Chris Mooney has a post up at The Intersection in which he lauds an LA audience for "getting" Sizzle, for laughing "at all the right moments", and rues the fact that many ScienceBloggers "either didn't like Sizzle or didn't appear to get it".
Mooney is not happy about this relative lack of enthusiasm for the film among ScienceBloggers:
[W]hat I see is far too much negativity, far too much criticism, directed at a film that is funny and damn good and ultimately very profound--all of which the audience in LA clearly appreciated. So why can't we?
Because many ScienceBloggers think the film is not funny, is not "pro-science", and basically sucks shit. I'm not sure I understand what is so fucking complicated about this.
He goes on to assert that even if one doesn't like the film, it deserves support:
But even if you don't agree with me about these observations, I will stand on this point: Randy Olson has the right idea. He's trying, as best he can, to get beyond our relatively narrow community with a message about science. He's trying to reach new audiences, new demographics--new souls. It's really too bad that in order to do that, he can't also bring this community along with him--but that instead, he'll apparently have to leave some of it behind.
Science is about reality, not wishful thinking. It should not be surprising that scientists who think a movie sucks are gonna be honest about it, rather than keeping silent--or even lying--so that the maker of the movie can "bring this community along with him".
Sorry the "Sizzle" astroturfing scheme didn't work out, but such is life.