'Inception' Mega Thread *SPOILERS FROM POST 292 ONWARDS*

overeager

Can anyone explain this minor thing which annoyed me?

Eames mimics Browning in the hostage scene in the first dream. In the next level in the hotel room Browning is still doing their bidding yet Eames is there in the room? Why do they need to mimic somebody in the first level but in the second, this (projection?) does what he is told?

]

RuggieBear

maquiladora wrote: »

Really? A dream within a dream within a dream (perhaps all within yet another dream) where each level is played out concurrently even though each level is running at longer lengths of time than the previous level & barely touches of the overaching 'reality' of the waking world is 'rather straightforward' to you?

erm yeah. it does not require any major intellectual effort to follow each layer imo.

Just as a comparison, i found Memento incredibly clever and rewarded the viewer for the hard thinking/rethinking and i'm still trying to get my head round the end of Primer,last 20mins or so. (well that bits a lie...i've given up trying)

Renn

All this greyed out spoiler business is getting on my nerves

krudler

RuggieBear wrote: »

erm yeah. it does not require any major intellectual effort to follow each layer imo.

Just as a comparison, i found Memento incredibly clever and rewarded the viewer for the hard thinking/rethinking and i'm still trying to get my head round the end of Primer,last 20mins or so. (well that bits a lie...i've given up trying)

Depends on if you're taking whats being presented to you at face value or reading something deeper into it. The idea that Cobb is the one being incepted, not Fischer is a fascinating one, and it opens up a loadof new questions.

krudler

Renn wrote: »

All this greyed out spoiler business is getting on my nerves

stay out of the thread then :pac: or just go see the movie.

opr

Renn wrote: »

Enjoyed the score, the concept was a little bit meh (Nolan obviously realised half way through writing this that the whole dream/dying thing might not work), CGI was meh at times (just annoying when I know there's a bloody green screen being used) and the snow scene was truly tedious. Overall a 6 or 7.

Myabe you should watch a little closer if you see it again. Nolan has never been a fan of CGI, always adamant about using real stunts, sets, and in-camera tricks. You'd be surprised at how little of the visuals are created with CGI.

The Zero gravity for example was created entirely on a physical set, with no CGI added. Nolan puts the actors through a hardcore regime with intense training , instead of pitting them against a massive green screen.

As absurd as the hallway fight sequence looks, the fact that it is done in the real world and not with CGI make it all the more jaw dropping.

Nolan wrote:

“It was like some incredible torture device; we thrashed Joseph for weeks. But in the end we looked at the footage, and it looks unlike anything any of us has seen before. The rhythm of it is unique, and when you watch it, even if you know how it was done, it confuses your perceptions. It’s unsettling in a wonderful way…we want an extraordinary thing that happens in an ordinary way. That’s always been the goal.”

Of course he used CGI to create things that just can't be done otherwise but when possible he makes every effort to use alternatives.

Opr

Renn

krudler wrote: »

stay out of the thread then :pac: or just go see the movie.

Well I've seen the movie but it's bloody irritating having to read part sentences and then highlight other parts.

Renn

opr wrote: »

Myabe you should watch a little closer if you see it again. Nolan has never been a fan of CGI, always adamant about using real stunts, sets, and in-camera tricks. You'd be surprised at how little of the visuals are created with CGI.

Oh I know that but he still uses some in his movies. And when he does, it looks pretty poor imo.

don ramo

Michael 09 wrote: »

It was a genuine question, thanks for the answer...

I said that's how it worked and I was told that I was wrong!!

thanks again

im not spoiler taggin this, so read at your own peril if you havent seen it, plus its my view on what i saw, i stand open to corection

it was explained fairly well i thought,

at the start when they came out of the dream, saito said this is my dream you have no control here, and when everyone burst in the door they attacked the guy who betrayed them later, he was the "architect",

the architects build the world, everything that is inanimate in the dream is crated by this person, and the whole dream takes place inside the architects head, not the subjects head, the subject is the person who populates that dream, and the more the subject notices problems with-in the dream the more defensive he becomes and will try and attack the architect, the subjects he poplulated the dream with not him specifically,

the architect was ellen page, that whole dream took place inside her head,

opr

Renn wrote: »

Oh I know that but he still uses some in his movies. And when he does, it looks pretty poor imo.

Actually your the first person I have ever seen level this complaint at Nolan in regards to this film.

Opr

krudler

opr wrote: »

Myabe you should watch a little closer if you see it again. Nolan has never been a fan of CGI, always adamant about using real stunts, sets, and in-camera tricks. You'd be surprised at how little of the visuals are created with CGI.

The Zero gravity for example was was created entirely on a physical set, with no CGI added. Nolan put the actors through a hardcore regime with intense training , instead of pitting them against a massive green screen.

As absurd as the hallway fight sequence looks, the fact that it is done in the real world and not with CGI make it all the more jaw dropping.



Of course he used CGI to create things that just can't be done otherwise but when possible he makes every effort to use alternatives.

Opr

Brief look at some of the sequences there, I was amazed to see the elevator shaft was a physical set, that was something I was certain was a cgi background.

Its annoying when people say the cgi wasnt that groundbreaking, the fact you dont notice it when it is or isnt computer effects is the best part.

Renn

opr wrote: »

Actually your the first person I have ever seen level this complaint at Nolan in regards to this film.

Opr

Maybe I'm just being anal about it but I just hate when I know a green screen is being used. I noticed it in TDK and I noticed it again last night when I was watching Inception. Can't help it!

opr

Came across this earlier in some review and hadn't seen it before. Its the first short Nolan did called Doodlebug.

Opr

Liathroidi Dana

overeager wrote: »

Can anyone explain this minor thing which annoyed me?

Eames mimics Browning in the hostage scene in the first dream. In the next level in the hotel room Browning is still doing their bidding yet Eames is there in the room? Why do they need to mimic somebody in the first level but in the second, this (projection?) does what he is told?

]

Because they planted a little seed in Fischers mind, that Browning had betrayed him. So because the Browning in the second level was just a projection, and was created by fischers mind. So his mind came to the conclusion that he had been betrayed, and therefore the projection of Browning followed what his mind thought.

Its the little stuff Like this that made the movie for me.

krudler

Renn wrote: »

Maybe I'm just being anal about it but I just hate when I know a green screen is being used. I noticed it in TDK and I noticed it again last night when I was watching Inception. Can't help it!

What scene? I didnt spot anything obvious really.

opr

krudler wrote: »

What scene? I didnt spot anything obvious really.

That youtube video you posted shows some of the depths he went to in creating real scenes, wow!

Opr

krudler

opr wrote: »

That youtube video you posted shows some of the depths he went to in creating real scenes, wow!

Opr

Indeed, I thought the rotating hallway fight was done with cgi, wirework and some camera trickery, nope, they just rotated a bloody big set :pac:

don ramo

krudler wrote: »

Indeed, I thought the rotating hallway fight was done with cgi, wirework and some camera trickery, nope, they just rotated a bloody big set :pac:

ya and the hugh restaurant set, suppose it better to build especially if you want to make defying gravtity look good,

i dont understand how they made this film for $160 mill and nolan avoided as much CGI as possible, you would think building sets and whatnot would run the cost up, then you see the likes of ironman2 costing $200 mill, a film that is probaly 70-85% CGI, and has no real superstar actors, baffles the mind the costs of some films

johnny_ultimate

Alright guys, since a few of you seem to be objecting to spoiler tags, I guess we'll allow non tagged spoilers from here onwards. If anyone has any objections to this let me know

Only read on if you're prepared to read major plot points!

krudler

don ramo wrote: »

ya and the hugh restaurant set, suppose it better to build especially if you want to make defying gravtity look good,

i dont understand how they made this film for $160 mill and nolan avoided as much CGI as possible, you would think building sets and whatnot would run the cost up, then you see the likes of ironman2 costing $200 mill, a film that is probaly 70-85% CGI, and has no real superstar actors, baffles the mind the costs of some films

IM2 was shot on location in Monaco though, cant be cheap to shoot that. It does baffle me how stuff like the Star Wars prequels cost in the 100's of millions, and look completely plastic and fake thanks to all the green screen, then Nolan takes a 160 mil budget, makes a movie that looks like it cost twice that, and still keeps it feeling real.

maquiladora

Mark Kermode, who absolutely loved the film, has made a very interesting point about Inception.

Here is a Hollywood "summer blockbuster" that is smart, complex, multi-layered and challenges the viewer to think instead of just graze popcorn and watch cliched, dumbed down shovelvision.

If Inception is a big hit at the box office then this might just change things in Hollywood. The paying public will expect more from the genre now & if the studios see that a smart blockbuster can make big money then we could see much higher quality big budget movies in the future...

Renn

Judging by the bloody groans I heard from 90% of the people at the screening I was at, I'd disagree with Kermode there.

krudler

Renn wrote: »

Judging by the bloody groans I heard from 90% of the people at the screening I was at, I'd disagree with Kermode there.

Thats because the majority of people dont like ambiguous endings, but if life has taught me anything, its that the majority of people are idiots. They want every explained, nicely wrapped up and maybe have a happy montage at the end, cant be thinking for themselves, god no.

maquiladora

Renn wrote: »

Judging by the bloody groans I heard from 90% of the people at the screening I was at, I'd disagree with Kermode there.

Oh I did see 2 people walk out of the screening I was at, I know it's not for everybody and I can see why some people would not like it at all, but I think the vast majority of people liked the movie. I mean, it's 9.4 on IMDB, 84% fresh on RT, user score of 8.2 on Metacritic and if you look at random twitter comments the vast majority are overwhelmingly positive.

Rabidlamb

krudler wrote: »

Thats because the majority of people dont like ambiguous endings, but if life has taught me anything, its that the majority of people are idiots. They want every explained, nicely wrapped up and maybe have a happy montage at the end, cant be thinking for themselves, god no.

And an Aerosmith song, lighters waving in the air.

don ramo

i thought it was funny at the end, when the totem wobbled and it cut out, about half the cinema including myself left out a little chuckle:D, that happen to anyone else

Mark Hamill

krudler wrote: »

Thats because the majority of people dont like ambiguous endings, but if life has taught me anything, its that the majority of people are idiots. They want every explained, nicely wrapped up and maybe have a happy montage at the end, cant be thinking for themselves, god no.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a story to have an ending. Anyone can make up some interesting situation, populate it with characters and then have it go nowhere (see Lost). I personally hate amibiguity in the plot points of a story, as it screams to me of a director/writer either too inept or unsure to attach a definite ending to them. That said, I dont think that the ending was ambiguous, it just wasn't spelled out. To me, there where enough clues as to what the ending was supposed to be, Nolan just decided to let the audience figure it out.

Wasnt mad about this film, i was expecting alot more. Visually in places it looked great.In terms of gun fights , i really saw nothing new. It just didnt do it for me.
Some very strong acting but nothing stood out.

PirateShampoo

I personally enjoyed the film, i wouldnt say it was great but it entertained me. The gf how ever fell asleep halfway through.

Risteard

Saw the film last night and I really liked it. One of the best films I've seen in a while. Now, I don't critically appraise films and go into various details but I thought it had a great storyline and the ending was well done IMO. It lets the viewer believe what they think happened.

FWIW I think it's reality as it looked like it was about to topple.