---Still, there's an ongoing challenge for you to predict the stocks, or manifest an external siddhi of your choice; something more important than (say) communicating with lobsters (feature: "help, help, don't boil me alive!!"). On Next, this is based on a novel or short story by the SCI-FI genius Philip Dick. (The "Minority Report") was also based on one of his stories. The basic idea in Next which makes it distinctive (as opposed to a similar thriller, Deja Vu) is that there are alternative possible futures, and the Cage character gets to "try out" any of them in advance; i.e. the possible future which he personally selects as being the most favorable. Then in his mind's eye, he carries out that possible future to it's conclusion and if it doesn't work, he tries another. The catch is that the viewer doesn't know which of these hypothetical scenaries is going to be the "real" one - any more than the Cage character. Also, in one scene, he can bifurcate into multiple bodies and explore numerous possible futures all at once.
In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > If you're looking for a film that walks that > > fine line between "guy stuff" (e.g., blowing > > things up and car chases) and "chick flicks" > > (sappy love stories), with a soupçon of psychic > > powers thrown in, I can recommend the new film > > "Next." Nicolas Cage plays a guy who can see > > into the future, although usually only two > > minutes into the future. He is recruited > > against his will by the FBI to help them track > > down some terrorists who have an atomic weapon > > they're about to set off in L.A. > > > > The way it treats the quandary of "seeing the > > future" is interesting for a mainstream movie, > > more subtle than most, and might be enjoyed by > > people here. Although the film is full of plot > > holes and silliness, it's entertaining. The > > ending leaves you wondering what's...Next... > > so my bet is that it's being set up as a > > franchise for Cage. > > > Sounds like a lot of fun- Cage at his best is just great to watch > ("Face Off", "The Rock", "The Family Man"). I find that what makes > or breaks movies like this is the overall quality-- of the script, > the direction, the cinematography, the editing- All of it. When any > of those elements is flawed, usually the entire production is a > mess. When they are spot on, the thing crackles with tension and > life. > > I don't know that I've tried seeing into the future, but an > interesting attunement has occurred for me regarding the building > where I work- There are "cube farms" in large areas off of a > central, narrow corridor here, with doorways joining the large areas > to the narrow corridor. > > In order to move quickly into the corridor with confidence that I > won't bump into anyone, I have focused my sensitivity to spatial > density, by projecting my attention out the doorway before I enter > the corridor. It is now second nature, and I can tell with > certainty, before I can see into the corridor, whether there is > someone approaching from either the left or the right. > > My spatial density sensitivity is calibrated to only about 10 to 15 > feet in either direction beyond the doorway I am entering, since it > is both not necessary to "see" any further left or right up the > corridor, but also more difficult to determine density further up > the corridor, and more distracting. > > There appears to be a stable, non-ego based area of awareness I've > discovered over the years, where such tools can be accessed readily. > Its tricky though because when I first began playing there, I made > many many errors, not realizing that though I was on a subtler plane > of perception, my ego was interfering and fooling me. But now that I > recognize that "layer", I've moved beyond it, for these purposes, to > a quieter area where errors are absent. Cool stuff. >
