EPT[Movie] Inception - Page 22
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
yellowmoe
Canada59 Posts
| ||
|
KaRnaGe[cF]
United States355 Posts
On July 21 2010 16:57 BalliSLife wrote: Ok spoiler alert so talking about the ending, real or not? I say real + Show Spoiler + I say the ending is not real. When he met the kids they were wearing clothes that were from his memories of them. I have yet to figure out how he ended up there though. | ||
|
jax1492
United States1632 Posts
my 2 cents on the ending: + Show Spoiler + I think the top stops spinning and he is in the real world. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
This was another theory from another site - The top wasn't really his true totem. Someone else pointed out that if you watch his wedding right is always on when in a dream and not on in the real world. It wasn't on in the last scene... | ||
|
kidcrash
United States624 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + How did they know the van was falling into the water while in the 2nd dream level? I understand they knew a kickback was coming at a certain time because of the music that was playing, so I get how the figured out the timing. However, they specifically knew the kick back was the van falling into the water. How were they able to figure out that was exactly what was happening the first dream level? | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
On July 24 2010 04:19 kidcrash wrote: Absolutely loved the movie but one question: + Show Spoiler + How did they know the van was falling into the water while in the 2nd dream level? I understand they knew a kickback was coming at a certain time because of the music that was playing, so I get how the figured out the timing. However, they specifically knew the kick back was the van falling into the water. How were they able to figure out that was exactly what was happening the first dream level? spolier thought + Show Spoiler + i think it was just from experience? they've obviously done the type of work before and judging from what was happening, they could determine what event was happening in the above dream level | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 24 2010 04:19 kidcrash wrote: Absolutely loved the movie but one question: + Show Spoiler + How did they know the van was falling into the water while in the 2nd dream level? I understand they knew a kickback was coming at a certain time because of the music that was playing, so I get how the figured out the timing. However, they specifically knew the kick back was the van falling into the water. How were they able to figure out that was exactly what was happening the first dream level? + Show Spoiler + Simple reasoning. they knew the exact layout of the 1st dream level and where they should be when they get the kick, so they knew the closest thing to the van that would cause no gravity would be it falling off the bridge. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 24 2010 08:31 Shauni wrote: After all this American hype I actually went to see it in cinemas. I wasn't really disappointed because it answered to my relatively low expectations. Started of relatively promising, with some pseudo-intellectual dialogue, snappy remarks and swift pace. But after all these layers of action, excitement, action, explosions, explosions, explosions, gunfire, explosions... It just became too ridiculous, even for a shitty blockbuster. It wasn't mind-blowing, thought-provoking or worth analysing. All that remained was some involving acting by Mr Leonardo. Seriously, pick some better movies to hype, teamliquid. ...The majority of the movie actually wasn't just action/explosions. You just sound like a biased hater and movie basher. | ||
|
Malgrif
Canada1095 Posts
On July 24 2010 08:31 Shauni wrote: so what do you consider a good movie mr. movie credick sirAfter all this American hype I actually went to see it in cinemas. I wasn't really disappointed because it answered to my relatively low expectations. Started of somewhat promising, with some pseudo-intellectual dialogue, snappy remarks and swift pace. But after all these layers of action, excitement, action, explosions, explosions, explosions, gunfire, explosions... It just became too ridiculous, even for a shitty blockbuster. It wasn't mind-blowing, thought-provoking or worth analysing. All that remained was some involving acting by Mr Leonardo. Seriously, pick some better movies to hype, teamliquid. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On July 24 2010 08:31 Shauni wrote: After all this American hype I actually went to see it in cinemas. I wasn't really disappointed because it answered to my relatively low expectations. Started of somewhat promising, with some pseudo-intellectual dialogue, snappy remarks and swift pace. But after all these layers of action, excitement, action, explosions, explosions, explosions, gunfire, explosions... It just became too ridiculous, even for a shitty blockbuster. It wasn't mind-blowing, thought-provoking or worth analysing. All that remained was some involving acting by Mr Leonardo. Seriously, pick some better movies to hype, teamliquid. After Toy Story 3, it was between The Last Airbender, Inception, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Predators and Despicable Me. What's your pick for hype? | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On July 24 2010 08:43 Malgrif wrote: so what do you consider a good movie mr. movie credick sir Vanilla Sky or Let the Right One In ^^. What was so thought provoking in Inception besides the idea of being conscious inside someone else's dream? The actual plot was really straight forward, there wasn't any moral dilemma or conflict, everything went according to plan (besides the projections showing up). Discussing if your in a dream or if your not in a dream isn't really relevant to the movie, unless you think some corporation is out to sabotage your future or steal your extremely unique and valuable knowledge. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On July 24 2010 08:43 Malgrif wrote: so what do you consider a good movie mr. movie credick sir For thought-provoking movies, I prefer any movie by Tarkovsky... And for intellectual movies (to face the 'oh it's a movie about making movies!' argument) Michael Haneke does it much better. On July 24 2010 08:39 Stratos_speAr wrote: ...The majority of the movie actually wasn't just action/explosions. You just sound like a biased hater and movie basher. I didn't say it was the majority, if it was in the majority it'd be even worse than Die Hard or similar action movies. I'm just saying it was a bit over the top, it felt as if they were just adding special effects, explosions and CG solely for the blockbuster-effect. All that stuff didn't really add anything to the movie. You really think it was necessary to blow shit up simultaneously in all dimensions and on top of that show it like 5 times by cutting back and forth? Come on, I thought people expected more than that from a good movie. | ||
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On July 24 2010 08:31 Shauni wrote: After all this American hype I actually went to see it in cinemas. I wasn't really disappointed because it answered to my relatively low expectations. Started of somewhat promising, with some pseudo-intellectual dialogue, snappy remarks and swift pace. But after all these layers of action, excitement, action, explosions, explosions, explosions, gunfire, explosions... It just became too ridiculous, even for a shitty blockbuster. It wasn't mind-blowing, thought-provoking or worth analysing. All that remained was some involving acting by Mr Leonardo. Seriously, pick some better movies to hype, teamliquid. lol damn guys i guess we americans have horrible taste in movie  i for one LOVED the movie and think it is the best of the year so far. edit: inception was much better than vanilla sky. but in the end, we are all entitled to our opinions. doesn't mean you have to say that folks around here hype-up bad movies. they apparently liked it a lot - myself included. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
I didn't say it was the majority, if it was in the majority it'd be even worse than Die Hard or similar action movies. I'm just saying it was a bit over the top, it felt as if they were just adding special effects, explosions and CG solely for the blockbuster-effect. All that stuff didn't really add anything to the movie. You really think it was necessary to blow shit up simultaneously in all dimensions and on top of that show it like 5 times by cutting back and forth? Come on, I thought people expected more than that from a good movie. The action was actually an integral part of the story. It was the main outside obstacle that the team faced as a representation of Fischer's anti-dream-stealing training. What other obstacles could a team of the best in the world face? It went perfectly fine with the story because it was a great explanation for the much-needed kick and/or death to get out of that dream, which they had a very narrow window of time to execute. Was it flashy action? Duh. That's what people like. There's a reason they put it in movies. But they actually explained it well and used it in the scope of the story to good effect. Vanilla Sky or Let the Right One In ^^. What was so thought provoking in Inception besides the idea of being conscious inside someone else's dream? The actual plot was really straight forward, there wasn't any moral dilemma or conflict, everything went according to plan (besides the projections showing up). Discussing if your in a dream or if your not in a dream isn't really relevant to the movie, unless you think some corporation is out to sabotage your future or steal your extremely unique and valuable knowledge. The conflict was an emotional/intellectual conflict within Cobb. Just because it wasn't a moral one doesn't mean it wasn't a good one. And the dream or not discussion is just as relevant as any other discussion could be. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On July 24 2010 08:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote: After Toy Story 3, it was between The Last Airbender, Inception, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Predators and Despicable Me. What's your pick for hype? Actually, Despicable Me is very good movie. Inception was definitely worth hype. Was it an AMAZING movie? I don't know, but it sure does make people think about it for a long time after seeing it, which is a great achievement in it's own right. Edit: As to the none stop explosions complaint from above posts - I didn't find the action that over the top. At first i thought the ENTIRE snow scene was kind of unnecessary, but when you realize why it's there, and why it's so heavily guarded, it's actually pretty interesting. | ||
|
serenidite
Korea (South)505 Posts
On July 24 2010 08:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote: After Toy Story 3, it was between The Last Airbender, Inception, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Predators and Despicable Me. What's your pick for hype? >.> i enjoyed Despicable Me | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On July 24 2010 09:35 Stratos_speAr wrote: The action was actually an integral part of the story. It was the main outside obstacle that the team faced as a representation of Fischer's anti-dream-stealing training. What other obstacles could a team of the best in the world face? It went perfectly fine with the story because it was a great explanation for the much-needed kick and/or death to get out of that dream, which they had a very narrow window of time to execute. Was it flashy action? Duh. That's what people like. There's a reason they put it in movies. But they actually explained it well and used it in the scope of the story to good effect. Are you seriously arguing that explosions, bombs, gunfire was the only way they could have displayed his subconscious interfering or rejecting them? How can you be so narrow minded? Don't you have any imagination? I have a few examples... In Paprika, despite some buildings razing and reconstructing in the dream world, the excitement wasn't built up by explosions. The viruses/obstacles broke in on a more 'acid' level, with animals and walking boxes and a general tumult. Might be easier to construct in an animated movie however. In STALKER, we weren't exactly faced with a dream-world but a paradise, an unknown place with unknown physical rules, similar to dreams. You probably haven't seen it, but it's a very good example of how to create a psychological tension. The obstacles, the forces were only explained, never revealed. Despite the horror of dying from a single misstep, no explosions at ALL were necessary to build this dreamlike world. His 'anti-dream stealing training' could also force all the members to face their own subconscious and inner struggles, something like mr Leonardo experienced from time to time. It's also been portrayed in many other movies. The Fountain is another example where the dreamer struggles in an alternate reality on a more spiritual plane, not many explosions were needed there either. But you should already know that it could have been executed in a thousand different ways, just that you and many other movie-goers prefer these endless and tedious explosion scenes which are supposedly planted for excitement. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 24 2010 10:07 Shauni wrote: Are you seriously arguing that explosions, bombs, gunfire was the only way they could have displayed his subconscious interfering or rejecting them? How can you be so narrow minded? Don't you have any imagination? I have a few examples... In Paprika, despite some buildings razing and reconstructing in the dream world, the excitement wasn't built up by explosions. The viruses/obstacles broke in on a more 'acid' level, with animals and walking boxes and a general tumult. Might be easier to construct in an animated movie however. In STALKER, we weren't exactly faced with a dream-world but a paradise, an unknown place with unknown physical rules, similar to dreams. You probably haven't seen it, but it's a very good example of how to create a psychological tension. The obstacles, the forces were only explained, never revealed. Despite the horror of dying from a single misstep, no explosions at ALL were necessary to build this dreamlike world. His 'anti-dream stealing training' could also force all the members to face their own subconscious and inner struggles, something like mr Leonardo experienced from time to time. It's also been portrayed in many other movies. The Fountain is another example where the dreamer struggles in an alternate reality on a more spiritual plane, not many explosions were needed there either. But you should already know that it could have been executed in a thousand different ways, just that you and many other movie-goers prefer these endless and tedious explosion scenes which are supposedly planted for excitement. You're throwing out ideas without thinking them through. How could those ideas be implemented? None of them fit into the world made by Inception - the world and dreams in this movie don't work like that at all. The dreamer can't randomly invade other people's subconscious, they can't make random shit to hypnotize the invaders that actually know it's all a dream, and the invaded don't even know they're dreaming! The only thing belonging to them is subconscious projections of people to populate a world not made by their own brain. It seems like an extension of what lucid dreaming would evolve into if the technology is invented to share dreams. You can influence your dream, but you know you're dreaming and people can't influence each other or read their minds (which would be required to do some of your scenarios). | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
| ||
