Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
'Inception' Mega Thread *SPOILERS FROM POST 292 ONWARDS*
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
But see, this is the whole reason why I wasn't too impressed with the film. It took a standard story and tarted it up with a gimmick. Without the gimmick, it's the same tired old story. It tried to add something else with the wife's suicide, but considering I felt so little empathy for a man who ran out on his kids, I couldn't care less. I thought they'd be better off with the grandparents.
It's the premise of the film whereas you're using the word gimmick, but that's incorrect buy the very defintion of the word. A gimmick has no obvious value or function whereas dream sharing has an obvious function in this film as being the distinguishing characteristic of the world in which Inception is set and the method by which the characters do their job. Without dream sharing there is no Inception, so calling it a gimmick is exactly like calling the matrix in 'The Matrix' a gimmick.
A gimmick is releasing a film in 3D.It's unfair to compare this to the Matrix. The Matrix was the world in that film. They had no choice but to be part of it. It was the whole reason for their existence.
The machines dupe humans into their virtual reality, Cobb dupes his targets into a false reality. There are striking parrallels between the two films.The characters in Inception didn't need to use dreams, they simply decided it was the best method to use. That's why I see it as a gimmick. They could have completed the task in any other way, they just chose that one. And any other way, the film would have been totally standard and boring, so dreams were used to spruce it up. I'm not going to say it was a terrible film just because it used that gimmick, I just didn't think much of it as a gimmick.
But just as you say the characters didnt need to use dreams, I could say the machines in The Matrix didnt need to use people for energy and therefore didnt need a matrix, there are plenty of other viable options to produce energy. So just as you would equate dream extraction/inception to being a "gimmick", the matrix is a "gimmick" to make it less like Terminator, that's a fair comparison by your logic right? Both are premises that allow the extraordinary happen in films which would otherwise have very similar counterparts in other films.
I mean it's bizarre to say that a cast of characters whose profession involves invading dreams should use a different method to accomplish their goals. How else do you convince someone to dissolve their business empire when they have absolutely no intention of doing so and absolutely no motive to do so? I'm sure there are some real world ways of doing this, but using those methods would make this a different film. Just like how I said the machines could have used nucleur power, it would have made The Matrix an entirely different film.
You seem to have a problem with the entire premise of the film, not how it was executed. In which case there's no arguing against taste.But that still makes me feel sorry for him, in that he's been lied to, tricked and now has lost everything (his father left him everything, so he must have thought something of him). And DiCaprio just chewed him up and spat him out in order to find an easy way to get back to the kids he abandoned. It just makes me hate him even more, the more I think about it.
True, but we werent under any impression that Cobb was a good guy from the start really. He's a criminal and yes he manipluates Murphy's character but I do feel like he's been given a sense of closure and regardless of wheter it is real or not (which thematically fits in perfectly with the film) it's real to him.
But as with any heist the protaganists are usually criminals victimising someone, what I love about this film is the motivation behind Cobb doing it and the end result of Murphys character getting closure. The ends justifying the means in a way. We're left to decide what we think of Cobb, you look at him as a user and I look at it him as a desperate father.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Mind blowing and though provoking?
It was an enjoyable movie that held my interest throughout, nothing more, I must have missed the part with all the mind blowing stuff.
At the risk of sounding like a pretentious twat the beauty of the film isn't in the setpieces or its multi layered narrative (tho they are great)it in the way the film incepts its idea's and themes so insideously inside your head you end up signing up to boards just so you can vent your spleen about the film .
But thats just me maybe your dream defenses are better then mine Essien and those idea's couldn't take root
I didn't find it that clever, the whole dream sharing thing was cool but I certainly didn't think just adding extra levels was all that innovative.
No the levels in of themselves wasn't the innovation it was the way actions in each one effected the other ie. yusefs wild driving and crash in dream level 1 turning what would have been a cutty cutter fight between Arthur and a goon in level 2 into the physics defying how the **** did they film that fight scene we got .0 -
PhiloCypher wrote: »At the risk of sounding like a pretentious twat the beauty of the film isn't in the setpieces or its multi layered narrative (tho they are great)it in the way the film incepts its idea's and themes so insideously inside your head you end up signing up to boards just so you can vent your spleen about the film .
But thats just me maybe your dream defenses are better then mine Essien and those idea's couldn't take root
Well it was either my dream defences or the fact that I just didn't find it as interesting as everybody else did (except humanji)PhiloCypher wrote: »No the levels in of themselves wasn't the innovation it was the way actions in each one effected the other ie. yusefs wild driving and crash in dream level 1 turning what would have been a cutty cutter fight between Arthur and a goon in level 2 into the physics defying how the **** did they film that fight scene we got .
Oh that was a great scene alright BUT for me it was just eye candy. The fact that, or even how each level effected the one below wasn't all that innovative, in the context of the whole dream sharing idea it just seems natural and logical.
FTR, I did like the film, I really enjoyed it, I just think people are making way too much of it.0 -
-
In this article Devin posits that on a meta level Inception is about the film making process with each of the protagonists roles equating to different areas of the film making craft Ariadne architect/screenwriter, Eames forger/actor, Arthur /producer this being so that makes Cobb the director making Leo effectively Christopher Nolans Avatar .
^ I'm amazed I didn't see how alike they were before, if Leo's pic was one from the film the resemblance in hairstyle would be even more striking.
This for me anyways seals it for me so far as Devins theory is concerned .0 -
-
My theory on the ending:Why does the film outcome depend on whether the totem spins or falls? So much in the film is questionable, why shouldn't the theory of the totem be questioned? I believe Cobb was on a business trip and had a dream on the return flight home. The film up to the point of him waking on the plane was the dream. He wakes up on the plane, disembarks and returns home to the kids. Mal and himself may be separated. The spinning top is just a toy he carries with him on business trips to remind him of his children. When he gets home he puts the spinning top down because he's back with his kids.
0 -
Whippersnapper wrote: »My theory on the ending:Why does the film outcome depend on whether the totem spins or falls? So much in the film is questionable, why shouldn't the theory of the totem be questioned? I believe Cobb was on a business trip and had a dream on the return flight home. The film up to the point of him waking on the plane was the dream. He wakes up on the plane, disembarks and returns home to the kids. Mal and himself may be separated. The spinning top is just a toy he carries with him on business trips to remind him of his children. When he gets home he puts the spinning top down because he's back with his kids.
While there is certainly room to question just about everything in this film(thats the beauty of it) if we are to accept your theory and everything up until the point he wakes up on that plane in the end is a dream then why were his dream cohorts(who in your theory he presumably populated his dream with after meeting them on the plane) giving him significant looks , did he fart or something ?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRIlN7dYKyA
Advertisement