CINEMA

Lucy

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 16:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7795
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, June 7, 2014 12:23 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


SPOILER WARNING

THIS MOVIE WILL RELEASE ON 25 JULY.

Posts before that date are free of spoilers derived from actual viewing of the film, although discussion of what the film might be could be spoilerish in nature.

POSTS AFTER 25 JULY MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS WITHIN THE DISCUSSION OF WHAT WAS VIEWED IN THE FILM.






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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 7, 2014 5:25 PM

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
*-------------------------------------------------*



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 9, 2014 9:35 AM

SECOND

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


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:39 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


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
*-------------------------------------------------*





It's a Luc Besson film, so it's Nikita on steroids. I too really liked the concept as depicted in the clip. This could go either way, Fifth Element or Hannah, great potential but short on delivery.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:06 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 14, 2014 2:34 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 16, 2014 9:12 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


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.



The Island was a bump in the road (maybe closer to road kill), but her work in Allen's films and Lost in Translation were solid outings (IMHO), I admire her ventures into Indy films as well. But she's been edged out by the skyrocketing career of JLaw (who has made a splash because both her acting chops and commercial appeal - men want to f*$@ her and women want to be her).
She's had a sort of rebound with her Avengers part, she was funny in Don Jon but has yet to return to her once high status and position as America's Sweetheart. JLaw is still No. 1. Watch for Mila Kunis, she's slowly and cleverly clawing her way to the top. All depends on the success of both Jupiter Ascending and The MockingJay (the two-parter from the Hunger Games).

This should be fun......

SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:13 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



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


I hope this is as good as advertised. So often in movies, the 'Ta-Dah!' beginning sadly fizzles with a laugher of a conclusion.

( This could be a whole different thread, or one I've already started before... )

Lucy. ( Australopithecus )

Evolution.

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




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 17, 2014 8:35 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

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



I liked her in Horse Whisperer and Ghost World to start, plus others. I thought Lost in Translation didn't highlight her much, but maybe it wasn't supposed to.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:51 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:38 PM

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:10 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


JSF - her eyes. Wow.

I'd continue, but you get the point. She was, IMO , a crowd pleaser in an unremarkable role.

Seen the darn thing just once.

May need a 2nd look.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:43 PM

BYTEMITE


I actually used electronics and data streams as an explanation for how River's psychic abilities works. Because the mind is really just electrical impulses anyway.

But what I didn't like about the trailer is it sounds like they're referring to that old disproven thing about how humans use only 10% of their brains and if humans used 100% all the time they'd be psychic/gods/whatever. No, they'd be having a grand mal seizure.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:44 PM

BYTEMITE


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.



Just saw you say this, yes, oh goodness yes. I'm so frustrated by this, it's a pet peeve.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:32 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


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.



I get what you mean, but Coppola's films are more about an overall impression, a feeling, a mood. Her dialogue is usually unremarkable, but her tone seems to be one of introspection. It is of behavior and attitude adjustment and change. In Lost in Translation it was two people traveling in opposite directions and meeting somewhere in the middle. Was it love or loneliness that drove them together? But you make a good point, it is unremarkable, as I suggested, and rather a film about a particular mood.

By the way, she was excellent in Her, although she doesn't physically appear, her voice performance made you feel she was there. Spike Jones did a brilliant job with the script, except for one small thing - the ending. Otherwise it's a strong film, in line with Coppola's Lost in Translation, a character study with some human truths.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:40 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


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




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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 3, 2014 9:16 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 6, 2014 12:37 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


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.





Rappy,

I really like your questions regarding the "wonder" drug and your take on Limitless - although Bradley Cooper's performance was solid, the premise and script just didn't make for a good movie. For me, it was just okay (can you tell I'm a Cooper fan). But comparing it to the Pulp Fiction "glow" well..............it's off - juuuuuuust a bit outside!

Here's my take on the "glow" in Pulp Fiction

It's not supposed to be revealed. What it means to me is: it could be drugs, it could be money, but I think it's man's greed, evil, power. It is the idea that we can win if only we possess it. The "666" is the tip-off. It is the work of the devil - the fallen angel of deception, greed and avarice. It is left to the audience to wonder what's inside, although we know it's evil and valuable to Marcellus Wallace. He's the epitome of all the drug dealers we think we know and the driving force in the movie. Which makes the redemption scene near the end that much more powerful. Pulp Fiction is damn near a masterpiece, written with such completeness of thought as to make it a modern classic.

Films like Limitless, and Lucy for that matter, borrow loosely from that small but pivotal premise within Pulp Fiction where the motive isn't revealed, but merely suggested. What matters most is the players reaction to the undisclosed secret; you know, that thing that makes us go crazy, the root of all evil - the love of money, greed. What Tarantino did was make a cinematic, or visual, statement as to the motivation. Simple, effective and brilliant. It is a writer's dream to come up with such a storytelling device. It was inspired.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 6, 2014 1:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 6, 2014 1:23 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


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.





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 6, 2014 1:40 PM

THGRRI


Can I just add, Morgan Freeman? He always brings a lot to a movie.

si shen



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 6, 2014 2:24 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.





THANK YOU !

And that's a big issue w/ me, and despite Scarlett and Morgan , I'm not sure that's something I can over look. It seems to be an significant part of the film, as she uses more and more of her brain. It's like a count down, but in reverse, to the point of impact where she's " 100% " , or some such.

I'd almost rather go see Transformers4

( OK - that's just me being silly )

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

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

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 12:54 AM

SECOND

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


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.

Maybe the whole story is Lucy's brain wired to produce hallucinations in Morgan Freeman's laboratory.

Lucy is R-rated. That kind of story has already been done before, except with a male lead, the famous Tom Cruise in R-rated Vanilla Sky (2001). www.imdb.com/title/tt0259711/ Many people did not understand the plot twist of Cruise's brain being wired to a computer at the end of that movie, even to this day.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 12:58 AM

THGRRI


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

si shen



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 1:05 AM

SECOND

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


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



Name Lucy
Meaning: Light, Illumination.
http://babynamesmeanings.info/index.php?gender=&name=lucy
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Lucy

So . . . She is the Enlightened One. Very thrilling. Not really.

Also Lucy (Australopithecus) at the dawn of womankind could be movie Lucy. She represents someone new on Earth.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 9:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Lucy. ( Australopithecus )

Evolution.

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






From earlier in the thread.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 9:55 AM

BYTEMITE


Also could technically be sort for "Lucifer", but it's probably the Australopithicus one, since I guess she's supposed to represent a new stage of human evolution or something.

Side note: Imagining that Lucy is sort for Lucifer in Charlie Brown comics CHANGES EVERYTHING.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 10:49 AM

SECOND

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


Quote:

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

Side note to side note: the creator, Charles Schulz, is dead. But Peanuts goes on. That is something diabolically unnatural. www.peanuts.com/
http://bigmac1212.deviantart.com/art/Humorous-Charles-Schulz-Quote-339
042478



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 3:32 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


I think it's called McGuffin, from the Unobtainium root.
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.



Is Lucy related to River Tam? Seems a similar storyline. Didn't notice before the catalyst was a drug.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 3:46 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 3:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


He avoids any Red pill / Blue pill comparison or reference.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 3:53 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


RapKnight:
shshshshshsh. He's not sure if anybody mentioned it yet. You speak so much truth so often, some just ignore you for fear their delusional surreality will implode.


Quote:

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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 3:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


?? 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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 4:59 PM

SECOND

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


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?

I am denying that people (not chameleons) can grow 15 centimeters of hair in one second and then change all her hair from blond to brunette. But if Lucy is a robot, maybe she can extrude and retract her hair like an auto can extend and retract the power radio antenna. If she was a robot, the wonderful camouflage trick hairstyling wouldn't be breaking any rules of physics.

She does the super-trick hairstyling at 23 seconds into the video.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 5:29 PM

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. If we were using so little of our brain at any one time, it would be terribly inefficient and evolutionarily non-viable, especially considering the size of the brain casing and the complications it poses to birth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/

The brain is also always active, including even in sleep. Low level activity in all parts of the brain is constant - activity may flare up in certain parts of the brain depending on a task, but if any part of the brain was not being used, the nerve cells would degenerate. To this end, the brain uses 20% of the metabolic energy we generate. It is by no means starved.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percen
t-of-their-brains
/

This is confirmed by brain scans. Including one on Mythbusters of all places - we're definitely using way more than 10% of our brains most of the time.

Furthermore, unusual amounts of intense neural activity would not be a good thing.



Considering the way ion channels work when you're sending electrical impulses via nuerons, the resulting ion flood would in fact KILL the nerve cells. Which is why brain damage is a common side effect of seizures.

As it turns out, some parts of the brain being more quiet and not sending conflicting signals is as much a part of a brain being used to it's "full potential" as is parts of the brain that are more active.

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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 7, 2014 5:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


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:


If we were using so little of our brain at any one time, it would be terribly inefficient and evolutionarily non-viable, especially considering the size of the brain casing and the complications it poses to birth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/

The brain is also always active, including even in sleep. Low level


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:


activity in all parts of the brain is constant - activity may flare up in certain parts of the brain depending on a task, but if any part of the brain was not being used, the nerve cells would degenerate.

This is confirmed by brain scans. Including one on Mythbusters of all places - we definitely use way more than 10% of our brains at any given time.

Furthermore, unusual amounts of intense neural activity would not be a good thing.




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.
Quote:


Considering the way ion channels work when you're sending electrical impulses via nuerons, the resulting ion flood would in fact KILL the nerve cells. Which is why brain damage is a common side effect of seizures.

As it turns out, some parts of the brain being more quiet and not sending conflicting signals is as much a part of a brain being used to it's "full potential" as is parts of the brain that are more active.


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:


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.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 12:38 PM

MUTT999


In 2004, an anime was released called Elfen Lied, about a girl named Lucy with rather special powers. Going by this new movie's trailer, I feel Besson might have been a fan.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 3:08 PM

OONJERAH


Pet scan image of normal -vs- schizophrenic brain electrical activity



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



... oooOO}{OOooo ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 3:37 PM

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 3:58 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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 ...


Perhaps schizophrenics have not yet been trained to handle the increased usage of their cerebral potential.
Perhaps we "non-schizophrenics" are merely limited in our understanding, and insist upon all higher-level cerebals degrade themselves down to our level so they are like us, and not allowed to expand their cerebral potential. Maybe we will even force them to take drugs (12 Monkeys, anyone?) to prevent them from exceeding beyond what we are comfortable with them becoming.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 4:05 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.



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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 4:10 PM

BYTEMITE


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?


No. I'm not missing the connection. I'm saying that it's a flawed concept based on a false assumption that more activity in the brain would mean more function, and that more metabolic energy into the brain would increase activity/function.

You do of course realize that higher percentages of oxygen than normal in the brain also lead to the death of nerve cells?

Which is why people on pure oxygen get "loopy" and also why it is in fact possible to overdose from oxygen? And why people don't breathe pure oxygen to obtain better focus or super powers?

Do you also realize too MUCH "brain food" in the brain is toxic and has has rather erratic effects on nuerotransmitters and behaviour due to those sugars functioning as a feedback mechanism?

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.


All cells in the brain get used and all cells in the brain are adequately supplied, otherwise they would degenerate. Low level activity is the level of activity required to maintain the brain cells and their connections.

Activity beyond that is signaling and electrical potentials. When you generate a current in a closed electrical system, it is because the electrical currents are migrating towards the location of a different electrical potential. But the overall electrical intensity of the system has not changed. You are generating current by drawing a charge away from somewhere else.

When you focus on one task, part of your brain lights up, becomes more active, but your ability to perform other tasks simultaneously is diminished.

You use 100% of your brain. 100% of your brain is active at any given time, in a ready state primed to receive a signal. Your brain isn't 100% ACTIVELY SIGNALING at any given time, because that's dangerous and pointless and unsustainable.

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.



The point is. You're conflating brain use and activity and active signaling to some sort of level of real-world skill or ability. If you had extremely high rates of signaling, and all of your brain cells were signaling, the problem is it would all be conflicting and chaotic as well as harmful. As such it's not a useful concept or measure. It is flawed, and this idea about "only using ten percent of our brains," implying that if we could use more it could unlock some sort of nebulous "potential" is false. It's been disproven for a while now. Which is why a lot of us are objecting to the premise of this movie.

If you're functional then you are using as much of your brain as is reasonable, safe, healthy, and physically possible. Nothing, not drugs, not metabolism, not oxygen can push that upper limit.

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.


Then don't defend the concept! If you know it's false, why did you make a point by point counterargument?

You could have just said this. That's ALL you had to say.

Overwhelmed by frustration... The way you posted your above arguments still leaves it ambiguous whether you're seriously arguing in favour of the 10% of brain thing, or whether you're just screwing with me, and your recent ration of acting out is making me lean towards the latter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 4:15 PM

BYTEMITE


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.



No, it IMPLIES that brain cells have to rest or they will DIE. Stimulatory nuerotransmitters activate those nerve ion channels I was talking about. Uninhibited ion channel flooding results in a seizure.

If you are active and functioning, as I just said, you are already using your maximum brain "potential." Additional brain activity does not result in additional "potential." It results in conflicting signals, chaos, confusion, seizure, and death.

I do not envy seizure patients or schizophrenics what they live with. It's hell.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 4:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'm disappointed that this thread has devolved into a Scarlett Johansson free direction.





There. Much better.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

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

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 4:50 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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


Got any more? More better?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 5:24 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Did I not already say it was her eyes that first grabbed my attention ?

I rest my case.



But feel free to add your own pics, showing what ever assets you feel need being highlighted.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 7:35 PM

THGRRI




si shen



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 7:59 PM

BYTEMITE


...Did you draw that? It's good.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 10:07 PM

THGRRI


No, found it online. I did not want to post a glamor shot. Instead I wanted to post something a fan must have done.

si shen



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
What Are Your Must-See Films For 2019?
Fri, August 23, 2019 23:48 - 145 posts
Discussion of Alita: Battle Angel
Sat, July 27, 2019 07:51 - 64 posts
Top Gun: Maverick
Thu, July 18, 2019 16:17 - 12 posts
Spiderman: Into the Verse
Wed, July 3, 2019 20:11 - 10 posts
Alita: Battle Angel
Wed, June 12, 2019 17:58 - 47 posts
Godzilla: King of the Monsters
Sat, June 8, 2019 16:39 - 33 posts
What Are Your Must-See Films For 2018?
Sat, June 8, 2019 15:42 - 174 posts
Avengers: EndGame
Fri, May 31, 2019 19:53 - 25 posts
John Wick 3
Sun, May 26, 2019 17:38 - 15 posts
* Topic reposted in correct forum *
Wed, May 22, 2019 18:12 - 6 posts
May The Fourth Be With You, 2017
Thu, May 9, 2019 22:33 - 14 posts
Captain Marvel, DC or MCU?
Tue, April 30, 2019 14:04 - 126 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL