Cometh the hour, cometh the review.  Right, let's try this...

For my first public opinion-spouting, I've managed to pick a suitably epic cinematic undertaking to delve deeply into - none other than Disney's Big Hero 6.

Oh yes.

Let's start by stating the obvious - this is no Saving Private Ryan.  Hell, it's not even Inception.  If you were hoping for high drama and mind-searing violence, step off.


Now I know diddly about the comic BH6 is based on and if you don't either let me break the plot down for you in a bite-sized analogy - clever kid inherits i:Robot and quest for revenge from older brother, then sets out with band of MIT postgrads to save the day.

Seeing as how the subject matter is based on a Marvel comic, this might just be the first sign of the Marvel vs DC movie battle spilling over onto younger audiences.  If this piece of work is anything to go by, that's probably no bad thing.


In more detail, the story revolves around Hiro Hamada, a bright kid with a spark for robotics living in "San Fransokyo".  When an accident at a technology fair leaves Hiro somewhat bereaved, his older brother's postgrad project - a charming healthcare providing robot called Baymax - makes it his mission to cheer the kid up.  So ensues an inevitable mission to fight evil and restore good to the world.

Beyond the kid-friendly, colourful cinematography and genuinely beautiful animation, being an engineer I was particularly warmed by the movie's treatment of STEM as central to the story.  Hiro is interested in robotics and his experiences with his brother's robotic "healthcare companion" bring subjects such as the ethics of AI and its interaction with human motivations to the core of the movie.  This isn't in a profound way - just that this is the first movie in a long time where technological ability is celebrated, rather than being an enabler provided by a supporting geek for the jock hero.  Iron Man did this to some extent with the first successful Hollywood hero with an engineering degree, but then Tony Stark isn't exactly a paragon of intellectual discipline or rigorous scientific method.

So BH6 deserves brownie points for making a good-natured and genuinely quite inspiring attempt at making engineering look cool to those who we desperately need to see it in a positive light.  On the flip side, the word "engineering" isn't actually used in the movie - the characters prefer to talk about "tech" as if it's something you find in a wardrobe:

"Dude, I love your tech!"
"Your tech is so cool!"
"We can solve this problem with tech!"

...but then I'd be the first to admit "engineering" isn't as fun a word to a tablet-enabled 6-year-old...yet...

Hiro and Baymax in his >cough<
 3D printed armour

The parallels with a children's Iron Man return in the occasional faffing about at holographic PC terminals and some particularly laughable 3D printing of armour plating for Hiro's cuddly healthcare-companion-turned-cuddly-Terminator-robot.  That said, I am grateful I didn't see any obvious Apple-shaped objects dropped in there, which in the engineering world would have been akin to leaving a Crayola carton on display in Mr Turner.

I'm also still not entirely convinced that linking intellectual ability with the word "nerd" is constructive for kids, but at least Hiro's companions fresh out of their lab at San Fransokyo Institute of Technology are placed well out of any conventional "nerd" stereotypes and with their loosely science-based "superpowers" add to the aspirational slant the story gives to technical research.

The movie's plot bobs along nicely and although the twists are gentle and entirely expected (how hard is it to guess who the bad guy is when given a choice of two?), it's enough to allow a good bit of character exposition and the struggle Hiro has with his thirst for revenge and Baymax's implacable, do-no-evil programming is genuinely touching.  The development of the team's equipment and Baymax's...militarisation is also quite fun although a movie this short doesn't really give much opportunity for them to get into more than a couple of action sequences to show off their gadgetry.

The conclusion leaves the movie happily open to sequels and from the general mood of the crop of younglings I had the distinct pleasure of sharing my viewing with was anything to go by - it'll be warmly received when it comes.  Given the "tech"-heavy theme, it's also a god-send for some serious toy merchandising

All in all a pretty fun, charming and artistically lovely movie.  But most importantly it's potentially a step in making the worlds (they're different) of science and technology more mainstream and genuinely appealing to children.

For that, Disney and Lasseter's dream-weavers should be saluted, whether or not that was ever their intention.

Taboos

Every now and then you share a thought with someone about something that's been bugging you, only to find they've been following the same train of thought.

I don't know where this particular one terminates, but it took on passengers some time between risotto and profiteroles last night and went thus:

Why is racism more unacceptable than any other form of discrimination or stereotyping?

If you see a kid lurking on the street of a cold evening in a velour tracksuit, peppered with bad acne and his/her hands stuffed in pockets, are you being a social reprobate by subconsciously checking where your wallet is?  How do you know that kid isn't going to turn out to be a medical researcher?  Conversely, how do you know that clean-cut, well educated politician isn't going to turn out to be a corrupt, lecherous thug?

Alright, using a politician is a little unfair, but an easy straw person to make the point.

I think the root of this came from Herr Cumberbatch's recent apology over using a racially charged term, but I was wondering if at some point in the future we'll be seeing celebrities apologising for having called someone a chav or a scouser.

The Right Answer

For today’s self-indulgent waffle, I shall spoon out the fanciful batter that is one of my favourite little throwaway comments that I regularly hear during my labours in the world of product design.  The comment that I refer to is that “engineering is easy because there’s a right answer”.  Effectively you have some textbooks and equations, you plug your numberthings into a calcuwotsit and out pops the answer.  Repeat as necessary.

Bingo.

I suspect product design is not alone in this and anywhere that “creatives” (we shall return to why that word is in quotation marks at a later date) rub shoulders with...technical people will have some similar sentiment bandied about from time to time.  Ignoring for the moment that it is sometimes - but not always - used with coy sarcasm, we shall assume that this is a serious philosophical sentiment and dissect it as such.

Let’s start with an analogy - it would be like an architect suggesting civil engineering is easy because all they have to do is make sure something doesn’t fall down.  That would constitute the “right” answer.

“Look, we’ve made loads of bridges - you just use all the same calculations and we can just make another one, ok?  I have to do the hard bit and make it beautiful.”

As will be obvious to anyone who’s sat a science exam, there is no such thing as a “right” answer - merely varying degrees of wrong.  Science and engineering are one in that, after about the age of 16, there is no higher authority present to pat you on the back and congratulate you on achieving 100%.  I appreciate that in other countries the cut-off age where your hand stops being held and the harsh realities of the universe take over may be a little later, but in the UK you start being taught at around sixth form (if not earlier) that you really don’t know ***t.  No matter how good your answer and your derivation of whatever equation from first principles, you’ll have made an assumption somewhere along the way that renders it not quite right in every possible scenario in the space-time continuum.  A real project consists of hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of these calculations.  Those inaccuracies stack up and conspire to prevent you ever creating anything “right”.  Engineering is a balancing act between the rigorous application of scientific theory and not losing your mind.

Further, the idea of “right” ignores the fact that any real world solution exists within finite constraints.  Designers are acutely aware of this the first time they go through the heartache and ego-crushing devastation that is productionisation of a cherished design.  Much like pushing a delicate fawn in front of a freight train.  Good design requires an understanding of the challenges of the real world ahead of time and adequate preparation.

Now, none of this is to say that I do not agree with the foundation of this sentiment - that design is subjective.  This could be debated (some designs are obviously wrong and others seem right - why else are all our phones filleted rectangles with glossy surfaces?) but the basic argument is that there isn’t a formula or process that anyone can follow in order to produce great designs loved by all.  We can all agree on this.  What I would say is that engineering is not purely objective.

Much as any layperson can appreciate the beauty of a well-styled car, they can also appreciate the elegance of the cupholder mechanism (contrary to popular belief, engineers don’t just do the engine).  There will have been an infinite number of solutions to that perennial human ache to simply store a vessel of liquid within a moving vehicle.  Compared to this infinite solution space, the number of implementations that quietly slide out of their lair in a majestically understated piece of mechanical choreography, eliciting that quiet approving nod from your passenger is a vanishingly small subset of that space.  But could any one of them be called the “right” answer?

I say not - there is never a right answer in engineering.  But there are plenty of ****ing good ones.