A Boat by Any Other Name: Why "Boaty McBoatface" Matters

   So, in case you haven't been following this particular story, in March of 2016, the National Environmental Research Center in the UK launched an online poll to name a new polar research vessel currently in development. It was meant to, in the words of Britain's Science Minister Jo Johnson, to give the average Brit "the opportunity to feel part of this exciting project and the untold discoveries it will unearth." The vessel, costing $287 million, will study the effects of climate change in Antarctica, and will launch around 2019.

      This being the internet, the most popular name voted ended up being "Boaty McBoatface", as suggested by former BBC Radio Jockey James Hand (Hand apparently now regrets the decision, and particularly the attention it got). Despite it being the most popular name out of all suggested, NERC and the British Science would have none of it. Very recently, they announced the vessel would be named after Sir David Attenborough, famed naturalist and TV presenter most famous for the "Life" series on the BBC. This was despite Attenborough being only the fourth highest entry, behind Boaty, "Poppy-Mai" after a dying, cancer stricken 16 month old girl, and "Henry Worsley”, after a British Army officer who died attempting the first ever solo trek through Antarctica. However, it's not all bad for the Boaty Camp. The name would be bestowed on a small remote operated submarine, which collects data for the research team. 

   So, why am I talking about this? Well this was all prompted by this comment on the NPR coverage of the story (Link in the sources), by a fellow named "No One": 

It's not that they didn't want to use the results, it's just that the results have to be reasonable.
I'm sure people will participate in future polls in large numbers, despite this. The only ones who wouldn't are the same childish fools who voted for a ridiculous name; and I doubt those people know or care what the research vessel is for in the first place.

     But would they? Even you weren't particularly inclined to vote for this name, (like I was),after the NERC decides to disregard what the public wanted for the name, would you choose to vote again, knowing that they could disregard whatever was most popular name, whether it be silly or dignified?That herein lies the main issue with the whole ordeal. Even if the name was absurd (and admittedly David Attenborough is a more appropriate name and tribute to a fantastic nature documentarian), it was the name that the public did chose, and if the NERC didn't like the name, and intended to use a different one, why even engage with the poll? It discourages people from taking part in scientific research, however small the role, and even people who don't like the name might not like the idea of voting. To address the second part of Mr. Nemo's comments up there, Yes, the people who voted for the name may not have known what the vessel was for, but bestowing upon it a name like that may help popularize the vessel, get people engaged in what research the ship is engaged with. Hell, the controversy increased the visibility of the ship. I probably wouldn't have heard of the vessel, unless it was mentioned in a National Geographic article. Yes, the people voting may not have known or cared, but having a popular name on the ship may have gotten them to care. And it has gotten people to care about this ship, because the common refrain on the ship is "It'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me."

    I'm not upset about the name. I don't find the name particularly appealing, and like I said, "David Attenborough" is far more appropriate name. What does concern me is the fact that the public was invited to participate in very important research, and they were disregarded. This highlights a growing rift between the public and the scientific community. The average person regards most research as esoteric and incomprehensible, thus the rampancy of scientific illiteracy amongst the public. John Oliver did an excellent piece on his HBO program "Last Week Tonight", on the simplification of scientific research in popular media (and I suggest you look at that). And in recent years, the scientific community has begun outreaching to the general public, with popular science books being published and science documentaries becoming popular. However, when incidents like this occur, it tells the average layman that science is an incredibly closed process, and participation is cut off to them. This could not be further from the truth, but this perception opens up a whole litany of problems, from minority representation in science, to funding for the sciences to the aforementioned scientific illiteracy. Especially the latter. Remember, the ship was meant to survey Antarctica to study climate change. Since this controversy, perhaps people will be more invested in research, and they might realize that just because it snows in Minneapolis in December, that does not mean that climate change isn't real. If people have more participation in science, they could be more invested in it, and they could more easily understand how process of research works, and perhaps encourage them to be more invested in research.

Sources:

Boaty McBoatface, explained- Tara Goldshan| Vox

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/8/11606554/nerc-rrs-david-attenborough-boaty-mcboatface-explained

Boaty McBoatface to Bear David Attenborough's Name, and the Web Puts - Hannah Olivennes|The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/world/europe/boaty-mcboatface-sir-david-attenborough.html?_r=0

Entries- Most Loved| Name Our Ship

https://nameourship.nerc.ac.uk/entries.html

Boaty By Another Name: 'Sir David Attenborough' Is Chosen For British Research Ship, by Bill Chappell| NPR

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/06/477010650/boaty-by-another-name-sir-david-attenborough-is-chosen-for-british-research-ship

Movie review: Captain America: Civil War

       I would be lying if I said that I didn't understand the fatigue with superhero films. There are a lot of them, and the massive corporations that create them do market them excessively. There are a lot more planned in the future too. Then again, trends like westerns or slasher film had similar runs in the 50's and 80's respectively. But, you know what irritates me more? People complaining about superhero movies. Seriously, it seems every day I see a comment or a think piece about superhero movies are too much, and how they are distracting from  films that are"true art" or some cockamamie like that.  It is just so... hipster, for lack of a better term. Pretending to be some sort of intellectual insight by disparaging popular forms of media. You ever hear the phrase "Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good?" Well, these people apparently take that to mean that "It's popular, ergo it's bad, and it's popularity indicates the fall of cultural tastes," and I wrote a whole piece on that a month or so ago, so go read that. Again, I understand if people are tired of superhero movies. I was admittedly starting to grow tired of them as well after Age of Ultron. Even the surprisingly good Ant-Man wasn't spectacular, and didn't help me appreciate the genre. Batman v. Superman was so dull, I thought perhaps the experience watching that may dull my experience watching Captain America: Civil War, because it indicated my fatigue with superhero films. Actually, watching Batman v. Superman actually enhanced the experience of this film, because I realized what that film did wrong, and what this film did right. It also reminded me of why Marvel movies are so well-regarded. They do put more effort into the scripts and acting, and they actually know what the fans of these films want. So, with that introduction out of the way,...

    Based around the Marvel comics character created by Joe Simon and "Jolly" Jack Kirby, Captain America: Civil War once again follows the adventures of Steve Rogers, Captain America ( Chris Evans). The new Avengers assembled at the end of Age of Ultron (Scarlet Wtich (Elizabeth Olson, who I learned is the younger sister of the Olsen twins), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Falcon (Anthony Mackie)) are on a mission in Lagos, where they try to stop the assassin Crossbones (Frank Grillo) from attaining a biological weapon. When Crossbones detonates a bomb on his person, while Cap is interrogating him, the Scarlet Witch contains the explosion, but releases it at a nearby building, killing several workers from the small East African nation of Wakanda. International condemnation ensues, and Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) tells the Avengers that due to the number of incidents where they were involved, and people were killed, the UN wants to institute the "Slokovia Accords", which would place them under a UN mandate. Tony Stark, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) supports this measure, along with Black Widow and War Machine (Don Cheadle), but Cap is skeptical. Cap learns of the death of his former girlfriend Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), and attends the funeral. There, he meets her niece Sharon (Emily VanCamp), a CIA operative in Germany. At the signing of the Accords in Vienna, a bomb goes off, killing the Wakandan King T'Chaka (John Kani). The blame is quickly placed on the Winter Soldier, aka "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Cap's best friends turned HYDRA assassin. T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), the prince of Wakanda, swears vengeance, and adopts the "Black Panther" moniker, one which has gone down generations of Wakandan warriors.Cap knows that Barnes has been framed, and Barnes professes as much when Cap confronts him. When Cap and Falcon try to protect Barnes from government agents, they find themselves enemies of the government, and Stark. Can they prove Bucky innocent, and get into a conspiracy to split the Avengers?

      This is much more serious than any of the previous Marvel movies, going off the darker tone of  The Winter Soldier. There are less jokes or very funny moments. Unlike  Batman v. Superman,  however, it works to the film's advantage, underscoring how intense and serious some of the moments in the film are. There are several scene, which are legitimately shocking to see. The events also have more weight and consequence to them, unlike Batman v. Superman. I feel more invested in the events happening. The action is very good, as usual, and I feel more excited watching it. As always, the cast is absolutely great. A particular stand out is Tom Holland as Spider Man (who appears later in the film, so I didn't mention him in the synopsis), who manages to do a good job trying to separate himself from Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield. I also liked Spider-Man's costume, which resembles the iconic Steve Ditko look of the 60's. Chadwick Boseman does a very good job as the Black Panther, and I'm very excited for his solo film (I'm a fan of that particular character).  While not using the comic's "Superhuman Registration Act", it does provide some interesting questions on whether the Avengers should intervene with supervision, and the conflict within the Avengers feels real, and builds on the characterization of team since their inception back in the original film. A recurring theme is the idea of revenge and hatred, which causes some characters to overreact and make some poor decisions.

     Like I said, I liked Spider-Man, but honestly, he could be cut out of this film. I wish he played a larger role, just so that his presence is justified a little more than "We would like to introduce the MCU Spider-Man, before we put him in a movie". Also, the motivation of the villain is less than satisfying. Given the wide scope of the conspiracy, I thought that there would be more, but no, the reason the villain (not spoiling who it is) is doing this is very simple. Given the scope of the events, it is very disappointing. The inclusion of the other Avengers, while necessary, sometimes distracts from Cap and the Winter Soldiers, who are supposed to be the main focus. Finally, while the title is appropriate, they should have incorporated more elements from the comic version. It could've justified the title.

    This was far better than Age of Ultron, and it restored my faith in Marvel. If you want a good superhero film after Batman v. Superman, or you enjoyed most of the previous Marvel films, this is the film for you. If you don't like Superhero movies, I don't think this will change your mind, but I'd say give it a chance, because there are elements of spy films in this. Overall, very exciting and very fun. A rare quality in today's blockbusters.