Foghorn Leghorn was way underated. He would sneak into that dogs crib and whip his azz with a board. He always knew exactly how long that rope was holding that dog. Then he would paint his tounge green just for the hell of it.............

Yeah, and Foghorn would always be sayin' cool stuff like "Son, I say, son ... " ... y' don't get standup dialogue like that in today's 'toonz ... and 'manga' or 'anime' ... ? No way ...

Hey, I'm just a lonely bill on capitol hill, babe......LOL nope have not seen it but you have my interest up.....

yeah and do you know that i can't find any oth the good cartoons anymore ---bummer

Problem solved:

http://emol.org/movies/cartoons/

Oh how I wish I had access to youtube, Laurence Krauss one of my favorite physicists rips this movie to shreds.

Blather is my opinion in one word. Its new age mysticism wrapped up in confusing sounding physics jargon as it meets the cult of JZ Knight.

I have access to youtube...what would you like me to post of his?

The physics parts are just physics. The melding of the two together is typical showmanship. You really have to watch the extras to get a feel for what was taken out of context.

I didn't find any of the physics "jargon" confusing. It was just mixed in with philosophical concepts that are typically considered oil and water. When you start explaining muli-dimensional concepts, you have to leave room for other ideas and, by definition, other realities.

He wasn't the only one who complained about the "liberties" taken in the editing.

Who else Joe, do you know which ones?

Same thing with 'The Secret'...the reason a 'newer, better' version
was done..Esther Hicks (Abraham - Hicks) was not aware the film was going to the mainstream public. So it was re done without her in it...

I'd have to go look it up. The purpose of the film was to show common ground between the radical turn physics took in 1995 and mesh it with some of the more popular psychics in order to give a layman's view of both. The purpose was not hard science or proof of psychic abilities. It was to show that many possibilities exist and maybe these two opposing forces have more in common than not.

Some of the hard science guys did not want to be painted in that manner. However, the hard science was presented as theoretical, as it should be, and no one claimed to be able to cross dimensions yet... except for the psychics of course.

Its a movie for laymen that completely misrepresents science, that in itself is enough to set off my despise meter and peg it out to max.

I tell you what, if I get home and just cant bring myself to log into my test server, I will watch it again and make some direct quotes that take philosophical opinion and paints it as scientific fact.

Yes it is a movie for laymen but that is not a bad thing. Anything that gets interest in science is a plus to me. I have lived hard science for over thirty years. If science is taken as a dry lifeless subject, you lose the interest of those who may make the most progress in any of many scientific fields.

Star Trek was pure fiction that tried to hold to established scientific theory in the best terms of science fiction. What the Bleep was something different but still had the power to inspire and make viewers look farther.

The "extras" provided in the form of companion discs give full interviews that, in some cases, were taken out of context in the film. "Time travel is possible" is not the same as "Time travel may be possible."

A Nova episode it is not.

Of course it was done for laymen....not everyone is a scientist. I like the work Candace Pert...peptides, etc.
My sons were teenagers the first time they saw this and it was done in a way that peaked their interest, made them stop and think, start asking questions. If it has helped them to keep asking questions and have an interest in a variety of subjects than that can't be bad.
Maybe one of them will want to be some sort of scientist some day...

The fact that this was done for non-scientists is not a criticism here; the fact that it misrepresents science to the non-scientists is the issue. The majority of the people watching the film lacked the background and tools to keep it in perspective.




It's interesting how: where one will finds one kind of dishonesty, you often find other kinds of dishonesty.

At this point, I don't believe this was the purpose of the film. I have read convincing commentaries suggesting that the film was little more than a giant, subtle, disguised infomercial.

That is (the above quote) my take on what the film was about. It transitioned back and forth between quantum physics, multi-dimensional concepts and psychic phenomena. Their website of course gives their take. The film became so popular that it has spun off books, DVDs, and stuff ... but it is pretty silly to think that the marketing was built into the film before the film even became popular.

The film does a good job of introducing M-theory. When I was first posting here on Mingle, I was surprised to see how few were up to date on modern physics. The transition from the old string theories to branes has changed the way science is being done.

BTW, I saw a paper today that spells death for the Standard Model of particle physics. Neutrinos can change color at the drop of a hat. Changes are happening in the world and people need to learn science to keep up. Flicks like "Rabbit Hole" encourage interest and attract students. Screwing up some of the facts is not that big a deal to me in a show that is meant for laymen who mostly won't notice anyway.

Virtually every science textbook published has errors which have been proven wrong or revised since the books were written.

None of the chairs on Star Trek had seat belts.

I'm not seeing where this film was soooo terrible. Different perspectives on a variety of subjects. Just the discussion of Dr. Emoto's...'messages from water' is interesting enough. A fascinating subject by itself. If it gets people even a tiny bit more aware of their thoughts than it's had a positive effect and has some moving in the right direction.

Metal, I understood that this was your take, and I think its a reasonable take to have based on simply watching the film. Have you looked into the degree of involvement the Ramtha School of Enlightenment had in making this film? I lack concrete evidence, but it smells fishy to me.

Oddly enough, for me, it was the mention of "Dr. Emoto" which is 'sufficient cause' to disapprove strongly of this movie.

Lying to people is wrong.

Dr. Emoto is at least honest enough to admit to people that he instructs his photographers to take many photos and select the photo that fits their purpose.

The end result though, is a completely lie.

There is no evidence that our thoughts effect the crystal structure of water, and there is evidence that it doesn't.

Simply mentioning Dr. Emotos snake oil in a way that lends him credibility is irresponsible, onto itself.


To be clear, Metal, I agree with you that getting people interested in science is a good thing. Please don't interpret my comments on specific elements of the movie as a disagreement on that point.