Does E = mc² or mc³? The Science in Bond Films Thread

CommanderRoss

funny how thinks you think impossible are actually possible, and the other way around too...

DarthDimi

That, @CommanderRoss, is what makes science so fascinating in my humblest of opinions. ;)

Thunderfinger

Much of what we today call science, was known as magic in the past.

TheWizardOfIce

Thunderfinger wrote: »

Much of what we today call science, was known as magic in the past.

Or the power of God.

Oops wrong thread!!;)

RichardTheBruce

Still known, in fact.

RichardTheBruce

Science Fact after all.

Made ya look: Moviegoers may have little control over their eye movements
during Hollywood-style films, study finds
k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/mar16/eyemovement32216.html

Lester Loschky, associate professor of psychological sciences at Kansas State University,
used six shots, a 12-second clip, from the 1979 James Bond film, "Moonraker,"
to measure eye movements and understanding.


MANHATTAN — Hollywood-style films may control viewers' attention more than originally thought, according to a Kansas State University researcher.

Lester Loschky, associate professor of psychological sciences, recently published "What Would Jaws Do? The Tyranny of Film" in PLOS ONE. The study suggests viewers may have limited cognitive control of their eye movements while trying to understand films.

What Would Jaws Do? The Tyranny of Film and the Relationship between Gaze and Higher-Level Narrative Film Comprehension
Lester C. Loschky , Adam M. Larson, Joseph P. Magliano, Tim J. Smith
Published: November 25, 2015
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142474

Abstract

What is the relationship between film viewers’ eye movements and their film comprehension? Typical Hollywood movies induce strong attentional synchrony—most viewers look at the same things at the same time. Thus, we asked whether film viewers’ eye movements would differ based on their understanding—the mental model hypothesis—or whether any such differences would be overwhelmed by viewers’ attentional synchrony—the tyranny of film hypothesis. To investigate this question, we manipulated the presence/absence of prior film context and measured resulting differences in film comprehension and eye movements. Viewers watched a 12-second James Bond movie clip, ending just as a critical predictive inference should be drawn that Bond’s nemesis, “Jaws,” would fall from the sky onto a circus tent. The No-context condition saw only the 12-second clip, but the Context condition also saw the preceding 2.5 minutes of the movie before seeing the critical 12-second portion. Importantly, the Context condition viewers were more likely to draw the critical inference and were more likely to perceive coherence across the entire 6 shot sequence (as shown by event segmentation), indicating greater comprehension. Viewers’ eye movements showed strong attentional synchrony in both conditions as compared to a chance level baseline, but smaller differences between conditions. Specifically, the Context condition viewers showed slightly, but significantly, greater attentional synchrony and lower cognitive load (as shown by fixation probability) during the critical first circus tent shot. Thus, overall, the results were more consistent with the tyranny of film hypothesis than the mental model hypothesis. These results suggest the need for a theory that encompasses processes from the perception to the comprehension of film.

"Hollywood-style filmmakers have developed stimuli — such as shorter shot length, more motion in the frame and higher contrast — that is amazing at directing the viewers' attention from moment to moment in exactly the way that the filmmaker wants," Loschky said. "It is not that film producers have complete mind control because we willingly participate in it — we enjoy movies — but they do have a lot of control over our attention."

Loschky compared eye movements of people who watched a three-minute clip of "Moonraker," a 1979 James Bond film, with people who watched the last 12 seconds of the clip. His hypothesis, called the "Tyranny of Film," was that film viewers' eye movements are separate from a person's understanding.

"We are investigating film perception and film comprehension together," Loschky said. "In a static picture, people look at different things at different times, but during a movie suddenly everybody is looking at the same things at the same time."

Loschky said that in the last 100 years, filmmakers slowly have gotten better at getting every viewer to look at the same place at the same time, a measurement called attentional synchrony. He attributes that to what he calls MTV-style editing, which is a greater frequency of cuts and shorter shot lengths. The researchers hypothesize that filmmakers are so good at influencing viewers' eye movements in Hollywood-style movies that viewers' understanding does not necessarily affect where they look.

"We wanted to know if a person's understanding affects what they pay attention to while watching a movie," Loschky said. "A lot of people in our area of psychology would assume that it does, but what we are finding out is not so much."

To establish a difference in understanding, the researchers asked participants at the pinnacle moment at the end of the 12-second clip to predict what would happen next in the film. People in the context group, those who watched the longer segment, were more than twice as likely to immediately predict the next scene than people who watched the shorter segment, the no-context group.

"We call it the jumped-in-the-middle method," Loschky said. "Imagine you're watching a movie and your significant other comes in halfway through; they will not understand as quickly as you do because you know the context of the story. We are interested in that early time before they've caught up."

After establishing a difference in understanding, Loschky compared eye movements of the two groups to see if the viewers' attention was different or the same regardless of their understanding.

"Surprisingly, there are only very small, very subtle differences in the eye movements," Loschky said. "When you look at the overall pattern, they look virtually identical, which suggests a high degree of attentional synchrony overall."

Most of the subtle differences occurred in shot four, where the movie cuts from Bond's nemesis, Jaws, falling after his parachute fails to open to a shot of a circus tent. The context group immediately predicted that Jaws would fall on the tent. The no context group was split into two subgroups: those who did predict Jaws would fall on the tent, called the no-context + inference group, and those who didn't, called the no-context + no-inference group.

"A viewer's mental model, or their understanding, doesn't occur instantaneously; it occurs in stages and it is built up over time," Loschky said. "When the viewers who jumped in the middle see a circus tent, their mental model may not have developed the reasoning that the circus tent is a solution to prevent the character, Jaws, from falling to his death."

According to Loschky, while watching the circus tent shot, viewers in the context condition looked at the same places at the same time, while viewers in the no-context condition looked at more places. Loschky said these subtle differences in eye movements were because participants who didn't have the full context of the clip were having a hard time understanding why they were being shown a circus tent. Both of the no context groups wanted to understand why they were seeing a circus tent but didn't have the background to fully understand, so their eyes searched the image more. Those viewers in the no-context group who succeeded in making the inference looked longer in an effort to understand than those who didn't make the inference, he said.

"It seems that your understanding of a movie is not clearly reflected in your eye movements at the broad level," Loschky said. "However, if you do sophisticated eye movement analyses, you can find subtle differences in the eye movements. You have to really dig deep to find these differences and we think that is actually quite surprising."

The psychological sciences department is in Kansas State University's College of Arts & Sciences.



Lester Loschky, associate professor of psychological sciences at Kansas State University, used heat maps to measure frequency of participants' eye movements in three groups: Those with context of the film; those without context but were able to make predictions; and those without context but were not able to make predictions. |

DarthDimi

Oh, good.

Great find, @RichardTheBruce! Thank you.

RichardTheBruce

I forgot to post this with the It's Grεεκ To Me Olympic items. Here it gives perspective to the action on the bobsled runs.

TheWizardOfIce

RichardTheBruce wrote: »

I forgot to post this with the It's Grεεκ To Me Olympic items. Here it gives perspective to the action on the bobsled runs.

Why couldn't we have had something like that in SP rather than the limp plane sequence?

RichardTheBruce

And what was all that stuff about Vietnam? What the STUFF has anything got to do with Vietnam?

RichardTheBruce

Is it time for a new Nellie? Or must that wait until 2027.

Ludovico

I'm not a fan of YOLT but always loved little Nellie.

RichardTheBruce

Little Nellie in the air. Wet Nellie in the sea.

For land, I thought the filmmakers considered a tricked-up Q-Branch sport utility vehicle. And may still consider since the Aston Martin DBX is in development.

https://wsj.com/video/could-james-bond-next-car-be-an-aston-martin-suv/F77C5F7F-385F-4E4E-830C-87DE827755FE.html

RichardTheBruce

James Bond meets Samuel Colt: Seeking to build a safer gun
https://phys.org/news/2016-05-james-bond-samuel-colt-safer.html
May 1, 2016 by By Lisa Marie Pane


In this photo taken April 7, 2016, Jonathan Mossberg, whose iGun Technology Corp. is working to develop a "smart gun," demonstrates the firearm, in Daytona Beach, Fla. Mossberg is among a group of pioneers looking to build a safer gun. But …more

Jonathan Mossberg is among a small number of pioneers looking to build a safer gun. But unlike many others, he was in the gun business when he started down that path.

His family is renowned for its premier line of shotguns treasured by law enforcement, hunters and the military. Mossberg already has spent more than a decade working to develop—and someday bring to the market—a firearm that the wrong person cannot fire. It is intended to work without fail in the hands of its owner in a life-or-death situation.

"We're gun people, so we know when you pick up a gun you want to shoot it," Mossberg said. "You don't want to swipe your finger. You don't want to talk to it. In an emergency situation, you want to pick it up and use it."

Mossberg's iGun Technology Corp., based in Daytona Beach, Florida, relies on a simple piece of jewelry—a ring—that "talks" to a circuit board imbedded in a firearm to let it know the user is authorized. The ring must be within centimeters of the gun for the gun to fire.

The road to a safer gun has been long. Initial efforts encountered a public wary of the technology, but that has eased as iPhones, tablets and other smart devices have become common.

Mossberg isn't the only one attempting to bring a bit of James Bond to firearms.

Others are exploring biometrics, like an iPhone lock that opens with your fingerprint. Some rely on radio-frequency identification, or RFID, technology, proximity sensors similar to the system Mossberg's company uses. Some use watches to send a signal to the firearm.


They've had varying degrees of success, but none has been broadly marketed so far.
James Bond meets Samuel Colt: Seeking to build a safer gun

In this photo taken April 7, 2016, Jonathan Mossberg, whose iGun Technology Corp. is working to develop a "smart gun," poses with the firearm, in Daytona Beach, Fla. Mossberg is among a group of pioneers looking to build a safer gun. But …more

On Friday, Obama announced new steps to curb gun violence, including by identifying the requirements "smart guns" would have to meet for law enforcement agencies to buy and use them.

"As long as we've got the technology to prevent a criminal from stealing and using your smartphone, then we should be able to prevent the wrong person from pulling a trigger on a gun," Obama said on Friday.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security said in a report Friday that they expect to complete the work of identifying the smart-gun requirements by October.

"The technologies are a reality now," said Stephen Teret, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who studies gun violence and gun policies. "There are obstacles still in getting those technologies into guns and getting guns into the civilian marketplace."

Among them is cost. Modernizing gun manufacturing would mean higher prices for smart weapons.

Then there's politics. The industry is concerned that success with the technology would encourage the government to mandate it.

And the powerful gun lobby raises red flags about reliability. What happens if the firearm isn't syncing with the radio signal or the fingerprint isn't recognized? In a crisis, seconds are precious.

"If you need it to protect yourself and it doesn't work, that's a bad outcome," said Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents manufacturers. "Reliability is everything ... If your iPhone doesn't work, you're inconvenienced. You're not dead."

Mossberg's interest in smart-gun technology stemmed from a rise in police being killed with their own service weapons in the 1990s. Law enforcement didn't embrace the idea, preferring to use holsters that made it more difficult for a suspect to disarm an officer.

He switched gears and began developing a firearm for civilians, only to find resistance there, too. Many people in the focus groups he conducted around the country told him they wanted nothing to do with a gun that contained a circuit board.

But as personalized technology won greater acceptance—and after mass shootings in Columbine, Colorado; Newtown, Connecticut, and other places seized public attention—opposition faded.

Mossberg said the shotgun his company is developing has been tested more than 3,000 times with no failures. The next challenge: shrinking the circuit board so it fits into a handgun.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-james-bond-samuel-colt-safer.html#jCp

RichardTheBruce

Here's What Really Would Have Happened To James Bond In Spectre
iflscience.com/brain/bond-villain-got-his-neuroanatomy-wrong-spectre/
By Ben Taub 04 Jan 2016, 20:52

As every international supervillain knows, meticulous planning is vital to the success of any diabolical scheme – although James Bond’s latest nemesis clearly hadn’t done all his homework before taking on MI6’s finest, and left a major flaw in his plan to defeat the famous spy.

The error was recently pointed out by St. Michael’s Hospital neuroscientist Dr. Michael Cusimano, who published a commentary on the film "Spectre" in the journal Nature, explaining that Ernst Stavro Blofeld, played by Christoph Waltz, clearly doesn’t know his neuroanatomy.

In an attempt to erase Bond’s ability to memorize faces, Blofeld cruelly tells his victim that he intends to drill into his lateral fusiform gyrus. While he is correct in identifying this as the region of the brain responsible for recognizing faces, he then places the drill in the wrong spot, and (spoiler alert!) had Bond not managed to escape, would have actually drilled into his mastoid process, where the neck muscles attach to the temporal bone.

According to Cusimano, this would not have had the desired effect, but would probably have caused a massive hemorrhage or stroke, and may well have resulted in death. While it’s unlikely that Blofeld would have been too upset by this, Cusimano said in a statement that had the villain been a student of his, “he would surely have failed his neuroanatomy.”

In spite of Blofeld’s inability to tell his gyrus from his mastoid, Cusimano said that his plan could in theory have worked, since it is possible to impair people’s ability to recognize faces by damaging certain parts of the brain. This may lead to a condition known as prosopagnosia, or face blindness, which sometimes occurs following major brain injuries or strokes.

RichardTheBruce

Four plant species named for James Bond
sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/four-plant-species-named-james-bond
By Ben PankoMay. 4, 2016 , 12:15 PM



There’s no word yet on how they’ll take their martinis, but a new subgenus of plants has been named Jamesbondia, after the ornithologist namesake for the famed fictional spy, Science Daily reports. The four plant species in this new subgenus are found in Central America and the Caribbean Islands, where U.S. ornithologist James Bond did his most famous work. Author Ian Fleming, a passionate birdwatcher, was later inspired after reading Bond’s book Birds of the West Indies. Jamesbondia falls under the tropical flowering plant genus Alternathera, according to the proposal in the latest issue of the journal Plant Biosystems. The subgenus was previously used informally by another botanist in the 1980s.

DarthDimi

Coolest post of the day!
Thank you, @RichardTheBruce.

RichardTheBruce

FOUND: A Very Large Rodent
Named for James Bond, Ornithologist
by Sarah Laskow May 18, 2015
https://atlasobscura.com/articles/found-a-rodent-named-for-james-bond-ornithologist


James Bond’s hutia (Photo: Jose Nunez-Mino. Courtesy of The Last Survivors/ZSL)

JAMES BOND'S HUTIA, LIKE THE SPY, SPENDS its time on frolicking in the sunny Caribbean islands. It is not quite as sexy as 007, though. James Bond’s hutia is a rather large rodent, similar to a guinea pig but about the size of a house cat.

(For a rodent of unusual size, it is kind of cute, though.)

Once, there were about 30 species of this type of rodent, but many have gone extinct. James Bond’s hutia was recently identified as a unique subspecies of hutia, living in the southeastern section of Hispaniola, the island that contains both the Dominican Republic and Haiti. It was not named after James Bond, 007, but James Bond, ornithologist—the original namesake for Ian Fleming’s creation.


The original James Bond. (Photo: Jerry Freilich/Wikimedia)

James Bond, ornithologist, wasn’t even British: he was born in Philadelphia, in 1900. Ian Fleming had read Bond’s “Birds of the West Indies” and liked the author’s name—simple, manly, anonymous. So he adopted it for his fictional spy. He and the real Mrs. Bond struck up a correspondence about his theft: Fleming told her that “Perhaps one day your husband will discover a particularly horrible species of bird which he would like to christen in an insulting fashion by calling it Ian Fleming.”

See also:

James Bond: Rodent of Solace
In the dense jungle of Hispaniola, a plump brown rodent peers down from the trees.
https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2016/10/07/james-bond-rodent-of-solace/

Gerard

I would have thought that a bird would have been more appropriate for an ornithologist, but there you go.

GoldenGun

Did someone already mention the bow of the Liparus opening up in TSWLM?

Every ship in the world would sink.

Gerard

Not if the inside of the hull is made like a catamaran.

TheWizardOfIce

Gerard wrote: »

Not if the inside of the hull is made like a catamaran.

That's the only it could stay afloat as if there is that much water inside sloshing about it roll in seconds. The Estonia only had about an inch of water on the car deck and it took just a few minutes, albeit in quite rough seas, to tip over.

But then if the Liparus was a catermeran the subs would just need to flood their tanks and sink to escape.

Actually while we're at it how does Stromberg make the sub's controls go to ratshit? Q explains the tracking system up to a point but why would the Liparus sailing above a sub cause it to go haywire forcing them to blow the tanks and surface? This is never even addressed in the slightest.

Without this the whole thing is defunct as the sub could happily carry on and the Liparus could do sod all about it.

RichardTheBruce

The James Bond Vehicle Library
https://bmt216a.dk/Vehicles/BMT216Avehicle.php?vpage=192

Tanker 'Liparus'

Published 02/02-2007
Updated 15/11-2016 10:11

Notes
In Bond movies it's sometimes difficult to recognise where the reality ends and fiction starts - especially when the movie creators are doing their utmost to make it as real as possible. "Liparus" is a very good example of such efforts.

"Liparus" as ship is real - this supertanker constructed in 1975 as the older brother of the Linga tanker, was next one in the L series, one of the six identical tankers build within 3 years in Odense Staalskibvaerft (Denmark) for Shell corporation. Name was inherited from the 9240 BRT tanker from the Shell fleet. With tonnage 315.697 BRT it was really presenting the expansive intentions of the company...

"Liparus" served for Shell until 1983. It was then sold to Norway and renamed "Paradise". 7 years later it was sold again to Hellespont, and renamed "Hellespont Paradise". Finally it's life ended in 2003 at the scrapyard in Xinhui, China. That's the reality...

The script enlarged the tanker up to 1 000 000 BRT making it the second largest tanker in the world "after the Karl Marx, of course". Initially all scenes were intended to shot on the real tanker. Shell had agreed to lend the empty tanker to the filming for free. The production company should only pay the insurance for the period. Production Designer Ken Adams and the team realised that an empty tanker was even more dangerous that a loaded one. The fumes in the empty tanks is highly explosive. Moreover the insurance was GBP 50.000 a day - way too much even for a James Bond film.

The impressive Liparus model in the Bahamas.

All footings of the tanker at sea was of a 'miniature' model filmed in the Bahamas. The actual model was 19.8 m (65 ft) long. It was driven by a 48 HP Evinrude inboard motor. Build in England and flown to Bahamas for the filming. As all other models of the film, it didn't survive. The model was so lifelike, that the captain of Liparus, who was invited to the premiere thought the film crew managed to find another real tanker for filming.

The interior of the Liparus are all filmed in a stage. But the problem was that there was no stage big enough - so they had to build it. It turned out to be the biggest stage for its time - the 007 Stage at PineWood Studios.

The bow doors and interior were all constructed in the PineWood Studios. The whole set was 450 feet long, and as we know housed 3 nuclear submarines in nearly natural size ... Stanley Kubrick engaged himself and provided uncredited assistance in supervising the lighting of the tanker set due to cinematographer Claude Renoir's failing eyesight.

The efforts were noted and appreciated in the movie world - Ken Adam, Peter Lamont and Hugh Scaife were nominated in 1978 Academy Award (Oscar) for Art Direction/Set Decoration. Both nominations unfortunately lost to the Mega-hit Star Wars.

by MS & PS

RichardTheBruce

The real Supertanker Liparus, afloat 1975 to 2003.

https://helderline.com/tanker/liparus-2

RichardTheBruce

Naval vessels already use the catamaran concept for speed.

Real navy vessel.


The stealth ship concept from Tomorrow Never Dies.

Regarding the Liparus staying afloat when it opens its bow entrance, it seems to me the buoyancy of a catamaran (or stealth ship) as @Gerard suggested could be combined with faux bottom structure to appear to be a supertanker. And still having a tank bottom preventing the subs' escape.

Tankers take on ballast anyway to maintain their trim at the waterline, they'd adjust to conditions. The water in the "cargo" area could be a zero sum game, not affected by opening bow doors. And regardless, when the bow is opened the cargo area quickly fills (or empties) to equilibrium with the outside sea water.

What would be a problem is the open space of a supertanker (and closed bow doors) filled with seawater, but minus the baffles and other structure that keep the liquid from sloshing around. In large volumes affected by changes in direction and momentum, that can be disastrous for the supertanker. And maybe worse for its contents.

Thunderfinger

That s interesting. There is also a ship called RISICO, or at least there was.

RichardTheBruce

Hmm. Liparus. That's Greek.

RichardTheBruce

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Actually while we're at it how does Stromberg make the sub's controls go to ratshit? Q explains the tracking system up to a point but why would the Liparus sailing above a sub cause it to go haywire forcing them to blow the tanks and surface? This is never even addressed in the slightest.

I went back to the Christopher Wood novelization for detail. Seems to be some method to shut down/interfere with power on the sub. And then the need for electrical fans to circulate breathable air through the sub requires fast surfacing. Power is likely even more important to keep the sub's nuclear reactors cool.

So a directional electromagnetic pulse or powered beam of energy, or something similar that won't permanently damage the subs Stromberg wants to use makes sense. To me what happens on screen communicates that.

James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me, Christopher Wood, 1977.
Chapter 18 - Dropping in on the Navy

...
Steady on the course, north."

Bond had taken one step towards the torpedo room when the submarine gave a violent lurch and he was hurled sideways against a bank of instruments. The lights flickered and for a second he thought they had rammed some underwater obstacle. Men were thrown backwards into untidy heaps on the floor and Anya was catapulted into his arms. The smooth, orderly build-up of voices performing their pre-ordained tasks gave way to a disjointed babble as the P.A. system exploded into staccato life. 'Control - Sonar. Total power supplies failure on all sets.' 'Control - Manoeuvering. We're losing electrical frequency. I'll have to break down the system.'

The lights flickered again and a rising high-pitched whine made Bond grit his teeth. The hull of the submarine was vibrating as if an electric drill was playing against it. It was like being inside a tooth whilst it was being drilled.

'What is God's name is happening?' Carter's face was deadly white.

Another voice came over the P.A. system. 'Reactor Scram! Reactor Scram! We've lost all electrical power!"

Another shudder raked the ship and the ear-splitting whine sang through the metal. The lights flickered, dimmed and then went out like a dying candle. At the same instant as the vibration began to die away there was the sound of the ventilation fans slowly running down and stopping. After that, an eerie, nerve-wracking silence. Bond could see the luminous dial of Carter's watch and almost heard the man thinking. A pencil rolled across the deck.

Then Carter spoke with full firm authority. 'Surface! Blow for'd! Blow aft! Full ahead, full rise on both planes. Up 'scope.'

The noise of the compressed air rushing into the ballast tanks was deafening and Anya dug her nails into Bond's combat suit. The submarine shuddered and rose steeply through the water. Anya, realizing that it was not going to break up, released her hold on Bond. Carter clapped his eyes to the periscope and rose with it. The tension in the control room was painful. Men were counting their life-expectancy in seconds. They waited in darkness like sinners at the gates of hell. Carter's outline was just recognizable as he swung the periscope through one hundred and eighty degrees. Then there was a gasp. An unbelievable gasp.

My God! It's not possible!

RichardTheBruce

Since the Liparus discussion picked up, I want to move the James Bond shower item forward to deconflict it here. Plus to add the book references.

RichardTheBruce

Apologies to @Gerard here. To make sense of his following comment:

There is the proposal all should consider the health benefits of a "James Bond Shower"--the ice cold effect for minutes at a time.