Scarlett Johannson in Luc Besson's LUCY

And why don't you buy her? She's been in several Marvel movies doing action scenes. In fact, she's going through a ScarJo-renaissance with Don Jon, Under the Skin, and other flicks.

Are you implying that she's yesterday's news even though she's still young, beautiful and fit?
i dont buy that Besson choose her years in advance. i think she is in this movie because Avengers made over 1 billion and she was the only female in the group.

and i already wrotte that i like her in Don Jon. best character she played in 5-7 years. and for Under the SKin . i must be one of the rare people on SHH who is hyped up for this movie because of the acting and story and not because she is nude 2 times.
 
Last edited:
She is, from I know, very,very popular with the French. She's like the iconic American woman, or that's how they see her. Universal appeal, timeless, high-cheekbones, pouty lips.
 
i belive that she is popular in Europe. she doesnt look like a skinny ex model who got hired by a producer when he saw her on the beach taking fake paparazzi photos.
 
Just let it go, you can't reason with dark_b.

That's why I stuck to smilies, he gets these bizarre notions that he decides are concrete facts and there's no way around that lol.
 
forums have an option called ''ignore''. try it ;)
 
forums have an option called ''ignore''. try it ;)

I actually can't use that function lol, but I wouldn't want to ignore you, I was just saying you get these odd opinions you decide are facts at times and there's no budging, no biggie. :)
 
i make it very clear when i use the word fact as a joke or sarcasm and when i am serious about facts ;)
 
I'm going to ignore whatever all that ^^^ is and say I saw the trailer when I went to see Captain America 2 today. This movie looks good. At least interesting.
 
They are not clever enough to have just used the word capacity without explanation and expect the audience to catch that they are not talking about capabilities but capacity. The myth came from:

"In the 1970's, psychologist and educator Georgi Lozanov, proposed the teaching method of suggestopedia believing that we might be using only five to ten percent of our mental capacity."

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

Which has been debunked. There is no need for us to think that the scriptwriters were going with anything smart here. It doesn't look smart, and we don't need to defend them either. It looks like an excuse for a super powered hot girl to be beating up people and shooting bad guys. Generic, uninspired looking, predictable already. The only thing we don't know from what we saw is if she dies at the end or not.

We both know they are using the word "capacity" to supplement his speech. We all know that they are referring to the "we only use 10% of our brain" myth, and they just used the word capacity which most people don't, that is all.

We use about 70-80% of the brain's "capacity" in particular, and use use all 100% or nearly all 100% of the parts of our brains on a daily basis. Either way that they might have chosen to word it, we know they are talking about the 10% myth. There is no untapped parts of the brain or any of that. Just people who have applied themselves harder and have more intelligence and focus and can think faster, better, etc. But no hidden brain capabilities and things like that. There are some exceptional people, but the brain of Richard Dawkins does not funking any differently than your brain or mine or the brain of any other rational, healthy, fully functioning human being.

I don't share your cynicism, neither do I consider conservative estimates of the brain's capacity to be authoritative. If we're just talking storage data we could be talking about 2.5 petabytes of data considering the exponential storage capacity of neurons [Paul Reber on Memory Capcity]. If we're talking calculations we're talking about, what, 6.4*10^18 instructions per second? Are you doing 80% of any of that right now? Me neither.

So logically, there is some untapped aspect of the brain. Will it involve telekinesis? Proooobably not, that's science fiction stuff, but if we're questiong is the premise total BS? No, it's not, it just taps into the momentum of a busted myth, without actually asserting that the myth is true. To me, that's too subtle to do on accident or by coincidence.

I mean, look at your counter argument, you basically have to assert that what they intended was false, proclaiming us all mind readers, because the statement simply can't be shown to be false.
 
When are people going to stop quoting that silly 10% of your brain line? I find it hard to suspend my disbelief when a supposedly educated scientist matter-of-factly states something so stupid. Wikipedia has a freaking article on it.

I know we're not going for realism here – obviously – but your characters do need to at least act like the took the community college introduction class to their supposed profession.

Other than that, it looks kind of fun.
 
When someone figures out what the brain's full capabilities are. At that point, scientists will stop debating the brain's capacity and how much we do or do not use, without calling each other stupid. Until then, the idea that there are more capabilities in there will never go away. And that means it's a ripe source of powers for science fiction.

Also, as I was saying, nothing said conflicts with the wiki article.
 
No, that's fine, just don't have your scientist character quote the 10% line.
 
While the 10% figure seems to be a number pulled out of thin air, it does seem the brain has at least some unrealized potential. In size, weight and configuration there is little or no difference between the brain of someone with an IQ of 100 and an IQ of 200, but there is a huge difference in ability.
I seem to recall hearing that after his death Einstein's brain was weighed and it was actually about 10% lighter than a "normal" brain.
 
That 10% myth is good only for plots that don't need you to use more than 10% of your thinking capacity.

And this is one of those movies that appears more about action and thrills, not thinking or giving to deeper ethical or pyschological questions so I'm giving it a pass on that.

I also don't believe people can fly, heal instantly, live forever or really believe that a pair of eye glasses is suitable for masking your identity.
 
Can't stand Johansson, never have. This has an alright concept that was done better by Bradley Cooper and it probably won't be very good
 
Can't stand Johansson, never have. This has an alright concept that was done better by Bradley Cooper and it probably won't be very good

And there is no tangible reason you don't like her, she just rubs you the wrong way right? :o
 
She can rub me the right way, I'll tell you that. :rimshot:
 
And why don't you buy her? She's been in several Marvel movies doing action scenes. In fact, she's going through a ScarJo-renaissance with Don Jon, Under the Skin, and other flicks.

Are you implying that she's yesterday's news even though she's still young, beautiful and fit?

And she was convincing in just one of those action scenes. :O

(Two sidenotes: I'm not seeing TWS until tomorrow, so don't include those scenes. And two, I like ScarJo as an actress otherwise.)
 
I take back what I said about Scarlett. If she does nearly as good as she did in TWS in this it will be awesome! Her best performance to date if you ask me.
 
best perfromance in her life?

i will watch CA2 in 5 hours.
 
And there is no tangible reason you don't like her, she just rubs you the wrong way right? :o

No, you don't understand, I'm just not convinced that she can shoot guns at people! :oldrazz:
 
Love the new trailer.
I admit, I'm predisposed to liking it, I always like movies where women kick ass, like Kill Bill and the flawed, but still awesome, Hanna.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"