Talk:Limitless (film)

Notes

• The Filmmaker reference used in the article has more details that can be implemented.
• The article could possibly be moved to Limitless. The luxury yacht was the primary topic, but I think it is likely that the film will become more prominent than the yacht. We could request a move right before the film's release.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Interview With Neil Burger On Limitless
• 'Limitless' director Neil Burger's career reality has plenty of ups and downs
• Cooper, Cornish and De Niro on Limitless
• 'Limitless': 5 Facts to Know About the Thriller

References to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article moved Gamaliel (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Limitless (film) → Limitless — Since September 2006, the minimal article about the superyacht has existed and has averaged less than a hundred visitors per day. With news about the unrelated film, there was a spike in traffic as people went to the yacht's article looking for the film and had to use the hatnote. I turned Limitless into a disambiguation page with links to Limitless (film) and Limitless (luxury yacht). Obviously, this meant traffic on the yacht's article dropped. (Though there was still some; why wouldn't "one of the world's largest private superyachts" pique your interest on your way to the film's article?!) Anyway, this may be bold due to recentism (the film is not even out yet), but considering that neither topic has educational value per the primary-topic guidelines, and readers are far more likely to be looking for the film for the next couple of years (can't predict beyond that), I recommend making this move. After all, we try to avoid having disambiguation pages with just two topics. --Erik (talk | contribs) 12:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as there's been traffic per your own stats for years. Predicting the future of the film (if it is a flop or not) would be required to see if the film deserves the primary location. Leave the disambiguation page as primary, and check back a year after it is released to see if anyone still wants to see it. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• The point of stating the yacht article's traffic is that it has never had the attention that the film article is receiving now before its release. The primary-topic guidelines say, "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term." We have two topics here (that are actually explicitly titled "Limitless"), and the film article is outpacing the yacht article tremendously. We should be able to get the majority of the visitors where they want to go—the film article—in a search, not a search and then a click. Why do you want to make them stop at a disambiguation page when they don't have to? Let me put it this way: the month before the film made headlines, in December 2010, the yacht article got visited 820 times. In comparison, this month so far, the film article has been visited 63,089 times. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but predicting that the De Niro movie will get more interest than the yacht is a no-brainer. The yacht article is just a stub, not something we want to direct traffic to. Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support – The yacht article got around 10,000 hits per year in 2008 and 2009. The three DeNiro films from the same year the boat was built (1997) all got an annual hit rate of at least 75,000 hits, so it's reasonable assume that it will be a similar pattern. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clear Pill

Is it worth writing something in the main article about the "Clear Pill" advertising campaign?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think so! This mentions the advertising. Do you think we should include it in the "Release" section? I don't think we need a "Marketing" section because the promotions have been standard otherwise (trailers and posters). Erik (talk | contribs) 15:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Will get round to it when I have time--TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

ELNO

About the removal, I think the link qualifies as a self-published blog, no? - Artoasis (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. I don't think it is a blog, but it may not be as reliable of a source as I initially thought. (You have to admit, the writeup itself is pretty sound.) It does not seem like the website has a highly authoritative publisher, but at the same time, it looks like the MSNBC website includes LiveScience articles as seen here. In addition, the article itself is actually published at MSNBC here, which I think indicates that it is published by someone who trusts the contents. Do you want to use the MSNBC link instead, or do you think that there is still an issue of self-publishing? To explain why I include it, I think it is too much science that is tangentially related to the film to include in the Wikipedia article, so it to me qualifies as an external link. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. So how about we use the MSNBC link instead? I know it's a little ridiculous since it's the same piece, but an article hosted by MSNBC does feel more legit as an EL. - Artoasis (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'll add the MSNBC link. It was a valid concern; thanks! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Marketing

What about a section on marketing? I know nothing about the film, but I came across this article. I would add maybe stuff about when the trailers came out, etc. Glimmer721 ^talk 14:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also be very interested in seeing a marketing section on Limitless. There was quite a stream of "big names" on youtube who promoted this movie in seperate videos, far too many for it to be a coincidence too as most of them never mention movies in their uploads, ever (between others, the HuskyStarcraft and BlueXephos channels, for instance). I wonder if they were hired to do it or something. --Rogington (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Accuracy section is terrible

Is a physics professor really reliable as the sole reference for the "Scientific Accuracy" section? This section needs to be scrapped, or to have entirely different references. Maybe a few biologists or chemists?99.6.157.136 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it's just a bad section. It says things like "a person running out of the supply would actually experience a rebound effect, becoming less intelligent than before," which is exactly what happens in the movie. In addition to this, James Kakalios (the professor mentioned the section) is nowhere to be found in the reference in the bottom of the page. I move this section be scrapped. 99.6.157.136 (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Physics is completely unrelated to neuroscience. I'm sure this guy is extremely intelligent and knows much more about neuroscience than the average person, but this is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad rap. Unless he has some qualifications in neuroscience, I think this section should be scrapped. Honestly, do people really see this movie and wonder if it's possible right now? I think the average person can figure out that we don't have the technology to make this kind of drug. Otherwise, it would have been done. Adderall is probably as close as we are right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.59.81 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that it is scientifically proven that drugs like Methylphenidate do improve a persons motivation to work and think about complex things and thus improves their intelligence. So the stuff that it's currently not possible etc is clearly wrong. It is just a very big ethical problem and also a legal one. --178.5.125.251 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because the drug dealer-character cites the 10% myth in the film, does not mean the plot actually claims that the drug works by unlocking unused brain potential. It is perfectly plausible that a person such as this character has seen the drug work and attempts to explain it that way. I don't think the use of the 10% myth makes the movie scientifically inaccurate. The movie is of course scientifically inaccurate because this drug does not currently exist. But that is the core of the plot. If this warrants a "Scientific Accuracy" section then let's wright one for The Terminator, The Matrix and Harry Potter as well. The section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.245.221.49 (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It is surely true that the idea that we only use 20% or 10% or our brains is nonsense, but this section contains nonsense of its own. I have no idea what this physics professor means when he suggests that all neurons firing at once would be fatal -- sounds like pure nonsense to me. It is hard to find silent neurons in your brain; noise is ubiquitous. Even the sleeping brain is constantly firing all over cortex, in one manner or another. What he then says about oxygen depletion and rebounding from such a pill is absurd. It would be much better to have nothing under a heading "Scientific Accuracy" than this. 76.19.67.175 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)al

I agree! The "expert" uh... apparently doesn't realize that blood circulates. 69.28.12.175 (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this section even here? It should be removed. Dumaka (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems poorly written, but better now than the April comments suggest. It's now at least scientifically sound. [Special:Contributions/67.169.49.52|67.169.49.52]] (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This movie is not a neuroscience documentary, it is science fiction. However, its realistic presentation could lead viewers with less than professional scientific knowledge to accept some of its science fictional devices as facts, particularly for viewers who are also unfamiliar with the conventions of science fiction. By countering some of these possible misconceptions with cited references, the section on scientific accuracy adds to the objective factual value of the article. Ornithikos (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

missing a character

there's one guy that is not even mentioned here. the guy who He borrows $100,000 from to help fund his stock venture. He plays a big part in the movie and there's not 1 single word about him.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No controversy?

I'm astonished there's no controversy over the movie and its drug-positive message. Nearly every drug (and suggests the main character had positive experience with before) like this movie posits has been moved to schedule 1 in the United States 67.169.49.52 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article about the movie as it objectively is. Praising or criticizing its premises, implications, or conclusions would inject a specific Point of View relating to drugs, contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. War on Drugs analyzes some contrasting points of view about drug regulation. Ornithikos (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

50, not 15

He says he's fifty moves ahead, not 15. if you want proof, that's how it is in the subtitles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Subtitles prove nothing about the spoken source. They are subject to errors of every kind. However, they do provide evidence. I think he said did say 50 moves. That's what I remember, and 15 would have much less impact, needlessly weakening the effect. It also does not flow well when spoken quickly, due to the need for extra articulation to keep the n and m separate. Someone already changed it to 50 anyway. Ornithikos (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's 50. Its in the original script here.

Eddie Morra: I see everything, Carl. I'm fifty moves ahead of you and everybody else. What makes you think I don't have a guy that can beat on you right now? How do you know that you're going to be alive this time next year? [Eddie comes close to Van Loon and touches him on his chest] Carl Van Loon: What are you doing? Get your hands off me! What are you doing? Eddie Morra: Something is pumping half mass in there. Walls of your heart are dilated. Aortic stenosis. You're gonna need that replaced. But you already knew that. 151.229.130.175 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What the @~*& are "engaging auds"?

What the @~*& are "engaging auds"? Auds? (Do a text search in the article) 109.145.83.222 (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Variety short-hand for "audiences". The quoted section praises Cooper's star caliber performance for engaging audiences. It's an awkward and not frequently used shortform AFAIK and given that the quoted section refers to the film as "the pic," and the paragraph is really quote heavy, I suggest we paraphrase to clear up any confusion about the meaning of the phrase.Abadguitarist (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding a possible sequel

ChaCha and NeoGAF are not sources. It has been "revealed"? Where? Glynn was asked? When? Choor monster (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)