EPTI'm not going to criticize it because I'm incapable of making good movies anyway.
[Movie] Inception - Page 39
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
I'm not going to criticize it because I'm incapable of making good movies anyway. | ||
|
hmpstr
Norway11 Posts
On November 11 2010 10:06 heishe wrote: statements like this pop up a lot. seems like the movie is really too hard to understand for some people. i mean come on. she's the architect of the dreamworlds. she designed every single aspect of it. of course she knows them better than anyone. lol. i gets explained to you in a 5-10 minute sequence. The fact that she learns to design the world itself does not in any way explain clearly why she suddenly knows more about the process and events in the dream world than even DiCaprios character, that has been doing this for years, including designing worlds himself. I am not talking about her knowing the specific dreamwolrd that she created herself, its the fact that the rest of the people thats been doing the thing she does for years looks like amateurs compared to her. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On November 11 2010 22:53 government delta wrote: lol sorry for trolling then. but you need to understand that i really got pissed off at this movie, because this movie tells you that youre stupid over and over again while also telling you that its the best movie ever over and over again. of course i can explain this in detail i wrote a little review shortly after watching it you see it really angered me how a movie like that plays its audience and gets away with it. just out of curiosity: what's your favorite movie and what's your favorite tv series? | ||
|
Shockk
Germany2269 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:01 SleepSheep wrote: yeah, i know you didn't call it art. but the issue still remains. Dude, which issue? Noone here actually did what you said; neither I nor the folks who agree with me judged movies based on money made or other's opinions. All we did was argue with a troll and his method of judging the movie. In the process of doing so, we delivered several examples of why saying "Nolan failed as a director" simply is wrong. Not once - i repeat, not once - did anyone here on the last page, except our overzealous troll, actually judge art in a dubious way. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On November 11 2010 22:13 Malinor wrote: It's pretty easy to see that you are the one that something is wrong with. You just make up your categorie of art based on your personal taste, Shockk on the other hand has a real argument based on somewhat objective criterias (commercial success, critical acclaim). You just don't like the movie. That's fine too. I really hate these arguments but it seems like we need to clarify a few things. We all understand that making a movie is expensive. You need to either support the movie yourself or have corporations supporting you. Movies are in first hand regarded as business, even remotely artistic movies can never make it to mainstream cinema because the corporations are not interested in advertising or publishing something that isn't made to sell. Inception is by no means an artistic movie. It was intended, directed and released toward the mainstream moviegoers - rendering all critical acclaim besides the ones marketing the movie useless. You can't compare cinema that was made for cash to cinema that is made to question our existence. Like Tarkovsky said, art exists because this world is not perfect. Art would be useless if this world was perfect because we'd live in harmony instead of seeking it. Of course Nolan considers himself by no means an artistic director, so you can only compare him with other Hollywood blockbuster directors like Michael Bay and James Cameron. By artistic standards, they are all terrible. By financial success, however, they are USA A+ rank. The categorization a movie for thinkers is something that entered the minds of Inception-fans, wanting to believe that this movie somehow demands more thought process than Armageddon. While it is true that you can interpret the dream-levels, reality and the movie in general in various ways, it doesn't serve any higher purpose than relating them back to the film itself. It's similar to using plot-turn devices, the audience feel that they have to be aware and conscious to appreciate the movie, but ultimately it doesn't serve any other purpose than keeping the audience entertained. By the previous-to-Inception categorization, a movie for thinkers was not anything like that at all. A movie that 'made you think' was when you could openly relate it back to your reality, direction and purpose in life, without the movie judging or determining the audience. Hollywood blockbuster cinema is a clear polar opposite. | ||
|
government delta
Germany96 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:10 Shockk wrote: saying "Nolan failed as a director" simply is wrong. do i really have to add IMHO to everything? ~_~ because you also dont do that here, so your arguments are looking as solid as mine so yeah we were actually on the exact same level, even if you wouldnt like that. dude dont be a douchebag, everything i say is for my own peace of mind. he just cant direct in my eyes, inception triggered me to boycott everything the guy has ever done and will ever do in film, yes i really felt like the movie is that bad and seeing so many positive reviews just made me have to say something lulz isnt that understandable even if you like the fucking thing | ||
|
kataa
United Kingdom384 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:16 Shauni wrote: [ Inception is by no means an artistic movie. It was intended, directed and released toward the mainstream moviegoers - rendering all critical acclaim besides the ones marketing the movie useless. You can't compare cinema that was made for cash to cinema that is made to question our existence. Like Tarkovsky said, art exists because this world is not perfect. Art would be useless if this world was perfect because we'd live in harmony instead of seeking it. Of course Nolan considers himself by no means an artistic director, so you can only compare him with other Hollywood blockbuster directors like Michael Bay and James Cameron. By artistic standards, they are all terrible. By financial success, however, they are USA A+ rank. If you use target audience to define art you're basically going down a road which no philosopher of aesthetics will ever agree with, besides maybe some very arrogant french intellectuals. Target audience has nothing to do with whether or not it's art, however there are many other elements which contribute to a films target audience, but the intentionality of the artist has nothing to with defining art. Art (unless you're some totally crazy neo-Platonist) is obviously defined by context, public context. I think there's a good argument to be made that Inception is not a particularly beautiful or artistically driven movie, in fact I almost vomited from it's bad acting and horrible plot several times during watching it. But this has nothing to do with Christopher Nolans intentions, there are completely idiotic directors that make awesome artistic movies. Take James Cameron's ex-wife, Kathyrn Bigelow. She intended to make a crappy Hollywood vampire film, that partly through her own genius and partly through luck turned into one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. What you rather have, a prentious, untalented director making a movie to "question our existence" or a brilliantly talented but greedy director that makes an incredible movie? Now, I'm a pretty big fan of indie cinema, but your argument basically means Francis Ford Coppla is a bad director. Sorry, but no. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:09 hmpstr wrote: The fact that she learns to design the world itself does not in any way explain clearly why she suddenly knows more about the process and events in the dream world than even DiCaprios character, that has been doing this for years, including designing worlds himself. I am not talking about her knowing the specific dreamwolrd that she created herself, its the fact that the rest of the people thats been doing the thing she does for years looks like amateurs compared to her. I don't remember any such thing. Could you refer to specific scenes or something like that? I didn't get that impression at all. | ||
|
heishe
Germany2284 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:17 government delta wrote: do i really have to add IMHO to everything? ~_~ because you also dont do that here, so your arguments are looking as solid as mine so yeah we were actually on the exact same level, even if you wouldnt like that. dude dont be a douchebag, everything i say is for my own peace of mind. he just cant direct in my eyes, inception triggered me to boycott everything the guy has ever done and will ever do in film, yes i really felt like the movie is that bad and seeing so many positive reviews just made me have to say something lulz isnt that understandable even if you like the fucking thing I'll ask again: What's your favorite movie and your favorite TV series? I'd really like to be enlighten what kind of movies you'd consider good, and what kind of plots and plot devices you find interesting if you think that Inception sucked so hard. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19240 Posts
| ||
|
eKe
Canada60 Posts
I liked the story even if it's a bit redundant near the end. Anyway, the best thing about inception is the South park's episode about it " Insheeption " ^^ | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:41 kataa wrote: If you use target audience to define art you're basically going down a road which no philosopher of aesthetics will ever agree with, besides maybe some very arrogant french intellectuals. Target audience has nothing to do with whether or not it's art, however there are many other elements which contribute to a films target audience, but the intentionality of the artist has nothing to with defining art. Art (unless you're some totally crazy neo-Platonist) is obviously defined by context, public context. I think there's a good argument to be made that Inception is not a particularly beautiful or artistically driven movie, in fact I almost vomited from it's bad acting and horrible plot several times during watching it. But this has nothing to do with Christopher Nolans intentions, there are completely idiotic directors that make awesome artistic movies. Take James Cameron's ex-wife, Kathyrn Bigelow. She intended to make a crappy Hollywood vampire film, that partly through her own genius and partly through luck turned into one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. What you rather have, a prentious, untalented director making a movie to "question our existence" or a brilliantly talented but greedy director that makes an incredible movie? Now, I'm a pretty big fan of indie cinema, but your argument basically means Francis Ford Coppla is a bad director. Sorry, but no. I don't use target audience to define art. I used it as an example to how corporate directors act, obviously they want as wide audience as possible, so there are certain... limitations in order to make a successful movie. If you want to make an artistic movie however, your own expression is more important than adapting to any audience. I don't see how you misinterpreted that from my post. And your last question is absurd, I don't know why everybody believes artistic movies to be something pretentious and difficult to grasp just for the sake of it. They're often more realistic and raw than their mainstream counterparts. Francis Ford Coppla? Haha, why do you bring him up? The only reason I like him is because he made the local inhabitants in Vietnam slaughter more animals in their rituals by importing them so that he could shoot some extra scenes for Apocalypse Now. | ||
|
Adeeler
United Kingdom764 Posts
The ending means that the guy will live out a lifetime of bliss then wake up young again so all in all a nice happy ending for the most part cos he will wake up next to his wife again. Or he will wake up in an above layer of his mind and live that life out until he gets back to the top or goes into more dream layers which he seems unlikely to want to do. | ||
|
kataa
United Kingdom384 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:16 Shauni wrote: Inception is by no means an artistic movie. It was intended, directed and released toward the mainstream moviegoers On November 12 2010 00:13 Shauni wrote: I don't use target audience to define art. Pretty sure you just did. On November 12 2010 00:13 Shauni wrote: And your last question is absurd, I don't know why everybody believes artistic movies to be something pretentious and difficult to grasp just for the sake of it. They're often more realistic and raw than their mainstream counterparts. Francis Ford Coppla? Haha, why do you bring him up? The only reason I like him is because he made the local inhabitants in Vietnam slaughter more animals in their rituals by importing them so that he could shoot some extra scenes for Apocalypse Now. I don't think artistic movies need to be pretentious, what I was saying is that if you follow your logic on the subject you'd quickly end up in a world where artistic movies had to be pretentious. Because art is no longer a definition of quality, but rather of the goal/intentions of the artist. No one disagrees that indie films tend to allow for more creative scope, but the force of your original argument, was that it's mainstream roots excluded any artistic content. I don't see what is so special about "your own expression". If someone is a bad director I don't want their expression, no matter how tainted or untainted it may be by various commercial restraints. Dostoyevsky constantly tried to cater his books to make money, but none the less he's still one of the greatest authors in history. Coppla was greedy Hollywood director who still produced some amazingly raw films. I don't care whether or not he was in it for the money or 'his own expressions'. | ||
|
Setev
Malaysia390 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:44 heishe wrote: I'll ask again: What's your favorite movie and your favorite TV series? I'd really like to be enlighten what kind of movies you'd consider good, and what kind of plots and plot devices you find interesting if you think that Inception sucked so hard. I just read his summary/review of Inception. I bet he didn't understand much of the plot. He wrote why Limbo is modelled after Cobb's impression, and proceeded to cuss and swear coz he couldn't get it. Its explained in the movie, that Limbo is modelled after the impression of the person in a group who had gone there before (which is Cobb only). I can't help but notice that he had not answered to your challenge. I guess you got him scared..haha. | ||
|
government delta
Germany96 Posts
On November 12 2010 00:56 Setev wrote: I just read his summary/review of Inception. I bet he didn't understand much of the plot. He wrote why Limbo is modelled after Cobb's impression, and proceeded to cuss and swear coz he couldn't get it. Its explained in the movie, that Limbo is modelled after the impression of the person in a group who had gone there before (which is Cobb only). I can't help but notice that he had not answered to your challenge. I guess you got him scared..haha. just because the movie tells you these facts does not make them automatically logical. i asked why was it modelled after dicaprio in the same sense as why the movie was centered around him and why he was the only character with a character, i found the whole story to be a big inconvenience. | ||
|
Setev
Malaysia390 Posts
On November 12 2010 01:07 government delta wrote: just because the movie tells you these facts does not make them automatically logical. i asked why was it modelled after dicaprio in the same sense as why the movie was centered around him and why he was the only character with a character, i found the whole story to be a big inconvenience. Hmm yeah you are right in this aspect. However this is the concept the movie presents to us. If you want to argue logic, then I find that the whole idea of entering someone's dream is totally illogical and is total BS. Its just a movie that explores a SF concept, just like the Stargate franchise, Star Wars franchise, and BSG. Also, your question seems to be in the vein of someone asking why Titanic seems to be about Jack and Rose's love affair? Its just the movie plot. Try to enjoy it. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
On November 12 2010 00:53 kataa wrote: Pretty sure you just did. I don't think artistic movies need to be pretentious, what I was saying is that if you follow your logic on the subject you'd quickly end up in a world where artistic movies had to be pretentious. Because art is no longer a definition of quality, but rather of the goal/intentions of the artist. No one disagrees that indie films tend to allow for more creative scope, but the force of your original argument, was that it's mainstream roots excluded any artistic content. I don't see what is so special about "your own expression". If someone is a bad director I don't want their expression, no matter how tainted or untainted it may be by various commercial restraints. Dostoyevsky constantly tried to cater his books to make money, but none the less he's still one of the greatest authors in history. Coppla was greedy Hollywood director who still produced some amazingly raw films. I don't care whether or not he was in it for the money or 'his own expressions'. I don't think this is the right place to argue what is determined artistic or not, and whether or not greed is choking the creative lust. But I don't see why you are insisting with Coppola, obviously he made some good movies in the 70's, but his early works were his best which is also true for most Hollywood directors. After becoming comfortably rich, they lose their spark which in turn leads to less enthusiastic, less creative, less artistic movies. I don't think that mainstream movies can't have any 'artistic roots', I'm just saying it isn't necessary, and it certainly isn't appealing to the viewers. The larger a movie gets, the more marketing it will receive, the more financial and political responsibility comes with it - various sponsors, ads in movie and whatnot. A mainstream movie is forced to choose audience (often very wide), independent films doesn't have that pressure at all. Which is what I meant by the quote above. The way it seemed implied that artistic movies are directed away from mainstream was just a mistake on my part. I don't know whether or not money was Dostoyevsky's only purpose with writing, but I'm slightly skeptical. In any case, I never meant that you couldn't produce good art if you were greedy. I just believe that the two should not be mixed, the modern film industry is a good example of how artistic expression in the medium of cinema went terribly wrong, fans citing box office success to reinforce their opinion of a movie is just disgusting. | ||
|
SleepSheep
Canada344 Posts
On November 11 2010 23:10 Shockk wrote: Dude, which issue? Noone here actually did what you said; neither I nor the folks who agree with me judged movies based on money made or other's opinions. All we did was argue with a troll and his method of judging the movie. In the process of doing so, we delivered several examples of why saying "Nolan failed as a director" simply is wrong. Not once - i repeat, not once - did anyone here on the last page, except our overzealous troll, actually judge art in a dubious way. yeah, i understand what you're saying. the fact that movies are said to be good movies because they are entertaining which can be evidenced by their profit margins is what i take issue with. to say that they are entertaining is to imply that they are good on some level which is fine in and of itself but within this context it is also to imply that there is nothing wrong with the mechanisms which put these movies in play as well as what these movies do on a massive level. so i was critiquing the very way that we talk about these movies which we do without feeling disturbed or angered. | ||
|
hmpstr
Norway11 Posts
Havent watched it since it came out, so I can't really do that, but that is a strong impresssion I got, and how I felt about it at the time, and not gonna watch it again to refer to scenes ^^ | ||
| ||
