Legitimate gripes, I suppose, but keep in mind that the reason movie makers keep doing this is because these formulaic movies inevitably succeed and earn tons of money. It is pretty rare today for a movie to actually bomb--I can't think of one the really and truly bombed since good ol' Waterworld (I'm sure there have been some since then, but it's late and I can't recall any right this moment). As much as we might make fun of them, the way we spend our money proves that these movies are exactly what we want.
One of the truths advertisers and media folks seem to have discovered about people is that people LIKE to feel superior to things. They like to look down at things and gripe and complain about them and feel all smug and superior. So movie makers make movies that anybody can look down on and feel superior to. People see the movies "ironically" and sneer their way all the way from beginning to end, but ultimately they shell out their money just like everyone else. Think about it--how often have you heard about a movie and said "I'm sure it's going to suck, but I guess I'll see it anyway." You think you're going on the off chance that the movie will be better than you fear, but you're actually going because you know the movie will do nothing to challenge you and will give you lots of fodder for making clever jokes and sarcastic comments, and YOU LOVE THAT. Look at how popular reality shows are! They star the most horrible, wretched, and pathetic lowlifes ever to pollute the human race, and hundreds of millions of people watch because they love feeling superior to them. As the old saying goes, '99% of people think they're above average.' They've discovered the truth of that saying, and are using it to take our money. And who do you think is really above average--you, or the people consistently making hundreds of millions of dollars off of you and people just like you?
Also, I disagree that science is perceived as Evil, or that that perception is necessarily a bad thing. Now, understand that I love science--that is, I love the actual process of science, not the pseudo-religious zeal a lot of people seem to have for the idealized concept of Science--and that I've worked and studied as an in-the-trenches scientist. I'm still young, and there are many aspects of science that I have not experienced, but I have at least some idea of what science is really like, and how it interacts with other aspects of life. And we should definitely approach science with all due caution and care.
Psychology is the field of science that I have the most learning and experience with, so I'll use an example drawn from there. Back when I was in school, a lot of the new generation psych meds were coming on the market and everyone was marveling at how dramatic the results of these drugs were. I learned that the pill-popping approach to psychology was the way of the future, and that the old social psych approaches were obsolete and would eventually fade away in favor of this newer, more scientific understanding of the mind and behavior. But by now we have learned that these meds are not the miracles we thought they were. They still have horrible side effects, they still fail quite often, but most of all they have greatly over-simplified our view of how people work. It used to be that a person with depression would try to figure out what was making them depressed, and try to work through those problems to achieve a better balance with their situation. Now, the "cure" for depression is anti-depressant medication. If you can afford therapy you might do that as well, but an awful lot of people have the expectation that the pills will make them better, sort of like antibiotics for the psyche.
This is not to say that the old way was perfect, or that psych meds are overwhelmingly negative. Psychoanalysis is incredibly time consuming and expensive and often fails, and there are many cases of depression that stem mostly from chemical imbalances and can be corrected simply by restoring the chemical imbalance. But did you know that the US and the nations of Western Europe actually have a worse rate of success treating schizophrenia and many other disorders than third world and pre-industrial societies? This sounds impossible, but it is true. Societies that still believe mental illness comes from demonic possession are more successful at treating those illnesses and increasing the functionality of the afflicted than the US with its multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry. They accomplish this through a combination of traditional healing methods and community support. Now, I myself don't believe that exorcisms actually do anything to remove "demons," but if the ritual helps a person find the strength within themselves to overcome their problems, one would be hard pressed to say it doesn't work, yes? Personally, I think community support is the essential component--if more mental patients in the US were allowed to remain in their jobs and even expected to continue functioning, rather than being relieved of all responsibility and self-determination so that they can focus exclusively on their "flaws," perhaps we would have more success in bringing people with mental illnesses back into society?
There was an excellent post earlier in this thread that spoke of science discovering the secret to nuclear fission and then later fusion, and the fact that these discoveries made possible death and destruction on a scale beyond human comprehension. They literally gave us the means to annihilate ourselves, and considering how self-destructive a species we seem to be this may end up being our undoing. I absolutely think there is more than enough reason to treat science with cautious respect. And I think the majority of people today have far too faithful and naive a view of science.
I think the biggest problems that come from science come from misunderstanding what science actually is. People look to science the way they used to look to religion. It is a source of "magic," and an ultimate authority on any question one can imagine. If science has "proven" something, then only fools could possibly doubt it. If scientists agree on something, then only troglodytes could question them. People talk about how we should let Science guide our politics and decisions. But science has no morals and never proves anything. Science is a useful way of asking questions, and nothing more. It is a tool, like a lawnmower. If used in one way it will cut your grass and make your yard beautiful and inhabitable. But if you run over someone's foot with it, it will rip it to pieces and leave them maimed and crippled. And increasingly people today seem to want to just turn the lawnmower on and let it drive around unguided, assuming it will find the "right" path to make the world better.
