In honor of the season 2 premiere of Syfy's webseries turned television series "Sanctuary", which stars Amanda Tapping as a doctor out to provide a safe-haven for the "abnormals" of society, SciFiWire has put together a funny little chart examining just how believable a lot of science fiction's heroine researchers and scientists end up being on screen. Even casual watchers of sci-fi should be able to pick up on Hollywood's tendency to miscast roles purely because an actress is either sexy or somehow relevant to pop culture at the time of production.
SciFiWire's chart breaks it down into four gradating quadrants: 1) Not Hot, but Plausible, 2) Hot & Plausible, 3) Hot but Implausible, 4) Not Hot & Implausible. Surprise, surprise, there are a whole lot more "Hot, but Implausible" scientists on the big (and small) screen than there are any other variety. While I'm sure the list has a few oversights it does a pretty good job of nailing some of the biggest eye-rolls I can recall in sci-fi; namely Tara Reid as an anthropologist in Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark (Not Hot & Implausible) to Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist in The World is Not Enough (Hot, but Implausible).
So what say you as far as their rankings go? Any glaring omissions or wrong calls? I, for one, am a little confused as to why Rachel Weisz is considered "Not Hot, but Plausible" in the first Mummy, but "Hot & Implausible" in the sequel...