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

[–] emvan 13 years ago

It's amazing how some smart people can be so stupid. I don't have the time to see if this has been pointed out to the OP, but if it has, and he still checks this thread, he deserves to hear it again and again and understand how much of his limited life he wasted with this.

Of course most intelligent people know the 10% of the brain thing is a preposterous urban legend.

His ex-brother-in-law Vernon the drug dealer doesn't know that and/or has found that it's an effective way of explaining the drug to potential buyers ... most of whom aren't that smart.

Eddie the science fiction author would obviously know that, and he wouldn't bother to correct his lame-assed ex-relative. He just needs the drug.

IOW, this entire complaint is not about how the movie explained the drug, it's a complaint about how a character in the movie expained the drug, in character.

Now, know what the best thing about having Vernon say that?

1) The audience members who know jack about the brain have been given a shortcut to understanding how the drug works. IOW, by having Vernon say that, the movie sells the drug to the audience the same way Vernon sells it to his similarly uninformed customers.

2) The people who know this is bs, and understand the incredibly basic narrative principle that facts asserted by characters in a movie are not necessarily believed to be true by the writers (in fact, they're not even necessarily believed to be true by the character who says them), get a) instant insight into some combination of Vernon's own intelligence and that of his customers, and b) a kick out of the irony I just pointed out.

3) The people who don't understand that characters have different minds than their authors will get their panties in a bunch and embarrass themselves arguing against a movie that understands the brain better than they do.

And it does. I'm a Harvard grad and former neuroscience grad student there, and I just watched it with an M.I.T. grad, and we both thought that the portrayal of the nature of enhanced intelligence was as good as we'd ever seen. Just absolutely nailed it: you are aware of more information, and you see connections among that information faster. And that's what the movie is about. It's not about the drug, which is pure fantasy, right down to working within 30 seconds. It's a very common technique in sf to explore serious issues in as realistic a way as possible, while taking shortcuts with the mechanisms. The drug is just a McGuffin.

And in fact, compared to the other three outsanding sf movies this year -- Source Code, Attack the Block, and The Adjustment Bureau -- this actually took the least liberties with science. By far.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

[–] NovaIncognito 12 years ago

Woweee Wow Wowzers! Seriously? You are a Harvard "grad" who has a degree in neuroscience and you watched this movie with A (so much for learning proper grammer in at Harvard) M.I.T. "grad?" You must be one of the most intelligent people in the country, particularly considering the company you keep!

I have to say, there is nothing quite as off-putting as an intellectually insecure individual pointing out where they did their "a'learnin" at, as if it somehow makes their education or viewpoints superior to others'.

Give me a person with actual experience compared to an arrogant college student, most of whom are at the mercy of their professors' biased viewpoints, and are therefore limited in more ways than they realize. As the sayings go "you don't even know what you don't know," or "not only do you not know the answers, you don't know the questions." This definitely would appear to apply to someone like you, capable only of parroting spoonfed information (or misinformation).

On a simplistic level, there is nothing wrong with your post and its general idea is something I agree with. Your presentation of that idea and your justification for why we should take it seriously (your insecure necessity to point out that you attended an university that is speculated to be superior in comparison to others) is where your many psychological and emotional limitations become apparent.

Frankly, I think these universities need to start mandating a course in humility before they hand out those oh so important, validating pieces of paper.

[–] blaqueknight2000 12 years ago

Novaincognito, Emvan's post reflects the views of someone tired of stupidity.
Honestly, he was 100% correct whether you like his delivery or not.
I too have grown tired of seeing these redundant arguments about a statement that, in context, anyone with the slightest bit of common sense should be able to comprehend. Some people in this thread are acting as if there was some grandiose plot hole when it was truly just a statement made to flesh out the character it came from; Vernon. It wasn't made by the writers trying to "inform" the audience but so many have taken it as such.

[–] mark-hansen11 13 years ago

I already knew that we don't just use 10% or 20% of our brain, but there's one such thing as not whining over it. I still liked the movie.

And it's not THAT important. Yeah it says the pill allows you to use the other 80% of your brain, but it might as well have increased your brain efficiency. Right now, more memories are held in your brain than you can recall, despite using most of your brain.
So it may as well have been the characters having a misconstrued thinking of the pill's effect.

ADHD medicines show some of the same symptons as NZT, although in smaller scale. Medicine such as adderall, ritalin and focalin XR helps 'clearing your brain' and focusing, which is also an important part of the description of NZT in the movie.

So even if you use most of your brain, it doesn't mean you can't improve it's efficiency and clear-ness.

Whatever the pill is supposed to do, it does not really matter for the intentions of the movie. It's not a documentary on mind-enhancing drugs.

Instead of being so focused on critisizing a movie you didn't like, you should've done your research on more than a myth.

[–] BigApplePi 13 years ago

I thought I would use ten percent of my brain to ask this question:

Anyone know if NZT was checked out on chimps before being brought to the human stage? My dog is a little slow and I would like to test NZT out on it, but I don't want harmful side-effects.

[–] IMDbeans 13 years ago

The problem with your point is that the 10% myth wasn't the underpinning of the film itself, it was merely one man's words. For whatever reason, the drug enhanced brain function and that's all we know. The 10% myth implies that 90% of the brain sits there idle. Even if we use 100% of our brain cells, they could always be made to work better.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Trackmaster 12 years ago

"They say we only use 10% of our brains...I think we only use 10% of our hearts."

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 12 years ago

Was this supposed to be non fiction or a documentary? I thougt it was more of a fantasy going in, by the description. Just checking.

Cici: "Oh, I'm sorry my bad, I thought you were someone else".
Ghost Face: "That's OK, I am"

[–] blaqueknight2000 12 years ago

y - Druscila on Sat Jun 23 2012 05:35:18 Was this supposed to be non fiction or a documentary? I thougt it was more of a fantasy going in, by the description. Just checking.

It is what I would call a future feasible fantasy.
The subject of transhumanism is very real and there is a lot of non-fiction about it. This movie is ahead of current reality but the premise is based in reality. Its like how virtual keyboards in Minority Report are actually real now (though still in the early stages) but at the time, they were "fantasy but feasible in theory" OR like video phones; used to be fantasy, now every smartphone can be one.