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

Central premise = fatally flawed plot hole


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

reply

He also said the drug was FDA approved, which was a lie. That was a sales pitch, nothing more.
The truth is there are many drugs which boost memory and performance. Finding a super-drug is not far-fetched.

reply

@dalinian

This is not a fatallt flawed plot hole.

The narrator of the film/book tells us we only use 10% of the brain, which you are rigthly saying is incorrect.

However, this is the opinion of the narrator. It doesn't represent a fact in the book/film or the real world. This is just what the narrator has come to know as the truth. He's wrong, but that doesn't make it a 'fatally flawed plot hole', it just means his character is not accurate.

The central premise of the film is that the pill makes him smater, which it does. That is not fatally flawed.

"If you get in bed with the devil, sooner or later you have to fook."

reply

oh come on...if you did all that research is because deep inside...you loved the movie!

Its ok though, its a good movie.

reply

The central premise of this post is that it was posted by a 'fatally flawed plot hole' ãsshole.

reply

What is it about movies that makes people so anal?

It's just a movie. Since when has a movie had to be completely factual?

If you saw a movie that included dragons, would you sigh, roll your eyes and walk out? I mean, dragons aren't real, it's stupid to put them in a movie.

"It's hard to say no to Yoo-Hoo. The name literally beckons."

reply

A fatal plot hole in TLOTRs is that Hobbits, Wizards and Orcs don't exist !

Now I'm going to write an incredibly long boring essay about this so that you can all gasp at how clever I am .

reply

oh god.... so ? and ? you're so serious and boring.... take a pill and and go defacate and relieve your intellectual scientist boring ass.

reply

The statement regarding accessing 20% of the brain is made by Vernon, Eddie's former brother-in-law. when he states this, he qualifies it with "You know how THEY say..."

Thus, it is a questionable quote at best and probably an outright lie, given Vernon's other lies during the same conversation.

It's coming online next year...
It's FDA approved...
I am not a drug dealer...

When Vernon initially stops Eddie on the street, Eddie's voice over intimates to us, the viewers, that any relationship with Vernon is "worthless", implying that Vernon, himself, is morally bankrupt (which coming from Eddie in the condition he was currently, was a tremendous put-down!)

The statement wasn't meant to be factual, nor was it spoken-by or attributed as being from any credible source.

Sorry you missed that and hung your entire (well-researched/well-written) thesis on an invalid premise posed from an unreliable source.





"If people like you don't learn from what happened to people like me..." -Professor Rohl

reply

A simpler and even more fatal plot hole is that if NZT gives the user superhuman mental abilities, and the use of NZT becomes both a biological and psychologically consuming addiction, then why doesn't Eddie (or any other NZT user) use their mental powers to firstly characterize and synthesize more NZT? Particularly when Eddie has enough money to support a laboratory, why does he give this essential project to non-NZT using scientists who need months to crack the formula?

I agree that the film can be taken as an unintentional (?) satire of 21st century America. What is our society's highest calling for one's talents? Not science, nor art, nor philanthropy, but rather robber baron-style finance capitalism, casual sex, and narcissistic politics.

reply

A simpler and even more fatal plot hole is that if NZT gives the user superhuman mental abilities, and the use of NZT becomes both a biological and psychologically consuming addiction, then why doesn't Eddie (or any other NZT user) use their mental powers to firstly characterize and synthesize more NZT? Particularly when Eddie has enough money to support a laboratory, why does he give this essential project to non-NZT using scientists who need months to crack the formula?

I agree that the film can be taken as an unintentional (?) satire of 21st century America. What is our society's highest calling for one's talents? Not science, nor art, nor philanthropy, but rather robber baron-style finance capitalism, casual sex, and narcissistic politics.


I answered this a couple of YEARS ago. I pop back in here for ha-has and I see the same statements.
1. It is not a plot hole. Its a choice of direction for the character. He was not interested in science. NZT didn't turn him into a science geek. He wanted to focus on his plan. He had plenty of NZT at first, so he went about using it to do what he needed to do. He was focused on something else. As with anything, you don't think about replacing something until you need it or within a reasonable amount of time beforehand. He did not make the choice YOU would have made but he eventually made the same choice and it would not have affected the outcome in any way if he did it sooner.
2. NZT makes you hyper-focus. When he came out of the ocean from the swim, he said he had a plan. He used his time and resources to hatch his plan. If you have money, THE STUPIDEST THING TO DO IS SPEND IT ALL. He HIRED a lab. Labs can cost millions to build. If he spent it on a lab then that would eliminate his resources for anything else. He didn't need to OWN a lab. He only needed one specific drug reverse-engineered. Drug trials take time, which can not be circumvented. HE could not be in a lab running trials over and over. The method of precise delivery also had to be determined. These are time-consuming. He did what any smart person would do when they can't do everything themselves all at once - he delegated it to a lab. Them being on NZT would not have sped up drug trials and acquiring results derived from tests.

Also, there are many, many smart people in the world and you can find them in all walks of life. T,V, and movies have made lawyers, wall streeters, scientists and doctors the stereotype of smart people when in fact, smart people choose their own callings and that can be anything.
NZT doesn't fix personality flaws, either. It just allows you to fvck up more efficiently and on a grander scale.

reply