chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
bears1 26-May-12, 15:29 |
 Deleted by bears1 on 02-Jul-12, 23:59.
|
||
|
so you must have seen |
||
|
Me, I like.. |
||
|
Isaac Asimov liked recently was "predators" I thought the genre had run its course and nothing could surpass the first Arnie film so I was pleasantly surprised by the originality of the latest one. |
||
|
children of dune to the letter!!!! almost as good as 'avatar' |
||
|
Children of Dune |
||
|
YOU WILL LOVE IT!!! dune;;;listen to this;www.youtube.com |
||
|
Children of Dune |
||
|
very wished he could fly sci-fi was born. |
||
|
Star Gate |
||
|
Star Gate |
||
|
Star Gate It's the age old question about where we come from, why the human race has the ability to reason and other species on earth cannot reason as well. The movie chose Egypt, an ancient society that has mystified many because of their ability to devise a written language, build pyramids and commerce with a system of mathematics. The ancient Egyptians were smarter, more able to advance than others and, as a group, still exist. Without the Egyptians, our race would be far behind where we are now. They could have chosen the Mayan civilization for the movie as well but not enough knowledge about the Mayans until recently when we've begun to solve their written language. And they were basically wiped out by a war, although their DNA still exists in the Spanish/Mexican race. There's lots of ideas in the original movie that could be questioned. But I love the fact that our minds continue to explore and say "what if?". And science is based on "what if". |
||
|
the oldest civilization.....was (bilād al-rāfidayn); Syriac: ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪܝܢ (beth nahrain): "land of rivers") is a toponym for the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system, largely corresponding to modern-day Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey and southwestern Iran. Widely considered to be the cradle of civilization, Bronze Age Mesopotamia included Sumer and the Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires. In the Iron Age, it was controlled by the Neo- Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires. The indigenous Sumerians and Akkadians (including Assyrians and Babylonians) dominated Mesopotamia from the beginning of written history (c. 3100 BC) to the fall of Babylon in 539 BC, when it was conquered by the Achaemenid Empire. It fell to Alexander the Great in 332 BC and, after his death, it became part of the Greek Seleucid Empire. |
||
|
ancients 1750BC, widely credited for creating the code of laws. Later Nebuchadnezzar circa 1100BC was an interesting figure as a later part of the Babylon dynasty. His later namesake Nebuchadnezzar II circa 580BC was credited with building the hanging gardens. There is accounts that the cities of Byblos and Sidon have been inhabited since 4000-6000BC. The water erosion on the Sphinx suggests it was built before 2750BC with some experts saying it could be have been built before the great ancient flood in about 8000BC. If that was the case we would need to tear up conventional theories. The problem is it is hard to date such stone objects. Back to topic I would love to see a Hollywood style epic of the ancient civilisation who built the sphinx and what happened, not sure there is a movie one this is there? |
||
|
Evolution |
||
|
evolution get evolution. |
||
|
Sphinx (1981) |
||
|
Documentary: Mystery of the Sphinx |
||
|
1955 there was a big one landscape.en.wikipedia.org |
||
|
I had heard of this movie ancient days would have built the pyramids though. Even some of our biggest cranes today could not shift the weight could slave power alone do it? |
||
|
the best of the best of the best of the "space movies" It's the best sociobiology flick: where if a man can solve a mystery of outer space, then he can solve a mystery in his inner space. That's my take on the motion picture Here is part of Roger Ebert's review for the Chigago Sun Times: <<"I saw Tarkovsky's 1972 film "Solaris" at the Chicago Film Festival. It was my first experience of him, and at first I balked. It was long and slow and the dialogue seemed deliberately dry. But then the overall shape of the film floated into view, there were images of startling beauty, then developments that questioned the fundamental being of the characters themselves, and finally an ending that teasingly suggested that everything in the film needed to be seen in a new light. There was so much to think about afterwards, and so much that remained in my memory. With other Tarkovsky films--"Andrei Rublev," "Nostalgia," "The Sacrifice"--I had the same experience. "Solaris" is routinely called Tarkovsky's reply to Kubrick's "2001," and indeed Tarkovsky could have seen the Kubrick film at the 1969 Moscow Film Festival, but the film is based on a 1961 novel by the Polish science fiction writer Stanislaw Lem. Both films involve human space journeys and encounters with a transforming alien intelligence, which creates places ("2001") or people ("Solaris") from clues apparently obtained by reading minds. But Kubrick's film is outward, charting man's next step in the universe, while Tarkovsky's is inward, asking about the nature and reality of the human personality. "Solaris" begins with a long conversation between the psychologist Kelvin (Donatas Banionis) and the cosmonaut Burton (Vladislav Dvorzhetsky), at the country home of Kelvin's father. This home will be seen again at the end of a film in a transformed context. Burton tells him about a Soviet space station circling the planet Solaris, and of deaths and mysteries on board. Eventually Kelvin arrives at the station (his journey is not shown) and finds one crew member dead and two more deeply disturbed by events on the station. The planet, we learn, is entirely covered by a sea, and when X-ray probes were used to investigate it, the planet apparently replied with probes of its own, entering the minds of the cosmonauts and making some of their memories real. Within a day, Kelvin is presented with one of the Guests that the planet can create: A duplicate of his late wife Khari (Natalya Bondarchuk), exact in every detail, but lacking her memories. This Guest is not simply a physical manifestation, however. She has intelligence, self- consciousness, memory, and lack of memories. She does not know that the original Khari committed suicide. She questions Kelvin, wants to know more about herself, eventually grows despondent when she realizes she cannot be who she appears to be. To some extent her being is limited by how much Kelvin knows about her, since Solaris cannot know more than Kelvin does; this theme is made clearer in Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney's 2002 remake of the film. When we love someone, who do we love? That person, or our idea of that person? Some years before virtual reality became a byword, Tarkovsky was exploring its implications. Although other persons no doubt exist in independent physical space, our entire relationship with them exists in our minds. When we touch them, it is not the touch we experience, but our consciousness of the touch. To some extent, then, the second Khari is as "real" as the first, although different. The relationship between Kelvin and the new Khari plays out against the nature of reality on the space station. He glimpses other Guests. He views a taped message from the dead cosmonaut, filled with information and warning. Khari, it develops, cannot be killed, although that is tried, because she can simply be replaced. Physical pain is meaningless to her, as we see when she attempts to rip through a steel bulkhead door because she does not know how to open it. Gentle feelings are accessible to her, as seen in a scene that everybody agrees is the magic center of "Solaris," when the space station enters a stage of zero gravity and Kelvin, Khari and lighted candles float in the air. The last sequence of the film, which I will not reveal, invites us to reconsider the opening sequence, and to toy with the notion that there may be more Guests in the film than we first thought. It is a crucial fact that this final shot is seen by us, the viewers, and not by those on the space station. "The arc of discovery is on the part of the audience, not the characters.," writes the critic N. Medlicott. That they may be trapped within a box of consciousness that deceives them about reality is only appropriate, since the film argues that we all are.">> |
||
|
Contact |
Log in 
