This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
References to use. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
Is it worth writing something in the main article about the "Clear Pill" advertising campaign?-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
About the removal, I think the link qualifies as a self-published blog, no? - Artoasis ( talk) 13:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why is this section even here? It should be removed. Dumaka ( talk) 13:44, 23 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)
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)
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)
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)
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"? Auds? (Do a text search in the article) 109.145.83.222 ( talk) 16:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
ChaCha and NeoGAF are not sources. It has been "revealed"? Where? Glynn was asked? When? Choor monster ( talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The end of the Plot section of the article reads: "He dismisses Van Loon, and meets Lindy at a Chinese restaurant for lunch, where his perfect Chinese language skills with the waiter and his electric blue eyes prompt cynicism from Lindy (and the audience) as to whether or not he is actually off NZT."
I just watched the movie. It's clear that both Eddie and Lindy are 'on' NZT. You can tell by their eyes. The only question is whether or not Eddie and Lindy are regularly taking the drug or if they actually have been able to develop some version of it where they no longer need to take it. I don't think that's really a valid question though because the movie gives you no reason to question whether or not that's the case. Just food for thought. -Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.163.191 ( talk) 03:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the preceding interpretation.
Another note about activity near the ending: I disagree with the assertion that Eddie seems to have extrasensory perception. Eddie claims that he sees everything and hears everything. This is an indication of heightened senses, any not any indication of extrasensory activity.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamPittman ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
In the section for the television series, a line reads:
It was revealed that the main character will be called Brian Sinclair.
The character's last name appears to have been changed to Finch at some point, despite the citation's info. I've not changed it in the article in order to avoid misunderstandings concerning it being potential vandalism and the fact that it has a citation anchored to it but changing it to better reflect the end result seems as though it would be beneficial. -- 2602:306:3BA6:F330:70D9:A1C0:D36C:BC8 ( talk) 17:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. The film no longer meets the usage criterion of primary topic and the long-term significance criterion is debatable in this case. When you combine that (neither criterion clearly favours the film) with a fair majority of participants in favour of the move, it's my assessment that there is a consensus to move. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
– There are lots of topics to be disambiguated here (unlike the situation during the prior RM in 2011), per Limitless (disambiguation). The one currently at Limitless (the film) no longer appears to be a proper primary topic for the term "Limitless", since the TV series is getting about four times as many page views as it does. That ratio may not be sustained in the long term, but it seems sufficient to determine that the article about the film should be renamed. — BarrelProof ( talk) 23:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: I just saw this; I would have voted "oppose," essentially per what GoneIn60 stated above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The Joker from The Dark Knight (film) has his own Wikipedia page for one appearance. Edward Morra was the satr of a movie and a recurring character on a TV series. The character deserved a page for himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.180.248 ( talk) 16:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Limitless (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Limitless (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
References to use. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
Is it worth writing something in the main article about the "Clear Pill" advertising campaign?-- TimothyJacobson ( talk) 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
About the removal, I think the link qualifies as a self-published blog, no? - Artoasis ( talk) 13:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why is this section even here? It should be removed. Dumaka ( talk) 13:44, 23 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)
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)
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)
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)
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"? Auds? (Do a text search in the article) 109.145.83.222 ( talk) 16:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
ChaCha and NeoGAF are not sources. It has been "revealed"? Where? Glynn was asked? When? Choor monster ( talk) 14:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The end of the Plot section of the article reads: "He dismisses Van Loon, and meets Lindy at a Chinese restaurant for lunch, where his perfect Chinese language skills with the waiter and his electric blue eyes prompt cynicism from Lindy (and the audience) as to whether or not he is actually off NZT."
I just watched the movie. It's clear that both Eddie and Lindy are 'on' NZT. You can tell by their eyes. The only question is whether or not Eddie and Lindy are regularly taking the drug or if they actually have been able to develop some version of it where they no longer need to take it. I don't think that's really a valid question though because the movie gives you no reason to question whether or not that's the case. Just food for thought. -Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.163.191 ( talk) 03:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the preceding interpretation.
Another note about activity near the ending: I disagree with the assertion that Eddie seems to have extrasensory perception. Eddie claims that he sees everything and hears everything. This is an indication of heightened senses, any not any indication of extrasensory activity.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamPittman ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
In the section for the television series, a line reads:
It was revealed that the main character will be called Brian Sinclair.
The character's last name appears to have been changed to Finch at some point, despite the citation's info. I've not changed it in the article in order to avoid misunderstandings concerning it being potential vandalism and the fact that it has a citation anchored to it but changing it to better reflect the end result seems as though it would be beneficial. -- 2602:306:3BA6:F330:70D9:A1C0:D36C:BC8 ( talk) 17:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. The film no longer meets the usage criterion of primary topic and the long-term significance criterion is debatable in this case. When you combine that (neither criterion clearly favours the film) with a fair majority of participants in favour of the move, it's my assessment that there is a consensus to move. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
– There are lots of topics to be disambiguated here (unlike the situation during the prior RM in 2011), per Limitless (disambiguation). The one currently at Limitless (the film) no longer appears to be a proper primary topic for the term "Limitless", since the TV series is getting about four times as many page views as it does. That ratio may not be sustained in the long term, but it seems sufficient to determine that the article about the film should be renamed. — BarrelProof ( talk) 23:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: I just saw this; I would have voted "oppose," essentially per what GoneIn60 stated above. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The Joker from The Dark Knight (film) has his own Wikipedia page for one appearance. Edward Morra was the satr of a movie and a recurring character on a TV series. The character deserved a page for himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.180.248 ( talk) 16:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Limitless (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Limitless (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)