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

[–] patrick-stenson 12 years ago

I agree, I too groaned when I heard this stupid myth repeated.

However, I think it could have been resolved pretty simply in the movie. For example, they could have simply said that NZT, the drug, 'opens up your brain, boosts your concentration, sharpens your reflexes and enhances your memory like no drug ever before'.

The rest of the movie could have remained exactly the same.

[–] markus-winkelhake 12 years ago

The central premise of Superman is that he's an alien from outer space and can fly, has super strength, heat vision, super breath, etc... now, since you can disprove all of that scientifically... is the central premise of that movie flawed as well, making every Superman film, series, comic, etc, in existence something you find yourself unable to enjoy? Just asking...

Also, while the whole thread seems to agree that we use more than 10% or even 20% of our brain, it's also proven that there are only very very few times we use the whole 100% AT ONCE. Of course you use different areas of your brain to process different things, but rarely all at once. Now, we could just argue what the NTZ does is let you use 100% of your brain at all times, and your plot hole argument goes down the crapper. As many pointed out, the whole "how the drug works" was explained by a character in the movie who never claimed to have a PhD or that his words are scientifically accurate. Just sayin'....

[–] sascha-17 12 years ago

The central premise of Superman is that he's an alien from outer space and can fly, has super strength, heat vision, super breath, etc... now, since you can disprove all of that scientifically... is the central premise of that movie flawed as well, making every Superman film, series, comic, etc, in existence something you find yourself unable to enjoy? Just asking...

That's not the point. A movie can setup crazy, unrealistic rules just fine.. but it then needs to stick with them and make sense within its own universe. Let's take that Superman-comparison: Some developments in "Limitless" were equivalent to a Superman-movie in which the hero gets attacked with Kryptonite in the final act, only to tell the villian "tough luck, dude .. I'm not vulnerable to that stuff anymore .. I found a way to inoculate myself against it."

There's nothing wrong with the premise of "Limitless". Doesn't matter that it's non-scientific BS, it still is an interesting idea. The thing that bothered me is the direction in which they took the idea. Plus all those things that just didn't make any sense, regardless of the central premise. From the top of my head:

- Super smart hero simply forgets to repay russian mobster, even though he has plenty of money to do so.

- Said mobster finding a pill on his client and simply swallowing it without a second's hesitation.

- Super smart hero having limited supply of wonder-drug and keeping that entire supply in one place. Which is not a bank-vault or something similarly safe but a secret pocket in his jacket. Wow .. that's real smart.

- $ 8.5 million "fortress" being totally useless against three thugs with powertools.

- Selfish hero using a drug with incredible potential simply for personal monetary gain - and then not suffering *any* negative consequences for it.

- Pointless and unresolved murder subplot.

etc, etc .. there are tons more of these in the "100 things I learned from Limitless"-thread.

I'm getting slightly OT here, but here's how I think Limitless' story should've gone: Have Eddie pull the whole "get rich"-scheme at first, but then gradually discovering that there's more to super-intelligence than just filling your own pockets. At the same time introduce severe drawbacks of the drug to put the hero under pressure. Like making his supply limited. At no point did I get the feeling that he was running out. Everytime we see his stash, there'S still plenty of pills to go around in it. Make the final act all about him trying to get off the drug and back into a normal life while threatened by mental/physical dangers brought on by the drug. Like ending up with the intelligence of a lobotomized monkey or something.

And don't let it end on such a happy note. A guy who did all the stuff Eddie did shouldn't be granted a happy ending. And espcially not one as clumsy as the one they had in the movie. "Oh yeah.. I'm off the drug now BTW.. and on my way to becoming president". That's like something a 12-year old boy would write .. only thing missing was him saying "..and BTW, I'm also banging Megan Fox now."

S.

[–] markus-winkelhake 12 years ago

Yeah but this thread is specifically about the "flawed" central premise. I agree with the rest of your criticism just fine, but the argument about the "flawed" central premise that creates this major plot hole is just as flawed as the OP wants to make the "10% of your brain" stuff.

And actually Superman has found ways in the past to make himself immune to the effects of kryptonite... just saying ;)

[–] sascha-17 12 years ago

Agreed. It's not a plot hole, it's just a basic premise out of sci-fi-land.

I guess I got a little carried away while typing .. this movie really pissed me off by using a real interesting idea and then ending up like "Cocktail".

S.

[–] AssetsonFire 12 years ago

I fundamentally refute your argument. If we can indeed use more than 10% of our brains, how do you explain your missing the blatant fact that this is a fantasy film and not a scientific treatise?

Oh whisky, leave me alone.

[–] Razor_2005 12 years ago

A myth is a myth because many people believe in it. The character, Vernon, who says that "we only use ten percent of our brain," believes in it like other people. He is just an agent, not a scientist. Besides, he isn't a trustworthy character whose word can be taken as the gospel of truth.

It's the character who supports the myth, not the movie. If a person says in a movie, "There isn't no milk in the fridge," which is grammatically and logically incorrect, would that be a blooper? No, because it's a mistake — deliberate or unintentional — that people make in real life.

[–] botev1921 12 years ago

''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''

That is just not true. You seem to miss some of the most amazing recent stories in medicine, where people who have lost up to 60% of their brains actually live normal lives. In fact, more research confirmed the existence of the so-called second brain in the digestive system and in a case, I have read about recently - a person with severe brain trauma achieved full recovery with half of his brain dead. The neuron cells in his bowel seem to have adapted to compensate the trauma.
Science aside, it is just idiotic to discuss all that instead of just enjoying the good piece of cinema...speaking of brain damage! :)

[–] qwertyKeys 12 years ago

wtf in the bowel? links or didn't happen.

[–] tilak 12 years ago

Cool Down dude,who said that movie makers are deliberately fooling the public,its fiction.They invest their money into movies and make profit by entertainment.If they stick to real life scenarios,nobody will watch them.
you copy pasted a lot of stuff anyway just to prove that you hated the movie.

[–] knish2 12 years ago

A lot of people now suggest that a fully active brain means that you are enlightened. It might be true that in a normal day we use different parts of our brain, so at the end of that day we have used al of our brain. But it's also possible to have a 100 procent active brain at all times, so the premise of this film stil works. It's just a little weird that he's trying to make money and goes to the gym as a result of it.

[–] DD-931 12 years ago

Well said, OP! Even if the premise of a "smart pill" can be accepted, the shallow, thoughtless choices the lead character makes AFTER taking this pill make it questionable if anyone involved in this film actually understood what the concept of "smart" is really all about. Just for starters, a smart person wouldn't make such needlessly reckless choices. But as well, a smart person wouldn't NEED so much money (a smart person can't live off of 2 million dollars?), wouldn't NEED so much power (to do WHAT? Forever embrace the stupidity of politics?). Wouldn't need to embrace the pointless rat race portrayed in this movie.

A smart person would get the hell out of New York City right off the bat.

[–] done_holding_back 12 years ago

The "10%" line isn't really important to the plot since we're talking about pseudo-science. Just change that to "It makes your brain go better" and the rest of the movie works just fine.

[–] Bwaut353 12 years ago

Trying to argue over if a SCI-FI movie is scientifically accurate is beyond me.

No words for this.