Lucy

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Thursday, August 14, 2014 02:39
VIEWED: 14722
PAGE 1 of 1

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, June 7, 2014 10:23 PM

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?

MAL4PREZ

Sunday, June 8, 2014 3:25 AM

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

SECOND

Monday, June 9, 2014 7:35 PM

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, June 14, 2014 1:39 PM

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, June 14, 2014 2:06 PM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, June 15, 2014 12:34 AM

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.

SHINYGOODGUY

Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:12 AM

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

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 5:13 AM

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 !

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:35 AM

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.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:00 AM

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!

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, June 19, 2014 4:51 AM

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.

ISROUSRO

Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:38 AM

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.

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 20, 2014 12:10 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 20, 2014 1:43 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 20, 2014 1:44 AM

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.

SHINYGOODGUY

Friday, July 4, 2014 4:32 AM

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Friday, July 4, 2014 4:40 AM

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

AURAPTOR

Friday, July 4, 2014 7:16 AM

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.

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, July 6, 2014 10:37 AM

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

AURAPTOR

Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:02 AM

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.

ECGORDON

Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:23 PM

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.

THGRRI

Sunday, July 6, 2014 11:40 PM

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

si shen

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 7, 2014 12:24 AM

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

SECOND

Monday, July 7, 2014 10:54 AM

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

THGRRI

Monday, July 7, 2014 10:58 AM

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

si shen

SECOND

Monday, July 7, 2014 11:05 AM

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

AURAPTOR

Monday, July 7, 2014 7:37 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Monday, July 7, 2014 7:55 PM

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.

SECOND

Monday, July 7, 2014 8:49 PM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 1:32 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 1:46 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 1:48 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 1:53 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 1:57 AM

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?

SECOND

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 2:59 AM

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

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 3:29 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 3:55 AM

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

MUTT999

Tuesday, July 8, 2014 10:38 PM

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.

OONJERAH

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 1:08 AM

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

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

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

OONJERAH

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 1:37 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 1:58 AM

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 2:05 AM

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 2:10 AM

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, an

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 2:15 AM

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.

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 2:37 AM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 2:50 AM

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?

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 3:24 AM

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.

THGRRI

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 5:35 AM

si shen

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 5:59 AM

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

THGRRI

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 8:07 AM

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 9, 2014 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

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.

Your pic has one eye shaded. Surely there are more than one shot of her with her eyes well represented, Shirley.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, July 10, 2014 5:29 AM

If you're trying to get me to open up my secret portfolio of Scarlett Johannson pics, you'll have to do better than that!

Nice try.

and stop calling me Shirley.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 25, 2014 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If you're trying to get me to open up my secret portfolio of Scarlett Johannson pics, you'll have to do better than that!

Nice try.

OK. NOW I get it. You were just referring to your stash of all those screen caps of Under the Skin, and of course this forum does not allow posts with that much graphic nekkidness.
Good point.

And I will admit, she may never have a more revealing role than that.

AURAPTOR

Friday, July 25, 2014 3:20 AM

Honestly, I've not seen that yet.

Nor have I seen Lucy. I almost went today, but oddly it's only showing at 8pm and 10:15pm

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, July 25, 2014 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Honestly, I've not seen that yet.

Nor have I seen Lucy. I almost went today, but oddly it's only showing at 8pm and 10:15pm

Some shadow covers her.

AURAPTOR

Friday, July 25, 2014 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Honestly, I've not seen that yet.

Nor have I seen Lucy. I almost went today, but oddly it's only showing at 8pm and 10:15pm

Some shadow covers her.

Meh. Then what's the point ?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, July 26, 2014 3:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Honestly, I've not seen that yet.

Nor have I seen Lucy. I almost went today, but oddly it's only showing at 8pm and 10:15pm

Some shadow covers her.

Meh. Then what's the point ?

I was unclear. Ran out of time.
Some shadow covers part of her in one scene, another scene has some shadow covering a different part of her. I don't think there was any part of her which was both shadowed and unsilhouetted for the entire film. But they were spread out over 1 short sex scene and 3 longer scenes.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:14 AM

SPOILER ALERT!!

DISCUSSION CONTAINS SPOILERS.

Saw it (Lucy) over the weekend. I enjoyed it, as I figured I would.
This seems like it might be a career arc for Scarlett with Under the Skin, the Marvel works (more action than Lucy), and including Lost in Translation (non-sci-fi) and perhaps Ghost World (also non-sci-fi). It seems more thoughtful philosophy and exploratory intelligence concepts than one might expect from Luc Besson. Anybody holding a Luc Besson marathon will likely feel let down by Lucy, although some of the scene make it clear why he was involved. The Marvel works seem the least aloof of this group.

Perhaps the biggest objection some might make is the statement/claim that an increase of intelligence causes a reduction and eventual removal of pain and fear - yet somehow enhances love.
I know many people who strictly adhere to the concept that the Essence of Being Human is the pain, the fear, and the expression of Emotion. These folks absolutely reject the notion that clear, cold, concise, rational thought is a sign or indication of higher intellect, but that those only describe lower intellect, and that higher intellect relies upon the integration of emotion and irrationality into the thought process. I suspect that for those people, this film's claims could be unacceptable.

SECOND

Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SPOILER ALERT!!

DISCUSSION CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I suspect that for those people, this film's claims could be unacceptable.

They're more likely to find objectionable that:

Select to view spoiler:

the spark of life on Earth came from Lucy time traveling a billion years into the past. Lucy passes along her accumulated wisdom on a flash-drive given to Morgan Freeman, "Life was given to us a billion years ago. Now you know what to do with it." Asking where Lucy is, she answers, "I AM EVERYWHERE." She's a God now.

That is where the movie was headed from the very first time Lucy did something physically impossible.

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

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:50 PM

Let's just say that scientifically the whole premise is bunk, but if you leave science at home the movie might be enjoyable.

Me, I won't be able to get past any of it.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SPOILER ALERT!!

DISCUSSION CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I suspect that for those people, this film's claims could be unacceptable.
They're more likely to find objectionable that:
Select to view spoiler:
the spark of life on Earth came from Lucy time traveling a billion years into the past. Lucy passes along her accumulated wisdom on a flash-drive given to Morgan Freeman, "Life was given to us a billion years ago. Now you know what to do with it." Asking where Lucy is, she answers, "I AM EVERYWHERE." She's a God now.
That is where the movie was headed from the very first time Lucy did something physically impossible.

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

I did not mention before, it seemed weird that she travels time past, but seems not to go forward, and not capable of precognition. She could predict based upon what was current, she could diagnose, she could be omnipotent in only the space continuum, but not the time continuum going forward. I don't understand why they left out the capabilities already known in today's world.

So....should we consider Lucy Vs. River?
Or should that be a separate thread?

SECOND

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

So....should we consider Lucy Vs. River?
Or should that be a separate thread?

Lucy has powers that are impossible – no more believable than Sharknado 2 (2014) with great white sharks spinning in a funnel cloud. The character Lucy is a Sharknado. River's power is taken more seriously.

Quote:
“Lucy” is impervious to actual criticism; it knows that you know that it’s merely a good-time exercise in outrageousness, built on decades’ worth of B-movie appreciation and even academic deconstruction, 50 years since Susan Sontag first filed her seminal essay “Notes on ‘Camp’ ” for the Partisan Review (“Taste has no system and no proofs . . .”).

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 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.

Yeah. Riiiight. In the film it was mentioned how humans are not the creature with the highest percentage of their brains being used. The creature with 20% usage was not reported to have any seizures, but those who wish to not understand the subject are sure to disavow any facts related to the matter. The named creature did have a far superior cooling method for maintaining temps below anything critical, which of course supported the statement I made earlier in the thread. But, again, enough with the inclusion of facts in the subject, just disregard it all.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, August 2, 2014 3:48 AM

Regarding the film, I was a bit irritated that Lucy ignored the deaths of those cops working to protect her - she could have easily dealt with the goons in a flash, but chose not to. I wonder if there was supposed to be a deeper message there that I didn't care to soak up.

So I am wondering, for those who think humans use more than 10% of their brains, or that it is not possible for any creature to use more of their brains than humans, do you think that the creature which uses twice as much of their brains as humans are using 200% of their capacity? Or do you think the other creature is using about 100% and humans are using about 50%?
What say you?

JONGSSTRAW

Saturday, August 2, 2014 7:03 AM

Scarlett was great in Lost In Translation, but the best scene was with the hooker who showed up in Murray's hotel room ...

Premium Fantasy woman: Mr. Kazu sent me, premium fantasy. My stockings. Lip them.
Premium Fantasy woman: Lip my stockings. Yes, please, lip them.
Bob: What?
Premium Fantasy woman (now writhing on the floor): Lip them. HEY! Lip my stocking!
Bob: Hey? Lip them? Lip them? What?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, August 14, 2014 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Honestly, I've not seen that yet.

Nor have I seen Lucy. I almost went today, but oddly it's only showing at 8pm and 10:15pm

Some shadow covers her.

Meh. Then what's the point ?

I was unclear. Ran out of time.
Some shadow covers part of her in one scene, another scene has some shadow covering a different part of her. I don't think there was any part of her which was both shadowed and unsilhouetted for the entire film. But they were spread out over 1 short sex scene and 3 longer scenes.

I do keep seeing Under the Skin at redbox for a buck. Do you have redbox in your area?