***Don’t read this thread if you don’t want the movie spoiled for you*** Alright, who’s down for discussing this movie in detail? Was the whole movie a dream? What was and wasn’t reality? I think the movie is ultimately unsolveable (i.e. not enough evidence), but I don’t think what was portrayed as reality was reality. I think the movie was ultimately in Mal’s head or in someone else’s head besides Dom. When Dom spins his top, what is it supposed to do? I thought the trick to his token when the dream was in his ehad was that it actually wouldn’t really spin, and would just fall down right away. Is that right?
I don’t know, I was kind of twisted when I saw it. If I watch it again I’ll post here, but I thought it was bada$$.
In his dream, the top would spin forever. In reality, it would stop spinning of course. At the end of the movie, when he goes back home and reunites with his kids, he spins the top to check whether he’s dreaming. You don’t know whether it stops or not since the credits scene cuts it off. If you stayed until the end of the credits you hear the top stopping. Hence, the ending should be reality.
The “real world” in which the movie is set is still a dream in Leonardo DiCaprio’s head, leading me to believe that his wife was right and she is in fact still alive. Based on the top spinning at the end (it wobbled but then stabilized immediately) and the fact that the kids looked exactly the same and unchanged. However, the whole thing becomes problematic, because now even if she is still alive she can’t tell if it’s real or if she’s just in a different level of a dream and the whole thing becomes very postmodern. Then you factor in the whole point that for all we know, Leonardo DiCaprio is in a dream, but simultaneously living within the Matrix and shazaam, you have a sequel.
sasdf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In his dream, the top would spin forever. In > reality, it would stop spinning of course. > > At the end of the movie, when he goes back home > and reunites with his kids, he spins the top to > check whether he’s dreaming. You don’t know > whether it stops or not since the credits scene > cuts it off. If you stayed until the end of the > credits you hear the top stopping. Hence, the > ending should be reality. I did not know this, however, that sound could just have been added at the end as a neat way to end the credits and not meant to be interpreted as the answer to the conclusion.
sasdf Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In his dream, the top would spin forever. In > reality, it would stop spinning of course. > > At the end of the movie, when he goes back home > and reunites with his kids, he spins the top to > check whether he’s dreaming. You don’t know > whether it stops or not since the credits scene > cuts it off. If you stayed until the end of the > credits you hear the top stopping. Hence, the > ending should be reality. Whoa, I’m going to have to check that out. Nice posts so far gentlemen (with the exception of the two I’ve authored).
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and the fact that the kids looked exactly the same and unchanged. Claire Geare … Phillipa (3 years) Magnus Nolan … James (20 months) Taylor Geare … Phillipa (5 years) Johnathan Geare … James (3 years) The imdb credits list different ages/actors for the kids, although they do look similar. I think this helps the argument that the ending is supposed to be reality. In the end though, I don’t think it matters whether it’s reality or not.
Found two great counter arguments on goat milk from authoritative figures. It’s a dreamy world: http://goatmilkblog.com/2010/07/29/inception-the-top-keeps-spinning-the-goatmilk-debates-continue/ It’s reality: http://goatmilkblog.com/2010/07/28/inception-the-top-stopped-spinning-the-goatmilk-debates/
I thought the whole idea of the token was that it would do unexpected things, i.e. people would expect the top to spin and then fall, but in reality it actually wouldn’t spin at all. While this is in part complicated by the fact that it wasn’t even Dom’s token (he stole it from Mal), I thought in his dreams the top would not spin for him. I thought in Mal’s dream the top would spin forever.
Mr. Pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought the whole idea of the token was that it > would do unexpected things, i.e. people would > expect the top to spin and then fall, but in > reality it actually wouldn’t spin at all. While > this is in part complicated by the fact that it > wasn’t even Dom’s token (he stole it from Mal), I > thought in his dreams the top would not spin for > him. I thought in Mal’s dream the top would spin > forever. I don’t think this is quite correct. I think you’re getting distracted. Anyhow, I thought the pro dream article (the first link i posted) made a good point. Whether the top wobbles, spins, falls, whatever is somewhat irrelevant to the overall question of whether this is a dream as those rules could have been created within a dream state just as easily as they could have existed within reality. Anyhow, I thought both write ups covered their stances well.
The top is the key to unraveling everything. Whether the top keeps spinning or falls, do we even agree on what each would mean? I think if it keeps spinning, it means it’s in Mal’s head; if it stops, it is in someone else’s head. I still think that if it was in Dom’s head / reality the top would just fall down immediately which it doesn’t.
^ I think you’re first point is important in that it wasn’t Dom’s totem, so it is irrelevant. I never thought about whether its in Mal’s head or someone elses - interesting. As for the ending, how logical is it that Michael Cain was there to meet him at the airport, and that when he came home, his kids were dressed in the same way as they were in his dreams (and looked the same age)? I read somewhere that in two different parts of the movie Dom is seen with a wedding ring on and off, not sure if people have looked too deeply into this or its legit. Anyways, overthinking it takes away from the genius that is Christopher Nolan. With all his previous works, you must wonder what $^#t he’s on to keep coming up with this stuff.
mp2438 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ^ I think you’re first point is important in that > it wasn’t Dom’s totem, so it is irrelevant. I > never thought about whether its in Mal’s head or > someone elses - interesting. > > As for the ending, how logical is it that Michael > Cain was there to meet him at the airport, and > that when he came home, his kids were dressed in > the same way as they were in his dreams (and > looked the same age)? > > I read somewhere that in two different parts of > the movie Dom is seen with a wedding ring on and > off, not sure if people have looked too deeply > into this or its legit. > > Anyways, overthinking it takes away from the > genius that is Christopher Nolan. With all his > previous works, you must wonder what $^#t he’s on > to keep coming up with this stuff. Seriously, read the two articles, they’re fairly short and cover all the points people are mentioning in depth. I think after reading their analysis it actually adds to the respect I have for CN
I really wanted to like this movie. But after the one special forces guy aimed, and opened fire for 8 seconds with an automatic weapon into the car, and only one guy was hit (and hit just once), I completely checked out of the movie. After that, the movie just seemed like a bad excuse to show off cutting edge special effects. imho, it`s the only bad movie I have seen with leo in the lead role.
hh Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really wanted to like this movie. But after the > one special forces guy aimed, and opened fire for > 8 seconds with an automatic weapon into the car, > and only one guy was hit (and hit just once), I > completely checked out of the movie. > After that, the movie just seemed like a bad > excuse to show off cutting edge special effects. > imho, it`s the only bad movie I have seen with leo > in the lead role. If your qualm has to do with the realism of an action sequence, I think it goes without saying that you were not the intended audience for this film.
brianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hh Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I really wanted to like this movie. But after > the > > one special forces guy aimed, and opened fire > for > > 8 seconds with an automatic weapon into the > car, > > and only one guy was hit (and hit just once), I > > completely checked out of the movie. > > After that, the movie just seemed like a bad > > excuse to show off cutting edge special effects. > > > imho, it`s the only bad movie I have seen with > leo > > in the lead role. > > If your qualm has to do with the realism of an > action sequence, I think it goes without saying > that you were not the intended audience for this > film. wow, didn’t notice this discrepancy? How can you shoot from 50 feet and miss? This movie is completely bogus and not real. I am very disappointed. Also i heard the blood they used was not real but rather a paint derivatives… what kind of fake stuff is that?
comp_sci_kid Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > brianr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > hh Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I really wanted to like this movie. But > after > > the > > > one special forces guy aimed, and opened fire > > for > > > 8 seconds with an automatic weapon into the > > car, > > > and only one guy was hit (and hit just once), > I > > > completely checked out of the movie. > > > After that, the movie just seemed like a bad > > > excuse to show off cutting edge special > effects. > > > > > imho, it`s the only bad movie I have seen > with > > leo > > > in the lead role. > > > > If your qualm has to do with the realism of an > > action sequence, I think it goes without saying > > that you were not the intended audience for > this > > film. > > > wow, didn’t notice this discrepancy? How can you > shoot from 50 feet and miss? This movie is > completely bogus and not real. I am very > disappointed. > > > Also i heard the blood they used was not real but > rather a paint derivatives… what kind of fake > stuff is that? I also read that many of the characters in the film were played by actors. I will no longer be bamboozled by Hollywood!!!