History Headscratchers / TheInventionOfLying

**** I suppose so. Up until anything is discovered or invented, they are seen as lies because no one's thought of them yet. But if no one thought to "out these things together" in a world where no one is capable of doing that, how would these cars even come about?

* Here's one that's gonna sound really stupid: the KissingDiscretionShot. As is the norm in Romantic Comedies, when the hero is victories we're always treated to a big ol' smooch . But here, with the (forgive me) not Hollywood-attractive Ricky Gervais, the camera pans away. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but it seems a bit iffy to deny Gervais his victory smooch, especially after the movie made such a big deal about looking past physical attributes.

* Why do I find that pretty much every character aside from the protagonist is one-dimensional?
** Because as sad a fact as this may be, lying is what makes up most of the other two dimensions.
** Everyone has negative thoughts about other people. Choosing what to share and what to withhold is what separates nice people from jerks. If they don't have that ability...
** 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.

* 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.]]
** not everything needs a message, you know. Can't it just be a story without trying to preach some particular viewpoint?
*** Nope, just about anything, fiction or not, ends up tinted by the person relaying that story's biases. And no one lacks a bias.
*** 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".
**** 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.
** Dunno about the KarmaHoudini stuff, but regarding religion who says both perspectives can't be taken? That religion was initially created with good intentions (providing comfort and inspiration to people in the face of uncertainty) but was eventually warped into something which took advantage of people for greed? They're not mutually exclusive.

* 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?
** 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.
*** 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.
** Isn't it just that religion isn't concrete, or provable? If you can't have lies you can't have things that might be lies and can't be proven either way.
* The implication that once people believe in a "mansion in the sky", they'll just sit on their arses waiting around for it.
** To be fair, there [[JackChick seem to be those]] that do advocate that.
* This movie's entire concept bugs me. A world where no one lies ''does not equal'' a world where everyone believes what you say despite all evidence to the contrary. Are there no crazy people in this world? Has nobody ever reached a logical but incorrect conclusion (e.g., the earth is flat) that was later proved wrong?
** Neither of those things would lead to people being suspicious of each other. Even if you know there are crazy people, you assume that everyone you meet is sane until you have a reason to believe otherwise; and erroneous information wouldn't make you distrust the people who gave it to you because you'd know it was a mistake and not an attempt to deceive you. (It does make it a problem that they don't even have words for "true" and "false," though.)
*** Except there are some things too farfetched for someone to hear and still presume the speaker sane. For example "the world will end unless we have sex." It takes more than a world without lies for that to work.
**** If you aren't going to allow for the basic premise to work, then, yes the basic premise doesn't work. It's an exercise in imagination. Perhaps the laws of the universe or higher beings insure that it is literally impossible even for insane people to lie or for logical but incorrect conclusions to even occur?
*** Actually, this seems to be the case: in the opening there is a ranting madman - but the only things he is ranting about are 'Why are we wearing clothes?', and 'What is with all this concrete?' - all sane things, and his insanity in this universe is that he has stopped ignoring them. Which only raises more questions ...
*** The entire movie is built on an entire supermarket's worth of FridgeLogic. With no concept of True and False, it would be impossible to program the computers we see people using. With no religion, where do all the churches you can clearly see in some of the shots come from? With no concept of deities and religion in general, here did the ancient civilizations he talks about in his script come from? I could go on (and on and on...) but you get the point
**** It doesn't take True or False to build a computer system; any binary-based decision system will no. "Yes" or "No" suffices, or 0 and 1.
**** They actually do seem to have a concept of true and false (yeah, the way they have no words for them is weird) - the woman at the bank has no problem accepting that the computer made a mistake about Matt's balance, and when he lies to his friends they seem to realize this means they were wrong before - it's the idea of deliberately saying something you know to be untrue that no one understands. Churches might have been built as buildings where weddings, funerals and so on take place with no particular religious significance. And I'm not sure what you are getting at with the ancient civilizations thing - people grouped together to increase their chances of survival, in our world some religion or other would generally get involved at some point, but in theirs it didn't.
*** The issue is that part of the premise is that people can be mistaken and yet nobody ever considers this possibility.
** I'm pretty sure churches never show up until the main character invents religion
*** Churches? What churches? I mean, there was that Quiet Place to meditate and reflect (and I'm sure an image of the guy who talks to the man in the sky and brought news of the afterlife mansions would be a useful and comforting starting point from which to reflect quietly), but I didn't see any churches.
*** You didn't see all the churches very visibly present in several of the shots that pan way out to give a view of the town? They were quite noticeable!
* What bugs me is that the movie has everyone unable to lie... so instead, they're hilariously blunt and insensitive. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. People might not know how to deceive, but they must know how to restrain themselves from blurting out ''every'' thought that crosses their minds or they'd never shut up, and most people would use that as much as possible to avoid conflict and hurting each other's feelings.
** Except they're [[JerkAss Jerk asses]] and didn't care about hurting others feelings. Most people don't follow "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" in real life anyway.
*** 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.
*** ''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 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"?
**** 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 people play in real life.
***** 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).
**** And what do looks have to do with love or even simple carnal pleasures? Lots of badly twisted feelings and poor situations would be avoided if people were more blunt. "Letting a guy down easy" is one of the most frequent causes of giving the wrong impression that he has a chance and prolonging the pain IE: Tear off the band-aid instead of pulling it off slowly. Relationships exist for booty calls only and for purely platonic reasons only, they would often benefit from being called such so as not to give the other person any wrong ideas or mixed signals.
***** While we're on the subject, let's mention the explanation for the above: That people care about looks because they want their kids to be genetically decent. ''Why do people in this universe care if their kids will look good due to genetics?'' First off, you shouldn't be worried about kids until ''you actually decide to have them.'' You date and marry for LOVE, not for children. Second, what the heck does anything have to do with lying? I know that the purpose of love is supposed to be to make babies or some other scientific bull, but there's a difference between "telling the truth" and "the biological reason for things". I mean, WHAT THE HELL?
****** 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?
****** 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.
******* 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.
***** 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.
***** I resent the implication that dating and marrying is only to make babies. Sure, lots of couples want to have children, but to say that it's the sole reason for dating and marriage and that every couple ever has gotten together to have children, not to be with somebody they love, is just straight-up wrong.
** It's not just that they can't say anything that is technically untrue, the whole concept of willing deception is alien to them. The whole idea of softening the blow in this way depends on trying to convince the other person that you think differently than what you really do, and Matt is the first person to recognise that this is even possible.
*** To put it more properly, they also don't have lies of omission, where a person fails to tell the truth and thus lies.
** This might make it easier for some to digest: imagine that instead of talking, the people in this world are telepathic, only they have no control of it - any thought that comes into their minds is shared for everyone to hear. Mark is just special because he developed the ability to control his thoughts. Does this help?
*** Not really, that doesn't explain why the population doesn't warble constantly about every minute thought that goes through their head.

*** Actually, this seems to be the case: in the opening there is a ranting madman - but the onlt things he is ranting about are 'Why are we wearing clothes?', and 'What is with all this concrete?' - all sane things, and his insanity in this universe is that he has stopped ignoring them. Which only raises more questions ...

**** They actually do seem to have a concept of true and false (yeah, the way they have no words for them is weird) - the woman at the bank has no problem accepting that the computer made a mistake about Matt's balance, and when he lies to his friends they seem to realise this means they were wrong before - it's the idea of deliberately saying something you know to be untrue that noone understands. Churches might have been built as buildings where weddings, funerals and so on take place with no particular religious significance. And I'm not sure what you are getting at with the ancient civilisations thing - people grouped together to increase their chances of survival, in our world some religion or other would generally get involved at some point, but in theirs it didn't.

** Except they're [[JerkAss Jerk asses]] and didn't care about hurting others feelings. Most people don't follow "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" in real life anyway.

***** 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.

** As an above entry says, it appears the creators just wanted "Today + No Lying", and did just that. While, yes, FridgeLogic suggests the world would be ''radically'' different, the whole purpose of the film was not to explore an AlternateReality, but just...no lying, as life exists today. Not having a go at you in general sorry, but one downside I've seen of being a Troper is that there comes a time, or a movie, that you just have to sit back and accept the premise as-is, and our superwired brains tend to not want to accept that as standard ;)

*** Churches? What churches? I mean, there was that Quiet Place to meditate and reflect (and I'm sure an image of the guy who talks to the man in the sky and brought news of the after-life mansions would be a useful and comforting starting point from which to reflect quietly), but I didn't see any churches.

* Isn't it just that religion isn't concrete, or provable? If you can't have lies you can't have things that might be lies and can't be proven either way.