Science Fiction is supposed to explore the unknown areas of science, not contradict common sense. Source Code talks about capturing the "afterglow" of a dead person's brain activity through synaptic mapping. This is an interesting idea to explore, but how can anyone create even simulated experiences that the dead person *didn't* have, such as going into the conductor's office or a station and parking lot adjacent to the train? Second, how did the project scientists get this synaptic map, when the dead person was blown to bits by an massive explosion just 10 feet away from him, leaving nothing by splattered gray matter?
(spoiler alert) Third, if only "certain parts" of Stevens' brain were alive, they would have to be the parts involved in comprehension of speech, production of speech, seeing and complex thinking. Yet, in the scene where the audience sees where probes have been inserted into Stevens' brain, *none* of those areas were wired up. Not to mention that there were no visible signs for nutrients or other life support required for Stevens' body.
If I could find these ridiculous flaws in 30 minutes after the film, the filmmakers should have thought of them months in advance of making the film. I hate "syfy" whose core premises insults its viewers' intelligence.
(spoiler alert) Third, if only "certain parts" of Stevens' brain were alive, they would have to be the parts involved in comprehension of speech, production of speech, seeing and complex thinking. Yet, in the scene where the audience sees where probes have been inserted into Stevens' brain, *none* of those areas were wired up. Not to mention that there were no visible signs for nutrients or other life support required for Stevens' body.
If I could find these ridiculous flaws in 30 minutes after the film, the filmmakers should have thought of them months in advance of making the film. I hate "syfy" whose core premises insults its viewers' intelligence.