Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I've seen the previews, and it looks pretty cool. Has an edge of that common-person-becomes-God . . .
I'm less cool with her ability to knock a roomful of people out with just her mind. That's moving towards "writer imagining his character becoming a god" land, I think. We'll see.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I've seen the previews, and it looks pretty cool. Has an edge of that common-person-becomes-God that reminds me of battlefield earth, but looks cool enough that I'll likely go see it.

I love the idea of being able to see all the data steams that fill the air around us all the time, and plug into them. Because really, if we were electronic as well as organic beings, we could be able to do that. If our bodies had wired in signal detection arrays, like cell phone chips that could detect the incoming direction of a signal and decrypt it, then visualize it in our brains, we could totally do that.

Yes, this supposition is based on a short clip in the teaser. I really liked that bit.

I'm less cool with her ability to knock a roomful of people out with just her mind. That's moving towards "writer imagining his character becoming a god" land, I think. We'll see.


*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Saw a poster, don't know much about it. Is it another Hanah?
Don't recall another ScarJo title role, or one which she carries. Closest were costarring in Island and Ghost World.

Anybody know much? Is this her launching pad?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Saw a poster, don't know much about it. Is it another Hanah?
Don't recall another ScarJo title role, or one which she carries. Closest were costarring in Island and Ghost World.

Anybody know much? Is this her launching pad?

---

She was the IT Girl until Jennifer Lawrence came into being on the Big Screen.
This may bring her back into the spotlight, relatively speaking.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Saw a poster, don't know much about it. Is it another Hanah?
Don't recall another ScarJo title role, or one which she carries. Closest were costarring in Island and Ghost World.

Anybody know much? Is this her launching pad?

---

She was the IT Girl until Jennifer Lawrence came into being on the Big Screen.
This may bring her back into the spotlight, relatively speaking.


SGG

---

I thought it was Lost in Translation, and some Woody Allen work, plus Bay not letting her go topless in Island that put her in a slide.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Been enamored with SJ since Lost in Translation. Her on screen presence is fantastic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I thought Lost in Translation didn't highlight her much, but maybe it wasn't supposed to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I thought Lost in Translation didn't highlight her much, but maybe it wasn't supposed to.

---

How dare you speak of her that way ! Take it back!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by isrousro:
I wish that the "using 10% of your brain" was not used, this has been proven false for many years now.
A simple search will provide many, many examples of how wrong the 10% canard really is.
Other than that, the movie looks pretty good, even if the premise has been used many times before.
I will wait for the fans reviews before going to the theater though.

Passionately indifferent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I thought Lost in Translation didn't highlight her much, but maybe it wasn't supposed to.

---

How dare you speak of her that way ! Take it back!

---

Can you tell me what you remember from the film? Which scene, or dialogue sequence, or overall impression? For me it's forgettable other than while I was watching it thinking that I shouldn't be.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I've seen the previews, and it looks pretty cool. Has an edge of that common-person-becomes-God . . .
I'm less cool with her ability to knock a roomful of people out with just her mind. That's moving towards "writer imagining his character becoming a god" land, I think. We'll see.

---

Lucy - Trailer (Official - HD)

This movie's concept is similar to Limitless (2011):
"With the help of a mysterious pill that enables the user to access 100 percent of his brain abilities, a struggling writer ( Bradley Cooper ) becomes a financial wizard, but it also puts him in a new world with lots of dangers." -- www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:


Yeah, Limitless with Bradley Cooper came to mind. Imagine the amount of stimuli entering the brain pan..........Would it be so awesome as depicted in the movies?


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:


Yeah, Limitless with Bradley Cooper came to mind. Imagine the amount of stimuli entering the brain pan..........Would it be so awesome as depicted in the movies?


SGG

---

I tried to watch Limitless, but man, it was darn near cartoonishly predictable. I soon grew bored, and tuned out.

A couple of thoughts...

This idea that humans only use 10% of their brain, seems to be a running theme through out the movie. Only one problem. It's been debunked. I have no issue w/ saying humans don't use their full potential, that's not really the question. We don't. But this nonsense that she's using more and more of her brain, and " what will happen when she gets to 100% " ... rubbish.

And this drug they put into her... I wonder if we'll find out what it is, or does it remain a mystery ? Reminds me of the glowey object in the brief case of Pulp Fiction. That was never revealed in the movie, was it ? The combination to the lock was '666 ', for what ever that's suppose to matter.

As for Lucy, it seems like , for what ever reason, they don't get the package out of her, or they do, and too much of the substance has entered the bloodstream, it's damage done. I wonder if they'll fully explain what she was exposed to, and whether it was intended to affect people that way. My guess is that no, its use was for something else entirely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
The 10% brain-use theory is a long discredited fallacy. Even though neurologists don't know what happens in the majority of the regions of the brain, that does not mean those areas don't have a function or that we don't use them.

The latest trailer I saw for this makes me less inclined to see it, at least in theaters. Morgan Freeman's character says, "When she reaches such-and-such % of brain use she'll be able to manipulate matter...blah, blah, blah. At another level she'll be able to control others...blah, blah, blah." All very ridiculous assumptions. This may turn out to be a decent action/adventure movie, but that's about it. I don't expect it to have a well-written story arc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's like a count down, but in reverse, to the point of impact where she's " 100% " , or some such.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it yet but I think there is significance in the name Lucy.

si shen

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Lucy. ( Australopithecus )

Evolution.

If that's truly a nod to one of our ancestors, how clever !

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Side note: Imagining that Lucy is short for Lucifer in Charlie Brown comics CHANGES EVERYTHING.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:


Yeah, Limitless with Bradley Cooper came to mind. Imagine the amount of stimuli entering the brain pan..........Would it be so awesome as depicted in the movies?


SGG

---

I tried to watch Limitless, but man, it was darn near cartoonishly predictable. I soon grew bored, and tuned out.

A couple of thoughts...

This idea that humans only use 10% of their brain, seems to be a running theme through out the movie. Only one problem. It's been debunked. I have no issue w/ saying humans don't use their full potential, that's not really the question. We don't. But this nonsense that she's using more and more of her brain, and " what will happen when she gets to 100% " ... rubbish.

And this drug they put into her... I wonder if we'll find out what it is, or does it remain a mystery ? Reminds me of the glowey object in the brief case of Pulp Fiction. That was never revealed in the movie, was it ? The combination to the lock was '666 ', for what ever that's suppose to matter.

---

Quote:

---

As for Lucy, it seems like , for what ever reason, they don't get the package out of her, or they do, and too much of the substance has entered the bloodstream, it's damage done. I wonder if they'll fully explain what she was exposed to, and whether it was intended to affect people that way. My guess is that no, its use was for something else entirely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Rappy,

I'm not going to say that Lucy will borrow that self-same plot device, although it seems that way. This movie may well go in a different direction.
Now, I've heard about that 10% of our brain power before, it's just a Hollywood premise (where it came from I don't know) but it's a tired premise. But, to me, it doesn't matter if the story doesn't work. It is about, as you correctly state, about human potential. Still though, if it's not a good story, well, the movie will suck. Any movie wood.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Just to clarify, I was asking if the drug or blue substance in plastic bags which was placed in 'Lucy' will be revealed, or will it serve as all that stuff you said about greed, power and what not, from Pulp Fiction, and never to be fully explained.

I wasn't trying to compare the little clear pill in Limitless to the glowy gold thingy from Pulp Fiction.

Pardon for any confusion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it yet but I think there is significance in the name Lucy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's like a count down, but in reverse, to the point of impact where she's " 100% " , or some such.

---

This one minute trailer very clearly shows more and more rules of actual physics being violated the closer and closer Lucy approaches the magical 100%.

There has got to be a plot twist at the end of the story: something like Lucy is actually experiencing only a simulated reality where there are no rules. I love how, in this trailer, Lucy can change hair color and length as she is walking down a hall. It is a dream. There will never be a reality with that possibility.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
?? Are you saying chameleons do not exist? Or that they are only capable of such actions because they are able to use so much more than 100% of the brain power than humans can muster? Or you just deny that this function exists in the real world?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Brain Scans. EEGs. MRIs.
Some can show heat from the chemicals reacting within different portions of the brain - chemicals are the electrical conductors for our thoughts, senses, etc. Some show oxygen use, where it is used, where it is concentrated for different applications or emotions, thoughts, senses, etc. ElectroencEphliGraphs measure/record the brain waves from different sectors of the brain.
They all show that only small portions of the brain are used at one time or another, and under intense brain activity or thought, more and more is used. But never anywhere close to 100% at once, or even close to half, quarter, fifth, or even less. That is why they say we don't use 100% of our brain, because if we did it would show up on the scans. They have not come up with a scan that shows anybody using more than half of their brain matter at any given moment.

Some consider oxygen to be the limiting factor - how to get enough O2 into the brain to supply all the need for it over 10%. Others consider heat/cooling to be the limit - the heat generated from all that oxidization of that O2, and the blood system is a heating system, not an efficient cooling system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Brain Scans. EEGs. MRIs.
Some can show heat from the chemicals reacting within different portions of the brain - chemicals are the electrical conductors for our thoughts, senses, etc. Some show oxygen use, where it is used, where it is concentrated for different applications or emotions, thoughts, senses, etc. ElectroencEphliGraphs measure/record the brain waves from different sectors of the brain.
They all show that only small portions of the brain are used at one time or another, and under intense brain activity or thought, more and more is used. But never anywhere close to 100% at once, or even close to half, quarter, fifth, or even less. That is why they say we don't use 100% of our brain, because if we did it would show up on the scans. They have not come up with a scan that shows anybody using more than half of their brain matter at any given moment.

Some consider oxygen to be the limiting factor - how to get enough O2 into the brain to supply all the need for it over 10%. Others consider heat/cooling to be the limit - the heat generated from all that oxidization of that O2, and the blood system is a heating system, not an efficient cooling system.

---

The ten percent or less numbers are generally derived from bad interpretations of data from the turn of last century. The interpretation itself was largely invented by psychologists in the 1950s for various nonsense.

The brain is always getting "enough" oxygen, because a brain that is not getting enough oxygen is dead.

---

Quote:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

The premise for the film Lucy is flawed. But so long as you recognize it as such, and ignore the bad science involved, it could very well be entertaining.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
Pet scan image of normal -vs- schizophrenic brain electrical activity



Schizophrenic brains show above normal activity.
Schizophrenics have super powers.



... oooOO}{OOooo ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oonjerah:
https://www.neurogistics.com/TheScience/WhatareNeurotransmi09CE.asp
"There are two kinds of neurotransmitters – INHIBITORY and EXCITATORY. Excitatory neurotransmitters are not necessarily exciting – they are what stimulate the brain. Those that calm the brain and help create balance are called inhibitory. Inhibitory neurotransmitters balance mood and are easily depleted when the excitatory neurotransmitters are overactive."


I believe I once read that the brain has about twice as much inhibitory
neurotransmitter activity as exitatory neurotransmitter activity.

This is, perhaps, the normal balance. Maybe the brain needs to rest
"two beats" for every active beat.

Also we can sleep all we want, but if we don't get the REM, the brain
will not be rested and will not function well until it is.

Or is that just Old School theory?


... oooOO}{OOooo ...

Part of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.

---

Quote:

---

Yes, enough to supply the 10% brain usage we use. Not enough to use all of the brain at once. Are you missing the connection?

---

Quote:

---

Are you really trying to use the claim of LOW LEVEL brain activity to prove the brain is being used near 100%? Mr. Illogical, hello.

---

Quote:

---

Assuming this chart has comparable gradients then it shows that there is multiples more electrical signal strength compared to the upper chart, further indicating the lack of 100% represented in the top chart - making your charts disprove your claim. I'm not saying more is always better, but surely you can see that there is much headroom to gain before 100% is achieved.

Being more quiet is not the same as being fully accessed and activated. For a creature incapable of using 100% of it's brain, having part of it stay quiet is needed, yes. This, as well, disproves your claim.

---

Quote:

---

I was answering the query about where the concept came from. I'm not saying the film is accurate, I have not seen it yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Twice as much inhibitory as excititory. This would imply that the brain is not being allowed to be at full and complete usage - less than 100%.

Rest 2 beats for every active one. Also would define brain usage at less than 33% at any given moment, any given activity or event.

If you are saying you agree that less than 100% of the brain potential is being used by us non-Lucys, I find no conflict or quarrel in your claim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm disappointed that this thread has devolved into a Scarlett Johansson free direction.

There. Much better.




I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---