|
On July 24 2010 10:17 Shauni wrote:
Exactly why do they have to be (imaginary) human beings with guns defending his little subconscious? I don't want to get stuck in a stupid Inception physics argument but I don't really see your point.
Because physical visualization is the most effective form for the majority of humans to see and understand things, and the most straightforward way to visualize defense is physical conflict - which turns into modern-day warfare (guns and the like). Like I said, Inception doesn't make all kinds of crazy physics-defying super sci-fi claims - it is more of a near-future setting that simply pushes the idea of lucid dreaming further. Part of the movie is the fact that if you understand dreaming and lucid dreaming (or take the time to understand it after seeing the movie) you see that this kind of stuff isn't completely ridiculous, and that's part of what makes you think.
|
The whole point of inception was it never broke down to an "acid" level, even in dreams.
|
|
|
On July 24 2010 10:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 10:17 Shauni wrote:
Exactly why do they have to be (imaginary) human beings with guns defending his little subconscious? I don't want to get stuck in a stupid Inception physics argument but I don't really see your point. Because physical visualization is the most effective form for the majority of humans to see and understand things, and the most straightforward way to visualize defense is physical conflict - which turns into modern-day warfare (guns and the like). Like I said, Inception doesn't make all kinds of crazy physics-defying super sci-fi claims - it is more of a near-future setting that simply pushes the idea of lucid dreaming further. Part of the movie is the fact that if you understand dreaming and lucid dreaming (or take the time to understand it after seeing the movie) you see that this kind of stuff isn't completely ridiculous, and that's part of what makes you think.
You still have it the wrong way. Yes, people are superficial beings and identify more easily with structured realism, human beings, modern warfare than what really lies in our subconscious or dreams. It's not like that because it's the only way of making a movie about entering dreams (Taking out all those explosion and war-elements would obviously make it a different movie - but not necessarily for the worse), it's because the message is easy to get across to the viewers. I still stand by my point that for example Fischer's projections, his defenses could have been manifested in many other ways (and I don't see how your arguing contradicts my statement), which would have made the movie more interesting, more realistic (ironically) and more refreshing.
|
On July 24 2010 10:37 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 10:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 24 2010 10:17 Shauni wrote:
Exactly why do they have to be (imaginary) human beings with guns defending his little subconscious? I don't want to get stuck in a stupid Inception physics argument but I don't really see your point. Because physical visualization is the most effective form for the majority of humans to see and understand things, and the most straightforward way to visualize defense is physical conflict - which turns into modern-day warfare (guns and the like). Like I said, Inception doesn't make all kinds of crazy physics-defying super sci-fi claims - it is more of a near-future setting that simply pushes the idea of lucid dreaming further. Part of the movie is the fact that if you understand dreaming and lucid dreaming (or take the time to understand it after seeing the movie) you see that this kind of stuff isn't completely ridiculous, and that's part of what makes you think. You still have it the wrong way. Yes, people are superficial beings and identify more easily with structured realism, human beings, modern warfare than what really lies in our subconscious or dreams. It's not like that because it's the only way of making a movie about entering dreams (Taking out all those explosion and war-elements would obviously make it a different movie - but not necessarily for the worse), it's because the message is easy to get across to the viewers. I still stand by my point that for example Fischer's projections, his defenses could have been manifested in many other ways (and I don't see how your arguing contradicts my statement), which would have made the movie more interesting, more realistic (ironically) and more refreshing.
I don't disagree that it could've been made in different ways, I just disagree that 1) the examples you gave were good ones and 2) that it was necessary. Physical representation would be the simplest way to go about it. Any other way would've been overly-complicated for no other reason that to appease viewers like yourself. I don't see that as more realistic in any way, I just see it as complicated for the purpose of being able to say it's "deep".
Oh, and just because we identify with visualization the most doesn't make us "superficial beings". Stop trying to sound so intellectual.
|
This is one of the best movies I've seen in a long, long time.
|
I'm so glad Christian Bale wasn't in this movie. I was definitely getting sick of that dude.
|
On July 24 2010 10:53 DannyJ wrote:
I'm so glad Christian Bale wasn't in this movie. I was definitely getting sick of that dude.
He's a good Batman though, gotta admit.
|
On July 24 2010 10:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 10:53 DannyJ wrote:
I'm so glad Christian Bale wasn't in this movie. I was definitely getting sick of that dude. He's a good Batman though, gotta admit.
Yeah he's good. He was good in The Prestige as well.
However, he's very similar in all his roles, and i think he just would not have fit into this movie very well.
Edit: Pretty sure if it was Christian Bale in it I'd just stare at him like people in dreams do when they know somethings wrong. He's so engrained as Batman in our minds.
|
On July 24 2010 10:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 10:37 Shauni wrote:On July 24 2010 10:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 24 2010 10:17 Shauni wrote:
Exactly why do they have to be (imaginary) human beings with guns defending his little subconscious? I don't want to get stuck in a stupid Inception physics argument but I don't really see your point. Because physical visualization is the most effective form for the majority of humans to see and understand things, and the most straightforward way to visualize defense is physical conflict - which turns into modern-day warfare (guns and the like). Like I said, Inception doesn't make all kinds of crazy physics-defying super sci-fi claims - it is more of a near-future setting that simply pushes the idea of lucid dreaming further. Part of the movie is the fact that if you understand dreaming and lucid dreaming (or take the time to understand it after seeing the movie) you see that this kind of stuff isn't completely ridiculous, and that's part of what makes you think. You still have it the wrong way. Yes, people are superficial beings and identify more easily with structured realism, human beings, modern warfare than what really lies in our subconscious or dreams. It's not like that because it's the only way of making a movie about entering dreams (Taking out all those explosion and war-elements would obviously make it a different movie - but not necessarily for the worse), it's because the message is easy to get across to the viewers. I still stand by my point that for example Fischer's projections, his defenses could have been manifested in many other ways (and I don't see how your arguing contradicts my statement), which would have made the movie more interesting, more realistic (ironically) and more refreshing. I don't disagree that it could've been made in different ways, I just disagree that 1) the examples you gave were good ones and 2) that it was necessary. Physical representation would be the simplest way to go about it. Any other way would've been overly-complicated for no other reason that to appease viewers like yourself. I don't see that as more realistic in any way, I just see it as complicated for the purpose of being able to say it's "deep". Oh, and just because we identify with visualization the most doesn't make us "superficial beings". Stop trying to sound so intellectual.
You basically wrote down the definition of superficial and said it didn't make you superficial. What a contradiction...
The flashy visualization is implemented because the majority of the viewers are attracted by it, not for any 'realistic' or 'logical' purposes inside the movie like you claimed previously. And I, apparently in the minority like you said, dislikes exaggerated scenes like these which are being recycled in almost every Hollywood movie. I don't try to be an intellectual or a movie expert, I just found those parts of the movie in bad taste. It could have been so much more, it could have been 'over-complicated', which is - i assume - some effort by the director to make it thought-provoking past the initial idea. Like written by others previously, it's merely the idea that was planted inside us - which was explained in a few minutes. The rest of the movie was basically unnecessary. 'Oh, there are so many levels of the dreams, and we can follow them all at once! What a mindfuck!'
|
On July 24 2010 11:09 Shauni wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 10:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 24 2010 10:37 Shauni wrote:On July 24 2010 10:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 24 2010 10:17 Shauni wrote:
Exactly why do they have to be (imaginary) human beings with guns defending his little subconscious? I don't want to get stuck in a stupid Inception physics argument but I don't really see your point. Because physical visualization is the most effective form for the majority of humans to see and understand things, and the most straightforward way to visualize defense is physical conflict - which turns into modern-day warfare (guns and the like). Like I said, Inception doesn't make all kinds of crazy physics-defying super sci-fi claims - it is more of a near-future setting that simply pushes the idea of lucid dreaming further. Part of the movie is the fact that if you understand dreaming and lucid dreaming (or take the time to understand it after seeing the movie) you see that this kind of stuff isn't completely ridiculous, and that's part of what makes you think. You still have it the wrong way. Yes, people are superficial beings and identify more easily with structured realism, human beings, modern warfare than what really lies in our subconscious or dreams. It's not like that because it's the only way of making a movie about entering dreams (Taking out all those explosion and war-elements would obviously make it a different movie - but not necessarily for the worse), it's because the message is easy to get across to the viewers. I still stand by my point that for example Fischer's projections, his defenses could have been manifested in many other ways (and I don't see how your arguing contradicts my statement), which would have made the movie more interesting, more realistic (ironically) and more refreshing. I don't disagree that it could've been made in different ways, I just disagree that 1) the examples you gave were good ones and 2) that it was necessary. Physical representation would be the simplest way to go about it. Any other way would've been overly-complicated for no other reason that to appease viewers like yourself. I don't see that as more realistic in any way, I just see it as complicated for the purpose of being able to say it's "deep". Oh, and just because we identify with visualization the most doesn't make us "superficial beings". Stop trying to sound so intellectual. You basically wrote down the definition of superficial and said it didn't make you superficial. What a contradiction... The flashy visualization is implemented because the majority of the viewers are attracted by it, not for any 'realistic' or 'logical' purposes inside the movie like you claimed previously. And I, apparently in the minority like you said, dislikes exaggerated scenes like these which are being recycled in almost every Hollywood movie. I don't try to be an intellectual or a movie expert, I just found those parts of the movie in bad taste. It could have been so much more, it could have been 'over-complicated', which is - i assume - some effort by the director to make it thought-provoking past the initial idea. Like written by others previously, it's merely the idea that was planted inside us - which was explained in a few minutes. The rest of the movie was basically unnecessary. 'Oh, there are so many levels of the dreams, and we can follow them all at once! What a mindfuck!'
Speculation of intent is just B.S. and is a red herring from the point. You can say that what you think the intent was all you want, the point is that it fits very well into the movie. I could go ahead and just say that anything that out there that is complicated was purposely made complicated solely for the point of looking intellectual, but that 1) doesn't make me correct and 2) has no actual point.
Overall it was a great movie that made a lot of people think. Take your pseudo-intellectual and condescending attitude elsewhere if you didn't like the movie. We got your opinion and you don't need to bash people any more.
|
QUESTION (spoilers?)
At the end when he opens his father's safe, Fischer Jr. find the pin-mill. Thus, he is convinced that his father loved him and decides to start anew. My question is: Is the pin-mill
- What his father really had in a safe?
- Planted by Ariadne the architect?
- Simply what Fischer Jr. wants to find (so he does)?
Bonus Question: Could it be that the whole point of the story isn't to take down the big firm, but to do an inception in Cobb's mind, convincing him that he isn't guilty for Mal's death?
|
Hahaha, I can tell some people are going to hate this movie. I loved it, though. Movies are an art form, and art should make you think. The best movies are the ones that stay with you long after you've watched them. I can already tell this is going to be one of those movies.
Having said that, the movie drew a fine line between making you think, and making your brain so frustrated that you just tap out. I fell in the first category, but I can totally see someone taking the latter route.
|
On July 24 2010 12:06 Karliath wrote:
QUESTION (spoilers?)
At the end when he opens his father's safe, Fischer Jr. find the pin-mill. Thus, he is convinced that his father loved him and decides to start anew. My question is: Is the pin-mill
- What his father really had in a safe?
- Planted by Ariadne the architect?
- Simply what Fischer Jr. wants to find (so he does)?
Bonus Question: Could it be that the whole point of the story isn't to take down the big firm, but to do an inception in Cobb's mind, convincing him that he isn't guilty for Mal's death?
hahah i only sort of answer the bonus question. i guess u can say both! i never noticed that hahah. i always thought of it as more of a side quest thingy :O
|
Knew the ending would be some make-your-own-ending thing, but I couldnt help but shout "ooooOOOOOOO" with everyone in the theatre to the spinning top at the end :D
Absolutely loved it.
|
On July 24 2010 13:33 bumatlarge wrote:
Knew the ending would be some make-your-own-ending thing, but I couldnt help but shout "ooooOOOOOOO" with everyone in the theatre to the spinning top at the end :D
Absolutely loved it.
Yea great ending. I'm only a little confused on whether the top continuously spinning implies that leonardo dicaprio didn't kick from his limbo or if he stayed in limbo with the japanese guy(not good w/ names) after he escape his own limbo orrr if he was in limbo the whole movie.(I'm assuming not because he was spinning the top and we saw it fall earlier in the movie, but i'm not sure if the camera ever actually showed the top falling.)
|
On July 24 2010 10:55 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 10:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 24 2010 10:53 DannyJ wrote:
I'm so glad Christian Bale wasn't in this movie. I was definitely getting sick of that dude. He's a good Batman though, gotta admit. Yeah he's good. He was good in The Prestige as well. However, he's very similar in all his roles, and i think he just would not have fit into this movie very well. Edit: Pretty sure if it was Christian Bale in it I'd just stare at him like people in dreams do when they know somethings wrong. He's so engrained as Batman in our minds.
go watch American Psycho
|
On July 24 2010 12:06 Karliath wrote:
QUESTION (spoilers?)
At the end when he opens his father's safe, Fischer Jr. find the pin-mill. Thus, he is convinced that his father loved him and decides to start anew. My question is: Is the pin-mill
- What his father really had in a safe?
- Planted by Ariadne the architect?
- Simply what Fischer Jr. wants to find (so he does)?
Bonus Question: Could it be that the whole point of the story isn't to take down the big firm, but to do an inception in Cobb's mind, convincing him that he isn't guilty for Mal's death?
what he wants to find I believe.
|
On July 24 2010 11:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2010 11:09 Shauni wrote:On July 24 2010 10:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 24 2010 10:37 Shauni wrote:On July 24 2010 10:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 24 2010 10:17 Shauni wrote:
Exactly why do they have to be (imaginary) human beings with guns defending his little subconscious? I don't want to get stuck in a stupid Inception physics argument but I don't really see your point. Because physical visualization is the most effective form for the majority of humans to see and understand things, and the most straightforward way to visualize defense is physical conflict - which turns into modern-day warfare (guns and the like). Like I said, Inception doesn't make all kinds of crazy physics-defying super sci-fi claims - it is more of a near-future setting that simply pushes the idea of lucid dreaming further. Part of the movie is the fact that if you understand dreaming and lucid dreaming (or take the time to understand it after seeing the movie) you see that this kind of stuff isn't completely ridiculous, and that's part of what makes you think. You still have it the wrong way. Yes, people are superficial beings and identify more easily with structured realism, human beings, modern warfare than what really lies in our subconscious or dreams. It's not like that because it's the only way of making a movie about entering dreams (Taking out all those explosion and war-elements would obviously make it a different movie - but not necessarily for the worse), it's because the message is easy to get across to the viewers. I still stand by my point that for example Fischer's projections, his defenses could have been manifested in many other ways (and I don't see how your arguing contradicts my statement), which would have made the movie more interesting, more realistic (ironically) and more refreshing. I don't disagree that it could've been made in different ways, I just disagree that 1) the examples you gave were good ones and 2) that it was necessary. Physical representation would be the simplest way to go about it. Any other way would've been overly-complicated for no other reason that to appease viewers like yourself. I don't see that as more realistic in any way, I just see it as complicated for the purpose of being able to say it's "deep". Oh, and just because we identify with visualization the most doesn't make us "superficial beings". Stop trying to sound so intellectual. You basically wrote down the definition of superficial and said it didn't make you superficial. What a contradiction... The flashy visualization is implemented because the majority of the viewers are attracted by it, not for any 'realistic' or 'logical' purposes inside the movie like you claimed previously. And I, apparently in the minority like you said, dislikes exaggerated scenes like these which are being recycled in almost every Hollywood movie. I don't try to be an intellectual or a movie expert, I just found those parts of the movie in bad taste. It could have been so much more, it could have been 'over-complicated', which is - i assume - some effort by the director to make it thought-provoking past the initial idea. Like written by others previously, it's merely the idea that was planted inside us - which was explained in a few minutes. The rest of the movie was basically unnecessary. 'Oh, there are so many levels of the dreams, and we can follow them all at once! What a mindfuck!' Speculation of intent is just B.S. and is a red herring from the point. You can say that what you think the intent was all you want, the point is that it fits very well into the movie. I could go ahead and just say that anything that out there that is complicated was purposely made complicated solely for the point of looking intellectual, but that 1) doesn't make me correct and 2) has no actual point. Overall it was a great movie that made a lot of people think. Take your pseudo-intellectual and condescending attitude elsewhere if you didn't like the movie. We got your opinion and you don't need to bash people any more.
You think it was a great movie that made you think. I watched it because you hyped up the movie. And you think I'm not allowed to offer my criticism because I'm in the minority here? Why don't you go take a leap of faith.
The reason I'm criticizing is not just because I didn't think it was the 'most amazing movie ever!', it's because the viewers disguise it as something it's not.
The only thing one could have against the movie, is the headache one could have.See, most of my friends go to the movies for brainless action, they enjoyed Iron Man 2 and The A-Team, but this movie-you have to see it at least twice, to understand it.The levels and the layers on which thing are happening are so many, that one surely'll miss something vital.This is a reason for not fitting to the mass audience
That being said, there was still a lot about this film I still don't get, and may require multiple viewings to better understand. However, some of the best films I've seen are confusing at first. "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) is a film I've seen a couple of times, and still don't understand completely. It still has a major following, though, as I'm positive this movie will. It's an incredibly entertaining movie, but it also makes you think and continues to do so after you leave the theater.
Ideas have never felt more interesting and put to good use than in this film. This film is NOT for the popcorn muncher, rather it is a film for thinkers. Honestly I can't explain the plot for fear of spoiling the movie for you readers. Even the slightest hint will ruin the experience. The viewer will walk out of the cinema feeling dazed, confused and ultimately breathless. It's like a puzzle, both physically and mentally, and you have to pay attention throughout the film for the clues. However Nolan controls the spectacle of the film and is careful not to let it overwhelm the film's humanity, and this is where "Inception" shines. It is a very deep film that will have one thinking and asking questions for years to come. That's right, years.
Christopher Nolan's "Inception" plays very much like its subject matter described so aptly above by Freud. On your first viewing, you will quite possibly only grasp just a fraction of its complexity, but the brilliance of what this reviewer proclaims as Nolan's masterpiece lies in how engaging it is- even though you cannot quite fully comprehend what Nolan is trying to say. Indeed, it may take multiple viewings for one to absorb completely his audacious new creation that dares to tackle as dense and intricate a subject as that of dreams.
This movie is not for everyone however. It is not a late night, brainless action movie like Crank or 2012. It requires the audience to have smart brain-think. So on a scale of 1-10, Inception is about a 12. This, without question, the best movie of the year. If The Academy snubs Nolan out of this Oscar, I think I might kill someone. He should have the Best Director award in the bag. However, to truly enjoy it, you have to pay attention. It's complex, but never confusing. If you enjoy a great thriller that is anything but straightforward, this is the movie for you. And be prepared to use your mind.
That's just a few examples of praise from reviews. And the general train of thought here is that it's complex, thought-provoking, difficult to absorb, even artistic and a potential cult classic. It's the same in this thread. There is some serious Deception going on here. I'm not the one reading comic books and trying to argue that they're equivalent of Edvard Munch's or Salvador Dali's paintings.
It doesn't offer anything new, original or even vaguely artistic to the genre of artificial reality. Christopher Nolan is not a genius director, he makes entertaining films for the masses but that's how far it goes. It's a bit sad how you guys were fooled once with Avatar, and then you buy into the PR the second time with this movie. The characters were flat, story recycled and it followed the simple Hollywood mixture of corny jokes, quick paced dialogue and cool explosions. I don't understand how people can be excited over and over again just because they're supposed to like something.
|
It's a bit sad how you guys were fooled once with Avatar, and then you buy into the PR the second time with this movie.
Comparing Inception to the overhyped shit that is Avatar is going a bit too far. Youre going full tilt here with this dumb argument, losing hold of true criticism.
Stop trying to be smart and just accept your opinion is just that, an opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
