[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: New 007 movie



007 movies, as most movies, reflect scientific reality as much as the
roadrunner and coyote cartoons reflect animal behavior in the southwest.
It's called escapism.  That time when your mind can rest while contemplating
absolutely nothing.

But, hey!  NASA has just taken an idea from Star Wars with the floating 'Pet
Buddy' ball.  Interesting.  Ideas do come from strange places sometimes.

Jim Straka 

> ----------
> From: 	Franta, Jaroslav[SMTP:frantaj%aecl.ca@internet.al.gov]
> Sent: 	24 November, 1999 1:32 PM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	RE: New 007 movie
> 
> > Weiner, Ruth[SMTP:rfweine@sandia.gov] wrote on Wednesday, November 24,
> > 1999 2:46 PM
> > 
> > Agreed! And since when was ANY James Bond good (or even reasonable)
> > science?
> <><><><><><><><>
> 
> Personally, I thought that the depiction of a pool-type nuclear reactor in
> the very old film "Dr. No" was fairly convincing - just that it was
> botched
> with an unlikely connection to an (electric ?) powered laser of very high
> intensity (there was no turbogenerator in sight, if I remember correctly,
> and no way to operate at high power in an unpressurised reactor..), and
> the
> explosion at the end was also uncharacteristic (compared to BORAX or
> SL-1).
> In "Thunderbolt," the flying rocketbelt was an actual, working piece of
> (hydrogen-peroxide-fueled) equipment - no simulation... and there did not
> appear to be anything unrealistic about the Vulcan RAF bombers, or the
> nuclear bombs they were carrying...
> 
> ...the "realism" of these 007 movies has generally declined with their
> overall quality and entertainment value over the years - no doubt because
> there is a direct relationship (audiences resent being taken for a bunch
> of
> idiots..). Today we have reached the point of an unending stream of
> rediculous absurdities. Its the kiddies that are shelling out G$ for this
> silliness.
> 
> ((in contrast to comments in a previous posting on this list however, I
> offer the following, from Charles L. Owen, Institute of Design, Illinois
> Institute of Technology:
> 
> "Imagine very complex materials which--in a funny sense--are not
> materials,
> but collections of machines, except from our scale they look like a
> material. And yet...because they're machines they can sense and act, so
> that
> the material itself in our scale can change in sophisticated ways. You can
> image some of the things in movies like Terminator II really
> happening--materials 'morphing,' changing into different forms."
> ...posted at http://www.foresight.org/Updates/Update20/Update20.3.html ))
> 
> jaro
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html