October 8, 2011 - I like to consider diverse blogging issues. One thing I haven’t carried out before is a preview/job interview. The show: Discovery’s Curiosity. The episode: Could We Survive an Alien Attack? Here is a quick preview.
Along with the preview of the episode, I had the opportunity to send out some inquiries to Alan Eyres (Govt Producer for the Curiosity series). Right here are my inquiries with his responses.
1. How would you classify the target of this episode? Do you view it as much more entertainment or much more instructional? Or possibly you watch it as more cautionary (as in be careful of alien invasions). I question this question since I know that several science displays have the aim of “recruiting researchers”.
We don’t see a contradiction in between being entertaining and becoming smart. In this show we took some of the sharpest minds on the planet and had fun with them, so we figure it’s a win equally methods.
The premise here was simple: what would take place logically if you just take an outlandish premise incredibly critically. After you say, alright, there is a tiny but finite possibility that extra-terrestrials will assault earth, you can go to city on the science. Exactly where would they come from? How would they get right here? What would their weapons look like? Our hope is that grounding an entertaining premise in a rigorously scientific “war video game” type simulation will each entertain and inform.
2. The episode appears like a extremely thoughtful scenario. If this episode was a “choose your individual adventure” form book – there could be several techniques items could have unfolded. For occasion, the aliens
could have been welcoming. Or maybe they were friendly, but their technologies was unintentionally destructive. So again to the issue: Have been there other “paths” that had been regarded as? Why was this route decided on?
Of course, we deemed hundreds of paths — and at one point ended up with brain freeze. For occasion, we once elevated the concern: are we currently being parochial by assuming aliens need to be carbon based mostly? So then we got into discussions about non-carbon aliens, who would probably be based on silicone. Nicely, the bonds of silicone are not strong as carbon which could leave us with aliens that have been jello-like and amorphous. So then we go down that path. at some point, all the permutations became also significantly — the aliens, their technological innovation, their inspiration — so we settled on a scenario that was most based on science, most based mostly on a consensus of our experts. Primarily, in the end, we stayed focued, and much less fantasy-pushed. we grounded the scenario in what we already know about biology, physics, engineering.
3. There have been a lot of experts on the show. How have been they selected (or identified)?
We wished to find the sharpest minds and the best communicators – we discovered we have been spoilt for option with great individuals. We attempted to blend generalists with experts. So we have a Michio Kaku, who even though a physicist by trade, is a fantastic science generalist. Really incredible at explaining factors plainly. Then we also have a Lynn Rothschild from NASA
who is an astro-bioligist who really experimented with to find evidence of extra-terrestrial life. Clearly, an expert’s capacity to be dynamic and entertaining on television — as effectively as excellent and credible — is critical.
4. The show has a quite inventive plot. It is virtually like a novel.