A Lot To Answer For 2013-07-16

[Julie]

I think it pretty definitive the GGs don't have. The resident soul reader extraordinaire Tina can't read the GGs. Remember Bud first meeting Tina in search of her morning coffee? (Too tire to lok up link.)

If I recall correctly, Tina sees and interprets auras - which is not necessarily the same thing as reading the presence or absence of a soul. It was pretty clear to Tina that the GGs aren't human (due to their lack of auras), and Tina also referred to Jin as having an "empty core", but I don't see this as definitive proof that the GGs are actually soul-less.

I have wondered about the need of the priests to torture and terrorize the girls if the soul was not a point in the creation. I think that the process of burning the girls alive was a way to keep the soul trapped in the ashes until the mixture can be reanimated. In that case the souls are their own, damage and all. The lack of aura may just be a part of not being an actual biological being.

I'm with these guys on the soul argument. Auras could very well be more of a reflection of the electromagnetic field generated by the human body that is impacted by the emotional state of the individual (due to the chemicals in the body that are associated with said emotional state). Granted, I know nothing about the science behind what I just said, but it would make perfect sense to me that auras are entirely different from and not dependent upon the existence of a soul.

That said, the argument regarding whether or not the presense of Demons indicates the presense of a soul is and interesting one. I feel like it's also worth exploring what other aspects of the girls may have resulted in the presense or lack thereof of Demons. For example, I seem to remember that Jin killed herself before the chimera was formed...though I also feel like I can't be remembering that correctly since I thought she was immortal before that chimera incident (I don't have time to look up the comic showing she killed herself...but I seem to remember that was part of what made Bud angry...and I don't have time to check the wiki page to see when the Calendar Machine made her immortal). But in any event, if she "died" before the whole chimera-making-process, then maybe that's part of the reason that she could have Demons and we don't see any for Bud or Brandi.

I would also like to point out that I'm exhausted, so I'm not responsible for the coherency or lack thereof of this post.

[Sidhekin]

Jin was "immortal" like the timekeepers: She, like they, did not age, but could (and did) come to violent deaths.

The "immortal" politicians were/are likewise, except at least one of them appears to still be alive ...

[kingklash]

Uh, no, sorry. I admit I had to look up "Well of All Sparks." Transformers was after my time. Now if you were quoting The Herculoids or Space Ghost I might have gotten it without looking it up.( Or Electrowoman and Dyna Girl, and/or Isis and Shazam!)

Well, actually, the 70's ovure of Krofft was my time as well. Also the live-action of FilMation, including the original Ghost Busters show with Tucker and Storch. To quote the Talking Heads: "I was raised in a home with the Television always on." I couldn't make a connection to souls from there, unless you want to talk about what happens when you use a Ghost De-Materializer, and whether it banishes a spirit, or destroys it.

[Yamara]

Uh, no, sorry. I admit I had to look up "Well of All Sparks." Transformers was after my time. Now if you were quoting The Herculoids or Space Ghost I might have gotten it without looking it up.( Or Electrowoman and Dyna Girl, and/or Isis and Shazam!)

Well, actually, the 70's ovure of Krofft was my time as well. Also the live-action of FilMation, including the original Ghost Busters show with Tucker and Storch. To quote the Talking Heads: "I was raised in a home with the Television always on." I couldn't make a connection to souls from there, unless you want to talk about what happens when you use a Ghost De-Materializer, and whether it banishes a spirit, or destroys it.

In the original Ghostbusters film, they seemed to prefer catching them.

But as for Transformers... I think you have to have some abiding love of cars and robots that only that one thing can satisfy. Only sentient aliens disguised as automobiles with a secret cosmic agenda can speak to that part of your soul. My soul did not listen for internal combustion engines in that direction. I outgrew Batman before I was twelve, too. These things are best left to Dave Willis.

[shadowinthelight]

Well, actually, the 70's ovure of Krofft was my time as well. Also the live-action of FilMation, including the original Ghost Busters show with Tucker and Storch. To quote the Talking Heads: "I was raised in a home with the Television always on." I couldn't make a connection to souls from there, unless you want to talk about what happens when you use a Ghost De-Materializer, and whether it banishes a spirit, or destroys it.

In the original Ghostbusters film, they seemed to prefer catching them.

Although the better of the two franchises, the film was by no means the original. Columbia had to license the name from Filmation. I wonder if anyone had to pay the rights holders of the Ghost Busters film from the 40s.

[Opus the Poet]

And while we're on the subject if angry Katherine, any chance this current level of anger could constitute a symptom of PTSD?

As a sufferer, I can definitively say Oh Hells Yeah!!!

[Jabberwonky]

Well, actually, the 70's ovure of Krofft was my time as well. Also the live-action of FilMation, including the original Ghost Busters show with Tucker and Storch. To quote the Talking Heads: "I was raised in a home with the Television always on." I couldn't make a connection to souls from there, unless you want to talk about what happens when you use a Ghost De-Materializer, and whether it banishes a spirit, or destroys it.

In the original Ghostbusters film, they seemed to prefer catching them.

Although the better of the two franchises, the film was by no means the original. Columbia had to license the name from Filmation. I wonder if anyone had to pay the rights holders of the Ghost Busters film from the 40s.

Dunno about the old Ghost Busters films, but I do remember Harvey Comics sueing Columbia over the Ghostbusters emblem.

300px-Ghostbusters_logo.png (19.36 KiB) Viewed 5609 times

From the Wiki article - "In 1987 Harvey sued Columbia Pictures, for $50 million, claiming that the iconic Ghostbusters logo used in the blockbuster 1984 film was too reminiscent of Fatso from the Casper series. The court ruled in Columbia's favor, due to Harvey's failure to renew the copyrights on early Casper stories and the "limited ways to draw a figure of a cartoon ghost."

[Fairportfan]

Although the better of the two franchises, the film was by no means the original. Columbia had to license the name from Filmation. I wonder if anyone had to pay the rights holders of the Ghost Busters film from the 40s.

Based on what i've read recently in regard to the highly entertaining volleys of legal threats between Warner and Weinstein, FIlmation may have registered the title with the MPAA's Title Registration Board as permanently protected (or something like that).

All companies that are signatories of the TRB (that's most of them) have to register all their titles with it. While you can't copyright a title, and the TRB is mostly to allow member companies to make sure they don't re-use someone else's title that might have unfortunate implications, or cause the public to be confused about whether they've already seen a film, each member is allowed to permanently protect up to 500 titles.

For the permanently protected titles, you have to get a waiver from the company that originally owns the title to use it.

If you fail to do so, the MPAA can fine you.

(Currently - last i heard - the MPAA is imposing fines of $25,000/day on Weinstein for every day the use the title The Butler, which Warner has on the protected list in promotion for their upcoming film about a White House butler. Threats of lawsuits are flying thick and fast.)

[kingklash]

[quote="shadowinthelight]Although the better of the two franchises, the film was by no means the original. Columbia had to license the name from Filmation. I wonder if anyone had to pay the rights holders of the Ghost Busters film from the 40s.[/quote]
The only reference I had to a 40s film was Bob Hope's The Ghost Breakers. Unless you count the fake trailer for a 1954 "Premakes" version on YouTube starring Hope as Peter Venkman, Dean Martin as Ray Stantz, and Fred MacMurray as Egon Spengler. Give movie tech a few more years, and we may have that one in the theaters!

[Warrl]

yeah the problem with maturity is it has nothing to do with age and everything to do with mental development.

Quite true - although I'd add emotional development too.

[Warrl]

Think f.i. of religious people. To thèm it's the most important thing in their lives to believe what they believe. To have a discussion with them, I have to imagine their Deity as a real, living entity -otherwise you'll be discussing about nothing, massively complicating things. And at thát moment, the Deity ís real, for me too, despite being an atheïst, if only for duration of the discussion.

It isn't just religious people.

Anyone who can't be absolutely certain beyond any doubt that an imagined entity is not real, and yet spit in the face of said certainty and not only discuss that entity as if it were real but actually carry on conversations *with* that entity - several of them at a time - has a really limited future as a creator of fiction.

(I am rather less than a chapter into my first novel and have already been whacked over the head by the main character who needed to draw my attention to a serious problem I was overlooking. She has claws. I really hope she doesn't do that again.)

[bmonk]

Interesting discussion of the "soul" thing.
...
Only by having a "soul", a character can understand and feel the importance of a soul.... Think that one over for a bit. "I think, thus I am" . . . But, then again, I am an artist, academy of the arts educated. To me a piece of art can have a "soul", be it a soul that's put into it by the artist.

So if a work remains locked away, unseen, is it like a soul imprisoned in the isolation of hell? It would seem, then, that a soul is work of many hands, in addition to just the artist and production team. A gallery or media, an audience, a fanbase, a genre of like minds, a critical response, a society to encounter, accept and challenge it.

A place in the universe.

Reminds me of J.R.R. Tolkein's short story "Leaf, by Niggle".

That was probably the last time Niggle's name ever came up in conversation. However, Atkins preserved the odd corner [of painting]. Most of it crumbled; but one beautiful leaf remained intact. Atkins had it framed. Later he left it to the Town Museum, and for a long while "Leaf: by Niggle" hung there in a recess, and was noticed by a few eyes. But eventually the Museum was burnt down, and the leaf,and Niggle, were entirely forgotten in his old country.