Does the Lucy movie trailer bother anyone else?

[Atomic Playboy]

Lucy is an upcoming film starring Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman, and as you'd expect for a star-studded summer release, it's got a lot of marketing behind it, mostly in the form of this trailer. A trailer in which Morgan Freeman is prominently featured telling Congress that humans only use 10% of their brain....

Am I wrong for getting so furious at that line that I literally (figuratively) hurl my remote through the TV? Why is "we only use 10% of our brain" still a workable movie plot when it's complete fucking bullshit? "Here Morgan Freeman, carve out the 90% of our brain we don't use and leave a perfectly normal human behind; I'll wait." It's fucking nonsense. And worse than that, somehow if we could access more of our brain, suddenly we can defy physics? "I can access 80% of my brain; that equals BULLET TIME." Are you fucking kidding me? WHY IS THIS A PLOT IN 2014?!

So, yeah, someone is trying to take Michael Bay's crown for "most ridiculous bullshit passed off as clever," and I think they're gonna give him a pretty good run this summer. I missed my calling not being a movie producer (because let's not pretend this had "writers"); apparently you can shit in a binder, call it a script and still make millions.

And I'll still probably see it when it comes out, because, fuck it, Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman. :wub:

 

[MongGrel]

Been looking forward to this one a bit myself.

I thought it was 15% once upon a time, but research I think has even countered that one somewhat, I agree.

Still looks like a bit of an interesting summer flick more or less.

 

[Printer Bandit]

hasn't this been played out before in Limitless (2011)?

 

[KeithTalent]

hasn't this been played out before in Limitless (2011)?

Yep.

KT

 

[Thebobo]

Is morgan freeman in every movie out there? I like him but sheez...

And the movie looks cool, Luc Besson is good.

 

[Strk]

A movie that isn't based on science? Madness!

 

[Printer Bandit]

Is morgan freeman in every movie out there? I like him but sheez...

And the movie looks cool, Luc Besson is good.

morgan freeman is in a lot of turds lately.

just saw him in Transcendence.

 

[olds]

Pretty sure it's a movie and not a documentary. Of course if it was a Moore "documentary" it would be full of BS.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Will watch on netflix next year ...

 

[destrekor]

I'll watch it, eventually... but I'm with you man, I was actually annoyed at the whole concept, to a point of actual distaste for the movie.

I can generally allow for suspension of disbelief, but it helps if you can at least associate it with something else. The entire premise, as advertised from the start? Ugh.

If you sell me on the idea of aliens or unobtanium or something else fantastical, that would go a long way. It's how something like Transformers is less offensive to my person than this movie is in my mind.

 

[Jeff7]

They're Hollywood movie writers. They were probably the sorts who barely managed a C in intro-level science classes, and are sure to drink 8 glasses of water each day.

I'll watch it, eventually... but I'm with you man, I was actually annoyed at the whole concept, to a point of actual distaste for the movie.

I can generally allow for suspension of disbelief, but it helps if you can at least associate it with something else. The entire premise, as advertised from the start? Ugh.

If you sell me on the idea of aliens or unobtanium or something else fantastical, that would go a long way. It's how something like Transformers is less offensive to my person than this movie is in my mind.

Ick, "unobtanium."
It's little more than the writers saying loudly "We believe you are stupid, so here is some blatant exposition. This substance does not exist. Do you understand? It is 'unobtanium' therefore it cannot be obtained. Do you morons understand this yet? Shall I repeat it more slowly?"
Avatar was heavy on this, in many aspects. It starts with a fairly reasonable long-range spaceship design, but then it all revolves around severely-caricatured characters and the pursuit of unobtanium.

Star Trek at least tried when they had to name fictitious compounds.
Sometimes, anyway. Dilithium and trilithium....they got lazy there.

 

[Markbnj]

Hmm, scientific bs... Scarlett Johansen... scientific bs... Scarlett Johansen...

 

[alzan]

I thought this thread was about the movie with Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz called The Long, Long Trailer

Yeah, I'm old.

 

[Babbles]

I'm with you OP.

I'm all good for science-fiction and over the top stuff, but when it is based on a complete old wives' tale, that just irks me.

 

[schmuckley]

It bothers my nether regions.

 

[dighn]

non-nerds probably still believe it

 

[MongGrel]

Ick, "unobtanium."
It's little more than the writers saying loudly "We believe you are stupid, so here is some blatant exposition.

Yeah, that one had me chuckling pretty hard the first time I heard it.

This movie is more of a ....

Hmm, scientific bs... Scarlett Johansen... scientific bs... Scarlett Johansen...

thing

 

[squarecut1]

They're Hollywood movie writers. They were probably the sorts who barely managed a C in intro-level science classes

And when it comes to liberal arts, they didn't even sign up for those classes

Hollywood just plain sucks. Tired old predictable formula movies. Foreign movies is where it's at

 

[Jeff7]

And when it comes to liberal arts, they didn't even sign up for those classes

Hollywood just plain sucks. Tired old predictable formula movies. Foreign movies is where it's at

Sure, but you can puke up a formulaic movie, and as long as it makes a nice return, that's good enough.

Studios don't want to bother making really unique movies that run the risk of appealing to a limited audience, regardless of how much they might appreciate it. The effort goes into making something that's going to have a good chance of bringing in a few hundred million dollars: Simplistic stories with brainless characters; lots of flashing pretty lights, noise, and explosions; and basic stories which have already been told a thousand times. So you end up with something like Avatar. Then Avatar 2. And 3. Or Transformers.

 

[Raizinman]

I agree, how unbelievable. I'm not going to see this movie. Instead, I'm going to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Now that is believable!!

 

[destrekor]

They're Hollywood movie writers. They were probably the sorts who barely managed a C in intro-level science classes, and are sure to drink 8 glasses of water each day.

I sort-of aspire to write scripts some day, though generally I'd prefer prose. Ultimately, if I ever write, I'll be focusing on what I envision as a story universe (more Clancy than Herbert, Tolkien, et all - though generally somewhere in the middle in some regards), and I'd like at least consultant level for any film adaptations.
Heck, some ideas are better suited for film/theater due to the condensed story-telling ability.


I'd actually argue most screenwriters are smarter than the common folk. The problem is, to draw significant revenue, you have to write down to the common folk. If they are confused, the movie won't do well.

Source: history. Seriously, look at all the truly smart movies and their revenue. Now look at the movies that may take fancy ideas but dumb it down, either by taking significant shortcuts on the demonstrated science, or dumbing the science down with actual falsehoods.

I do prefer the Matrix, Inception, etc approach as opposed to the Lucy approach, but both can be fun to watch.

Transformers is fun. It's stupidity is more involved in incompetent plot direction, character depth, and/or acting abilities, but they take significant fiction liberties with the science. This is of course ignoring the entire concept of the Transformers alien species.

 

[JEDI]

hasn't this been played out before in Limitless (2011)?

yup.. Limitless with a hot chick

 

[Jeff7]

I sort-of aspire to write scripts some day, though generally I'd prefer prose. Ultimately, if I ever write, I'll be focusing on what I envision as a story universe (more Clancy than Herbert, Tolkien, et all - though generally somewhere in the middle in some regards), and I'd like at least consultant level for any film adaptations.
Heck, some ideas are better suited for film/theater due to the condensed story-telling ability.

...

Source: history. Seriously, look at all the truly smart movies and their revenue. Now look at the movies that may take fancy ideas but dumb it down, either by taking significant shortcuts on the demonstrated science, or dumbing the science down with actual falsehoods.

And the liberties with physics. I especially love slow-moving energy weapons that throw a person backward.
Maybe all futuristic weapons also include Higgs-cancellation fields, so that targets are momentarily deprived of inertia.
The 10%-of-your-brain thing could seriously stand to die though. The human brain is just a freak of nature when compared to what else is on this planet, and it's not the grandest thing the Universe has ever come up with. (If it is, this Universe has very low standards.) Yes, you have a big brain. But look at where humanity is. Look at the behaviors we constantly engage in, generation after generation. This rate of progress is as good as we can do, given the limitations of brain capacity and inherent behaviors.
Deal with it.

I'd actually argue most screenwriters are smarter than the common folk. The problem is, to draw significant revenue, you have to write down to the common folk. If they are confused, the movie won't do well.

Yeah, true. You've probably got producers and managers thinking about serving their true customers: Shareholders. The audience is analyzed like a manufacturing process or complex physical phenomenon, looking at what statistically makes them more likely watch something. It's not a chance to produce something with artistic value. It's a calculated and engineered method of generating revenue. (But based on some of the movies that have been greenlighted, some of these people doing the calculating must have really sucked at math. )

I do prefer the Matrix, Inception, etc approach as opposed to the Lucy approach, but both can be fun to watch.

Transformers is fun. It's stupidity is more involved in incompetent plot direction, character depth, and/or acting abilities, but they take significant fiction liberties with the science. This is of course ignoring the entire concept of the Transformers alien species.

Yeah....Matrix and Avatar were still entertaining, though the characters in Avatar made me wonder what kind of movie I was watching when I first saw it. They were so obvious and shallow, I wondered if it was trying to be a parody, or what it was going for. They would have done just as well with a loudmouthed narrator with an IQ of 70. "THIS MAN IS BAD! HE IS A SINGLE-MINDED MILITARY BADASS KIND OF GUY! DO YOU GET IT NOW?!?"

Yes, movie, we get it now. Thank you for clarifying. Now please go sit quietly in the corner before you hurt yourself.

 

[Whisper]

Yeah, I can't watch the preview all the way through because that particular myth irks me so much.

That's actually the reason I stopped watching Heroes about 5 minutes into the series...when the guy is lecturing in his classroom and says the same thing to the 6 or 7 students in the room. Turned the show off right then.

 

[Printer Bandit]

I can buy the whole 10% oof our brains stuff.

In previous ages, human life spans we 100,000 yrs max.