#lucy spoilers

[brainmattersposts]

Hello, I'm back! Hope you're all doing well! Today I'm going to be posting about the movie "Lucy."

So, according to wikipedia and the movie trailer (I've never seen the movie myself), this movie's about a woman named Lucy (Scarlett Johansson)who has CPH4 sewn in her abdomen.  She gets captured and in her "prison" of sorts she's eveventually one of her kidnappers kicks her into the stomach, releasing the chemicals into her system, and now she can use 100% of her brain compared to only 10% according to Professor Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman)..  She gets magical powers such as mental time travel, telekinesis, ability to choose to feel pain or not, and so on.

As much as this is a cool fact to believe that we're only using 10% of our brain and if we can use near 100% we'll have powers, it's not true.  We use all of our brain.

Many people have used such a myth for their own gain. People sold books and used advertisements saying that they can help "unlock all of your brain."  It's reasons like these that  In Scott Witt's 1983 book, How to Be Twice as Smart, wrote that most people use about 10% of their brain.  Now of course, I haven't read this book, but I do know that most people, if not all of them, use 100% of their brain.

It doesn't make sense if we only use 10% of our brains.  They have been shaped by natural selection.  Our brains weigh 2-3 pounds but takes about "...20% of the oxygen we breathe" (22).  Evolution wouldn't allow only 10% of our brains to be used because they help with our survival and reproduction; why would the brain want to hold back information that can possibly help us; "It's hard to believe that anhy slight increase in processing power wouldn't be snapped up immediately by existing systems in the brain to enhance the bearer's chances in the continuous struggle to prosper and procreate" (22).

In addition, there have been patients that have lost 90% of their brain due to accidents or diseases.  The results are always saddening.  A woman named Terri Schiavo layed in a 15 year vegetative state after her cardiac arrest destroyed about 50% of her cerebellum (23).  Patients whom have been in similiar scenarios like Terri Schiavo have permanently lost many abilities; "...the capacity for thoughts, perceptions, memories, and emotions..." (23).  Why is it, then, that if patients like Schiavo lost 50% of her brain, lost her ability to do things that make being alive so great?

Strokes and head traumas also  leave patients with serious deficits.  When areas become "quiet", then that function is affected and the patient is generally unable to complete the task that the brain area is responsible for.  

Areas of the brain that aren't used generally do one of  two things: 1) they degenerate or 2) they're taken over by other areas of the brain (23).

So their you have it.  These are some of the reasons why we use more than just 10% of our brains.  More reasons can be found by looking it up on Google or reading a book about it.  You can also find out more myths from the article that I'll cite/ talk about under the disclaimer.

Now I'm not trying to be a fun sucker or ruin the movie for you.  If you want to pretend that we don't use all our brain while watching the movie, then that's fine.  It is just a movie after all and it's always nice to get away from reality just for a bit.  But if you see someone try to talk you into believing the 10% brain myth or sell you a book based on this "fact", then turn the other way or argue back with the person (hopefully using the article this blog post is based on).

Anyways, I hope you enjoyed reading and I'll make sure to post again next week!

Disclaimer:

I did not pull all of this information and ideas out of my head.  I used these sources.  

Lilienfeld, Scott O., and Steven J. Lynn. "1 Brain Power Myths about the Brain and Perception." 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 21-25. Print.

More information about the book and the people whom wrote about the information I used on this blog can be found here: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002362.html

The Lucy trailer can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVt32qoyhi0

[interfaceroot]

Ha! Nice one. :) Just didn't like how she turned into a usb stick at the end of the movie.

haha no but i don’t think that was really her? it represented the knowledge she unlocked and before reaching 100% she constructed the computer that was able to make the data accessible for today’s human technology? at least that’s how i got it.. 

[enjambament]

Just saw Lucy and I was not very impressed.

Spoilers abound, FYI. I kind of came out of the film feeling like I'd wasted my time? It was pretty short for a modern blockbuster, though, so I guess it had that going for it. :/ 

I've spent ages thinking about what me real problem with it was, leaving aside the multitude of errors surrounding the plot (why did these ubiquitous Asian druglord dudes actually need drug mules considering they were apparently super-rich, super-powerful, and wiling and able to send huge troops of armed men up against police officers on a moments notice and take most of them out and omnipresent in airports and hospitals across Europe) and surrounding the science (basically my issue here was just that it was flat out implausible at every turn). I am totally willing to love things with cheesy and hard-to-believe plots, let me tell you a thing. 

So, I think what really got me was that there were no humans. Morgan Freeman-Scientist dude was just there for exposition. The druglord guys were all laughably stereotypical and clearly, almost proudly, as if it was some artistic choice, zero effort went into making them interesting or complex. The police guy was sort of playing the role of token human amongst all the plot device-people, but the handling was so heavy handed that he really might as well have been wearing a t-shirt that said "Just call me Watson, because I'm here to suggest the vague presence of an Everyman". I mean, the whole kiss scene. What even. There is no excuse for how poorly executed, how ineffective and how extraneous that scene was.

And Lucy. Yeah. Literally no backstory for her character beyond the 'drunken student partygirl' flashback, and then she's immediately into begging for her life and then she's immediately into her whole 'I've looked into the void and I'm forever changed' robot personna who apparently can't really feel emotions anymore leaving us to wonder why? Just, why? Why does she not just lay down on the ground and allow herself to slowly melt into the earth? 

So, yeah. I think that I'm so ranty about this because I really wanted to give it a fair chance and I thought that maybe I would actually like it and Scarlett Johansson, but no. It totally disappointed me thoroughly, ugh. It was basically the same idea as Transcendence (which I thought I was going to hate, but I actually didn't hate). At least that make a kind of small amount of sense and had at least one moment of convincing human emotion. Or Limitless, which was at least kind of cheery?

If the mom had said 'sweetie' less times when Lucy was on the phone to her, that would have been a good scene. I liked when she said 'For knowledge' or whatever. Cause I like knowledge? That is all.

[closet-rapscallion]

Lucy

(Spoiler warning)

Saw Lucy the other day. As a movie enthusiast, I enjoyed it immensely. Great effects, great action, great concept, and Scarlett Johansson was, as always, perfect. But I have to be honest though, there were two things that irked me a bit: (1) the plot - the Korean mob plot felt too simple and out-of-place for a movie that promised complexity, (2) towards the end, the movie kind of seemed pointless.

It was smart, and sometimes it was almost thought-provoking. Almost. The whole movie revolved around the idea of a human gaining the ability use the brain’s 100% capacity. It was fascinating to see the effects, and in a way it makes you think.. ‘Shit, this is actually possible.’

But in the end, it (felt like it) took back everything it said.

This is my interpretation of the film: We have access to only a tenth of our brain’s capacity, and that is totally okay. As the movie presented, if we even go as far as 20%, we lose the things, the aspects, the parts of us that make us ‘human’. When Lucy gained access to 100% of her brain’s capacity, she literally turned to nothing (and everything). So, 10% isn’t bad. Because our mistakes, our shortcomings, our errors - they’re part of us. They’re inherent in us. Without them, we’d be something else, we’d be living emotionless, painless, and purpose-less lives. And that’s fucking boring, right? It sounds cool on paper; if it ever becomes possible to gain more access to our brain’s capacity, it would be ground-breaking… but only theoretically. As for its application, it wouldn’t be as amazing, because gaining more brain capacity would mean losing our humanity.

[asgardian--angels]

So I saw Lucy

Overall, I really liked it! The scientific information presented was simplified and a bit rudimentary but then again it's for the public (although for a film which deals with such a complex concept I would have thought they could have gone into more detail). The visuals were stunning, especially at the end when she reached 90% and above. Scarlet Johansson was amazing, as expected, because this kind of role has become a sort of niche for her. No romance, yay! 

One bit was out of sorts for me, near the end when she was going back in time, she saw a dinosaur, and then saw the 'Lucy' Australopithecus at a stream- she is supposed to be going continuously back in time but Lucy lived 6MYA while dinosaurs were obviously hundreds of millions of years prior. 

The ending was...sudden? I feel as though, in traditional storytelling, there was no resolution following the climax. But the kind of movie it is, it took a risk ending it like that. I'd love to see a sequel- but another 'rule' I've noticed in storytelling is that if you have a being of absolute power, you either have to downsize them or kill them to continue the story. So if there was a sequel, it wouldn't focus on her. She's already left the corporeal plane.

This film made me wonder how much of my brain I actually use. Because although I can't manipulate electromagnetic fields or translate foreign languages instantly, I feel as though I can see the world in the ways Lucy does in some respects. Sensing the life of other organisms, looking back through time to witness what was there before, just feeling it all...I've always had that. Something inherent. I don't think I'll ever go so far as to transform into a giant writhing black mass of mutating cells, but this film gave a nice visual into the way I see the world sometimes. 

Maybe I use like...12%.

[ceruleanvulpine]

variations on a theme of Lucy

i went to see this movie even though it is based on my least favorite pseudoscientific handwave and is allegedly racist, because i was incredibly bored and had a giftcard and scarlett johansson

(this is evidence that they should make a Black Widow movie, by the way, i would 100% see basically anything with her in it)

[i would confirm the accusations of racism, by the way, although i'm pretty sure they subbed in 'my leg! my leg!' when she shoots the cab driver to defuse some of the anger about her killing the guy for not speaking english]

my uncle liked this movie so much

how am i going to talk to him about it

it was so STUPID

you can do big grand speculative explorations of a concept but it helps if you start with a concept that is true

and what the fuck were you trying to say about time and stuff

maybe i'm just not used to weird art film type things

it was, admittedly, pretty gorgeous

(except for the pointless CG dinosaurs what the fuck)

[supernaturallynoble-blog]

GO SEE THE MOVIE LUCY

I can't stress this enough.  It was AMAZING. The things I loved about it started with the opening credits.  There were four top billed names that got opening credits.  Not a single one of them was a white man.  

We started with Scarlett Johannson (who pulled out one of the best performances I've ever seen by her).  Can we talk about how great it is to see a summer blockbuster based around a woman? 

Morgan Freeman - has he ever done a bad job in any role?  And as the lead scientist in the film, he created a fantastic background narration to the evolution

Min-sik Choi - the villain; it's a Chinese drug ring that starts this (that's not really spoilery).  Not once does he speak English in the film.  I love when they keep native languages in native countries

Amr Waked - Egyptian by birth, playing a French police officer.  I loved his character.  Not once does he show Lucy less respect than she deserves.  Not once does he belittle her.  It was very refreshing

Light spoilers under the cut, but not enough to ruin the end.  Any specifics are about the first five minutes

When we first see Lucy, you get the impression of a typical dumb blonde with poor taste.  She's clearly dating an idiot, wearing tight clothes (usually used as a form of sexualization and demeaning of intelligence) leopard skin, poorly bleached hair.  

Within five minutes, we see she's anything but.  She's intelligent.  She's in school.  She blows off her "boyfriend" (she'd only met him a week earlier) because she realizes he's a loser and repeatedly makes her stand of "no."  She's forced into the position.  Not ONCE does she just bend to the will of the men around her.  She's strong BEFORE she is transformed.  Scarlett does an PHENOMENAL job of playing a very human reaction to her situation.  

My final thoughts?  And this might be a teeny bit spoilery.  But I LOVE that while Lucy needed help (and she asked for it), she didn't need to be SAVED. 

[thegaroul]

Is it wrong to think of Lucy as a prequel to Her?