# Inception (2010)



## Dave (Jul 20, 2010)

I find it hard to believe no one has seen this yet as it took $21.6 million in North America last weekend. It starts in UK cinemas this week. Directed by Christopher Nolan.

In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a single idea within one's mind can be the most dangerous weapon or the most valuable asset.
Inception (2010)

It sounds like something I'd like. I always liked the idea of the low-budget 1984 film _Dreamscape_ but I thought it could have been done better and gone further. This seems like it is on a similar theme, however CGI has improved since then, and _The Matrix_ undoubtedly changed everything that has come after it.

[YouTube]HilwtqaN4Gs[/YouTube]

That's not a very good trailer. I saw a better one with _Killers_ last month.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 20, 2010)

A few of us have seen it, and recommended it on the 'last movie you saw' thread.

It's a good film, and you should definitely see it. The only thing I didn't like was the end. In fact, it was the very last shot.

But we can discuss that once you've seen the movie.

Oh, and the $21.7m was its take on the opening day; it would be considered a massive disappointment if it only made that in the entire weekend.

The weekend haul was $62.7 million (which is still not that great in this day and age).


----------



## elvet (Jul 20, 2010)

If you are tired of the old, run of the mill, formulaic movies, give *Inception *a go. I saw it last night, and haven't felt this enthused about a film since the Matrix (the 1st one). The premise is about dream technology being used for espionage. This is a thinking movie, it engaged me from the begining. It's well paced with some action, romance, and believable SF. The dream environments are 'twisted' enough to be novel, yet not too unfamiliar for us gamers (Obsidian's cube ). I was thoroughly entertained.


----------



## Dave (Jul 21, 2010)

As a rule, I think films over 2 hours are too long, but I can't see how anything could be cut out of this. It is extremely complex, but I went with some people who I wouldn't say were SFF fans and everyone understood the plot perfectly.

Now then, DA has a problem with the end. I'm warning you now that I'm going to dispense with any SPOILERS since I think people should only read these threads if they have seen a film. So here goes:

Concerning the final scene, I assume your problem is with the spinning top and the attempt to make us ask: Is it all still a dream? I didn’t have a problem with that because it was clear to me that they had returned back to reality. I say that for a number of reasons:

1)	The top had already begun to fall if you listen to it rather than watch.
2)	If it was still a dream, then who’s dream? It would have to be Cobb’s dream. So, he dreamt that everyone returned. So if they didn’t, are they all still dreaming and no one returned? That really doesn’t work.
3)	If it was Cobb’s dream wouldn’t he put Mal in it, still alive?
4)	But mainly because Cobb could never remember his children’s faces in his dreams, however this time he saw them both.

On the other hand, Cobb could have been in a dream from the very start of the film, and none of what we saw was ever reality at all.

I did think the whole process itself had been incredibly well thought out by Christopher Nolan; as if he had asked people to nitpick it and then gone back and made up explanations and ways around those various problems.

My only problem would be with Cobb going to see Saito in Limbo and bringing him back. The world with the derelict collapsing city was Cobb’s dream and was four dream levels down from reality. All the other times that they stepped down to a dream within a dream they had to bring out a briefcase and connect together in order to share it. I think Saito’s Limbo was an alternative four levels down from reality (that's where he died though he was actually shot one level down.) Now, it must have been Saito’s dream since he died first (and was therefore much older.) I just don’t see how it was possible for Cobb to enter Saito’s dream. However, there is the possibility that Limbo is a shared environment not limited to a single subconscious. It is only Cobb’s version of Limbo that we see because he spent 50 years there before building it; otherwise it would have been empty space. But if that is the case, Cobb should surely be older than Saito when they meet. I’m still confused!

Other problems I see are:

1)	Whether Fischer Junior would remember the dream or not. He had had professional dream training just like the others, so surely he should? At the airport, he does seem to recognise Cobb for a second.
2)	Why Fischer Junior does not recognise Saito from real life? The head of a rival Corporation!
3)	Did they actually succeed? Did Fischer Junior actually break up the company? That was the whole major plot-line wasn’t it? But it was never shown. Obviously, Cobb seeing his kids again was more important and his own motivation, but the others did it for the money. Still, Saito seemed happy at the end.


----------



## tygersmovie (Jul 22, 2010)

Alfred Hitchcock had a word for the kind of people who criticize movies like INCEPTION for plot holes: plausiblists.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jul 22, 2010)

Dave said:


> Now then, DA has a problem with the end. I'm warning you now that I'm going to dispense with any SPOILERS since I think people should only read these threads if they have seen a film. So here goes:
> 
> Concerning the final scene, I assume your problem is with the spinning top and the attempt to make us ask: Is it all still a dream?


Quite right. My assumption is the same as yours (that they were 'back'); what I resented was the attempt to create that little 'mystery'. I would be fine with it if it the mystery was a natural result of the story, but that scene seemed forced to me. It just wasn't needed. I think people would have wondered "Is it real or not?" anyway, since the nature of the plot lends itself to such questions. But that scene seemed like Nolan making a conscious effort to make us wonder, and he didn't need to because the movie was plenty clever as it is. Don't force it.



> 1) The top had already begun to fall if you listen to it rather than watch.


I heard it, too. Definitely wobbling.



> 2) If it was still a dream, then who’s dream? It would have to be Cobb’s dream. So, he dreamt that everyone returned. So if they didn’t, are they all still dreaming and no one returned? That really doesn’t work.


Not all of them would be dreaming. If it all, the possibility is that all the rest returned, but Cobb didn't make it out.



> 3) If it was Cobb’s dream wouldn’t he put Mal in it, still alive?


Not necessarily. A dream in which she was alive might be too unrealistic for his subconcious to accept, so it's possible the dream he would create would be one that is more 'believable'.



> 4) But mainly because Cobb could never remember his children’s faces in his dreams, however this time he saw them both.


I don't think it's that he couldn't remember. I mean, they're his kids. Surely, he wouldn't forget what they look like in such a short period of time. I think it was basically guilt.

He left without saying goodbye to his children, without looking at their faces one last time. So now, that's how he remembers them. It's not that he can't remember; it's that he _won't_. Notice that when he's in Limbo with Mal, and she's convincing him to stay, she points out the kids to him, and Cobb deliberately looks away. Why did he see them in the end, then? I guess he's finally forgiven himself.



> On the other hand, Cobb could have been in a dream from the very start of the film, and none of what we saw was ever reality at all.


I've heard that theory. Personally, it's my least favourite possibility, because if it was all a dream, then the events have no meaning. None of it mattered. And that's just lame.



> I did think the whole process itself had been incredibly well thought out by Christopher Nolan; as if he had asked people to nitpick it and then gone back and made up explanations and ways around those various problems.


Oh, definitely well thought. I read somewhere that Nolan apparently first thought of the script before he made *Memento*, and has basically been fine-tuning it since. That's remarkable.



> However, there is the possibility that Limbo is a shared environment not limited to a single subconscious.


I think so. 



> But if that is the case, Cobb should surely be older than Saito when they meet. I’m still confused!


I don't think Cobb should be older, because Saito did die before him so he's been in Limbo longer. Cobb was there years ago, and then came out. He wasn't in there this whole time.



> 1) Whether Fischer Junior would remember the dream or not. He had had professional dream training just like the others, so surely he should? At the airport, he does seem to recognise Cobb for a second.


He might retain enough to get some deja vu, but I don't think he'll remember much of it. Keep in mind, they weren't _his_ dreams; they were Cobb's teammates'.



> 2) Why Fischer Junior does not recognise Saito from real life? The head of a rival Corporation!


He's an ignorant buffoon.



> 3) Did they actually succeed? Did Fischer Junior actually break up the company? That was the whole major plot-line wasn’t it?


I think we can assume they did succeed. They 'inceptioned' him, and the idea is now in Fischer's head. Notice him looking all thoughtful and pondersome at the end.

But that wasn't really the point of the movie. It was an excuse to get the plot moving, but ultimately the story was about Cobb, and his road to recovery/redemption.


----------



## Dave (Jul 22, 2010)

Thanks DA

Tygersmovies, I think you will find the term "plausiblists" actually applied to those people who say something is impossible or implausible on historical or scientific grounds. Since I believe that entering someone else's dream is still total fantasy, then it hardly applies. What I was nitpicking was the implausibility within the world Nolan had himself created, and as I already said, I believe that he did a fantastic job answering most of these nits. But I do like my Narrative Logic to be strong.

Nitpicking is part of what we do here. This is an intellectual film and demands intellectually reviewing it. If you visited other websites and forums you will see a number of posts alternatively gushing and downing films. That gets rather boring after a while. I prefer to ask intelligent questions.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Jul 22, 2010)

Just seen it. Brilliant. Brilliant. Horribly brilliant (for a budding scriptwriter). 

The anti-gravity fights - excellent!

The whole plot, the whole _idea_ - Argh! Excellent!


And the ending. It fell. It fell, I tells ya. It was wobbling, thus, it fell. But much better that it ended like that because it keeps people talking after they leave (and my, were they). You could feel the tension of the entire audience in those final moments (and it was pretty packed tonight) and half of them groaned out loud when it ended without a final conclusion. A very well done ending, if absolutely infuriating. 

Exactly how a film should be -- we hit the ground running, hurry to catch up, we enjoy all that we see and then we still have a thousand things to consider and talk about after wards.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Jul 23, 2010)

Extra:



			
				Dave said:
			
		

> However, there is the possibility that Limbo is a shared environment not limited to a single subconscious.



Yes, I'm pretty sure it's explained that way in the film. That it's a shared space, and the layout of it takes shape of the person who's been there to most (yes, I remember now, in the film someone says "that's Cobb". And we do indeed find out that he's been there for fifty years before).

Last night I dreamt I was talking to a guy and then suddenly everyone else in the room with us looked over -- all of them at me. And my dream self asked just who's dream I was in. It wasn't until I started having a totally inane conversation with the guy that everyone looked away and went back to what they were doing.


----------



## mr kite (Jul 23, 2010)

I finally got to see it at the weekend 
Brilliant ! 

This was a no spoiler post !


----------



## Dave (Jul 23, 2010)

HoopyFrood said:


> Exactly how a film should be -- we hit the ground running, hurry to catch up, we enjoy all that we see and then we still have a thousand things to consider and talk about after wards.


That's all true. It begins with an Earthquake and just goes up from there. And I definitely like films that I can discuss later - Matrix, Vanilla Sky, Total Recall.

I forgot to say earlier that I really liked this. Best film this year, possibly last year too. Will certainly buy the DVD.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 24, 2010)

I think it fell. all the times we saw it spinning in the dreams it was perfectly spinning. dead straight. It wasn't like that on the table.

I loved the sound effects in the movie too. They weren't your typical 'batman style' sound effects. When the dude's skull hit the windscreen it sounded like a skull hitting a windscreen (Something which I have unfortunately heard in real life).

I dreamt like that last night too HoopyFrood. Don't think I'll ever dream the same again.


----------



## Connavar (Jul 25, 2010)

Inception was very good, not one of the best movies in a long while.   But the best blockbuster type hollywood in recent years.  I liked that  you had to actual think to understand the story.  Quality  characters,idea of dreams.  I can only compare it to the best superhero movies in quality of blockbuster films.

Only thing that could have been better was that he should have explained  the ability of controling dreams better early in the film.  Where did  it came from ?  How ? When ?

A refereshing film where you had to think of new things.  I have respect for Chris Nolan again i lost alot for him after his Dark Knight that was too much realism,too dumbed down story,writing.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 26, 2010)

After thinking about this for a few days I have actually changed my "reading" of the film. I think it's too long for me to repost this as a forum post so have a read of it here:

[SPOILERS] Inception  Doctor Crankenstein


----------



## Dave (Jul 26, 2010)

I liked this part of your review best: 





> here is also the chemist. The chemist, who is for some reason as skilled at driving as your average stunt driver, can hold his own with a pistol, and doesn’t panic in high-pressure situations.


 

What I want to know is why there haven't been more films about entering other people's dreams. I mentioned Dreamscape (1984) earlier, but can't think of anything else about dreams. The other films I mentioned are about false memories and virtual realities.


----------



## Connavar (Jul 27, 2010)

Is that sarcasm about the chemist ?  

You saw Cobb handled himself better with shooting,punching than he did in the real world chase.  Heh maybe like Matrix the dream world added skills to them.

Or they were just theifs who actually knew their buisness like shooting,driving.


----------



## Dave (Jul 27, 2010)

True, in a dream, you could dream that you could do anything, but it wasn't Yusuf's dream, so does that make any difference?

Ariadne was able to roll up those streets inside Cobb's dream, so maybe it is only dependent on how good you are at entering other people's dreams. When (Arthur or Eames) was shooting at the men on the electricty transformer, I was myself thinking, "This is a dream, why can't he just blow up the transformer?" Then one of them brought out the Bazooka. I thought, "That's more like it!" I don't think there was enough of that 'Neo controlling the Matrix'-type of thinking in this. Maybe they were deliberately meant to be novices at this business. It seemed like only Cobb and Arthur did it on a regular basis.


----------



## Connavar (Jul 28, 2010)

Dave said:


> True, in a dream, you could dream that you could do anything, but it wasn't Yusuf's dream, so does that make any difference?
> 
> Ariadne was able to roll up those streets inside Cobb's dream, so maybe it is only dependent on how good you are at entering other people's dreams. When (Arthur or Eames) was shooting at the men on the electricty transformer, I was myself thinking, "This is a dream, why can't he just blow up the transformer?" Then one of them brought out the Bazooka. I thought, "That's more like it!" I don't think there was enough of that 'Neo controlling the Matrix'-type of thinking in this. Maybe they were deliberately meant to be novices at this business. It seemed like only Cobb and Arthur did it on a regular basis.



Everyone was handling themselves like fighting,shooting experts in others dreams.  I think they could do alot even in some else dream. Eames showed that,Arthur in that hotel too.

I thought it was refereshing they werent still perfect . They were theifs and not super martial artist,super soldiers like Virtual programs made Neo and co in Matrix.


----------



## zhefa (Jul 29, 2010)

I watch it last week and find it quite enjoyable but not that great. There are many loops in the story and about the sci-fi stuff. The movie is like combining sci-fi and action together but not as good as blockbuster's ones. 

I really like them to explain how the dream machine work or what theory is it based on. In the movie they just click and plug, that's really annoying. And connecting people into other's dream and start dreaming together is far beyond from today's technology not to mention extracting someone's dream into reality first. So how did those guys have this cutting-edge technology while the rest of the world still looks like present day? 

And about the ending part. It is quite popular nowadays that these kinds of movies like to end with a little twist to give the audience someting to talk about.


----------



## Doctor Crankenstein (Jul 29, 2010)

Thanks Dave


----------



## Dovecam.W (Jul 30, 2010)

The first time i saw this film. I was arguing that dream lvl 4 was not limbo. But after a 2nd viewing they made it clear that it was limbo, because Cobb said we have to go and get fischer. He also told the guy not to revive him bc it was too late that he was already in limbo. When cobb and the girl is in limbo Cobb even specifically says i have to stay down here and get saito meaning that it is limbo. The reason you see him wash up onshore at the end is because he dies from drowning in lvl 1 which resends him into limbo even though he was already there but since he died and was sent there he doesnt really know that he was dreaming until saito made him realize he was. 

At the end the sedative wore off and cobb and saito woke up on the plane. Not from killing each other. If cobb was not there to remind saito that it was a dream then when the sedative did wear off saitos mind would be scrambled and he would think the plane was a dream and want to go back to "reality" this is why it was good for leo and saito to remind each other that they were in limbo so when they woke up they wouldnt have messed up minds and then saito could finish his aggreement. 

Got it! good!


----------



## Dave (Jul 30, 2010)

Thanks, Dovecam. That actually makes total sense. Incredibly complicated if that was how it was meant to be.


----------



## Daezarkian (Aug 5, 2010)

I loved it.  In fact, this was the first movie of 2010 I was truly excited to see.  DiCaprio gets better and better with each film, and I found the pacing, the supporting cast and the execution of a very complicated process all top notch.

That being said, like Nolan's "Batman" movies, I a) found it a bit overlong, but b) wasn't really sure what could have been cut out.  Nolan has gotten into the habit of compressing about 1 1/2 movies down into a single film...though I'll be the first to admit he's getting better at it.


----------



## Jon Sprunk (Aug 6, 2010)

Just saw this last week. All I can say is... wow. I'd say it was my favorite film of the year so far. 

My fav part? The ending. It was pitch-perfect.


----------



## Culhwch (Aug 7, 2010)

The wife and I saw this today, and really enjoyed it. Definitely the best movie I've seen this year. Great performances all round, brilliant imagined script and beautifully executed end product. I think your analysis is spot on, Dovecam. Makes perfect sense, as Dave said.

This is definitely one I want to see again to pick up on every thing I missed.



			
				Hoops said:
			
		

> Just seen it. Brilliant. Brilliant. Horribly brilliant (for a budding scriptwriter).



Too, too true, Hoops.


----------



## Culhwch (Aug 7, 2010)

Dave said:


> True, in a dream, you could dream that you could do anything, but it wasn't Yusuf's dream, so does that make any difference?



Actually, that _was_ Yusuf's dream. That's why he remained behind.

EDIT: A few interesting links:

http://roflrazzi.com/2010/08/03/inception-chart-file-under-things-i-wish-id-had-two-weeks-ago/

http://thedailywh.at/post/903208943/infographic-of-the-day-yet-another-awesome

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2010/08/inception-costume-designer-explains-ending

Oh, and...

http://roflrazzi.com/2010/08/02/calvin-and-hobbes-inception/


----------



## ScottSF (Aug 10, 2010)

Brilliant. I can't decide if Nolan is the next Spielberg, Hitchcock or Kubric.  Maybe he's just the first Nolan.  Better than any of the sci-fi that came out last year and that's saying a lot with movies like Moon and District 9.  I'm hoping this opens the floodgates to more smart movies.  It's ok to have a story go over some peoples heads as long as you make lots of pretty to look at for the slower ones while the rest of us enjoy all the film has to offer.


----------



## sankofa (Aug 11, 2010)

Connavar said:


> Only thing that could have been better was that he should have explained  the ability of controling dreams better early in the film.  Where did  it came from ?  How ? When ?



I discussed this after seeing the film and was of the opinion that to do so Nolan might actually weaken the plot. I feel that, as much as I would have liked an explanation, it would perhaps be hard to give one that would not easily be picked apart. Better to just present it as something that is just accepted in the world of the film, leaving the audience to enjoy it as it is rather than maybe focus on 'well THAT wouldn't work' and be turned off.


----------



## CyBeR (Aug 17, 2010)

ScottSF > I really wouldn't say 'Inception' beats out 'Moon' or 'District 9'...it sets itself apart, true, by a formidable story and a great idea, but as a movie it is just as unique and well made as those two. 

Sankofa > I completely agree with that. I find no real use in the story or the character development in explaining how that works...like in 'Avatar', with their 'unobtainium', it was a simple plot device that was needed to just work. 

I saw the film last week with my girlfriend and we both walked out of the movie theater very satisfied with what we watched. Like with 'Shutter island' earlier this year, we were both impressed with DiCaprio's performance...and like with 'The dark knight', we were in awe at Nolan's directing skills. To pack so much into a film and still keep it sane, coherent and interesting to watch...that takes some real talent. I will definitely keep my eyes on this director for future films...we may expect even greater things from now on.


----------



## biodroid (Aug 18, 2010)

Daezarkian You seem to have a similar avatar to mine


----------



## Connavar (Aug 24, 2010)

CyBeR said:


> ScottSF > I really wouldn't say 'Inception' beats out 'Moon' or 'District 9'...it sets itself apart, true, by a formidable story and a great idea, but as a movie it is just as unique and well made as those two.
> 
> Sankofa > I completely agree with that. I find no real use in the story or the character development in explaining how that works...like in 'Avatar', with their 'unobtainium', it was a simple plot device that was needed to just work.
> 
> I saw the film last week with my girlfriend and we both walked out of the movie theater very satisfied with what we watched. Like with 'Shutter island' earlier this year, we were both impressed with DiCaprio's performance...and like with 'The dark knight', we were in awe at Nolan's directing skills. To pack so much into a film and still keep it sane, coherent and interesting to watch...that takes some real talent. I will definitely keep my eyes on this director for future films...we may expect even greater things from now on.




If you dont explain the ability its just fun action,fantasy film.  The world should have SF sense like quality films of this kind Matrix and co.

Its like watching Matrix but without ever writing about the fake world,what the machines was doing,why they needed the humans etc

People are making excuse for this kind of film because they are used stupid SF films in Hollywood.  The one that isnt brain dead must be amazing....


----------



## CyBeR (Aug 24, 2010)

What would it have changed for you if there was some hooky-dooky explanation as to how people were connecting to each other in the dream world? Was that plot device the main driving force of the film?
I don't believe so. You want to explain stuff like this but it won't work. If you give people explanations as to how it works, people will just break it apart in the long run and the film will become a subject to ridicule and parody. 

Do we need to know how Batman keeps possibly volatile substances in a belt around his waist and doesn't blow up each time he's thrown to the ground? Hell no, that'd make for the weirdest comic book in history with the character dead in the first 2 issues. All that we know is that Bats has all kinds of weird stuff in that belt and that he'll always pull a miracle save because of them. 
That's the case here. You're not interested in the technology, you should concentrate on the story of the film, and what it tries to do. 

And pardon my saying, but in a film called 'The Matrix', it'd be rather hard to get by without explaining those very central pieces. 
The fake world, the machines, the One (and consequently, the Architect), all vital parts of the story, without which there is no story basically. 
The intricacies of how exactly are you copying kung-fu into a human brain...much less important.


----------



## bobbo19 (Aug 24, 2010)

good film. gave it 8/10, prob gonna get it when it comes out on DVD


----------



## Culhwch (Aug 25, 2010)

CyBeR said:


> What would it have changed for you if there was some hooky-dooky explanation as to how people were connecting to each other in the dream world? Was that plot device the main driving force of the film?
> 
> I don't believe so. You want to explain stuff like this but it won't work. If you give people explanations as to how it works, people will just break it apart in the long run and the film will become a subject to ridicule and parody.


 
I agree totally. And it's been a long time since I've seen _The Matrix_, but do they ever really explain how they create the virtual world in the minds of all the people? I thought it was more or less presented that it existed, and moved on from there...


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 25, 2010)

I agree, too. In _The Matrix_, I gladly accepted that they get hooked up to the device that lets them programme a world as they need. In _Inception_, they use a device that allows them to go inside someone's dreams. I accept that they can do that, and then see what the plot is about.

The precise mechanics of how said devices work is not really important.


----------



## Connavar (Aug 25, 2010)

CyBeR said:


> What would it have changed for you if there was some hooky-dooky explanation as to how people were connecting to each other in the dream world? Was that plot device the main driving force of the film?
> I don't believe so. You want to explain stuff like this but it won't work. If you give people explanations as to how it works, people will just break it apart in the long run and the film will become a subject to ridicule and parody.
> 
> Do we need to know how Batman keeps possibly volatile substances in a belt around his waist and doesn't blow up each time he's thrown to the ground? Hell no, that'd make for the weirdest comic book in history with the character dead in the first 2 issues. All that we know is that Bats has all kinds of weird stuff in that belt and that he'll always pull a miracle save because of them.
> ...



No no i meant where the ability come from, some backround info.  Not how they were connecting, you have to suspense belief for that.

The science real or unreal behind it.   Matrix there were explaination for the fake world with the machines,Architect,what they did.  

Good film but there were flaws in the script,history of that world.  Since they never explained too well the ability it never hit me too well. Far from the power of the Matrix story for example.  Now there were mostly good characters like Cobb,some flashy moves in different dream worlds.  Entertaining but i expect better story,writing from the guy behind Memento,Prestige.


----------



## clovis-man (Aug 26, 2010)

HoopyFrood said:


> And the ending. It fell. It fell, I tells ya. It was wobbling, thus, it fell. But much better that it ended like that because it keeps people talking after they leave (and my, were they). You could feel the tension of the entire audience in those final moments (and it was pretty packed tonight) and half of them groaned out loud when it ended without a final conclusion. A very well done ending, if absolutely infuriating.


 
Imagine if the ending had included a visual of the top actually falling over. I think that would have spoiled it.

Plot holes, Shmot holes. Willing suspension of disbelief is an important factor in films. And how much additional exposition would you want in a 2 hour and 20 minute movie?

Kind of an Impossible Mission Force for dreamland. I loved it.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 26, 2010)

Just come home from seeing this. Waaaaay too long, and a tad dull in places.

Just skimmed this thread so sorry if this has been answered, but, when Cobb and his missus kill themselves with the train, they're young. Yet we see them as old people holding hands and what have you saying that they've lived their lives there... so, I don't get that. Could someone explain for me, please? Ta muchly.


----------



## biodroid (Aug 27, 2010)

Mouse - they lived in the dream world for about 50 years so their projections of themselves aged in the dream but in reality they were down for a few hours so they lived a lifetime in the dream world and came back changed people. As to your question I think that because you are back in reality your subconcious resets your projection to what you currently look like thats why they seemed young again.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 27, 2010)

biodroid said:


> Mouse - they lived in the dream world for about 50 years so their projections of themselves aged in the dream but in reality they were down for a few hours so they lived a lifetime in the dream world and came back changed people.



Yeah, I got that. 



> As to your question I think that because you are back in reality your subconcious resets your projection to what you currently look like thats why they seemed young again.



Ah right. But wasn't it an actual flashback? So they should've looked old?


----------



## biodroid (Aug 27, 2010)

Mouse - not that I can recall, it seems like they were still in the dream world which makes sense but then again with a mind bending movie like this anything goes and that the fun of it. I reckon it was an actual flashback because they are consciously remembering what happened in the dream so that is how he saw himself and his wife because they were there so long.


----------



## Mouse (Aug 27, 2010)

I guess that makes more sense. I hope it wasn't a continuity error or something anyway!


----------



## biodroid (Aug 27, 2010)

Hehe, i didn't pick it up, but will be getting it on Blu-ray just to ake sure anyway


----------



## Culhwch (Aug 28, 2010)

In such a measured, thought-out film, I have no doubt it wasn't a continuity error. I read it the same way as biodroid.


----------



## JenJen (Aug 29, 2010)

Watched Inception last night.
Soundtrack by Hans Zimmer.
Fabulous environments (I especially liked the lanterns in the asian-style building in the beginning and end)
Fantastic CGI. (The bit where the new architect plays around with Cobbs dream and blows a lot of stuff up)
Nice characters. (I especially loved Mal. She was a thoroughly unsettling character)

Intense moments! My favourite must be when the new architect (what's her name again?) plays around inside Cobbs dream and his conscience starts fighting back. The scene where they are on the bridge and Mal starts walking towards her, through the crowd, in a quick pace while the architect is screaming: Wake me up! Wake me up! WAKE ME UP--

Heart stopping moment! Gah!


----------



## clovis-man (Aug 29, 2010)

JenJen said:


> Fabulous environments (I especially liked the lanterns in the asian-style building in the beginning and end)


 
I just thought of this yesterday (and I've "only" seen the movie once, so have had no chance to check to see if I'm right): The interiors remind me greatly of the Francis Little house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. It's well known that Wright was fascinated with Japanese art and it shows. Coincidence?



JenJen said:


> My favourite must be when the new architect (what's her name again?) plays around inside Cobbs dream and his conscience starts fighting back.


 
Ariadne. That was Ellen Page, who played the title role in *Juno*.


----------



## Allan06 (Aug 31, 2010)

I realised after watching this movie and reading the ideas of people  who's been analyzing the movie; trying to find out whether it was all a  dream or it wasn't or simply he's back in the real world with his kids.  If you truely think about it, it doesn't matter, it happy ending  because in both perspective he is happy now and he is at peace with his  kids and no longer in torment.


----------



## biodroid (Aug 31, 2010)

I aso thought maybe he likes to stay in the dream world because he can see his kids but then again it's supposed to be a "what if" scenario just to play with head.


----------



## Dave (Aug 31, 2010)

1) It matters if there is going to be a sequel. 

2) It matters in relation to Plato's Allegory of the Cave and the decision that Neo must make at the end of the Matrix trilogy, of whether to wake people up from their illusions. The question is "happiness" over "the truth".


----------



## clovis-man (Aug 31, 2010)

Dave said:


> 1) It matters if there is going to be a sequel.


 
Oh, please, no! Can't we just have a nice stand-alone movie?


----------



## biodroid (Sep 1, 2010)

Hehe, one can only hope for a sequel to explore this new dimension properly but I don't think it will be made just doesn't make sense to do Inception Part 2, "Return of the Dream Thief, one man against an entire subconscious...again...will he ever see the faces of his grand kids..."


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Jan 30, 2011)

Written, directed and produced by the brilliant Christopher Nolan (*Memento, The Prestige, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight*), this was one of the films of 2010 most eagerly awaited by SF fans.

It is set in the near future in a world the same as ours except that a combination of drugs and technology permits people to invade the dreams of others, imposing their own dream structures (designed by specialist "architects") in order to obtain secrets and even influence their target's subsequent actions (a process known as "inception"). The principal character, Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an expert at this, and is hired by a powerful industrial organisation to influence the heir to a rival energy corporation (Cillian Murphy) to break up the corporation on the imminent death of his father. Cobb assembles a team who succeed in drugging the heir on a long flight and proceed to take him on a dream journey, steadily downwards through dreams within dreams, each with its own distinct setting, until facing him with a modified recreation of his father's deathbed scene. During this process, Cobb is hounded by guilty memories of his wife (Marion Cotillard), who committed suicide as a result of his manipulations, and who appears in the dreams constantly trying to frustrate his actions.

This is an intelligent, convincing and exciting thriller which held my attention throughout, but it certainly requires concentration to keep up with the fast-moving events as the story keeps flipping between dream levels. I understand that a lot of viewers found it baffling, but as I was aware of the general plot in advance I had no problem in following it. However, there were some details I was uncertain about or unaware of, and I found the Wiki plot summary (which I read after seeing the film) useful in tidying up some loose ends. 

I rarely watch films more than once, but if I've enjoyed one enough to want to see it again, I like to leave at least a couple of years between viewings so that the details have faded from my memory. However, *Inception* is one of those rare films that I immediately knew I would want to watch again before long, in order to obtain even more enjoyment through a deeper understanding the next time around. 

Christopher Nolan has done it again - the man seems unable to make anything but excellent films. What I like most about his work is that it is exciting but also highly original and intelligent - a league above the usual by-the-numbers, predictable and sometimes downright moronic level of Hollywood action movies.

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jan 30, 2011)

Ok, sorry to come late to the party but I've only just seen the film on DVD.

If others have pointed out my observations again forgive.

Regarding the film itself I thought it was very good although there were a few plot problems which I could easily forgive given the overall feel.

The thing that struck me was how it reflected so well my own dreamscapes and dream within dream experiences. Uncannily 'lifelike'.

As to the ending, in my opinion it is a dream. The golden rule was that no one ahold ever get their hands on anothers token. If someone did they would learn it's properties and hence be able to make the invented dream world appear real.

However this is where the last scene fell down. If the top was the actual top it should fall over after the 'correct' time. But it would only be relavent if the top was spun by it's owner because he needs to see it fall. So spun in isolation the top is useless. The fact the token is not in the hero's possession is the real tell as this just shouldn't happen: however, it is and it doesn't  fall indicatiing that the grandfather has it and can control it.

So he is the dream master and he's in the hero' dream. So all that went before was a setup to convince the hero the return to the US was real and earned.

The major problem there is that only the hero and his wife know what they did and what kind of world they created and at what level. You can only manipulate my dreamworld if you know what I dream about and believe me I ain't telling anyone. Especially as Mrs Tein as forbidden me to divulge them.


----------



## Dave (Jan 30, 2011)

I really do like your idea that 'Reality' was actually only the Grandfather's dream. I've not seen that idea anywhere else and I can't fault your argument for it. It would mean that there were actually 6 dream levels and not 5. Unfortunately, I don't think it is what Christopher Nolan had in mind, at least not if this is really his handwritten map:
See Christopher Nolan's Handwritten Map Of The Inception Dream Levels
And a 5 level dream explanation is what most people describe, but I really like films that can be talked about like this forever and no one can really say, or are none the wiser.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jan 30, 2011)

Another aspect of the 'wrongness' of the return was the children appeared not to have aged at all despite his long absence.

My original thoughts on seeing the girl that the grandfather introduce was 

"Oh, hello, this is the the daughter"

However this didn't seem to pan out.

As I said I came late to the party. Your comments about the newness of my idea does seem to have been explored though because, after reading your post above, I discovered this :-

Dissecting 'Inception': Six Interpretations and Five Plot Holes - The Moviefone Blog

Which seems to highlight some of the misgivings I mentioned in my first post.

I have no doubt there will be a sequel. Too much was left untidy at the end IMO.

I wouldn't be surprised if the wife makes a reappearance in the next level up.

By this I mean this plot line gives all sorts of opportunities. It could easily end with a new born baby or some old guy who has just died.

Incidentally, and I may have mentioned this before, I'm becoming more convinced that this form of dream is the underlying argument for life after death.

As I mentioned above, in recent years, I have experienced this form of 'reality' in my own dreamscapes. That is I have begun having dreams where I live a completely different life. Waking and sleeping for forty or fifty years with all the mundane events one experiences in 'real life' only to wake and find it all a dream. I suspect that in those last gasping moments of death where the brain is rapidly loosing it's grip on reality there is the possibility of vast time lines of dream existence; the only difference being that at the end you don't wake up.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Jan 30, 2011)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Incidentally, and I may have mentioned this before, I'm becoming more convinced that this form of dream is the underlying argument for life after death.
> 
> As I mentioned above, in recent years, I have experienced this form of 'reality' in my own dreamscapes. That is I have begun having dreams where I live a completely different life. Waking and sleeping for forty or fifty years with all the mundane events one experiences in 'real life' only to wake and find it all a dream. I suspect that in those last gasping moments of death where the brain is rapidly loosing it's grip on reality there is the possibility of vast time lines of dream existence; the only difference being that at the end you don't wake up.


Unfortunately all of the growing body of evidence concerning the mind and the way it functions reinforces the case for this being inextricably linked to brain function: when the brain ceases to function, our life ends.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Jan 30, 2011)

A G W: Without doubt.

However, in those few minutes between the body ceasing to function and the brain actually dying (three to four minutes** so I'm told, which is also reputed to be the length of the average dream) there would perhaps, be time for for one last monster dream.

If a brain in such a state was subsequently revived, the mind/person might get the impression that it had in actual fact, experienced an afterlife state.

** I understand that hearing is one of the last senses to go. Which is why, if you are in the presence of someone who has just passed, you shouldn't bewail and scream at the loss, as this will be the last thing the dying person will experience.


----------



## J Riff (Mar 1, 2011)

Watched it twice. At the end- would prefer to think it was all just one dream, containing the other 5 or 6 levels, because A: explains any anomalies in plot, and 
B: too much trouble to try and figure out who's dreaming what!
 Good action movie no matter what else is actually supposed to be going on.
I had a top just like that, but haven't seen it for years...


----------



## soulsinging (Mar 1, 2011)

Connavar said:


> Its like watching Matrix but without ever writing about the fake world,what the machines was doing,why they needed the humans etc



If you think the world of the matrix made sense after the first movie, then I need better drugs.

[spoilers]

Inception is miles ahead of most movies in my book. I'm convinced that Cobb is still dreaming at the end... the identical look of his kids at an age where they'd change rapidly, the unexplained move of michael cane from france to the us, the way saito completely and conveniently (in the way only a dream agent can) erases a murder from his past... all hallmarks of a dream.

in fact... and here's my 2 cents... i think he has been in mal's dream the whole time... but i've had too much wine to explain this theory now.


----------



## biodroid (Mar 1, 2011)

soulsinging - my thoughts exactly, I also think:
[Spoilers]

That when they were in limbo, didn't Saito have his totem? Which as Arthur explained to Ariadne that if anyone else touches it it defeats the object of it's use, thats why it looked like it fell over at the end which means that he probably is in a dream because his totem is tainted so it will act untrue to whoever uses it now.

[Spoiler end]

I heard they might make a sequel or they might move it along to a tv series.


----------



## J Riff (Mar 1, 2011)

just to be contrary... 
I think it's deliberately confusing, to keep people talking about it.
The basic premise is as ridiculous as, say, Avatar, where no explanation is required for a lotta stuff.
 The minute you have 'dream inside a dream inside a dream' any old thing can happen, kinda takes any 'intellectual' edge off it pretty fast.
 I sure hope this doesn't spawn a raft of imitations due to its success.
I think that without the excellent special effects and action sequences, it would fall flat in about an hour.
 Watched it twice, enjoyed it- still not great enough for a sequel, let alone a string of TV knock-offs.
 Or is this just a dream I'm typing in?
 .


----------



## kebaboom (Mar 17, 2011)

I'm disappointed at the end of the story...didn't know whether he still dreaming or not...but whole story was good enough...the ideas are brilliant to change people mind...


----------



## biodroid (Mar 17, 2011)

I think he is planning a TV show or sequel to Inception


----------



## J Riff (Mar 18, 2011)

If there's ever been a plotline tailored for action, Inception is it. Anything can happen in a dream. I hope they go with that, and don't bother trying to explain the tech too too much.
 When you stop and think how silly it really is- a group of people running around with little dream-machine suitcases, falling asleep en masse, here there and anywhere...it would put one to sleep if it wasn't for_*-* FREIGHT TRAIN!...aieeeee***_


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Mar 18, 2011)

> Anthony G Williams:Unfortunately all of the growing body of evidence concerning the mind and the way it functions reinforces the case for this being inextricably linked to brain function: when the brain ceases to function, our life ends.


 
Undoubtedly so. 

However, given some of the dreams sequences I have experienced (each lasting three minutes approx in real time) in which the dream appear to me, the dreamer to last forty or fifty years. Now in those last four minutes of life (heart stops to brain death) who knows what the mind could get up to.

I speculate that if during those last minutes you are revived you might get the impression/belief of the possibility of a life after death. 

If you then went out and wrote a best seller, say in Greek or Hebrew; it might become the basis of something that would haunt the centuries till the end if time. 




J Riff said:


> just to be contrary...
> I think it's deliberately confusing, to keep people talking about it.
> The basic premise is as ridiculous as, say, Avatar, where no explanation is required for a lotta stuff.
> *The minute you have 'dream inside a dream inside a dream' *any old thing can happen, kinda takes any 'intellectual' edge off it pretty fast.
> ...


 

Not sure if your doubting the possibility.

I have this type of dream quite often: see above.


----------



## J Riff (Mar 18, 2011)

The dream world is real here, no fear, it's really real, actually really real in my mind. I don't go there anymore, thankfully. 
 Is it any more discomprehensible than a vampire, werewolf and ghost sharing an apartment? Or Barney? These are the stuffing of nightmares.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 1, 2011)

I watched _Inception_ on DVD yesterday evening and greatly enjoyed it. I also thought the ending was the correct one, mostly because it makes us wonders what is happening. One could say, I probably would, that this is the endings purpose.

I had a look on Wiki, where it quotes Nolan as saying that what is key is that Cobb isn't watching it; I take that as meaning that the inception - the one that makes Cobb believe he's no longer dreaming - has worked. So, clearly, I'm in the "he's still dreaming" camp.

I mostly agree with Doctor Crankenstein's analysis, but would add some other (linked) events that point to the frame story being a dream:

First is Saito's purchase of the airline. This is so convenient as to be ridiculous. Okay, the world seems to be one where a company owning half the world's energy supplies - if I recalled that correctly - is seen as acceptable, which while it may feed into various real-world (i.e. our world) conspiracy theories seems unlikely, at least as something publicly acknowledged. But even in such a world, Saito's purchase of the airline would be public knowledge, as it must be a major airline: Fischer's security would be all over a minor airline, which would defeat the object of buying it in the first place.
Fischer's travel plans are easily overturned. A company that controls half the world's energy supplies hasn't got a spare private plane? Really? I would have thought that there'd be at least two at the airport, one for the now-invalid Fischer, Sr., one for his son, and possibly one for use by other senior employees (such as Fischer, Jr.'s godparent).
Once they have to fly on a commercial flight, Fischer, Jr. gets just the one seat. He has just lost his father and he's now head of that huge corporation, but there is no-one on hand to deal with any problems. Okay, they could be in business class (or worse), but are they really going to be prevented from accessing the big boss for a whole ten hours? Again, they may not have to, but the inception team is working on the assumption that they have ten straight hours.
Where are Fischer, Jr.'s security detail? He has plenty of gun-toting security guards in his head, but there are none on the plane**.
Come to think of it, Fischer, Jr. is possibly the most important man on the planet. And yet in the so-called 1st-level dream, he's standing on a street corner in the rain waiting to hail a cab. For someone trained to be wary of dreams, why is their no immediate reaction? (And something triggered those gun-toting thugs; why not use that trigger to get a known projection to say: "This is a dream"?)
The reason none of the plot points I've mentioned make much sense is that they're the sort of think one gets only in fiction; oh, and in dreams.

So getting back to Nolan's idea of the ending: Cobb walks away from the totem because he is reconciled to living in that dream and wants so much to believe it's reality that he doesn't dare to look.


But as I said at the beginning: a really good film: action-packed _and_ thought-provoking. 




** - The same is true for Saito on the Bullet Train. Where are this important man's security detail? Or his family? Or his business functionaries?


----------



## Metryq (Apr 2, 2011)

I thought _Inception_ was a failure. Before I get into that, let's take a look at James P. Hogan's novel _Realtime Interrupt_, which may have been influential to both _Inception_ and _The Matrix_. (All these stories owe a debt to Plato's "allegory of the cave" in _The Republic_.)

_Realtime Interrupt_ tells the story of computer scientists attempting to design the first AI (artificial intelligence). They decide that a "top-down" (god-like) approach will not work because we do not yet know how sentience arose in ourselves. So they opt to teach a learning system through example. "Travel machines" (robots) with arms and eyes don't work very well because it is — again — a top-down approach figuring out how to teach a machine about the vast detail of the real world. So they build a virtual reality (VR) and "insert" real people into it. The volunteers are connected through a nerve induction system, rather than the crude, surgically implanted sockets seen in _The Matrix_. 

During the exercise, the real people (surrogates) go about their daily lives, while computer controlled bots attempt to learn by the example. Time can be greatly compressed within the VR because the computer controls the nerve induction feedback. Real world researchers have found sensory deprivation tanks can distort a user's time sense when all cues to the outside world are removed. (This acceleration/deceleration of time was also used in Frederik Pohl's _Man Plus_, a story about a cyborg outfitted to live on Mars. The subject has been so heavily modified and all his senses moderated by a computer that he is essentially living in a VR, even as he moves about the real world.)

The researchers in _Realtime Interrupt_ considered a computer induced amnesia to cover the seam between reality and VR, assuming the surrogates would behave more truthfully if they thought the VR was the real world. Although the idea was rejected, a powerful faction outside the VR has their own agenda and takes the entire project — and its surrogates — hostage. The surrogates then "live" a subjective 12 years inside the VR before the "Neo" of the story recalls his "back door" into the system (like the totems in _Inception_), thus giving him complete control over the VR. (Analogous to the scene in _The Matrix_ where Neo "flexes his muscles" and turns the laws of physics upside-down.)

_The Matrix_ had lots of plot holes: the machines using humans as a thermal and chemical energy source when they already have "a type of fusion" is absurd. Granting that, brainless vegetables would not need the additional maintenance of a VR. I can overlook these faults, as _The Matrix_ had a stylish flair that made up the difference. I loved Agent Smith's peculiar lilt, and sight gags like putting the impersonal dark glasses back on while interrogating Neo. (Essentially saying, "Okay, no more Mr. Nice Guy.")

The similarities to _Realtime Interrupt_ are obvious, including the agents/bots with their machine-like behavior, and the time distortion with the "bullet time" effect. (See timetrack.com) And giving people new skills as easily as one copies a computer file may have been inspired by Hogan's _The Multiplex Man_, in which the technique was the central theme.

_Inception_ failed on many counts. I agree with those who say the movie was just too "clever" for its own good, much like the gimmicky _Memento_ (perfect for an audience with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). Our protagonists were supposed to be dream-diving, as in _Dreamscape_, or _Paprika_ (which director Nolan acknowledged as an inspiration). But dreams don't need VR architects, nor do dreams have faulty details, like the rug in the opening scenes. _Realtime Interrupt_ featured such a flaw when one of the characters spontaneously decides to dig a hole. Inside the hole he found a virtual nothingness — a black absence of anything. As he double-takes, the computer has time to insert the expected subsurface soil and roots. Ergo, _Inception_ "pulled the rug" out from under its basic premise, a dreamworld.

Explaining the agents/bots of the _Inception_ "dreamworld" as reacting to foreigners like white corpuscles was too forced and pretentious. But it was added to explain away all the action movie explosions and fire fighting later.

_Inception_ was also inconsistent. We are told that the Moro reflex, or "startle reflex" is used to wake up a dreamer. The hotel dream world went into freefall because the dreamers one level up were falling off a bridge. So why was the whole elevator stunt necessary? The _dreamers_ falling off the bridge should have been enough to dissolve the hotel dream world. (In other words, it was not the hotel world people that needed to be startled awake.)

Ultimately, the film failed its title, too. We are told that an idea must be planted in Fischer Jr's head so seamlessly that he thought it was his own. Yet all the team really did was double-talk him into breaking up his empire. As Ursa Major and others pointed out, the _Mission: Impossible_ team did this on a weekly basis with less fanfare. And Mal also died of an obsession, not some idea she thought she'd hatched herself. 

In short, _Inception_ featured a lot of standard issue action film chases and explosions with a little irrational philosophy cotton candy for the brain.

(And what was that whole "rosebud" scene with the pinwheel in the vault? It was just as anti-climactic when _Citizen Kane_ pulled that stunt.)


----------



## Daezarkian (Apr 3, 2011)

I enjoyed _Inception_ for what it was: a heist film with a brain.  It was _Mission: Impossible_in the mind, with a lot of cool concepts, a bit of mystery, and more than its share of eye-dropping set pieces.  It had more brains than the average thriller, and yet manages to satisfy on both a visceral and an intellectual level.  Does it have its flaws?  Yes.  Is it too smart for its own good?  Probably (and that's one of Nolan's minor flaws: he tries to outsmart himself with each film).

But is it well acted?  Does the plot hold together enough for you to enjoy it while you're watching it?  Most importantly, is it just tremendously entertaining?  

Hell yes.  And at the end of the day, that's all I want a film to be.


----------



## Leadbelly (Apr 9, 2011)

I watched Inception for the first time yesterday, I'm a tad slow on the uptake generally and this of course was no exception. I struggled to get my head around it from the off, but, realising this film deserved a bit more effort than the standard action pulp I continued watching and after a while it began to make sense(kinda) I'm still a little vague on the "Mal" thread, From what I understand she is truely dead, and only exists in Coobs dream state, created by his unconsious mind out of gilt? and that would explain why she is constantly trying to sabotage Cobb's efforts? Cobb's way of punishing himself, as we discover that he was ultimately responsible for her death?
The one thing I don't understand with the Mal - Cobb thing, is why didn't She/He spin the top to prove they where back in reality? And why did they both use the same Totem?


----------



## Lenny (Apr 9, 2011)

If I may throw my own thoughts into the fray in answer to a couple of things:



Metryq said:


> Our protagonists were supposed to be dream-diving, as in _Dreamscape_, or _Paprika_ (which director Nolan acknowledged as an inspiration). But dreams don't need VR architects, nor do dreams have faulty details, like the rug in the opening scenes.



To me, it does make some kind of sense. If someone is dreaming on their own, then yes, there's no need for an architect. Get a bunch of different minds together, however, and I can imagine that if the world was left to them, the strongest would win out over the others. The use of the architect is to design a shared dream world. Don't forget that, in the Inception universe, shared dreaming is a military invention used for the training of soldier - they'd have needed a way to be able to control the environments they put the soldiers in.



> _Inception_ was also inconsistent. We are told that the Moro reflex, or "startle reflex" is used to wake up a dreamer. The hotel dream world went into freefall because the dreamers one level up were falling off a bridge. So why was the whole elevator stunt necessary? The _dreamers_ falling off the bridge should have been enough to dissolve the hotel dream world. (In other words, it was not the hotel world people that needed to be startled awake.)



This is explained in the film - the sedative used by Yusuf has to be incredibly powerful to allow for the complexity, and depths, of the shared dreams - which implies that the sedative travels down the layers with the dreamers (and, I believe, is backed up with the fact that the time that can be spent at each depth is exponential at an alarming rate - months and years rather than hours and days). The standard "kick", that sense of falling, isn't enough, so they need something stronger, like an explosion taking away the floor, like a lift crashing down and flinging you up, like a van hitting an expanse of water after a high fall. The riding the kick was simply a fancy way of stringing it all together for the sake of drama (and, to some extent, to meet the ten hour deadline).



Leadbelly said:


> I watched Inception for the first time yesterday, I'm a tad slow on the uptake generally and this of course was no exception. I struggled to get my head around it from the off, but, realising this film deserved a bit more effort than the standard action pulp I continued watching and after a while it began to make sense(kinda) I'm still a little vague on the "Mal" thread, From what I understand she is truely dead, and only exists in Coobs dream state, created by his unconsious mind out of gilt? and that would explain why she is constantly trying to sabotage Cobb's efforts? Cobb's way of punishing himself, as we discover that he was ultimately responsible for her death?
> 
> The one thing I don't understand with the Mal - Cobb thing, is why didn't She/He spin the top to prove they where back in reality? And why did they both use the same Totem?



More or less, yes - Mal was kept 'alive' in Cobb's mind because she starred in a number of his regrets. I think, in the film, it's mentioned that he doesn't want to forget them (which gives us the third meaning to the title - throughout the film, a few characters say to Cobb that he doesn't want to die an old man "filled with regrets" - something that goes all the way down to limbo and comes back up to change him).

We see a scene of Cobb in his shared limbo with Mal, spinning the top and putting it back in the safe to show her that she's in a dream. What he doesn't realise is that this idea rears its head back at the top level and, ultimately, kills her.

As for the totem, I don't think we ever actually see Cobb's original totem. The spinning top is Mal's, which I assume he's using because of the sentimental value.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 10, 2011)

Lenny said:


> The use of the architect is to design a shared dream world... they'd have needed a way to be able to control the environments they put the soldiers in.



That's.
Not.
Dreaming.

That is called VR—virtual reality. And Hogan touched on this detail in _Realtime Interrupt_, too. The virtual worlds were so detailed that they'd bog down the computer. So rather than try to photograph and "map" an entire real city into the VR, the programmers learned how to "suggest" detail by stimulating common concepts.



> Get a bunch of different minds together, however, and I can imagine that if the world was left to them, the strongest would win out over the others.



If you could truly partake in someone else's dream, then you would already be "surrendering" to their world. But dreams are involuntary. Current science has yet to nail down exactly what dreams are and where in the brain they originate. Dreams seem to be a "sorting and filing" system for memories and experiences.

What the team in _Inception_ was doing was more akin to hypnosis and the planting of a post-hynoptic suggestion. The _highly structured form_ of the experience makes it a kind of virtual reality and not a dream.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 10, 2011)

I enjoyed Inception but it's not the greatest movie ever made. In my opinion, all that Nolan has done is to take a trap that many writers starting out fall into (_in the end it was all a dream_) and camouflaged its true nature by multi-layering it. 

It also created the perfect canvas for a heist movie that left room for manouver if needed by using the dream nature of it to bend the laws of physics.

Was Cobb dreaming in the end? Does it really matter? All that matters is that you enjoyed it (or not). Let's face it, we're all meant to be left wondering.


----------



## Dave (Apr 10, 2011)

I agree wholeheartedly with Foxbat and it is never good to nitpick these things too deeply. 

If you still want to though, the taking of very strong sedatives taken would tend to preclude dreaming anyway. I read on BBC News a few weeks ago that Doctors now think that anaesthesia is more like a self-induced coma than sleeping, and are actively studying patients waking from anaesthetics in order to better understand those waking from comas. In a coma the brain functions completely shut down.

Vividly recalled dreams mostly occur during REM sleep. REM sleep in adult humans typically occupies 20–25% of total sleep and is physiologically different from the other phases of sleep. It is during REM sleep that the "sorting and filling" of "memories and experiences" mentioned by Metryq takes place and the brain is far from shut down during this period.

The only problem with that is that I am quite sure that I remember a reoccurring dream I would have as a child under general anaesthetic at the dentists involving a long staircase. So maybe it just depends on the strength of the anaesthetic.


----------



## Kierkegaurdian (Apr 14, 2011)

*Did the Inception Fail?*

So, the point of the "inception" in the film was to get Fischer to break up his father's company.  However, it is never mentioned whether he even has the power to do so.  

In the dream sequences, they convince him to break the company up by telling him about another will, that gave him power, and the chance to "create something for himself."  

However, the second will was an invention of Cobb and co., and whether or not such a will existed in the real world or not is not made clear.  Thus, it seems possible that while the inception might have been a success, the end result (breaking up of the company) might not have happened, since Fischer may never have had the power to break up the company to begin with. 

It is implied that the existing (primary) will (the one that had been filed at the law firm) did NOT give Fischer the power to break the company up.  When he and Browning are chained up, Fischer seems to imply that the original will was different than the imaginary second will in that the latter gave him the power to break up the company, while the former did NOT.

Anyone see my confusion here?

Thoughts?

(BTW, Inception is one of my favorite recent films!)


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 14, 2011)

*Re: Did the Inception Fail?*

As someone who believes that Cobb is still dreaming at the conclusion of the film, I feel that there is no need for the "foreground" inception to work, because the (real) inception, the one that convinces him that he has woken up, has worked. (In fact, the very lack of interest in whether the foreground inception works helps convince me that Cobb is still dreaming.)

Consider the situation: Mr Saito agrees that he will pull the necessary strings to allow Cobb to enter the US with no possibility of arrest; he pre-agrees this even though he knows he will have no idea how Fischer, Jr. will react to the inception, to the extent that there is little Fischer, Jr. can do on (and from) the plane to implement what Mr Saito wants. What it all seems to be is wish fulfilment on Cobb's part, with enough barriers in the way to make it look like an achievement, although it is not; in fact, Cobb and his imaginary friends have to overcome just enough resistance to let Cobb believe he has won something worthwhile, even though he never leaves his own head.

The whole plot is Cobb's mind reconciling him to his fate: an imaginary life with the imaginary versions of his children.


----------



## chopper (Apr 14, 2011)

my brain hurrrrts. 

but i liked it.


----------



## blacknorth (Apr 14, 2011)

I thought it was the most utter tosh.


----------



## biodroid (Apr 15, 2011)

You probably did not understand the whole concept of what was happening. I agree it is probably the most complex movie I have ever seen but it made sense to me from the first minute.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 15, 2011)

biodroid said:


> You probably did not understand the whole concept of what was happening.



Non sequitur. I understood it perfectly well (my review above), yet did not like the movie either.


----------



## biodroid (Apr 15, 2011)

Ok, but it's still only a movie based on fiction. I liked it moderately the first time but the second time just blew me away even more, it probably requires more than one viewing to get the full picture. I know I needed another look at it and I still don't fully understand the whole thing yet.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 15, 2011)

biodroid said:


> I know I needed another look at it and I still don't fully understand the whole thing yet.



And that is the real beauty of art. An artist has something inside which he expresses in "ambiguous," poetic terms. Thus, a piece may end up saying more than the artist intended, as people with different knowledge, experience, and temperament evaluate the work in different ways. 

Come back to the movie in 10 or 20 years and you may see things that you do not see now. You will be a "different person" through experience, and the movie may revive old thoughts for new examination.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 26, 2011)

Metryq said:


> Come back to the movie in 10 or 20 years and you may see things that you do not see now. You will be a "different person" through experience, and the movie may revive old thoughts for new examination.


This is why I have the DVD.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 26, 2011)

Ursa major said:


> This is why I have the DVD.


Ten years, maybe - but I'd be surprised if there's still a machine around to play a DVD in 20 years


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 26, 2011)

To be fair, I was thinking of watching it again rather sooner than that.



(And it isn't only machines that cease to work over longish timescales. )


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Apr 26, 2011)

Ursa major said:


> (And it isn't only machines that cease to work over longish timescales. )


Indeed - I suspect that DVDs might last longer than I will!


----------



## biodroid (Apr 26, 2011)

Ursa major said:


> This is why I have the DVD.


 
Blu-ray is better


----------



## Metryq (Apr 26, 2011)

biodroid said:


> Blu-ray is better



Optical media are _so_ 2006.


----------



## biodroid (Apr 27, 2011)

Metryq said:


> Optical media are _so_ 2006.


 
I guess so, can't they just beam it directly into my mind?


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 27, 2011)

* Expects some skullpluggery.... *


----------



## natalienoo (Apr 30, 2011)

Checked this one out for the first time last night.  I must say I enjoyed it immensely, although this could be something to do with the fact that I haven't watched a film for a long time.
I loved the concept, and the way it was portrayed was suggestive enough without being too mind-intensive.  It's nice to see DiCaprio continuing to take good film roles (although I still hesitate in praising him every time I think of Titanic, which I really.. really disliked).  But personal preference and forgive and forget, ey?  It was nearly 15 years ago.

Casting in general was great, the editing was beautifully finished.  Nothing groundbreaking, but a good-looking movie.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 12, 2016)

Just watched this again - third time now, I think. Still a very good and thought provoking film. And once you have the idea that Cob is still in a dream, so many different lines stand out as reinforcing it.


----------

