Lucy : Stupid beyond belief

I'm wiling to accept silliness in films, especially ones like this. Telekinesis? Okay, I'll go along with that. Mind control? Whatevs. But please, please, PLEASE don't start preaching to me and pretending that suddenly the movie is really dealing with deep issues regarding the human condition. The "philosophy" in this film is what I'd expect from a stoned, thirteen year old sci-fi nerd.

Dreadful, insulting and laughable all at once. Terrible film. Avoiding it is the only proper response.

The movie wasn't of a typical genre, it was science fiction, and whether you like it or not, Lucy was very deep and philosophical regarding Humanity and the Cosmos.

And don't forget that not all have the same views as you.

---

The movie wasn't of a typical genre, it was science fiction, and whether you like it or not, Lucy was very deep and philosophical regarding Humanity and the Cosmos.

---

The problem is it introduces these ideas as if we've never seen them before. Basically its "been there done that" .. Because of that it comes of as pretentious even though its rather simplistic.Come on we all knew at 100% she would vanish and basically become omnipotent. No new ideas explored here.

---

The problem is it introduces these ideas as if we've never seen them before.

---

And yet we keep making the same mistakes



Philo's Law: To learn from your mistakes, you have to realize you're making mistakes.

Movies have dealt with those subjects for decades, going back at least to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Limitless pretty much had the same premise as Lucy. Even though the idea that we use only 10% of our brain an could access an unexplored potential to become superhumans is complete nonsense and wouldn't make any biological sense, it's still an interesting concept for a movie. The big difference is that Limitless goes through great lengths to explain how it works and to make things look plausible. They also try to explore the social consequences of a human being acheiving that potential. Besides: Bradley Cooper doesn't automatically gain abilities when he takes those drugs, he just becomes a much more efficient human being because he can easily access all his memories. Scarlett Johansson on the other hand automatically gains abilities like surgery skills, changing her appearance end telekinesis. What does that have to do with brain power? Why make a movie about brain capacity when you end up giving your protagonist inconsistent superpowers?

For a science fiction movie Lucy is just too far-fetched and doesn't put any effort in explaining the science or the fiction. It's not deep, the director just thought about some cool ideas to put into a movie and didn't care to turn it into an actual story a bit like Shyamalan actually.

---

Scarlett Johansson on the other hand automatically gains abilities like surgery skills, changing her appearance end telekinesis. What does that have to do with brain power?

---

It was said in the movie itself that with higher brain power, one supposedly achieves control over one's own body, other bodies and surrounding matter. The changed appearance was a bit on-the-nose, but it is consistent within the movie.
She did not gain surgery skills. Because she was more aware of everything, she understood how the human body worked and was able to give a diagnosis of sorts for the patient she killed. She did not do any surgery herself, she just understood the process of it.

Telekinesis is pretty run-of-the-mill for such a plot. Roddenberry did it, Stargate did it, pretty much everyone does that when it's about "higher brain power".

---

For a science fiction movie Lucy is just too far-fetched and doesn't put any effort in explaining the science or the fiction. It's not deep, the director just thought about some cool ideas to put into a movie and didn't care to turn it into an actual story a bit like Shyamalan actually.

---

Eh, no. For one, the good professor would not have been black if My Plight Shamealan had directed this. For second, the action sequences would have been laughable and ridiculous and not nearly as entertaining.

It's one thing not to like this movie, but it's definitely lightyears ahead of M. Night Shmoneyhan.

---

the action sequences would have been laughable and ridiculous

---

They were in this film. Though not nearly as laughable and ridiculous as the plot, dialogue and characterization.

Absolutely agree with you. Finally, a science fiction film for adults.

either you are sarcastic or do not know much about science fiction films and, well, haven't grown up so you have a wrong idea of what an adult is.

This statement makes me cringe, my god man if you think this is philosophi we are all truely and prober fu****.

I have gone beyond space and time, ohh here let me give you an usb drive with my knowledge

Jebus this movie is so full on retarded.

Well said Lindberg, well said.

It was more fantasy than science fiction. I regard it primarily as an action movie with a vague and ill-conceived superhero element. There was nothing at all deep in the dialogue.

We can see you do not know science (to name a few antiscience elements: 10 % brain myth, organics are a thing and a good one) or philosophy. Name me any one author you can relate to this movie.

Fully agree. Luc Besson hasn't made a decent film since 1999. This film was awful.

What did you dislike most about this film, then?

Yes, awful film. I felt it was such a disappointment and waste of time.


"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

I don't know why I am spending so much time on this board. I saw this on "recommended movies" after forgetting that I watched it and it bothered me that this is anywhere near the recommended movies for me. And I feel the need to talk about how annoyed the film made me and the board seems to be filled with people like me (and you) that did not like the film at all.

My Personal Top 30 TV Shows
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059266199/

What exactly annoyed you about the movie, though?

I can tell you what annoyed me about it, in regards to the general concept / premise of the movie.

Any good fictional movie establishes rules within the world it creates. Those rules don't necessarily have to follow science, after all suspension of disbelief is needed in any movie that's "out there" like this one is. But the rules have to at least be somewhat consistent.

So, in this world, the fundamental rules of physics are completely different than what we know to be true, yet everything is still exactly the same as the world around us today. OK, OK, I can get over that. I can even overlook how she seems to instantly learn things she didn't already know (like reading korean text), because there's at least some rudimentary evidence people having strokes or other brain maladies and developing skills they didn't have before (like playing piano), because the information was there but just not wired in a way that would allow them to use it that way. Sure, why not, it's sci-fi, that's easy to overlook.

There's even the laziness of the airplane scene, where she's just mashing on like a third of the keyboard on two laptops. With as much information as was supposed to be on the screens (some flying super cool looking matrix-esque stuff, right?), how much data could you possibly input by just banging on like 9 or 10 different keys haphazardly? We already saw her somehow manipulate TVs and cell phones from a great distance, wouldn't it have been more believable to just show her controlling the laptops with her mind? The whole keyboard mashing thing was jarring and just threw me out of the movie. I can't even go into the banality of her hair changing in the airport, really, she just decided to develop a new type of hair follicle that can grow hair that's cut at the end and can shrink back into her head to form bangs? I think maybe whoever wrote this script had some hair grow back into their head and clog their brain. If you're going to write about something, you know, at least take 5 minutes and look up how the thing works in the first place. Sure, let her grow hair super quickly, but did she actually lose her dyed hair? No, she just somehow walked down the length of the hair and changed the pigment while growing it out. What? Ugh.

But then, within the movie, we see Lucy suspend a dozen guys from the ceiling, seemingly without barely breaking a sweat. She's aware of all these people coming in to the building, but decides to let a bunch of police officers get shot up instead of stopping them. OK, let's assume she's lost empathy (as mentioned earlier in the film with regards to losing what makes her human as her body changes), and doesn't value life in the same way we do. Let's assume she already knows her buddy cop is going to shoot the generic bad guy in the end and it'll all work out. Wouldn't it be more compelling to explore that aspect, instead of building up this suspense of showing this shootout which, in the end, was predetermined to be completely irrelevant to the plot? Why are we following this guy around? Why is he still alive? We've established that she views human life differently already, as seen when she shoots the guy on the operating table (he was going to die anyway). Why wouldn't she have shot the "generic bad boss guy", after she killed all the "generic henchmen bad guys"? What was the purpose of keeping him alive?

So then you say, ok maybe she didn't kill him because he wasn't a threat to her and she wasn't going to just assassinate him. Alright, fair enough. So, she didn't know that he was going to come to the university and shoot up the place? If that's true, then why didn't she stop him when he got to the building? Did she not know then what his future held, but at some point down the line, she figured it out? Even if she didn't care about everyone and everything getting shot up, wouldn't she have wanted to stop him just for the sake of tidiness? Surely all that gunfire would've been more distracting than just taking a beat and stopping him in his tracks.

Honestly, I saw the credits roll and was totally not expecting that to be the end of the movie. If the movie had just ended without credits, I would've assumed HBO had cut the movie short and I was missing the last 30 minutes or so. Didn't really have an ending to it, in any tangible sense.

Just, lots of plot holes, and nonsensical decision making. You don't ever really get a sense of what this character is. It's just a lot of watching some interesting stuff happen. Lots of pretty pictures, nothing going on upstairs. I'm left wondering, what was the point of the movie? What is the creator trying to say? I mean, there are movies I can't make sense of after watching, that leave me pondering various concepts of the movie, but this doesn't even do that. I don't even have questions that just lack answers. It's like, literally, just a black hole devoid of anything.

After watching the movie, I just feel I guess an hour and a half older. And that's about it. Didn't make me feel anything, didn't raise any ideas in my head or make me anything. Nothing. I mean, most movies I don't like at least have some kind of message they're trying to convey. I can't even figure out what this movie is trying to do here. It's just a mess. Kind of like someone fed in a bunch of sci-fi movies to an AI and had it generate a script that was "in the genre", but the AI didn't understand what it was actually creating. All the pieces were there, it just never really turn into a movie in any meaningful way.

Really a shame, could've been a respectable film with only a few tweaks (and an actual ending). As it stands, it was pretty much just garbage.

Bravo! Very well-stated, tony-943.

You have saved me the trouble of writing nearly identical thoughts about this awful film.

---

Didn't make me feel anything, didn't raise any ideas in my head or make me anything. Nothing.

---

Exactly.


"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

Wow.
I thought i was the only one nitpicking all those things. Couldnt agree more.

The issue is.. people call it sci-fi. Its not.
Its just fantasy.




Brawndo, It's Got Electrolytes

It is an insult to fantasy

I know what you mean. I don't have particularly high movie standards, and this was one of the rare movies that literally made me angry.

I think what annoyed me the most was the extreme laziness of the script. First and foremost, there's the whole "10% of the brain thing". I mean, I'm used to movies getting science wrong, but doesn't everyone know that was debunked decades ago? It would be like making a movie today that has people breathing on Mars.

Then there was Morgan Freeman's opening speech, where he gets pretty much *everything* wrong about evolution. I guess Besson's never taken a biology class, but 15 minutes on Wikipedia could still have made Freeman's speech at least coherent.

Even so, if it had been presented as good campy fun, I probably would have enjoyed it, but the whole thing had this incredibly pretentious air (sorry, there's more to an art film than cut shots to animals humping). It was like a college sophomore who just took his first philosophy class and wants to get high and tell you all about Descartes.

A million times yes to this. I got that pretentious vibe throughout the movie. The way it almost winks at itself for being clever and having such a good metaphorical message for the way we see the world and life itself. And the cuts to the animals didn't work for me, I want to at least appreciate the fact that Besson tried something experimental with those shots. But I just get the sense that he was doing it for the sole purpose of seeming artistic and creative, like "look how unique and brilliant this avant-garde art house film is".

And Morgan Freeman just sounded like one of those people who present themselves as being incredibly intelligent, and everyone just accepts it due the manner in which they speak and present their ideas (like the movie tells you "this is the intelligent guy" and the audience must just accept that). But when you actually try to make sense of what he says, you realize that the majority of what he is saying is nonsense.

My Personal Top 30 TV Shows
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls059266199/

It's really not that difficult, it was just a Luc Besson film, crazy, fun, sci-fi pseudo-science, some saw the spiritual and philosophical symbolism in it, some didn't, but it was just purely just a fun film. I don't know why, but I enjoy movies that try to be real, they aren't real, but sometimes they make you think they're real.

You're quite the cheerleader for this film. But I have to say, I'm with the OP here. Even with all the things you say were good about the film, I feel you are wrong - but of course, it's all a matter of opinion.

It wasn't fun, it was drab and really poorly constructed. Some lovely visuals for sure, and a lot of money was clearly spent on this, but that's not enough to rescue this from the morass of guff and drivel that was the screenplay. Put aside the fact that the 'science' and any other pretence at existential importance was so massively wide of the mark, the script was so lifeless and limp that it left some decent actors looking utterly foolish. There was no excitement in the action phases, no tension towards the denouement.

I'll be honest wit you - I lot patience with this as soon as Morgan Freeman started speaking, his 'lecture' (unlike any I've ever attended) was preposterous. But putting aside the nonsense he was spouting, there were no points subsequent to that, that gave me any opportunity to re-engage. Not even Scarlett Johansson, who usually goes a long way to holding my attention.

Glad you liked it, but really, this was surprisingly terrible.

well said sven, but you are given too much credit to the cheerleader.

you really need to get a college education

yep, he is a professor, a student doing a speech like him for a work would be failed.

you are insulting Descartes' fans who are college sophomores who just took their first philosophy class, they could have made something better than this garbage

I guess some people like you don't understand what science fiction means..

Is this directed towards me? I understand what it means it's why I love Lucy.

nope,its for the creator of this topic

oh the irony

I didn't mind the philosophy. Why not? I would even go as far as saying the action sequences where the ones that stuck out. I guess the movie still needs them to a) draw an audience and b) to show off what she is capable of now, but still, for me they disturb the movie, not the other way round.

No, the philosophy part may be sketchy at several points but that's okay and expected. What bothered me more is the entire premise. First off, that we only use 10% of our brain is a myth to start with. But okay, let's suspend disbelief and assume the myth is true for the movie's sake. I can accept that, if we used our brain more efficiently and if it would be able to access subconcious things we usually belnd out, I could accept things like "I can control my heartbeat" and "I remember things I experienced when I was 12 months old". However, most of the other things?
Suspending disbelief can only go that far and I used it all up to accept that she started to just know things without studying them. But it got more stupid from scene to scene. Telepathy would be the last thing I could accept in a good mood, but telekinesis? Hacking into devices? Physically morphing into other things!? Timetravel?

Our brain is still a brain. It doesn't matter if you use 1, 20 or 100% of it, it's still just a bunch of neurons that fire electricity. Using more of your neurons more frequently and having more connections between them may help you processing more complex situations but you still can't bent physical laws. BTW, I didn't understand the movie's explanation of that at all. Why again don't laws of nature apply anymore?

It was still enjoyable but far from really good and I think they could have archieved more with less.

---

Suspending disbelief can only go that far and I used it all up to accept that she started to just know things without studying them.

---

She only knew without studying what she was able to understand through her new connection to everything. The rest, like the professor's works, she did actually read, as was shown.

---

Telepathy would be the last thing I could accept in a good mood, but telekinesis? Hacking into devices?

---

Is this the first time you encountered a plot like this? Telepathy and telekinesis are the most common abilities a fictional character gains when they access "higher brain power". That's pretty much the standard.

---

Physically morphing into other things!?

---

That is consistent with the movie itself. The professor said it that "higher brain power" would potentially enable us to control our own bodies. It was done a bit swiftly, yes, but it is consistent with the mythology of the movie.

---

Timetravel?

---

Yeah, that one WAS pretty weird but I found it aesthetically pleasing to watch.

---

BTW, I didn't understand the movie's explanation of that at all. Why again don't laws of nature apply anymore?

---

The point with plots like these isn't that the rules of nature don't apply anymore, it's that the character who achieves this higher state of being understands the rules of nature better, which pretty much always gives them the ability to manipulate them.

After all, we can argue that those characters suddenly understand that there are almost no rules to nature. And this movie gave us the explanation itself: Time is the only thing that matters. I would conclude that time is therefore the only rule of the universe she can not control - she was able to ride on it kind of like you ride on a wave, but she was unable to change it.

I recommend Roddenberry's version of this plotline. I think he had one in Star Trek and he definitely had one in Earth: Final Conflict.
Stargate did it too, but their version was far more crude and ended up with almighty energy beings that are complete pretentious asshats.

I'm afraid this kind of storyline is one you need to approach with "Damn, I'd love to be able to do that!" or you won't enjoy it very much.

---

She only knew without studying what she was able to understand through her new connection to everything. The rest, like the professor's works, she did actually read, as was shown.

---

She said she read his works, yes. I could start here asking why accelerated brainpower comes with faster eye movement and other motoric skills you need for reading that fast, but that would be nitpicking. Later on she just knew things without learning them first, for example how to drive. You say "new connection to everything" - so, yeah, where does this come from? Why are you connected to everything just because your brain works faster?

---

Is this the first time you encountered a plot like this? Telepathy and telekinesis are the most common abilities a fictional character gains when they access "higher brain power". That's pretty much the standard.

---

Definately not. But just because something is standard it doesn't automatically make sense. In this case she all she did is taking drugs (and it wasn't even a synthethic drug, it was based on a substance our own bodies create). Not only that, the movie tells us explicitly what it does: It helps us using unused brain capacity. Overclocking the CPU of my PC doesn't give it magical abilities, you know.

---

That is consistent with the movie itself. The professor said it that "higher brain power" would potentially enable us to control our own bodies. It was done a bit swiftly, yes, but it is consistent with the mythology of the movie.

---

As I said, I can accept controlling your body means controlling body functions like your heartbeat which a normal person cannot control. This would make sense. However, no matter how smart I am or much of my subconsciousness I am able to control, I won't be able to let my body do things it just isn't capable of, especially not on molecular level, not matter how hard I try or how well I understand the physics behind it.

---

The point with plots like these isn't that the rules of nature don't apply anymore, it's that the character who achieves this higher state of being understands the rules of nature better, which pretty much always gives them the ability to manipulate them.

---

Well, first, it's not what the movie says. It outright said that physical laws don't apply and 1+1 isn't 2 and that the only certain thing and reference point is time.
Secondly, again, understanding laws of physics doesn't translate into bending or abolishing them. Knowing everything there is about football doesn't give me the power to alter the outcome of the next game. All I could to is trying to manipulate that game but I would have to do that within the known rules.

---

I'm afraid this kind of storyline is one you need to approach with "Damn, I'd love to be able to do that!" or you won't enjoy it very much.

---

See, if I had that kind of attitude I would watch superhero movies (which I don't like, BTW) but not Lucy. If it was all about here powers, then we would have gotten more and better action scenes and less talking and philosophy. We would have been given brief explanations and everything would just have been a setup for her to display awesomeness. But they didn't - they opted to bombard us with philosophy and dialog. Which I am cool with, I actually enjoy brain food movies quite a lot. However, this only works if the philosophy makes at least some sense and has a proper basis and adheres to the own rules it sets and explanations it gives, but this doesn't. If the goal was to show what an omnipotent all-knowing being would be like, they would have been better off not explaining that much. Just leave us with a magical drug and let the show begin.



Now I have to ask you:
Have YOU never seen a movie about this concept before? For example "Limitless" (2011). I think it handles the same subject much, much better and is able to deliver a good story without all the pseudo academic mumbo-jumbo.

Why do people always get this wrong?

Limitless had nothing to do with 10% brain usage theory, it was simply a man on a
neuro-enhancer and wrote a book about his experience, and these neuro-enhancers already exist and are known to heighten reflexes, I'm fine with you preferring Limitless over Lucy, but it's dishonest when you are saying that both had the same story lines or plot points, when in actuality, they don't, and your reason for preferring it is because it had the same story, again, both are nothing like each other.

---

She said she read his works, yes. I could start here asking why accelerated brainpower comes with faster eye movement and other motoric skills you need for reading that fast, but that would be nitpicking.

---

You don't need eye movement as much as people like to think. There are people who can read one page just by looking at it for, like, two seconds or something, so I am willing to buy that Lucy would be even faster.

---

Later on she just knew things without learning them first, for example how to drive. You say "new connection to everything" - so, yeah, where does this come from? Why are you connected to everything just because your brain works faster?

---

That's run-of-the-mill, pretty much. I like to think of it as the idea that everything is connected, and that we can become aware of it with "higher brain power" and understand our surroundings better.
In the case of the car: At that point she was able to read minds and she could connect with electronic devices. I am willing to buy that she was able to connect to the car and understand how it worked in order to drive it, or that she read the policeman's mind about it and/or observed his actions while driving in order to learn it.

---

Definately not. But just because something is standard it doesn't automatically make sense. In this case she all she did is taking drugs (and it wasn't even a synthethic drug, it was based on a substance our own bodies create). Not only that, the movie tells us explicitly what it does: It helps us using unused brain capacity. Overclocking the CPU of my PC doesn't give it magical abilities, you know.

---

Haha, I do get it. It's just, telepathy and telekinesis are so commonly used as abilities for characters in such storylines that I wonder when someone questions that. It's just such a part of it at this point.

---

As I said, I can accept controlling your body means controlling body functions like your heartbeat which a normal person cannot control. This would make sense. However, no matter how smart I am or much of my subconsciousness I am able to control, I won't be able to let my body do things it just isn't capable of, especially not on molecular level, not matter how hard I try or how well I understand the physics behind it./quote]

But, if you are able to control your body and body functions, would that not include hormones? Melanin? All that?

Well, first, it's not what the movie says. It outright said that physical laws don't apply and 1+1 isn't 2 and that the only certain thing and reference point is time.

---

That might also just have meant that the concept of mathematics on that basis, or any, is redundant.
Where did it say that physical laws don't apply? Either I missed this or I understood it differently than you did, if it wasn't said as directly.

---

Secondly, again, understanding laws of physics doesn't translate into bending or abolishing them. Knowing everything there is about football doesn't give me the power to alter the outcome of the next game. All I could to is trying to manipulate that game but I would have to do that within the known rules.

---

But, she did not abolish them. That's my point. Manipulating something does not abolish it.

---

See, if I had that kind of attitude I would watch superhero movies (which I don't like, BTW) but not Lucy. If it was all about here powers, then we would have gotten more and better action scenes and less talking and philosophy.

---

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I simply think that if you can't appreciate the ideas of which powers you might get through something like what this characters went through, then you will automatically approach the movie itself with more scrutiny, not enjoy it as much and that will reflect on your take of the whole movie, it's philosophical parts as well as it's non-philosophical ones.

---

Which I am cool with, I actually enjoy brain food movies quite a lot.

---

He, me too.

---

However, this only works if the philosophy makes at least some sense and has a proper basis and adheres to the own rules it sets and explanations it gives, but this doesn't. If the goal was to show what an omnipotent all-knowing being would be like, they would have been better off not explaining that much. Just leave us with a magical drug and let the show begin.

---

Maybe. I did not think that the movie violated it's own rules. But we may have understood them differently.

---

Have YOU never seen a movie about this concept before? For example "Limitless" (2011). I think it handles the same subject much, much better and is able to deliver a good story without all the pseudo academic mumbo-jumbo.

---

Let me answer it thusly: I have not seen ALL movies about this concept before. ;) I have seen "Limitless" referenced somewhere on this board already, and I want to watch it when I can. I do appreciate this storyline, I simply did not know about "Limitless" before.

---

Let me answer it thusly: I have not seen ALL movies about this concept before. ;) I have seen "Limitless" referenced somewhere on this board already, and I want to watch it when I can. I do appreciate this storyline, I simply did not know about "Limitless" before.

---

Actually, contrary to what almost everyone says, the concepts of Lucy and Limitless are in no way comparable, Limitless is a guy who takes a neuroenhancer and writes a book about his experiences, none of the things he went through were original or creative, just taking from what people who take these drugs experience, those already exist in the real world, in fact Bradley Cooper's experience was based on people taking Provigil.

Lucy is a girl who has a synthetic version of a birth compound surgically implanted within her stomach, she gets bashed, they break and leak inside her.

Well, no problem with the driving. It's not that complicated. You turn the wheel, you push pedals. And ever adult in the West has at least a basic grasp of the *idea* how to drive.


There's two things to learning to drive:

* The rules of the road

She wasn't concerned with those.

* The mechanics

See above. Not that complicated, especially not if your mind and reflexes work far better than a normal human.

I'd be more concerned with that she knew where to drive. And other stupid little stuff, like not simply dropping the attackers like she did in the police office. And offing them later in the lab, when she asked to get pushed to 100%. Though arguably she was already safe from attack. I would've find it far more entertaining if the crime boss had shot her at 90 % and she'd just meh-ed it away before apotheosis.

Oh and I forgot to link this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth

You also forgot to take the time to understand what Sci-Fi means.


By the way you know this movie isn't real don't you?Hope you are not one of those people that start taking random drugs so they can become like Lucy then get angry at the movie when it doesn't work. :)

Oh, I understand Sci-Fi, but this one got off-track too fast and too much for my taste. I said in my initial post that I am willing to accept the 10%-myth to be true, however, that means I am already suspending some disbelief right off the bet. Which means it isn't much suspending power left when the more creative elements kick in. This began SciFi and ended esoteric and fantasy.

No you still don't understand what Sci-fi means.

When they bring up the 10% thing you don't have to accept and suspend your belief.Why is that?Well because you are watching A Science fiction movie!

Do you have to suspend your belief when you realize that Neo was living in the matrix?No you dumb idiot it's a Sci-Fi movie!They aren't potraying realism there.

I suggest you stop this conversation since you clearly have no clue to what you are talking about.

No they didn't end up with fantasy.What happened is movie ended and you started making *beep* up ;)

Sci-Fi means exploring the potential consequences of scientific and other inventions. However, it should have at least some grounding in science-based fact or theory, otherwise it is just fiction or outright fantasy. I mean, the "Sci" part stands for "Science" after all!

The premise of this movie bases on a myth, so yes, I already need to suspend some disbelief right off the bat, which I am okay with, as I said. And I can do some more, but this movie doesn't even follow it's own rules. So I accept that we only use 10% of our brainpower but then it goes on to tell me that using 100% magically allows me to rearrange molecules, create matter and travel in time. Which puts this in the realm of pure fiction or fantasy.

Yes, timetravel and such are common elements of scifi. However, they are either explained well enough and basing on scientific theories that are at least somewhat possible OR it is the one thing the story is exploring. You mentioned the Matrix. In this movie, it's all about "what if we would live in a computer generated virtual world?", so this is the one thing where I don't mind if the details how it works are a bit fuzzy. However, everything else should make sense, otherwise the whoe "what if?" scenario doesn't make sense.

Here in Lucy, it's all about "what if we could unlock 10% of our brains?" and that's already the part you have to accept. But from there the "what if?" part is answered with more magic, then it has no impact on our life and the entire construct fails in the "scientific" part of "science fiction". It's just fiction.

Well, it's hard to explain, especially in english which isn't my mother tongue. But there is a reason why Star Trek is called Science Fiction and Star Wars is a "space opera". The former tries to keep everyhting within the laws of physics as we know them and makes strategical exceptions here and there to ask interesting questions and generate plotlines like a holodeck character getting conscious about him not being real and trying to escape. Whereas Star Wars features people fighting with lightsabers and energy weapons that fire beams slower than bullets so you can dodge them or even deflect them with light(sabres) and we have all that because the "rule of cool".

Lucy tries to be Star Trek but turns into Star Wars half-way through. And don't get me wrong, I like both Star Wars and Star Trek, however, I hate it when they can't be consistent withing one film. And you are free to like Lucy but genres *do* have their definitions and being a SciFi movie does NOT mean you can make stuff up along however you please without being called out for it or stripped off the "scifi" tag.

Well said puschit, well said

If you write a story centred on the belief that human personalities are based on bodily fluids you would not be writing sci-fi, you would be writing fancy, but that belief was sciency in the time of Paracelsus. sci-fi, to be sci-fi, needs to stick to current science (hard sci fi) or defy the weakest hypohtesises (soft sci-fi), using outright myth is not sci-fi, having time travelers go to some point in time and find dinos and troglodites cohabiting the world would be sci-fi if made in the early 20s of the past century, but it would be fantasy if it were made nowadays.

I really don't like arguing in favour of a movie on a board where it seems that everyone else who liked it too is being a complete asshat to those who didn't like it.

Sci-Fi means different things to different people. Some people are more demanding of the quality, others are not.
That does not make any of their opinions or characters without value.

I know that it is a myth. But thank you anyway. :)