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

A Primal Nut

duckworth wrote: »

You know there's something up with the script when every character has to stop every 15 minutes and explain what is happening - that is bad screenwriting!!

No its not - its a complicated storyline that needed explaining. The action is secondary to the plot which is important.

Its the opposite of most cliched action films where you can predict everything that happens and thus they don't need to spend so much time on explaining and spend more time on the action. If you prefer those kind of predictable easy to follow lots of explosions films there are plenty of other films you can watch. If you prefer something thats interesting and complex, where the fun is more in the explanations than the action, than Inception is better. But just because its different to cliched action films in that there is lots of explanation; doesn't make it bad screenwriting.

As for character depth, Cobb's background was explained and that was enough.

clived2

krudler wrote: »

So you basically dont like Neo in the Matrix either? same thing. hes the expositionary character, most movies have one.

Exactly ....

* at some computor somewhere duckworth scrambles his browser to google and find what inception was really all about*

Dont bother responding to him anymore, he doesnt understand the film whatsoever, maybe he enlighten us with something he read in a few minutes

Greyfox

Really superb concept, fantastic film. Sadly it's very rare these days to get to see a film that requires a little bit of brainpower like this, for the sake of the film industry thank god this film is getting the credit it genuinely deserves

duckworth

There's too many people disagreeing with me to answer everybody, so I'll say this:

- Most people here keep referring back to the Matrix - I only referenced this film because it had a similar premise to Inception. I don't think it is a good film.

- If you think every film ever made has an Ellen Page-style character purely there for explanations, then you need to watch better films. Stanley Kubrick, who Nolan fans keep comparing their poster-boy to, has never had such a character in any of films (off the top of my head).

-Yes I do have a problem with Nolan. I don't like his films, except Memento. There's nothing wrong with that. I've made that clear from the beginning.

-Some of the action pieces were very good - particularly the rotating room fight scene. I enjoyed some of this film.

-Some of the action bits were very boring - all the action scenes in the snow were extremely tiresome.

-And lastly, Tom Hardy has very poor diction.

That is all.

krudler

I dont understand the hate tbh, here comes the first genuinely fresh concept movie in ages, and people are whinging that its "too convoluted" well better that than yet another no brain, cgi laden action sh1tfest surely? Its only as convoluted as you want it to be, its either a straight action/thriller with a sci-fi concept or its something much deeper, whichever way you want to look at it. Now I like dumb action movies as much as the next person , I thought the A-Team was a load of dumb fun, but because it knew it was only trying to be exactly that and nothing more.

clived2

duckworth wrote: »

There's too many people disagreeing with me to answer everybody, so I'll say this:

- Most people here keep referring back to the Matrix - I only referenced this film because it had a similar premise to Inception. I don't think it is a good film.

- If you think every film ever made has an Ellen Page-style character purely there for explanations, then you need to watch better films. Stanley Kubrick, who Nolan fans keep comparing their poster-boy to, has never had such a character in any of films (off the top of my head).

-Yes I do have a problem with Nolan. I don't like his films, except Memento. There's nothing wrong with that. I've made that clear from the beginning

-Some of the action pieces were very good - particularly the rotating room fight scene. I enjoyed some of this film.

-Some of the action bits were very boring - all the action scenes in the snow were extremely tiresome.

-And lastly, Tom Hardy has very poor diction.

That is all.

I glad you admitted you kinda liked the film, and yes the characters were poor, You failed to grasp the ideas yet laugh when they are explained to you

krudler

duckworth wrote: »

There's too many people disagreeing with me to answer everybody, so I'll say this:

- Most people here keep referring back to the Matrix - I only referenced this film because it had a similar premise to Inception. I don't think it is a good film.

- If you think every film ever made has an Ellen Page-style character purely there for explanations, then you need to watch better films. Stanley Kubrick, who Nolan fans keep comparing their poster-boy to, has never had such a character in any of films (off the top of my head).

-Yes I do have a problem with Nolan. I don't like his films, except Memento. There's nothing wrong with that. I've made that clear from the beginning.

-Some of the action pieces were very good - particularly the rotating room fight scene. I enjoyed some of this film.

-Some of the action bits were very boring - all the action scenes in the snow were extremely tiresome.

-And lastly, Tom Hardy has very poor diction.

That is all.

the fiend.

Mickeroo

duckworth wrote: »

- Most people here keep referring back to the Matrix - I only referenced this film because it had a similar premise to Inception. I don't think it is a good film.

In terms of sci-fi action movies its a classic, and thats not a matter of opinion it's a fact, it can't realistically be called a bad movie. I didn't particularly like Apocolaypse Now but i would never refer to it as a bad movie.

Renn

I might not totally agree with everything duckworth is saying but he's coming across much better than the fanboys here.

krudler

Renn wrote: »

I might not totally agree with everything duckworth is saying but he's coming across much better than the fanboys here.

Fanboy implies that Nolan can do no wrong, I didnt like Memento at all, and Insomnia is his weakest movie but even thats a good little thriller. Both Batman movies have plotholes and pacing issues, and so does Inception, but I still enjoyed all of them. He's becoming one of my favourite directors so yeah I'm a fan of his, but certainly not a fanboy. I'm a massive Steven Spielberg fan and I'd be the first to point out the flaws with his recent output. fanboy is just a lazy argument tbh.

Renn

I'm not arguing, just laughing at it all.

FUNKY LOVER

anyone explain how they had the suitcase whick works the magic was pyhsically in each dream?

Mickeroo

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

anyone explain how they had the suitcase whick works the magic was pyhsically in each dream?

Guess they dreamt it, like Tom Hardy's grenade launcher.

mewso

Loved this film I must say. One thing that bugged me but maybe I got it wrong. When the van went through the barrier and started it's fall towards the water DiCaprio says something along the lines that it will take 10 seconds to hit the water which equates to 2 minutes in level 2 (Levitts hotel dream). In this apparent 2 minutes Gordon-Levitt grabs the bombs from the room underneath where the rest of the team are dreaming, floats back upstairs, winds them all up together, drags them to an elevator, places bombs and detonates them at specific times. All in 2 minutes his time..?

FUNKY LOVER

Mickeroo wrote: »

Guess they dreamt it, like Tom Hardy's grenade launcher.

but this is what keeps the whole dream thing going,and is worked from the real world,how can it be in the dreamworld hmmm.

Mickeroo

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

but this is what keeps the whole dream thing going,and is worked from the real world,how can it be in the dreamworld hmmm.

well in the dream world a dreamt up gun will kill you, just like a dreamt up one of them will put you to sleep and make you dream.

ChuckNorrisgod

why ruin the film for everyone else

Mickeroo

ChuckNorrisgod wrote: »

why ruin the film for everyone else

sorry man, it says in the thread title spoilers from thread 292 onwards, we were given the green light not to use spoiler tags

Renn

All the hype about this Chuck Norris guy and he can't even read.

Handsome Bob

Mickeroo wrote: »

sorry man, it says in the thread title spoilers from thread 292 onwards, we were given the green light not to use spoiler tags

Don't say sorry, the title is as plain as day.

mewso

If people don't see in the thread title that spoilers are now allowed then they probably won't understand or like Inception.

krudler

Renn wrote: »

All the hype about this Chuck Norris guy and he can't even read.

post.
of.
the.
day.

krudler

ChuckNorrisgod wrote: »

why ruin the film for everyone else

why enter a thread with SPOILERS in the title then give out about.....spoilers?

sprinkles

Renn wrote: »

I might not totally agree with everything duckworth is saying but he's coming across much better than the fanboys here.

Who's being a fanboy? Honest question as I thought this thread was quite balanced and merely people expressing their views and most just posing theories on the film's many talking points. The only biased opinion I have seen is Duckworths, he seems to really hate the film for no "good" reason. Each to their own and all that.

Renn

sprinkles wrote: »

Who's being a fanboy? Honest question as I thought this thread was quite balanced and merely people expressing their views and most just posing theories on the film's many talking points. The only biased opinion I have seen is Duckworths, he seems to really hate the film for no "good" reason. Each to their own and all that.

Ah I'm not being entirely serious here. It's more to do with those saying watch some so called 'dumb' movie if you didn't like Inception. Don't mind me!

krudler

I love dumb movies but I like to think about stuff at times as well so Inception fits that mould nicely.

Mark Hamill

FUNKY LOVER wrote: »

but this is what keeps the whole dream thing going,and is worked from the real world,how can it be in the dreamworld hmmm.

Its not in the dream world. What happens is that things in the dream world will act on you how you (subconsciously) expect them to act. So when you get shot in the leg, it hurts, when you get shot in the head, you die (which normally makes you wake up). The dream machine in the real world puts you into a dream state, so when presented with one in the dream world, you subconsciously expect it to put you into a dreamstate (it actually ends up putting you into a deeper dream state, because you are already in one).

sprinkles

Sad Professor wrote: »

But won't killing yourself in Limbo only work if the sedative is wearing off? I assume Cobb and Mal just waited the sedative out and when enough time had passed laid down in front of the train. This is why it was essential that they both hold on to the idea that Limbo wasn't real.

Fair point. Mal and Cobb were just using the normal drugs though, and not the sedative that was used in the Fischer heist so it wouldn't have been as strong, thus making it easier to wake up.

Sad Professor wrote: »

And if only an upper-level kick is required to get back to the previous level, then Ariadne jumping is indeed a problem.

I think the upper level kick only works on levels that aren't limbo. You need to kill yourself in Limbo to move upwards. Ariadne jumps, not to initiate a kick but to actually kill herself, I'm basing this on the fact Cobb and Mal killed themselves in Limbo rather than jumping off a bridge.

Sad Professor wrote: »

Also, why does Eames blow up the snow fortress for the sake of two people? Why didn't he just kick them out the window? They hadn't anticipated they would need another kick anyway. Can anyone remember if he rigged the explosives before or after Cobb and Ariadne went under? Or was there another reason for him blowing it up?

He rigged them before Cobb and Ariadne went under iirc. That is a bit puzzling, not sure why he'd need to blow the place up unless he needed to initiate a kick - doesn't sit well with my theory at all

Sad Professor wrote: »

The kicks needing to be synced makes sense to me as it would also explain why the van rolling over didn't wake them up.

I dunno though, maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe you're not

blue_steel

Quazzie wrote: »

Didn't get it eh?

No bother. Try Eclipse next time

Je-Sus-Christ. People are allowed to criticise. Not everyone has to love the movie.
I enjoyed it but it was a far from a classic. Anyone who thinks Inception is in the same ball park as 2001 is, well forgive me, an idiot. It was an entertaining movie but let me ask this: could you EVER imagine Kubrick or even Spielberg including the snow fortress scene in one of their films. It was a series of explosions and nothing else as far as I could see.
Great entertainment but I won't be reading any theses on it

clived2

blue_steel wrote: »

Je-Sus-Christ. People are allowed to criticise. Not everyone has to love the movie.
I enjoyed it but it was a far from a classic. Anyone who thinks Inception is in the same ball park as 2001 is, well forgive me, an idiot. It was an entertaining movie but let me ask this: could you EVER imagine Kubrick or even Spielberg including the snow fortress scene in one of their films. It was a series of explosions and nothing else as far as I could see.
Great entertainment but I won't be reading any theses on it

totally agree, the snow scene was very poor, and I welcome the critics,
I personally like a film which makes me think and I am not into any visual effects what so ever, so this film, was awesome to me