Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / TheInventionOfLying

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
removed Wall Banger wick


*** ''Every'' character is a {{Jerkass}}? No, the idea is that society in general is like this and there are no polite conventions at all. The date scene combines this and SoWhatYouAreSaying -- which is a discredited trope ''anyway'' -- to WallBanger-y effect: "Hi, Mom. Yeah, I'm just on a date. No, not very good-looking." WHY WOULDN'T SHE JUST SAY "NO"?

to:

*** ''Every'' character is a {{Jerkass}}? No, the idea is that society in general is like this and there are no polite conventions at all. The date scene combines this and SoWhatYouAreSaying -- which is a discredited trope ''anyway'' -- to WallBanger-y wall banger-y effect: "Hi, Mom. Yeah, I'm just on a date. No, not very good-looking." WHY WOULDN'T SHE JUST SAY "NO"?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* Mark was the one who "brought the words of the man in the sky" to the people. It's ''his image'' on the stained glass in the "church" and the necklace of the "clergyman". Yet he's sitting pretty far back in the pews. Wouldn't you think he'd be given a better spot, or asked to officiate?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The bank tells him that there must be a mistake - he ''must'' have $800 available, and they give it to him. If people can be mistaken, how come no one in the entire world thinks the protagonist must be mistaken about the Man in the Sky?

to:

* The bank tells him that there must be a mistake - he ''must'' have $800 available, and they give it to him. If people can be mistaken, how come no one in the entire world thinks the protagonist must be innocently mistaken about the Man in the Sky?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* The bank tells him that there must be a mistake - he ''must'' have $800 available, and they give it to him. If people can be mistaken, how come no one in the entire world thinks the protagonist must be mistaken about the Man in the Sky?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

* For the Coke commercial, the actor takes a drink and says it's too sweet. Why didn't Coke just find an actor who ''didn't'' think it was too sweet? You ''are'' permitted an opinion in this world.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

* The idea that "no such thing as lying" = "people say whatever is on their mind". Omission, or just "not thinking to mention something", does not necessarily = lying.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

***** Besides, she definitely goes on to tell him she doesn't think he's good-looking, so it's not like she was planning on keeping it from him (which she probably couldn't anyway, in this world).


Added DiffLines:

******* This troper has known of people in the real world making coupling decisions based on how children might turn out. Maybe she just happens to be such a person.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Probably just less channels.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

**** But this story, up until the final moments of it's conclusion, seems to be made to serve the latter of your filmmaking motives. The ending, in which Mark gets away with everything, yet no one around him is harmed by his actions, renders the ideas the movie seems to be suggesting entirely pointless.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Pretty much exactly that. Most people are raised in a certain faith (or lack of faith) and will just blindly follow it without ever really taking time to investigate or question it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

*** The issue is that part of the premise is that people can be mistaken and yet nobody ever considers this possibility.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

***I'm not arguing that it isn't tinted somewhat by the views of the writer, but rather that it ''is'' possible to write a story with an intent other than trying to communicate beliefs. There's a difference between "Was slightly influenced by this opinion" and "Was created for the purpose of communicating this opinion".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

*** Nope, just about anything, fiction or not, ends up tinted by the person relaying that story's biases. And no one lacks a bias.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

****** Also, as sad as it might be, the reason why many people are concerned with how their partner looks is not usually because they are concerned with how their babies will look. More often, they're just so shallow they don't want to be seen with an "ugly" person.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None



to:

** not everything needs a message, you know. Can't it just be a story without trying to preach some particular viewpoint?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None




to:

\n* This movie had some really tangled messages to me. We are to understand that religion is a lie that is used to take advantage of people, yet religion is created in a justifiable circumstance (Mark reassuring his dying mother), and in the end, [[ManipulativeBastard our hero]] gets to [[KarmaHoudini keep all of his money and the gorgeous love interest.]]

Added: 428

Changed: 1

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
re first one


* That some people see this movie as a valid critique of religion. OK, so in his sans-lying world, Mark can make up a religion and everyone will believe it. But how does that relate to our world where people can question things?

to:

* That some people see this movie as a valid critique of religion. OK, so in his sans-lying world, Mark can make up a religion and everyone will believe it. But how does that relate to our world where people can question things? things?
** Perhaps he's saying that our world is ''like'' his world specifically with respect to religion — that is, that humans are too gullible in religious matters and don't strongly-enough consider the possibility that the whole thing was made up in a day. But that's still a good point; people in our world ''are'' capable of considering dishonesty but billions have (for their respective faiths) come to discount that possibility.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
change — to —


* The idea that, if we were all just "honest with ourselves", we would view all male-female romantic relationships in terms of eugenics, full stop. Um, no, sorry, love and other emotions may be messy and difficult to measure scientifically, but that doesn't make them "lies". And saying "I shouldn't be your lover and have your children because you're fat" isn't somehow "true" — it's still just aesthetic opinion.
** That said, in a world like that, establishing relationships ''initially'' might be difficult — you could argue that the first "I love you" in a relationship is a lie. (Maybe. If you feel like pushing it.) Also, there ''are'' lots of superficial people who, in our world, lie about their commitment, say they find you beautiful when they don't, etc — but their automatic filtering from the dating pool by their honesty would only be a ''good'' thing for ultimately finding one's SoulMate (and for those people to motivate themselves to change). Jennifer Garner's character's problems with Gervais's weight and looks, and Rob Lowe's I'm-rich snobbery are simply their characterizations, not some consequence of "honesty". (Does Gervais think his real-life long-time partner Jane Fallon is being "dishonest" with him for loving him?)

to:

* The idea that, if we were all just "honest with ourselves", we would view all male-female romantic relationships in terms of eugenics, full stop. Um, no, sorry, love and other emotions may be messy and difficult to measure scientifically, but that doesn't make them "lies". And saying "I shouldn't be your lover and have your children because you're fat" isn't somehow "true" — -- it's still just an aesthetic opinion.
** That said, in a world like that, establishing relationships ''initially'' might be difficult — -- you could argue that the first "I love you" in a relationship is a lie. (Maybe. If you feel like pushing it.) Also, there ''are'' lots of superficial people who, in our world, lie about their commitment, say they find you beautiful when they don't, etc — -- but their automatic filtering from the dating pool by their honesty would only be a ''good'' thing for ultimately finding one's SoulMate (and for those people to motivate themselves to change). Jennifer Garner's character's problems with Gervais's weight and looks, and Rob Lowe's I'm-rich snobbery are simply their characterizations, not some consequence of "honesty". (Does Gervais think his real-life long-time partner Jane Fallon is being "dishonest" with him for loving him?)
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

**** No, there isn't. Not really. Imagination is thinking things which are not true, and if you can think those things, you can conceive of saying them. In order of people to not be able to lie (and for it not to make any ''less'' sense than it already does), they must be unable to think untrue things. This also explains why they are so unabashedly ''honest'', they can't imagine causing other people to not know things.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None




to:

\n*What's on TV? There seems to be lecture films, but besides news, sports, and documentaries, what is on that takes up all the space. It can't be adverts.

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** He was a bastard, but was good looking and had enough money to have their kids be well off. But Ricky Gervais' character was fat and had a snub nose.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Not really, that doesn't explain why the population doesn't warble constantly about every minute thought that goes through their head.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In a world where no one had lied until the twenty-first century, and there had (also? — depending on your view of religion) never been religion of any kind, the ButterflyEffect would have made things radically, radically different. None of the film's creators bothered to deal with the AlternateReality possibilities.

to:

* In a world where no one had lied until the twenty-first century, and there had (also? — (also depending on your view of religion) never been religion of any kind, the ButterflyEffect would have made things radically, radically different. None of the film's creators bothered to deal with the AlternateReality possibilities.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Ultimately, perhaps Gervias is subconsiously trying to be fair to religion, which the movie otherwise attacks, by creating StrawMan atheists who are {{EvilutionaryBiologist}}s. Maybe.

to:

** Ultimately, perhaps Gervias is subconsiously trying to be fair to religion, which the movie otherwise attacks, by creating StrawMan atheists who are {{EvilutionaryBiologist}}s.{{Evilutionary Biologist}}s. Maybe.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** Ultimately, perhaps Gervias is subconsiously trying to be fair to religion, which the movie otherwise attacks, by creating StrawMan atheists who are EvilutionaryBiologists. Maybe.

to:

** Ultimately, perhaps Gervias is subconsiously trying to be fair to religion, which the movie otherwise attacks, by creating StrawMan atheists who are EvilutionaryBiologists.{{EvilutionaryBiologist}}s. Maybe.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Taken out due to misogyny


**** Well, if one is on a date with person they are not interested in, it is best to let that person know you are not interested in them, is it not? Better than those dumbass mind games [[strike: women]]people play in real life.

to:

**** Well, if one is on a date with person they are not interested in, it is best to let that person know you are not interested in them, is it not? Better than those dumbass mind games [[strike: women]]people people play in real life.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

****** This troper is gay, and that doesn't mean he has sex with anybody male. The consideration of a partners looks is definitely not for the sole purpose of reproduction. Besides, if looks don't matter objectively in a relationship, what does it matter if your kid is ugly?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** To put it more properly, they also don't have lies of omission, where a person fails to tell the truth and thus lies.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** Actually, I think that inside the story the romantic rival actually picked up on the protagonist ''not'' being one dimensional, and thought it was the "different" that he disliked/feared/hated. While everyone else is brutally honest, the protagonist seems ''slightly'' more reserved at the start. For example, he never calls his secretary or the rival douche's until he invents the fictional black plague story later.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** Since there is no lying, there aren't any [[JerkAss Jerk asses]] or nice people. Hell, they don't have much of a personality either. There are no lies so people don't care what other's opinions of them are.


Added DiffLines:

***** Actually, you date and marry for babies. LOVE helps the babies chances of survival, so he or she can go on to make more babies later on.

Top