'Inception' Mega Thread SPOILERS FROM POST 292 ONWARDS

maquiladora · 23-07-2010 12:01PM

Looking forward to my second viewing this evening.

Quazzie · 23-07-2010 12:05PM

duckworth wrote: »

My god I hated this film.

What an over-long, convoluted, juvenile mess of a story it was. It's like it was dreamed up by 14-year-old science-fiction geeks.

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!!

At least the Matrix was tongue-in-cheek and didn't take itself seriously - Inception is another matter altogether.

Nolan is a charlatan and a hack, and it's starting to annoy me the amount of fan-boy respect he gets. The cut-away at the end 'is it a dream or isn't it?' - come on, that's one of the cheapest moves a director can make.

Actually, to those who've seen Adaptation - you know the other brother starts writing a movie, and it's funny because of how daft and cliched it is? It's actually quite similar to Inception.

Didn't get it eh?

No bother. Try Eclipse next time

duckworth · 23-07-2010 12:12PM

Quazzie wrote: »

Didn't get it eh?

No bother. Try Eclipse next time

Why do you assume if I didn't like it I didn't get it?

Again, the 14-year old fan-boy mentality comes to the fore. Back to your comic books young man....

fluke · 23-07-2010 12:53PM

duckworth wrote: »

At least the Matrix was tongue-in-cheek and didn't take itself seriously

Duckworth I think it's fair enough that you didn't like the film but saying that the Matrix was tongue in cheek is a bit off as I found the sequels of the Matrix to be up their own ass - that architect speech in the second one...shudder!

Back on topic at the start of the movie when we first see Leo washed onto the shore a friend said to me "It's Titanic 2".

Oh and I only read that Nolan wrote in Édith Piaf's "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien" but almost took it out when he cast Marion Cotillard, who starred as Piaf in 2007 film La Vie en rose. I actually thought he included it as a sort of side reference.

krudler · 23-07-2010 12:56PM

duckworth wrote: »

My god I hated this film.

What an over-long, convoluted, juvenile mess of a story it was. It's like it was dreamed up by 14-year-old science-fiction geeks.

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!!

At least the Matrix was tongue-in-cheek and didn't take itself seriously - Inception is another matter altogether.

Nolan is a charlatan and a hack, and it's starting to annoy me the amount of fan-boy respect he gets. The cut-away at the end 'is it a dream or isn't it?' - come on, that's one of the cheapest moves a director can make.

Actually, to those who've seen Adaptation - you know the other brother starts writing a movie, and it's funny because of how daft and cliched it is? It's actually quite similar to Inception.

I'm sorry but what? The Matrix is as far from "tongue in cheek" as you could possibly get, it takes itself waaaay too seriously, maybe the first one has a few light moments but the sequels are drowning in their own pretentiousness from the opening credits.

maquiladora · 23-07-2010 01:00PM

duckworth wrote: »

At least the Matrix was tongue-in-cheek and didn't take itself seriously -

Really? Like here?

The Architect: "It is interesting reading your reactions. Your five predecessors were, by design, based on a similar predication: a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the One. While the others experienced this in a general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-à-vis: love."

duckworth · 23-07-2010 01:35PM

maquiladora wrote: »

Really? Like here?

The Architect: "It is interesting reading your reactions. Your five predecessors were, by design, based on a similar predication: a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the One. While the others experienced this in a general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-à-vis: love."

I've no idea what you're referring to above - is it from one of sequels in the Matrix?

I was only referencing the first one, since I didn't bother going to see the sequels.

I found plenty of humour in the first Matrix and thought it was nicely played. It's not my favourite film ever or anything, just a 6/10.

If none of you thought The Matrix was at least partially tongue-in-cheek, then fair play to you. I strongly disagree.

duckworth · 23-07-2010 01:40PM

Just to note, I tend to dislike most sci-fi movies, the only ones I think were really great are Blade Runner, 2001, Alien, Solaris and Stalker.

I knew I probably wasn't going to like the film that much, but went in with an open mind, since I loved Memento and was hoping Nolan would do something as good as that.

Unfortunately it was even worse than I thought.

genericguy · 23-07-2010 01:43PM

duckworth wrote: »

What an over-long, convoluted, juvenile mess of a story it was. It's like it was dreamed up by 14-year-old science-fiction geeks.

hahahahahahaha

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!!

hahahahahahahaha

At least the Matrix was tongue-in-cheek.

hahahahahahaha

Nolan is a charlatan and a hack.

hahahahahahahaha

back to your adam sandler collection sir.

"yes mr. sherman, everything stinks".

maquiladora · 23-07-2010 01:54PM

duckworth wrote: »

Just to note, I tend to dislike most sci-fi movies, the only ones I think were really great are Blade Runner, 2001, Alien, Solaris and Stalker.

Hang on a sec. You hated the "was he or wasn't he" ending of Inception but you loved Blade Runner?

Sad Professor · 23-07-2010 01:58PM

I actually agree with duckworth about The Matrix. There was a semi-serious dimension to it that involved some simple philosophical ideas that would be quite mind-blowing to a teenager, but it was mostly a comic book movie about cool dudes in shades and trench coats doing kung-fu.

I guess this is the problem many people had with Inception. Unlike The Matrix which throws a bunch of gibberish but intelligent sounding dialogue at you, Nolan actually expects you to understand his exposition. If Leo had been doing kung-fu and bullet-time during all those exposition scenes everybody would be fine with it.

Inception wipes the floor with all The Matrix films imo.

duckworth · 23-07-2010 02:02PM

maquiladora wrote: »

Hang on a sec. You hated the "was he or wasn't he" ending of Inception but you loved Blade Runner?

Essentially yes. It was much more tastefully done in Blade Runner.

For example, most people see the whole split-personality thing as cliche, but most people, including me love the movie Psycho in spite of it.

But there were a thousand other reasons to like Blade Runner other than the ending.

clived2 · 23-07-2010 02:12PM

duckworth wrote: »

My god I hated this film.

What an over-long, convoluted, juvenile mess of a story it was. It's like it was dreamed up by 14-year-old science-fiction geeks.

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!!

At least the Matrix was tongue-in-cheek and didn't take itself seriously - Inception is another matter altogether.

Nolan is a charlatan and a hack, and it's starting to annoy me the amount of fan-boy respect he gets. The cut-away at the end 'is it a dream or isn't it?' - come on, that's one of the cheapest moves a director can make.

Actually, to those who've seen Adaptation - you know the other brother starts writing a movie, and it's funny because of how daft and cliched it is? It's actually quite similar to Inception.

You are allowed have your opinion,

Please answer the following questions?

Do you think there is 90% rubbish on at the cinemas at all times,
(I do btw)

I believe the reason for this is because all of these films are making profit. The general public are all paying money regulary to see such ****e,
Lets call these people "fools"

Now because of these fools, Hollywood churns out ****e films with a standard formula and they make guaranteed money, anything not within fomulae is too risky.

Do you think maybe that these " explain what is happening" moments are for these fools?

I for one have no problem in them making these gestures if they keep on making movies of this quality.Also just because you understand it, because you are so clever, show a bit of compassion for these fools.

On a side note, the majority of these "explain what is happening" moments are infact required, to apply your own theories to the film after its over, these moments providing protocol which to test your theories.

Also the fact that your bothered by whether it is all a dream or not would
suggest you have the mind of a child

krudler · 23-07-2010 02:19PM

I dont get the criticism that "everything is explained" for Inception, if they hadnt explained the totem, the kick, how the levels work and everything else it would have been utterly baffling. and not in the good way.

duckworth · 23-07-2010 02:26PM

krudler wrote: »

I dont get the criticism that "everything is explained" for Inception, if they hadnt explained the totem, the kick, how the levels work and everything else it would have been utterly baffling. and not in the good way.

My point is that when half of the movie is taken up by explaining the main premise of what we are watching, something is wrong. You shouldn't need to spend 50% of dialogue explaining what is happening in front of our very eyes. That makes for a boring film with absolutely no room for developing characters. The characters in Inception had no depth whatsoever.

clived2 wrote: »

You are allowed have your opinion,

Please answer the following questions?

Do you think there is 90% rubbish on at the cinemas at all times,
(I do btw)

I believe the reason for this is because all of these films are making profit. The general public are all paying money regulary to see such ****e,
Lets call these people "fools"

Now because of these fools, Hollywood churns out ****e films with a standard formula and they make guaranteed money, anything not within fomulae is too risky.

Do you think maybe that these " explain what is happening" moments are for these fools?

I for one have no problem in them making these gestures if they keep on making movies of this quality.Also just because you understand it, because you are so clever, show a bit of compassion for these fools.

On a side note, the majority of these "explain what is happening" moments are infact required, to apply your own theories to the film after its over, these moments providing protocol which to test your theories.

Also the fact that your bothered by whether it is all a dream or not would
suggest you have the mind of a child

I can't understand a word you are saying young man. It must be my child's mind.

Sad Professor · 23-07-2010 02:28PM

krudler wrote: »

I dont get the criticism that "everything is explained" for Inception, if they hadnt explained the totem, the kick, how the levels work and everything else it would have been utterly baffling. and not in the good way.

Exactly. All the exposition in the film was necessary. So it can't be called bad screenwriting. Bad screenwriting would be if these things weren't explained.

It's just a very intricately plotted film. I've seen plenty such films in my time. People just aren't used to them anymore, especially in the summer. I really hope this film does well though so that this might change.

WesternNight · 23-07-2010 02:33PM

duckworth wrote: »

My point is that when half of the movie is taken up by explaining the main premise of what we are watching, something is wrong. You shouldn't need to spend 50% of dialogue explaining what is happening in front of our very eyes. That makes for a boring film with absolutely no room for developing characters. The characters in Inception had no depth whatsoever.

That would mean this film was boring. It wasn't.

krudler · 23-07-2010 02:35PM

My point is that when half of the movie is taken up by explaining the main premise of what we are watching, something is wrong. You shouldn't need to spend 50% of dialogue explaining what is happening in front of our very eyes. That makes for a boring film with absolutely no room for developing characters. The characters in Inception had no depth whatsoever.

Would the Matrix have worked without the scene where Morpheous explains exactly what it is to Neo? course not it would have been just confusing for the rest of the movie, and nearly everything is explained throughout it to us. Same as Blade Runner (depending on which version you're watching) the replicant explanation scene, Tyrells explanation that Rachel is a replicant, the animals being fake, the language being spoken. the lifespan of the replicants, why Batty wants to meet his creator. all that stuff is said in plain English to us, the audience,even though you can pretty much figure it out anyway. doesnt make it any less well written.

clived2 · 23-07-2010 02:42PM

duckworth wrote: »

I can't understand a word you are saying young man. It must be my child's mind.

Lol

I thought you wouldnt alrite so i threw that last line in their because in

order to speak to a child , you gotta speak like one

You understood the last line I see

clived2 · 23-07-2010 02:47PM

clived2 wrote: »

On a side note, the majority of these "explain what is happening" moments are infact required, to apply your own theories to the film after its over, these moments providing protocol which to test your theories.

krudler wrote: »

I dont get the criticism that "everything is explained" for Inception, if they hadnt explained the totem, the kick, how the levels work and everything else it would have been utterly baffling. and not in the good way.

Thats what i am saying,

lol i quoted myself,

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2010 03:08PM

duckworth wrote: »

My point is that when half of the movie is taken up by explaining the main premise of what we are watching, something is wrong. You shouldn't need to spend 50% of dialogue explaining what is happening in front of our very eyes.

What parts of Inception do you think needed no exposition?

duckworth · 23-07-2010 03:26PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What parts of Inception do you think needed no exposition?

You're all missing my point. Explanations are boring. This movie DID need explanations because it was needlessly convoluted. That made it boring for me. The only reason the Ellen Page character existed was to explain the premise of the movie. This annoys me.

Also, there was to-ing and fro-ing with the premise just to suit the plot. This another example of bad writing. For example, the Japanese guy gets shot, one of them says no problem, he'll just wake up. But of course that can't happen in a movie - otherwise the action sequences have no consequences - so they change the rules and say - 'Well, usually that's the case, but not in this particular dream we're in. We're too heavily sedated....".

This kind of writing is very common in Arnie/Vin Diesel style action movies. It's bad filmmaking, and it annoys me greatly. It's like the Deus Ex Machina mechanic, it leaves the audience with nothing to hang their hat on.

I don't mind if people disagree with me. I just hear people saying stupid things like Chrisopher Nolan is the new Kubrick, or other such nonsense.

If anything, he's the new M. Night Shyamalan.

duckworth · 23-07-2010 03:28PM

clived2 wrote: »

Lol

I thought you wouldnt alrite so i threw that last line in their because in

order to speak to a child , you gotta speak like one

Do you have to spell like one too?

trustno1 · 23-07-2010 03:34PM

duckworth wrote: »

Explanations are boring. This movie DID need explanations because it was needlessly convoluted.

I think you could apply that exact same statement to The Matrix..

clived2 · 23-07-2010 03:38PM

duckworth wrote: »

Do you have to spell like one too?

You seem to a person who likes to argue,

I will accept your theory, on there was little depth in the characters, because
i didnt feel it either, however this is a testament to the film where poor character development still created a very good film.

You see i am willing to take your ideas on board and read them, while you are set in your ways, and refuse to acknowledge any of the points anyone else makes,

Also you clearly have a problem with Nolan( yeah i get it, you liked Memento)

Renn · 23-07-2010 03:41PM

Jesus, is there anything worse than people trying to put Inception 'haters' back in their place by telling them to go watch some Twilight/Adam Sandler movie? Ughhhh.

Mickeroo · 23-07-2010 03:41PM

duckworth wrote: »

If anything, he's the new M. Night Shyamalan.

You're entitled to your opinion of the film but that's just ridiculous. Nolan's not the messiah but he's pretty damn good. The Dark Knight is so many leagues ahead of anything shyamalan has made it's not even funny.

Mark Hamill · 23-07-2010 03:42PM

duckworth wrote: »

You're all missing my point. Explanations are boring. This movie DID need explanations because it was needlessly convoluted. That made it boring for me.

So now we see the crux of the problem. It wasn't that the movie spent too much time explaining things, it was that the whole plot was too convoluted. Well I have to disagree with that. I thought the movie was actually fairly linear. Sure, it was detailed, but everything was explained in a linear way, first one thing, then the next. Now the beauty of this film is that it has left the door open for fans to make all kinds of ridiculously convoluted theories about what really happened, but that they are convoluted is not the movies fault, and you can ignore them and just hold to the simplest if you like- the totem at the end fell over (you hear it wobble), therefore Cobb is back in the real world.

duckworth wrote: »

The only reason the Ellen Page character existed was to explain the premise of the movie. This annoys me.

Almost every movie in existence has a character like that. The audience needs characters who dont really know whats going on to identify with and they are great ways to interweave the explanations into the story.

duckworth wrote: »

Also, there was to-ing and fro-ing with the premise just to suit the plot. This another example of bad writing. For example, the Japanese guy gets shot, one of them says no problem, he'll just wake up. But of course that can't happen in a movie - otherwise the action sequences have no consequences - so they change the rules and say - 'Well, usually that's the case, but not in this particular dream we're in. We're too heavily sedated....".

Thats not tooing and froing. Thats just changing an idea in one direction. It doesn't actually change back for the rest of the film-any character who gest killed in any of the dreams while under this heavy sedation go to limbo.

duckworth wrote: »

This kind of writing is very common in Arnie/Vin Diesel style action movies. It's bad filmmaking, and it annoys me greatly. It's like the Deus Ex Machina mechanic, it leaves the audience with nothing to hang their hat on.

Why? The first premise, that dying a dream wakes you up, is based on the initial idea of using stock sedative. The new, stronger sedative is brought in the story before any one was in danger of being killed in the inception dream, and the issue with the sedative wasn't mentioned with the introduction of the sedative because they didn't realise that Murphys character had those dream defenses. Sure they could have said it when they first got teh sedative, but that wouldhave ruined the tension created when all the rest of characters only learned of this danger in the dream itself. It was a tool to build tension, but it was fundamental to the story line and used very well throughout the remainder of the film.

duckworth wrote: »

I don't mind if people disagree with me. I just hear people saying stupid things like Chrisopher Nolan is the new Kubrick, or other such nonsense.

If anything, he's the new M. Night Shyamalan.

M. Night Shyamalan is the only man in the world who made a deal with the devil, that the devil himself wants to break. There is no comparison between Shyamalan and Nolan.

clived2 · 23-07-2010 03:50PM

duckworth wrote: »

Also, there was to-ing and fro-ing with the premise just to suit the plot. This another example of bad writing. For example, the Japanese guy gets shot, one of them says no problem, he'll just wake up. But of course that can't happen in a movie - otherwise the action sequences have no consequences - so they change the rules and say - 'Well, usually that's the case, but not in this particular dream we're in. We're too heavily sedated....".

.

Ok now I know you must be trolling,

Read your own post above,

Very well played, you got me good
no one could be that stupid

krudler · 23-07-2010 03:58PM

You're all missing my point. Explanations are boring. This movie DID need explanations because it was needlessly convoluted. That made it boring for me. The only reason the Ellen Page character existed was to explain the premise of the movie. This annoys me.

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

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

Comments

'Inception' Mega Thread SPOILERS FROM POST 292 ONWARDS