MovieChat Forums > Limitless (2011) Discussion > Central premise = fatally flawed plot ho...

Central premise = fatally flawed plot hole

posted 13 years ago by dalinian
182 replies | jump to latest

The central premise of the film ‘Limitless’ (2011) and its source novel ‘The Dark Fields’ (2001) is fatally flawed, since it is predicated on an urban legend. When Vernon introduces Eddie Morra to the NZT48 drug MacGuffin, he perpetuates the old “We only use 10% of our brain” myth (though doubling it to 20%), and Eddie fails to challenge him. Since that myth is false, it’s also false that 30 seconds after taking a ‘miracle pill’ anybody could become hyper-intelligent and memory-perfect.

The old “We only use 10% of our brain” myth has been extensively debunked [1] by, for instance:

• Neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein in "Whence Cometh the Myth that We Only Use 10% of our Brains?", in Prof. Sergio Della Sala's ‘Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain’, 1999
» http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Myths-Exploring-Popular-Assumptions/dp/04 71983039

• Psychologist Benjamin Radford, Managing Editor of the ‘Skeptical Inquirer’, at Snopes.com, 2007
» http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

• Professor of Human Cognitive Neuroscience Sergio Della Sala in ‘Tall Tales about the Mind & Brain’, Xmas lecture in Edinburgh, 2008
— 'We only use 10% of our brain' myth debunked from 23:00 to 41:30
» video, 57:07 – http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/all-news/dalyell-prize

• Mythbusters Grant Imahara, Kari Byron, and Tory Belleci, in ‘MythBusters’ Episode 151, 2010
» http://mythbustersresults.com/tablecloth-chaos

Even with the willing suspension of disbelief in primary physiological/psychological truths, the films still fails – because as many authentically intelligent reviewers and board posters have pointed out, the writers just weren’t up to the task of writing a convincing hyper-intelligent memory-perfect protagonist, let alone a likeable one.

The only level on which the film works is as an allegorical and satirical fable on the dreadful state of C21 American society – desperate for the 30 second quick fix solution in pill form, addicted to vulgar materialism and “I'm all right, Jack” narcissistic egoism, obsessed with recreational sex, and mired in dog-eat-dog casino capitalism where businessmen are morally equivalent to drug dealers, all ruled over by the plutocracy of Big Capital. I guess you’re getting dealt the kind of decadent films you deserve.

dalinian

[1] The 'We only use 10% of our brain' myth has been extensively debunked – for instance:

• Studies of brain damage: If 90% of the brain is normally unused, then damage to these areas should not impair performance. Instead, there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities. Even slight damage to small areas of the brain can have profound effects.

• Evolution: The brain is enormously costly to the rest of the body, in terms of oxygen and nutrient consumption. It can require up to twenty percent of the body's energy – more than any other organ – despite making up only 2% of the human body by weight. If 90% of it were unnecessary, there would be a large survival advantage to humans with smaller, more efficient brains. If this were true, the process of natural selection would have eliminated the inefficient brains. By the same token, it is also highly unlikely that a brain with so much redundant matter would have evolved in the first place.

• Brain imaging: Technologies such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allow the activity of the living brain to be monitored. They reveal that even during sleep, all parts of the brain show some level of activity. Only in the case of serious damage does a brain have "silent" areas.

• Localization of function: Rather than acting as a single mass, the brain has distinct regions for different kinds of information processing. Decades of research have gone into mapping functions onto areas of the brain, and no function-less areas have been found.

• Microstructural analysis: In the single-unit recording technique, researchers insert a tiny electrode into the brain to monitor the activity of a single cell. If 90% of cells were unused, then this technique would have revealed that.

• Metabolic studies: Another scientific technique involves studying the take-up of radioactively labelled 2-deoxyglucose molecules by the brain. If 90 percent of the brain were inactive, then those inactive cells would show up as blank areas in a radiograph of the brain. Again, there is no such result.

• Neural disease: Brain cells that are not used have a tendency to degenerate. Hence if 90% of the brain were inactive, autopsy of adult brains would reveal large-scale degeneration.

~ Neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein, quoted in ‘10% of brain myth’, Wikipedia
» http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

[–] cronkd-959-410039 12 years ago

I understand that this is a myth. Obviously we do not just use 10% of our brain. The thing you have to remember is the person that said this originally is Eddie's old brother in law. Later in the film he says, "It works a lot better when you're already smart." This implies that Eddie's brother in law IS NOT very smart. Knowing he is not very smart, I think it's obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I believe he is saying that we only use 10% of our brains more of a selling tool to get Eddie to try the drug, then it being a literal fact.

[–] nicktostenson 12 years ago

I cringed as well, but it's worth noting that the admittedly bogus claim in the movie was made by a drug dealer-- not a scientist. If the urban legend is widely believed-- and it is-- it would make perfect sense for an uneducated person to offer it as an explanation of an intelligence-enhancing drug. That's all we require to make sense of the plot-- a drug somehow vastly enhances mental abilities. We are not told just how or why it works, aside, again, from a shady drug dealer whose word should not be taken as literal truth even within the confines of the movie. I would not say this is a plot hole, though of course it is well to remind people of the truth, and I'm always in favor of debunking popular misconceptions.

[–] DD-931 12 years ago

Amazing how ignorant some people are of the very concept of science fiction - not to mention how willing they are to parade their ignorance.

Science fiction concerns the fictional extrapolation of actual credible scientific and/or technological concepts or facts. Put a simpler way, science fiction depends on real science or technology as it's jumping-off point. For instance, we can't travel to other planets yet, but we know that the possibility for such travel exists because science has shown it can exist. We have no proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life, but science again supports the POSSIBILITY of it's existence. The point is, if a movie calls itself science fiction, and some of it's "science" (see how that's half of the term "science fiction"?) is questionable, it is fair game for anyone to challenge the premise of the movie.

So it's the people who can't understand someone challenging the scientific basis of a science fiction story who are the fools, not the challengers.

If someone wants to tell a story with no basis in scientific fact, that's fine. But that's called fantasy, not science fiction. You know, like LORD OF THE RINGS.

And pretending a story is based on scientific fact and then claiming "it's just a story" when those scientific "facts" are challenged is called dishonesty.

[–] shadowscream 12 years ago

Popping Smart Pills: The Case for Cognitive Enhancement By Maia Szalavitz Tuesday, Jan. 06, 2009

"It gives me clarity of thinking and focus," says Bob. He credits the drug with improving both his career and his personal relationships. "I am still getting accolades," he says.

[–] CharlieTheMan 12 years ago

You lost all credibility when you mentioned mythbusters.

Ours is the Fury!

[–] Skogshuggare 12 years ago

Do you ever feel you over thought a concept?

[–] RoadSideAssistance 12 years ago

Don't take it so literal.

Some random guy, who was clearly not a scientist, who did nothing but pedal drugs said, "You know how they say blah blah blah."

The drug could've simply been a performance enhancer and had nothing to do with allowing access to 100% of our brain which we already have. It could've simply been steroids for your brain which considering the side effects outside of use might as well have been.

Exercise a little concrete thinking before making posts far outside of the assumption of what an idea is, and you may advance a little further in logical conversation.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] douglashallth 12 years ago

What you're asserting is the central premise, is something of a strawman.

The 10% thing was spiel by a drug dealer - he also lied about several other details when saying that.

The true premise was merely a drug that enhanced brain function, in terms of memory recollection, and ability to learn, plus ability to process things.

And that isn't a McGuffin - it wasn't some unexamined, or mysterious object that is sought or desired, it was completely and explicitly explained what it was.