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

You know it's a Sci-Fi movie, right? Meaning Science Fiction? I'm not saying the movie is the greatest thing ever, but they weren't writing the story for it because they legitimately thought it was a fact, it was a "what if" scenario, kind of like World War Z. You honestly just did all of this research, cited all of these sources and went into this huge spiel over something that doesn't even matter in regards to the quality of the movie.

reply

Now watch me whip (Kill it!)
Now watch me nae nae (Okay!)
Now watch me whip whip
Watch me nae nae (Want me do it?)

reply

I think only 10% of the brain was working for the people who wrote and filmed LUCY, which takes as its premise that we only use 10% of our brains, but taking a drug can increase that to 100%. The main reason to watch LUCY rather than LIMITLESS is that Lucy has Scarlett Johannson staring in it. Even with the sound off she is still worth watching.

reply

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


Wrong.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

The whole using a small % of your brain is annoying, it would have been better for them to just say it unlocked the full potential of it.

reply

We use 100% of our brain, but we can't access it all. That's the plot hole for me. If taking NZT suddenly puts you in charge of your entire brain, what are the odds that you'd keep your heart beating, keep your lungs functioning, keep digesting, regulate your own temperature, and all the other things that the parts of the brain we don't access do? But I do like the idea of having perfect recall. That in itself, being able to remember every bit of trivia you've ever heard and the ability to make connections with it all, would make you pretty brilliant.

reply

This has no impact on the movie or premise whatsoever, the myth that we only use 10% of our brains is well accepted, the fact that it isn't true does not matter. Perhaps Vernon believed it to be true, so what? The idea was that the drug enables the brain to organise, accesses, relate and articulate every piece of info it has ever taken in, in an instant. The movies premise does not rely on a myth.

reply

The OP misunderstood the concept of a plot-hole.

Now, granted it may factually wrong, that people only use 20% of our brain capacity. That makes it an "inaccuracy", not a plot-hole.

A plot hole would be an inconsistency within the story. A good example of a plot hole is from Edward Scissorhands.. when Kim says at the end that it never used to snow in their town until Edward began making ice-carvings on the mountaintop, which are tossing bits of ice down to be perceived as snow.

But if it's never been cold enough to snow before, where did Edward get the ice? It wouldn't form naturally, and he couldn't very well be having it shipped there. Cute scene but it's a plot-hole.

This movie's premise may be based around a factual error-- but within the confines of its own storyline, it has consistency..it doesn't present any other fact that contradicts that premise.

Sometimes fires don't go out when you're done playin' with them.

reply

It's just a movie, buddy. Relax.

reply