etc. In which case the motives of the author could be a issue, or meaningless since people end up seeing something completely different anyway.

Lastly, How much does the audience know? is Sammus a Girl until the end? is a trash compactor robot really a cyborg? is a human protagonist a tomato? Some times a cigar is a cigar and sometimes the author is responding to paranoia that any cigar could turn out to be a mini robot assassin.

PS never having played Halflife does the PHD thing come up in game-play or is it just background info? after all a difference that makes no difference is not a difference