Tag Archives: Emilie Lorditch

Ironheart, nanotechnology and the Marvel Comics Universe (MCU)

Leave a reply

Jordan Iacobucci is quite excited about Ironheart’s move away from using nanotechnology in its recent Marvel Comics Universe (MCU) television adaptation. From Iacobucci’s July 7, 2025 article for CBR (self-proclaimed World’s Top Destination for Comic, Movie & TV News), Note: Links have been removed,

After years of delays, Ironheart is finally streaming on Disney+. The six-episode series follows up on Dominique Thorne’s Riri Williams a few days after her adventures with Shuri and the Wakandans during the events of Black Panther: Wakanda Forever as she returns home to Chicago in hopes of building something “iconic.” Though she must navigate several trials and tribulations, Riri finally succeeds in her goal, completing a brand-new version of her Ironheart suit.

As Ironheart wraps up its run on Disney+, fans have plenty to break down, from its groundbreaking finale to its surprisingly great visuals. Many fans may find that the series is much better than they may have anticipated, especially after review-bombing tried to dismiss Ironheart before it even premiered. The series fixes several long-standing issues with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, including one particularly annoying trend that has plagued the franchise since Avengers: Infinity War

The MCU Uses Way Too Much Nanotechnology

Fans Aren’t Fond of the Nanotechnology Trend in the MCU

It all started in Avengers: Infinity War. During a confrontation with Ebony Maw and Cull Obsidian, Tony Stark debuted his new nanotechnology, which spread out across his body from a small compartment on his chest to form a new suit of armor.

Iron Man’s “Bleeding Edge” armor was only the beginning of the MCU’s love affair with nanotechnology, particularly when it comes to superhero suits. Infinity War also gives Spider-Man his own nanotech suit, the Iron Spider armor, which he wears for the remainder of the film and in his next several MCU appearances. Since then, almost every masked MCU hero has upgraded to similar costumes, from Black Panther to Ant-Man. As impressive as the technology may be, fans aren’t fond of the nanotech suits.

Nanotech suits make sense from a practical standpoint. If a hero can cause their suit to form around them with the press of a button, then they don’t have to worry about being caught off-guard by an emerging threat. Though these upgrades make sense, viewers lose something special as a result. The “Bleeding Edge” Iron Man armor and other nanotech suits lose the tangibility of previous MCU superhero costumes.

With nanotech, viewers are never made to feel as if the hero is really wearing a suit. This is largely because the actor isn’t wearing the suit on set. Often, nanotech is implemented as an excuse to use CGI to cover or uncover an actor’s face with their superhero mask at any given point in a scene. As a result, however, the suits themselves feel less real, looking more like images composited in a computer than something that someone would wear while fighting crime.

This issue gets worse when a particular film or series doesn’t allow its graphics team enough time to complete their animation processes. Films like Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania are horrible examples of this trend, featuring suits that sometimes look as though they were cobbled together on a laptop an hour before the movie hit theaters. Fans have been vocal about their distaste for nanotech suits for years, but Marvel has only doubled down on this trend since Infinity War–until now.

..

Iacobucci’s July 7, 2025 article goes on to wax rhapsodic over the return to ‘real’ technology,

…

The Ironheart armor feels real–much more real than any of the new nanotech suits introduced in recent MCU projects. In place of nanotechnology, Ironheart uses real technology to build her suit, and her series is so much better for it. It is much more visually appealing for viewers to see a tangible suit of armor on set with the actors.

…

Iacobucci has a point in that, while nanotechnology is a real technology; the nanotechnology in Iron Man is not (at this time).

So, what about the science in science fiction?

Officially launched in 2008 by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Science and Entertainment Exchange (see its Wikipedia entry), is one of the programs that filmmakers and others can consult when producing a science fiction piece. This March 16, 2022 article by Marian Caballo for The Science Survey delves into the topic of the science in science fiction, Note: Links have been removed,

Science is the backbone of our world, which means that it inevitably underlies the plots of many popular films and television shows. As an avid cinephile and biology research student myself, I often catch myself trying to break down characters’ scientific name-drops, or pausing to examine the scribbles of equations on background blackboards.

For example: in Don’t Look Up, an original Netflix movie that depicts the danger of a comet hurtling towards Earth, scientists lay out a plan to warn the world of its impending doom. In The Amazing Spider-Man, Peter Parker accidentally helps to create villainous mutant lizards with his solution to the “The Decay Rate Algorithm,” a fictional derivation of the Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality. Avengers: Endgame features an elaborate time travel plan involving Deutsch propositions, eigenvalues and inverted Möbius strips. None were technically real scientific developments, of course, but how do they sound so real? 

The answer: scientific consulting. This hidden field is dedicated to scientific advising in the entertainment industry, and it’s an exciting way for STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] professionals to become engaged in the world of fiction. These interactions connect Hollywood (writers, producers, directors), “with top STEM experts to create synergy between accurate science and engaging storytelling,” said Emilie Lorditch, founder of Real2Reel Science, a science consulting service for writers.

Media greatly impacts the public’s perception of science. According to The Pew Research Center, 81% of U.S. adults say they watch media involving criminal investigations, hospital/medical settings, or science fiction. The average American watches 84 movies a year. By placing STEM professionals on movie sets, scientists can not only assist in executing a narrative vision but also aid in sharing more engaging portrayals of STEM.

“The Hollywood, Health & Society program at USC [University of Southern California] has worked with multiple TV shows to develop storylines about organ donation, and has studied the impact of the plot on viewers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior,” said Lorditch, who believes science advising fosters mutual exchange. The USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center’s longitudinal impact studies focus on providing — then studying the impact of —  information about health, safety and security in Hollywood projects.

While many science consultants work independently or through institutions like USC, the science advising wing of Hollywood primarily stems from The National Academy of Sciences’ Science & Entertainment Exchange. Founded in 2008, the Exchange aims to improve the science that appears in narrative mainstream media through a “soft-sell” approach. The Exchange has completed more than 2,300 consultations on projects such as A Wrinkle in Time, Watchmen, and various Marvel Studios films. The organization essentially serves as a direct hotline for filmmakers to reach researchers, medical professionals, and more — as befits the Exchange’s actual phone number, 1-844-NEED-SCI.

However, it isn’t a scientific consultant’s job to make sure films are 100% accurate. Science fiction is called science fiction for a reason, and scientists aren’t keen on incorporating factual science when it comes at the expense of compelling storytelling. “The story always comes first. Period,” said Jennifer Ouellette, founding director of The Science & Entertainment Exchange. She now covers science and culture as a senior writer at Ars Technica, and has published several science-related books.

Ouellette always made sure to advise scientists working on their first Hollywood films to not just shake their heads when presented with a script. “They should think about what needs to happen in that scene, and come up with an even better scientific explanation. That makes it a win-win,” said Ouellette, who cites The Expanse as some of the best science representation in film and TV.

Insisting that science/scientists should only be portrayed in a positive light is not a solution, either. “Scientists are flawed human beings just like everyone else, and those flaws are what make us interesting and complex characters,” she continued.

Ouellette’s husband — theoretical physicist Sean M. Caroll at the California Institute of Technology — has served as a science consultant himself, helping to devise Tony Stark’s famous time-warping plan in Avengers: Endgame. He also advised one of Ouellette’s favorite science TV moments: an episode of BONES, when a physicist represses his grief over his gymnast daughter’s death. Caroll spent days on set writing a series of physics equations on blackboards. But he wasn’t developing hard science for the sake of science.

By the end of the episode, the characters learn that “each equation represents a moment in his daughter’s life: learning to walk, then run; doing her first backflip; a vault; and so on, until the final equation, showing her finally at rest. The writers turned it into a poem written in equations, and it remains one of the most amazing moments I’ve seen on television in a long time,” said Ouellette. 

On top of the fundamental fact that science must be in service of the story, the science doesn’t always have to be precise. “​​In the world of STEM, precision is crucial but for the majority of the public, not so much,” said Lorditch. Most viewers would agree. Spring Lin ’22 ignores “slightly questionable” scientific explanations, claiming they don’t interfere with the cinematic experience. “When there are no obvious wrongs in a movie, I usually don’t question it,” said Rita Chen ’22. 

Science advisors also lurk on a surprisingly wide range of sets — whether it is on reality TV such as MTV’s Teen Mom, or behind the scenes of The Simpsons. …

If you have the time, do read Caballo’s March 16, 2022 article.

The Science & Entertainment Exchange can be found here.

Iron Man and nanotechnology tidbits from years gone by

I have three previous posts about Iron Man’s nanotechnology, the earliest being from 2012.

Enjoy!

Protecting the brain and internal organs with nanofoam

Leave a reply

A March 11, 2025 news item on phys.org announces research on protective sports (and other) equipment, Note: Links have been removed,

Researchers at Michigan State University have refined an innovation that has the potential to improve safety, reduce severe injury and increase survival rates in situations ranging from car accidents, sports, law enforcement operations and more.

In 2020 and 2022, Weiyi Lu, an associate professor in MSU’s College of Engineering, developed a liquid nanofoam material made up of tiny holes surrounded by water that has been shown to protect the brain against traumatic injuries when used as a liner in football helmets. Now, MSU engineers and scientists have improved this technology to shield vital internal organs as well.

Falls, motor vehicle crashes and other kinds of collisions can cause blunt force trauma and damage to bodily organs that can lead to life-threatening emergencies. These injuries are often the result of intense mechanical force or pressure that doesn’t penetrate the body like a cut, but causes serious damage to the body’s organs, including internal lacerations, ruptures, bleeding and organ failure.

Lu and Yun Liang, an assistant professor in the College of Osteopathic Medicine, have teamed up to see how the liquid nanofoam could protect internal organs in the event of blunt force trauma. Their findings are published in the journal Scientific Reports.

…

A March 11, 2025 Michigan State University (MSU) news release by Emilie Lorditch, which originated the news item, provides more detail about the work,

We improved the liquid nanofoam by adjusting its protective response to match biological organs,” said Lu. “Then, we sealed the liquid nanofoam material inside a plastic pouch about the size of a quarter and made the new protection layer flexible and moldable enough to be worn comfortably against the body.”

To test the capabilities of Lu’s liquid nanofoam, the pouch was used as a protective cover and laid over a tissue sample and compressed by a machine with enough force to mimic a blunt force trauma event.

“For the first time, we are trying to understand how trauma is introduced by mechanical force and effectively mitigated it by using liquid nanofoam,” said Liang. “We are trying to understand the force needed to damage an internal organ, which will be then converted into the future design criteria for protective materials.”

Lu and Liang found that the liquid nanofoam could withstand the mechanical force equal to a blunt force trauma without damaging biological tissue. Liang and her team demonstrated that the liquid nanofoam protected multiple biological tissues, including the liver, kidneys, heart and lungs, from forces and pressures equal to blunt force trauma injuries.

“I could see with my eyes that there’s literally no damage,” said Liang. “I was totally amazed.”

Future applications of the liquid nanofoam could include using it as a protective layer inside an automobile’s framework, to line the walls of an earthquake-proof room or to wear it close to the body as a protective vest that could have multiple applications to save lives and prevent tissue and organ damage from blunt force trauma events.

Here`s a citation and a link to the paper,

Effective protection of biological tissues from severe blunt force injury by engineered nanoscale liquid flow by Fuming Yang, Runqi Zhu, Anqi Zheng, Runsheng An, Weiyi Lu & Yun Liang. Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 28947 (2024) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-80490-3 Published: 22 November 2024

This paper is open access.

Defiance, a transmedia project, goes nano (for one episode anyway)

Leave a reply

Defiance sounds more like the name for a warship than the title of transmedia (tv/games) science fiction project. It (both the tv series and the game) debuted with much fanfare in April 2013 on the US SyFy channel. Given the alien invasion aspect of the show I wasn’t expecting any nanotechnology but episode eight broadcast on June 3, 2013 has a character being ‘brought back to life’ by nanomachines according to the Defiance recaplet by Jacob Clifton for Television Without Pity,

In fact, Sukar’s first death was the result of a bit of Ark that contained nanomachines and were piloting his body around to save the Votans in town. She [Irisa] takes his comatose body back to the Badlands tribe, and I guess deals with the fact that what little guidance she had for dealing with her coming godhood is now gone, which has to suck. But then too, she seems to understand that miracles never look like miracles — that just because it was nanomachines doesn’t mean it wasn’t also a miracle — so that’s comforting.

I’m not entirely sure how the nanomachines piloted a dead (?) character’s body around town but I don’t think that was the recapper’s main concern. However, curiosity aroused I found some interviews with the science advisor for Defiance, Kevin Grazier. Here’s an excerpt from Grazier’s April 15, 2013 Q&A with Emilie Lorditch for Inside Science,

Kevin Grazier is a planetary physicist who worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory on the Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn and Titan, and is currently conducting research on long-term, large-scale computational simulations of Solar System dynamics and evolution. Grazier has also been a science advisor for numerous television shows such as “Eureka,” “Battlestar Galactica,” and the new SyFy show “Defiance.” …

…

IS: What is your typical day like?
KG: …
My interaction with the writers and producers depends upon the show, and for each episode it frequently depends upon the writer. Some shows (“Eureka,” “Falling Skies”) have brought me in prior to the beginning of a season to recommend technology or elaborate on scientific concepts for the upcoming season. Some writers will have an idea for a story, and will chat with me before they even start writing. Sometimes writers solicit input at the story outline stage, sometimes at the first draft stage. Sometimes, on the less tech-heavy stories, I have no interaction until there is a completed script, and then I weigh in with my notes.
On a few occasions I’ve been called into the writers’ room to do a presentation when we’re planning a particularly big or blockbuster season finale. Sometimes I get called to help with the visual effects. That happened a lot on Eureka.
For two episodes of Eureka, I was even asked to write a several pages of book chapters. In these episodes characters opened books and, since we shot in high-definition, fans could freeze the frame and read the text – so the text had to be original, not copyrighted, and, most importantly, correct.
On Defiance, I’ve had more telecons [telephone conferences]  than I’ve had on previous series, primarily because our game designer, Trion Worlds, is located in San Diego. I’ve also been editing a lot of online content, which I’ve never got to do before. As I said, nothing is “typical.”
…
IS: What advice do you have for scientists who want to work as a science advisor?
KG: It’s actually a lot easier to break in these days than it was when I started. There is an organization, program of the National Academy of Sciences, called The Science and Entertainment Exchange. They pair up scientists as consultants to the productions that need expertise. If you’re a scientist, and are interested in consulting (usually non-paid, at least at first), they maintain a database of scientists and their areas of expertise. If science consulting is something that interests you, start there.
One of the most important recommendations I could offer is that to do the job well, to be able to relate to the writers with whom you’re working, it really pays to have taken a screenwriting class or three. When it was obvious that I was going to get continued work in the industry, I went to UCLA Extension and earned a certificate in television writing. That’s been supremely helpful.
When you have an inkling of how difficult it is to tell a story in 42 minutes, with a beginning, middle, and end, along with five act breaks, you’re a much better advisor.

That last response from Grazier gives me daymares as I imagine some science type who’s taken a few courses and decides s/he is not just a science advisor but also the head writer. I’ve seen the phenomenon at work. All some people need is a workshop or a course and suddenly, they’ve become experts.

The article about Defiance on ScriptPhD is not credited or dated but I’m assuming it was posted in the last few months,

ScriptPhD.com was very honored to have the opportunity to sit down with both series writer and co-creator and executive producer Michael Taylor, as well as the show’s scientific advisor Kevin Grazier, to get a better idea of the characters, storyline and what we can expect going forward.

Taylor, also a series writer and producer on breakout SyFy hit series Battlestar Galactica, was involved in the early development of the series, which took over one and a half years to re-conceptualize and bring to the small screen from its initial concept. “Keep in mind, the original draft [of the pilot] was very different,” Taylor says. “The Chief Lawkeeper role was prototyped as this older, wry Brian Dennehy-type of character, for example. Irathient warrior Irisa was more of a wide-eyed, naïve girl than she is in the current version. We even had about two to three episodes of the series done. But as we went along, we were finding it hard to keep thinking up episodes from week to week.” Which is when the series went back to the drawing boards.

And reimagine the series they did! Unlike the vast majority of sci-fi shows, which explore the process of warring factions integrating and co-existing, in Defiance, this has already occurred, something that Taylor calls a “cool experiment.” “The 30-year-war has already been fought, all that stuff is long in the past,” Taylor reminds us. “And now we are at the point where the 8 races are trying to co-exist together. …

…

As for integrating the video game concept, it predated the show by five years, which allowed writers to establish stories and character development that will happen separately from, albeit concurrently with, the action in Defiance onscreen. …

…

“We’ve seen time and time again small plot points that have become little tidbits, or plot points or even major points driving an episode when you get the science right,” Grazier notes. “Caring about the science [in a series plot] can be as much of a strength as it is a constraint.”

And while it’s true that the science of Defiance does seem a bit less obvious or upfront than in shows like BSG or Eureka, it’s no less important nor is it any less incorporated. “We have a really rich, really well thought-out backstory, and that is very much informed by the science,” Grazier says. “We know that the V-7 [Votan] races came from the Votan System. What happened to their system? Well, we have that [mapped out], we know that.” He also pointed to subtle implications such as in the first few minutes of the pilot. When Irisa looks up at the sleeper pods, she says, “All those hundreds of years in space just to die in your sleep.” Grazier notes: “The subtle implication is that the V-7 aliens don’t go FTL [faster than light]. So we have figured out where they’re from and how far away they’re from and which direction of the sky they’re from and how long it took to get here.”

In addition to its elemental role in the backstory, science has also also had fun ‘little’ moments in the show, like the importance of the terrasphere in defending the Volge attack in the pilot or the hell bugs (a genetic amalgam of several earth critters) in episode 3. Some of these small scientific details were even able to result in cool visual effects. For example, when the table of writers was discussing the ark falls, Grazier, an astrophysicist by training, noted that the conservation of angular momentum meant that these things would not land vertically, but rather horizontally, using the screaming overhead comets in Deep Impact as a touchstone. Sure enough, in the first few minutes, you see Nolan and Irisa tracking what’s about to be an ark fall and you see them screaming overhead. “That will, by the way, come into play in a later episode,” Grazier teases. “We know where the ark belt is. Where the ships were when they blew up, how far away they are.”

Sadly, I couldn’t find any details about Defiance’s nanotechnology aspects but both the articles I’ve excerpted feature intriguing science and insider information.

Science and scientists in the movies and on tv

Leave a reply

I find it easy to miss how much science there is in the movies and on television even though I’m looking for it. Here are a few recent examples of science in popular culture.

Inside Science of Iron Man 2, an article by Emilie Lorditch on physorg.com explains some of the background work needed to create a giant particle accelerator with a new way to power the reactor pumping Iron Man’s heart. From the article,

“I went to Marvel Studios to meet with one of the film’s producers (Jeremy Latcham) and even brought a graduate student along,” said Mark Wise, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena who served as a technical consultant for the film. “There was a specific set of scenes that I was consulting on; the story had to get from this point to that point.”

Wise was surprised by Latcham’s and the film crew’s interest in the actual science, “I attempted to present the science in a way to the help the movie, but still get a little science in,” said Wise. “They wanted the scenes to look good, but they also wanted elements of truth in what they did, it was nice.”

The producers for the film found their scientist through The Science and Entertainment Exchange (which is a program of the US National Academy of Sciences). From Lorditch’s article,

“Scientists can offer more than just simple fact-checking of scripts,” said Jennifer Ouellette, director of the Science and Entertainment Exchange. “Get them involved early enough in the production process and their input can be invaluable in developing not just the fundamental scientific concepts underlying a scene, but also — since film and TV are a visual mediums — scientists can help filmmakers more fully realize their visions on screen.”

I have blogged before about Hollywood’s relationship with science here although my focus was largely on mathematics and the Canadian scene.

Dave Bruggeman at the Pasco Phronesis blog regularly highlights science items on television. Much of his focus is on late night tv and interviews with scientists. (The first time I saw one of his posts I was gobsmacked in the best way possible since I’d taken the science element of these talk show interviews for granted.) There’s another Pasco Phronesis posting today about the latest Colbert Report and a series Colbert calls, Science Cat Fight.

All of this is interesting fodder for thinking about how scientists (and by extension science) are perceived and Matthew C. Nisbet at the Framing Science blog has some interesting things to say about this in his posting ‘Reconsidering the Image of Scientists in Film & Television‘,

Contrary to conventional wisdom that entertainment media portray science and scientists in a negative light, research shows that across time, genre, and medium there is no single prevailing image and that both positive and negative images of scientists and science can be found. More recent research even suggests that in contemporary entertainment media, scientists are portrayed in an almost exclusively positive light and often as heroes.

Nisbet goes on to offer four ‘archetypes’ and ask for feedback, (Note: I have removed some of the text from these descriptions.)

Scientists as Dr. Frankenstein: …  Examples of this image include Gregory Peck as Dr. Mengele in Boys from Brazil, Marlon Brando as Dr. Moreau in The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Jeff Goldblum as the scientist in The Fly.Scientists as powerless pawns: … Examples include Robert Duvall as Dr. Griffin Weir in the 6th Day and several of the scientists in Jurassic Park who work for Richard Attenborough’s character John Hammond, CEO of InGen.

Scientists as eccentric and anti-social geeks: … Examples of this image include Christopher Loyd as Doc in Back to the Future, the nerdy boys in John Hughes 1985 film Weird Science who use science to create the perfect woman, and Val Kilmer and his fellow grad students in the 1985 film Real Genius who serve as graduate students to a professor who is determined to master a Star Wars-like satellite technology. [my addition: The characters in The Big Bang Theory.]

Scientists as Hero: …  Examples include Dr. Alan Grant as the main protagonist in Jurassic Park, Spock in the new version of Star Trek who takes on leading man and action hero qualities to rival Captain Kirk, Jody Foster’s character in Contact, Sigourney Weaver’s character in Avatar, Denis Quaid as the climate scientist hero in The Day After Tomorrow, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the geologist hero in 2012, Morgan Freeman in the Batman films as inventor Lucious Fox and CEO of Wayne Industries, and Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in the Iron Man films.

Serendipitously, I’ve returned to where I started: Iron Man. As for all this science in the media, I think it’s a testament to its ubiquity in our lives.