It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
- It's a highly toxic nerve gas that has no effect on animals.
- May I see the formula?
- It's the chemical formula of a plant.
- Orchidae nigra. A very rare orchid indeed.
- Thought to be extinct.
"The chemical formula of a plant." Science 1.0.1 will tell you that plants are a collection of cells and fluids, with each cell itself a collection of a many different molecules. Every molecule has its own formula, therefore "the chemical formula of a plant" is a little like "the phone number of New York": it doesn't exist. Even if the screenwriters felt an urge to simplify things for the sake of keeping movie science accessible to all, what we have here makes no darn sense - period. Had they written, "It's the chemical formule of a compound that can be found in only one plant.", it would have been perfectly fine.
Unless of course you want to examine the formula more closely.
In that case I can assure you it's every chemist's nightmare. Phosphorus, like Bond himself, does way too much bonding here. There's a -CHCO2 group in the lower left part of the structure that cannot possibly exist and what the 'DS' stands for is a mystery. Maybe Q Branch uses its own 'code' for chemical sturctures...
It would have been a lot easier for them to just show the correct formula of a known toxin. But then of course they would have lost the clue Bond needs to know where exactly in all of South-America he has to go in order to find that bloody flower and thus, where Drax is hiding...
I suppose Bond made himself more aerodynamic and hence was able to cut wind resistance sufficiently to catch up. However, isn't a plane essentially as aerodynamic as it can be, given its purpose? So aren't they both falling at 'g'? Moreover, I believe the plane's propellers were still spinning....
It seemed a little far fetched then and still does now. I mean, look at the distance between them here!
You are correct, sir. It's implausible for sure; moreover, it's impossible too. The plane started falling somewhat sooner than Bond but gains speed very fast. Per second, a falling object gains approximately 10 m/s. And since neither of both is in a particular aerodynamic disadvantage, I don't think wind resistance counts for much. Also, the plane has a far larger horizontal velocity compared to Bond; Bond would have to jump a lot further to ever catch this plane. And then there's the question of whether or not Bond can pull up the plane in such a vertical dive with so little horizontal space - or so it seems - to make that U-turn.
Well, it's partly 'explained' here:
and since then it's been done more often. However, there's an important point here, and that's the hight at which this all happens in the film.
on average the falling speed is 55m/s. So, if the hight of the cliff was 1000 meters, which is pretty highe, It could take a maximum of 10 seconds to get into the plane, as you'd need probably another 10 seconds to level it out. That's increadably short. and then you have the point as you state with the horizontal distance. I'm not quite sure that would work.
I am very proud to have seen Kung Fury (about 4 times now). The Hoff's own theme song video clip is priceless too. :D
thats the physics of editing lol..
cutting to the bullet hitting the glass immediately when Bond pulls the trigger might have been too jarring of a cut for the director, so he may have opted to hold on the shot just a little longer.... but i dont know, i am not Michael Apted lol... that's just my initial thought behind that... because if i remember correctly, the sequence of shots goes: wide-behind Bond looking towards Renard. closeup-on Bond as he fires. closeup-on Renard with bullet impacting the glass...
Also, shooting a gun in a plan doesn't result in catastrophic depressurization nor can you die from skin suffocation.
I also always thought it was quite unrealistic that Bond was able to focus on certain objects (M's spoon for instance) without pulling everything else towards him as well.
Anyway, for those who are interested, I came across this interesting book on the physics of Bond gadgets/stunts etc. There are a few pages you can skim through via google books. Seems like an interesting book......I may pick up a copy at some point.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=xR1oq5Ij2ecC&pg=PT111&lpg=PT111&dq=live+and+let+die+magnet+deflects+bullet&source=bl&ots=A9z_CeUCCj&sig=jV49Y8y_HK0A4jCY0_YCi6lMKPo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIkbu9t4iKxgIVj1WSCh0afQzS#v=onepage&q=live and let die magnet deflects bullet&f=false
I distinctly recall the audience cheering at the first screening I attended. It had been a while since the last movie, and people were just itching for something ridiculously, and quintessentially, "Bond".
Ditto. That was before the dark times, before the empire, before... Bond fans became affected.
There was so much pent-up demand for GE that appealing to the laws of physics was really not necessary. Anything was acceptable, we wanted Bond back so much after 6 yrs.
After that, we (fans and the public) came back down to earth and became a little more discerning. EON/MGM took a while to catch on.