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

[–] chbuddah86 13 years ago

Soooooooooo....you didn't like the movie?

[–] sdblinden 13 years ago

The moment I heard that I groaned, but at least the movie itself was pretty good.

[–] Ben_times_10 13 years ago

Same here! I liked this movie, but I hate when I hear that 10% nonsense.

I've ran into people that use the "we only use 10% of our brain" idea as a basis for some half-baked theory. Then I challenge them, and everyone else in the room sides with the "smart" guy because they believe in that myth as well.

Another thing is, roughly 10% of our neurons are firing at a given time... and there are people that have almost all they're neurons firing at once in short periods of time... It's called having a seizure.

[–] kok_warlock 13 years ago

Yeah, the whole we only use X% of the brain is ridiculous, but in the movie at least it was said like only once, but even with the plot-holes, this movie is still pretty damn good.

[–] normadamous 12 years ago

i thought Chuck Norris had 100% of neurons firing nearly all the time??

*
*
Talking monkey, yeah, yeah. Came here from the future, ugly sucker, only says "ficus"

[–] bigBang8 12 years ago

Yeah but the fact that the best and brightest don't know whole lot about brain should be taken note of too. If the brain were using 100% at all times, in all sorts of brain imaging machines the brain would light up all red or something... hat's not the case, the reason why people took this 10% of our brain power at all times is because most of our body works autonomously, if you were to take it all by yourself, it would be so inefficient, youd actually use 100% than 10%. But that's just my speculation just like all current data on the brain topic. Gray tissue ball with endless memory capacity, i bet if you could hook up a brain to a tv with some non existent brain reading machine it would show every you every moment from the day you were born up to the current time. It's just locked there in a cellular level, quantum *beep* ofc some memory loss is probable, alcohol, drugs and all that.

[–] andreaswae 9 years ago

Using "100 %" of the brains capacity at once, I think would overload it, and actually make it less effective. A lot of the "shortcuts" our brain takes, is so that we kan make rapid decisions.

This sentence has nothing to do with what I just have written above.

[–] qwertyKeys 11 years ago

I've always wondered by I have seizures. Must be because I'm super smart.

Probably not.

[–] Fred_Paris 10 years ago

Same, they could have gone without repeating that 10% (or 20% in this case) nonsense and making up something new and it would have worked out fine.
Bit of a shame that. But at least the movie was good.

[–] kevinc-gralewski 9 years ago

I absolutely agree. They could have mentioned that the density of neurons in the brain is determined by activity. Play piano? Lots of neurons in the fine motor control area. Engineer? Lots of neurons in the logic and spatial reasoning areas. So the drug could be a hybrid of adderall, which has effects similar to what is shown in the film when taken by someone who doesn't have ADD or ADHD, and an Alzheimer drug that stimulates neuron growth in all areas of the brain. No 10% *beep* shattering suspension of disbelief and spreading misinformation.

[–] modman-2 9 years ago

or is it so hard to believe that some idiot drug-dealer might not understand the science and just rattled off some nonsense about how much of our brain we access?

the drug dealer downtown who tells you his stuff will make you fly isn't really understanding the pharmacology of heroine either.

[–] parkerone 13 years ago

lol-lol-like that!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Xtiam 12 years ago

LMAO Nice conclusion

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

[–] nicholasjameslynch 8 years ago

Hahahaha

[–] WiiD_nugz420 13 years ago

i feel sorry for you...you cannot find pleasure in an entertaining movie and find it necessary to spend your time doing research to prove that this film had a "fatally flawed plot hole"...sheesh

[–] blaqueknight2000 13 years ago

You typed all of that just to be wrong.
He didn't say we only USE...he said NZT allows you to ACCESS 100% of your brain. That one word makes a huge difference. ACCESS. If you were smart enough to do all of that research, I shouldn't have to explain the difference to you.
Now if you want to go find some documentation to prove that wrong...go right ahead. The movie even went so far as to demonstrate this access when he runs into his landlord's woman towards the beginning.
The only flaw is people not paying closer attention. NZT would fix that.

[–] Psychological_Gold 13 years ago

But that's what the OP was saying: we already use 100% of our brains. The only thing NZT would presumably help with would be memories/memorization, or maybe helping the brain process stuff faster so then the brain would be working at a higher % than 100.

[–] famourt 13 years ago

@ fulci: LMAO!!!! Perfect reply post!

[–] blaqueknight2000 13 years ago

Seriously @ Gold.
You are still not getting it?
USE and ACCESS are two different words with different meanings.

[–] Psychological_Gold 13 years ago

Yeah, I got it professor. NZT allowed 100% access, and the OP referred to the gaffe in the movie that mentioned we only use 20% of our brains. Technically, our brains are working at 100% capacity, so NZT would presumably take it up to another level, hence the brain would be working at a higher % than normally possible.

[–] Mellow-Fellow 10 years ago

He says in the film "you know how they say that we can only access 20% of our brain? Well what this does, it lets you access all of it"

It's the same idea, they are using the old myth that we only use 10% of our brains, though doubling it to 20% in the movie here for some reason and changing the word to "access". Accessing 20% is still stupid, what do you think the other 80% is? just dead weight?

[–] eisphoenix-655-672150 7 years ago

Actually, that might be true to some point. We cannot access those parts of our brain that controll automatic body functions, and that is actually a good thing. Because if we could access these parts and didn't know how they worked we might stop our heartbeat or even stop our brain from working. So accessing 100% of your brain is actually a bad thing.

[–] Niceguyeddie690 12 years ago

That line came from some idiot dealer. He could have said that we are direct descendants from aliens; doesn't mean *beep*

[–] internethatemachine 12 years ago

2nd year radiology resident here. We already access 100% of our brain. Every first year medical student worth anything can tell you what each part of our brain is used for.

[–] Niceguyeddie690 12 years ago

Ok you, med student. Him, dealer trying to get his product out there. Hes just using the 10% percent of the brain thing to boost sales. 1st ones free.

[–] Reservoiren 12 years ago

It's not the fact that it's the characters. The writers perpetuate the myth by including it in the dialogue. There's nothing ever said to discredit that "fact" in the movie.

[–] psydecar 10 years ago

So if a character in a movie says that he saw a ghost, there needs to be a disclaimer stating that ghosts are not real? People say stupid stuff in movies all the time. If it were a scientist character saying that it would be a different matter (though it's still hardly something that could affect the quality of a story).

[–] CabbyG3 12 years ago

Vernon: You know how they say we can only access 20% of our brain?
[Vernon points out the NZT pill on the table]
Vernon: This lets you access all of it.

THAT is the quote from the movie, dumb ass. Even the movie is misquoting a misquote. The original quote was a misquote from Albert Einstein (apocryphal. More likely, it was a neurosurgeon from the 1950's) where he said only 10-20% of our neurons are firing at any given time. By association, inferring that 90% was going "unused." 100% of neurons firing is what is referred to as a seizure--- which will eventually kill you, as someone else pointed out. IQ is not a measure of how knowledgeable you are, only how fast you can acquire knowledge with respect to the average individual. IQ 150= able to retain 50% more than your IQ 100 average individual under identical circumstances (when does THAT ever happen).

I LOVE this movie, but I hate, with a passion, people who use the 10% of their brain myth. Interesting side note, Neanderthals were twice as strong as we are today (more muscle fibers), and had 50% larger brains and corresponding brain capacity. They were stronger and smarter than our ancestors, yet here we are and they are never heard from. Brain power with muscles, apparently, isn't everything. One thing we had that Neanderthal didn't, a voice box. Learn to communicate and hold your breathe, like Pygmalion, and it is more effective than a stunning brain or brawn could alone achieve. Try learn to communicate effectively for once.

[–] alioth4 10 years ago

Good point. What seemed to be implied in the film is that stuff that was stored in the brain subconsciously (like the old memories of that law textbook, etc.) can now be "accessed" consciously. It would be like having an eidetic memory, and also knowing instantaneously "where" to "look up" whatever knowledge you have stored in order to solve a particular problem seemingly instantaneously. Indeed that latter especially seemed to be the key advantage given by NZT: they said "it would show you exactly what you needed to do" (or words to that effect) to solve whatever problem faced you. By that, it seemed to enhance your brain's ability to gather and integrate a set of facts and observations (including many that would seem inconsequential by themselves) stored therein (many which would be stored in the deep subconscious--seemingly completely forgotten) to employ toward an immediate problem.

Now, is it normally only 10-20% of information stored in the brain that we can (or maybe a better word, do) "access" consciously? That actually sounds a little high--we probably absorb a lot more information than that that we never remember again. But focusing on a problem can certainly call forth long "dead" memories that would be helpful to that problem--just not all that quickly in all cases. NZT seemed to speed that up, and perhaps it allowed much greater access to, as well as efficient processing of, those stored memories. Are there normally limits to how many memories--and how "trivial" they might be--that we can call up into our conscious thought?

"No more half-measures."

[–] LapDogg 13 years ago

I loved 'this' movie.

But if you and the other 'authentically intelligent reviewers and posters' care to give it a go writing a more 'convincing hyper-intelligent memory-perfect' script, and, can get it onto a movie screen, I'd certainly watch it too.

lol, its ALL ENTERTAINMENT after all, isn't it?

[–] fulci_fan2000 13 years ago

To the OP. Your post confirms that you've never had sex.

[–] peteranderson975 13 years ago

Entertainment is an excuse for being lazy and not bothering to even read a book now?

[–] psydecar 10 years ago

1. The character isn't a scientist or someone who seems like he's highly educated, so it's not surprising that a dealer would believe a myth that people in the real world believe.
2. Even if the writers of the film believed it, there's this thing called "artistic license". As long as they're consistent within their own fiction, breaking real world laws doesn't matter if it's needed for the plot to work.

[–] zenbudda 13 years ago

Lol

Here is this guy's website on his profile:

International Communist Current

http://en.internationalism.org/

Niiiiice. So basically, any story of fiction made and produced in America is wrong by virtue of proven science? Is this how all communists think?

[–] PinstripeWillie 13 years ago

Excuse me, but I can't tell if you are trolling or perhaps really are that upset of such a minor detail of the film. It seems like you "get" the film, but choose to deny it's entire premise because it uses the myth of "10% of brain" being used.

The author is trying to make a point. His sole purpose of the film is not debate over how much of our brain power we use. That, as you said, is merely MacGuffin to drive the plot. This "fatal flaw" can be easily excused in a variety of manners. How about questioning the source of the myth of 20% vs 100%. He's a high end drug dealer, nothing more, not a pharmaceutical man or a scientist. As you said, the prominent myth is actually 10%. He even got the myth wrong. So perhaps the drug does something else to the brain. Whatever it is, we see the ending result. That's all we need.

As you said yourself:

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.

In a nutshell, this is what the film is about. Though, the ending of the movie, I believe, falls short where it shouldn't have. I actually like this assessment of the movie. I don't have time to go into that, heaven forbid we debate the meaning of a film on movie forum as opposed to nitpicking it.

In the end, (good) films/stories are generally designed to express an idea. As Samuel Taylor Coleridge asks his audience for a willing suspension of disbelief, so do all storytellers of today. Our greatest stories of fiction almost require it. What would happen the first time a scholar read The Iliad and The Odyssey and a mighty God spoke to the lowly human? Were they to throw the book down and say, "God is a myth" or "a God would never talk to a mortal in this manner." I can name a thousand movies/books that could merely be thrown out when the greater picture is lost.

If you can't provide this level of disbelief, then maybe movies just aren't for you?

[–] zubutix 13 years ago

You are totally right. Smartest post so far. Since the "we only use 10% of our brains" are such a wide spread myth it's obvious Vernon (the dealer) is among those people believing in the myth, and that the drug actually doing something else that he doesnt understand himself as he is not a kemist.

"If only you could see what i've seen with your eyes"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] daryl-b-t 13 years ago

This thread only uses 10 percent of it's brain. : )

Was it not obvious that his brother in law was using the expression as a figure of speech in order to describe the workings of the drug? He's a drug dealer, it's not literal truth.

He even says "and you know how they say we can only access 20% of our brain..."
While the popular quote actually says 10%. Just talk people, move along.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

TheSultrySalesman:
Perfect post. The only smart post I've read in here. Art was never meant to be a recreation of reality anyway, but rather an author's interpretation of it.

[–] sakkamarra 13 years ago

Uh... he did find out how the drug was made. Did you watch the movie?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MysticJustin 13 years ago

""The only level on which the film works is as an allegorical and satirical fable on the dreadful state of C21 American society """

That's where you lose all credibility in your arguement and made everything you said invalid, you're not being objective in anything and just a troll. Movie made the same foreign as domestic so not just Americans liked it.

-Insert Great Signiture Here-