This blog is yet another reason why editors play a crucial role in weeding out crap articles. So scientists aren't the ideal protagonist in every story. Tell me something I don't know.
I also like the implication that scientists (you know, that wonderfully cohesive and homogeneous group of people who all share an agenda and a single world view) have nothing better to do than attempting to take over Hollywood's movie production.
If anything, I think most of the bad science (as described in the comments of the article) comes from not talking to real scientists enough.
Good (or bad) recent example: "Knowing", where Nicholas Cage manages to play a scientist without resembling a scientist in any way, shape or form, as though nobody involved with the production had ever met a real, live scientist before.
Jon Udell once reminded me that scientists are people. In other words some percentage of people are good storytellers and similarly for scientists. We've all been guilty of gross generalizations but one would hope Discover would do better.
