Talk:MIT in popular culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whew! OK, so people were complaining that there was too much over-specific stuff in the main MIT article. Since lots of that was my fault, and I love few things more than the sound of my own words, I moved (some of) the deleted material here. I've also cleaned the text, organized it somewhat and included a couple nice pictures.
I threw in the bit about Dick Shelby because it was just too darn funny—I've been laughing about that one for two years now.
- MIT has been part of the background of a number of movies including Good Will Hunting (1997) and A Beautiful Mind (2001). Frequently, when a character in Hollywood cinema is required to have a science or engineering background, or in general possess an extremely high level of intelligence, the film establishes that he or she is an MIT graduate or associate. (MIT can also be a comparative or a metaphor for intellect in general: "Would they think of that at MIT?") Numerous films indulge in this technique, including The Phantom Planet (1961) , Hackers (1995), Independence Day (1996), Orgazmo (1997), Armageddon (1998), Space Cowboys (2000), The Fast and the Furious (2001), XXX (2002), The Recruit (2003), National Treasure (2004), The Fantastic Four (2005), and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005).
Lesson: mentioning MIT in a movie does not automatically make it good. ;)
This article does not include everything which was moved to Talk:Massachusetts Institute of Technology, since not all of that fell into this category. Not all of that material was mine, but I think almost all of it is valuable and should go back in the main namespace somewhere.
IHTFP, Anville 16:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] MIT in popular culture (proposal to change this article's title)
This article seems to have begun by pasting material from the "MIT in popular culture" section of the main article on MIT. That section stated that the MIT campus is a favorite attraction for tourists from Japan. That fact is not mentioned in this article, and would seem out-of-place given this article's current title. If this article were moved to MIT in popular culture, then it would fit. Michael Hardy 22:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't put the item about Japanese tourists in this article because when it appeared in the main MIT page, no source was given for it. That sentence was deleted before this article was created, if I recall correctly. Anville 20:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The source is only my own observation that one frequently sees Japanese tourists photographing the builidings, and each other with the buildings as a background. I didn't think it really needed a source since I thought everyone who's walked through the campus a large number of times was familiar with this. Michael Hardy 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've seen the phenomenon as well (four years gave me plenty of observation time). My problem was that the statement was only "verifiable" given the word of people who claimed to have seen the tourists. In essence, it's original research. If we can dig up a reference for it, like an old Tech article or something, then I'd be happy to see it included here. In that case, this page would do better to be renamed "MIT in popular culture" as you suggested. (The current title is, I admit, a little clunky, particularly since the "snowclone" section was added.) Anville 14:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The MIT of. . . .
I snipped the following links from the section entitled "The MIT of". While it is nice to have all these recorded, it really is overkill to list them all, and just having a string of bracketed numbers is gosh darn ugly.
[2] , [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8],[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]
These should only be returned to the main namespace if someone finds a way to give some order to the collection. Personally, I think the section as it stands now is good enough. Anville 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I think that as a matter of citing sources they should go back into the article. Somewhere. Somewhere inconspicuous. Forgive me... I'm putting them back. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- It doesn't matter to me too much, one way or the other. Maybe this is what a footnote would be good for? Anville 19:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That's what I thought, and that's what I did. Of course, the numbering between the references and the footnotes seems to be messed up...
-
[edit] removed
- Georgia Tech students once returned the compliment ironically in the form of T-shirts bearing MIT's logo and the text "The Georgia Tech of the North".
I removed this statement because it's unverifiable (unless a picture or story exists). I visited GT in March or April of 1998, and saw this t-shirt in their college book store. The shirt had the drawing of a tower-like building, presumably a building at MIT, with the text: MIT, the Georgia Tech of the North. - Slo-mo 06:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good call. Thanks. Anville 08:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Institute Professor" nominated for deletion
The article titled Institute Professor has been nominated for deletion by user:Kane5187, who says not all of the 10-or-12-or-so Institute Professors are notable. This while many MIT professors who are not Institute Professors have Wikipedia articles and are universally considered notable (and so do most of the Institute Professors). Please opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute Professor. Your input is needed! Michael Hardy 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Doonesbury
I have to wonder if Garry Trudeau thought up the "MIT of western Connecticut" joke in today's Doonesbury after reading this article. . . . That would make me very happy. Anville 13:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
