*** Official INCEPTION Discussion Thread - Page 6

Ariadne jumping off kicked her out of limbo.

The hospital blowing up kicked them out of dream 3.

The elevator falling down kicked them out of dream 2.

Van falling into the water DID NOT wake them up from dream 1. They woke up after time is up or the air hostess woke them.

 

That's how I saw it.
 

I think the neatest trick Nolan pulled with the ending is convincing us that "reality does not exist" even though that is what it was.

I didn't read every post here, so I'm not sure if anyone has said anything like this yet.

While I was watching it, like many others, I was anticipating some kind of twist. When we find out that Mal died by jumping off a building because she was sure that she was still in a dream, I was convinced. However, near then end, when Cobb and Ariadne enter limbo and Mal tries to convince Cobb to stay, it all turned upside down for me. From the things she said, I thought that this world could very well be 'reality', Mal was right all along, and Cobb had been living in a dream world the whole time. So pretty much, for at least a minute or two, I was convinced that he had ti all backwards, and Mal dying sent her back to reality, and HE was the one that was stuck in dreams/limbo until he got to her in what he knew as 'limbo'.

 

I hope that made sense, and I'd have to watch it again to know if it fits in at all. But it was just a thought. Anyone with me?

This is my first ever post here. Looks like no one has posted in this Inception discussion thread for a long time, so perhaps my comment will never be read. Nevertheless...
I waited to see the film until it was out in DVD. I had a feeling it would be one of those that I'd want to re-watch multiple times in succession. Turns out I was right. Bought the DVD about a week ago & have watched it at least daily since & played the soundtrack the rest of the time, including while sleeping. Also downloaded some Edith Piaf & listen to Non Je Ne Regrette Rien in the car. I enjoy letting myself become obsessed for awhile about something I really like.
I wanted to speak, like so many others, to the last scene of the film and the spinning top/totem. Unlike the rest of the scenes where the top is spun, in the final shot, the top is forever caught in a state between spinning and the fall we can see and hear is just about to happen. There is broad consensus about the meaning of the first two states. My theory is that the filmmakers acknowledge that Cobb is not in reality at the end. He is a character in a film, a state shared in the minds of the audience. This conceit has been used since at least the work of Shakespeare and I suppose you could reference Plato and other Greek philosophers. Cobb and all the characters are back in reality, but still not-real. And yes, let us have a Buddhist moment to reflect on our own state.
I thought Leo did a fine job, and the cinematographer beautifully caught the light through his and other characters eyes in the plane at the end. I do think Leo could do a little more work in moderating his vocal pitch for various characters.
Tom Hardy was a joy to watch. I loved him in RockNRolla too. I really have nothing but positives for the entire cast and crew.
I do wish the screenplay had explained the shared dreaming machine a little more to lend it better credence. I know it works with a sedative and is taped to people's wrists, but not an IV line. What is that supposed to do? We know it is military hardware, but that's about it. I'm as willing as anyone to suspend my disbelief, but give me something to work with. Maybe there was some explanation in some scene that was cut. If I can access some versions of the screenplay, that would be fun.
Well, enough. Time to watch it again!

David - welcome to the forum.

Oh, you'll fit right in then.

Inception was easily my favorite film of last year and retains that standing. Using the word 'state' in conjunction with Cobb's totem at the end of the film is an interesting choice and makes me think of Schrodinger's cat.

- Walter.

David, here is more information about the PASIV device than you probably wanted to know: http://www.pasivdevice.org/ There are needles that go into the arm. The tape is to hold the tube in place.

My question is, how can the PASIV devices within dreams actually work? An architect can dream about something like a car, and it'll work in the dream, even if she doesn't understand exactly how a car works. In essence, it's cheating. The architect isn't dreaming about the pistons moving, the crankshaft turning, etc. If you were to look under the hood, it would be empty. But the car still moves, because it's only moving in the architect's mind.

But a PASIV device affects the minds of the others who are hooked up to it within the dream. It can't just appear to be working -- it has to actually work. I don't see how that would be possible, unless the architect has a sophisticated enough understanding of how the device works in order to construct a virtual working device in their mind. Given how complex a PASIV device would have to be, that would be impossible for any person to do.

I know the movie requires the suspension of disbelief, but I don't see how something like that could even work in theory.
Edited by Ben Osborne - 8/22/11 at 10:58am

Double post.
Edited by Ben Osborne - 8/22/11 at 10:57am

Thanks, Ben.
The PASIV device seems not to paint in my browser. But it still looks cool.
I had the opposite reaction. I find it easier to suspend disbelief about them using impossible tech in the dream state. More difficult in the "real" world.
David

Hi Walter,
I had a long response to you about Schroedinger's cat (sorry - no umlauts) but it disappeared into the ether.
It was really good.
David

Perhaps when you pressed the SUBMIT button an alternate reality was spawned, your post was preserved and another Walter is responding to that post. But since that existence and this one are decoherent I guess we'll never know.

- Walter.

Does anyone else feel that Inception doesn't hold up nearly as well in repeated viewings? Once you've seen it there's really no incentive to watch it again, since everything is explained in many tedious exposition scenes. Or at least that's what it feels like to me. He could have let us show the many things he wanted to explain, or let the audience figure it out, but instead he chose a setup that takes long to explain and made sure everyone in the audience could follow it. Which of course works fine the first time you watch it, but it becomes boring after that.

I don't find it hard to watch on repeated viewings at all. It's an exquisitely crafted, filmed, paced, and acted movie, and it has an air of melancholy about it which resonates with me. Those qualities never become uninteresting in my book, even if the exposition is no longer needed.

Edited by dpippel - 8/24/11 at 1:00pm

Thought I would chime in here to mention that after thoroughly enjoying INCEPTION on opening day, my admiration of the film has only increased over several theatrical viewings and many, many more on Blu-ray. It's become one of my all-time favorites.

If their was a new game for inception do you think the story should be based on the movie or bits of the movie but goes of into its own narrative.
what do you also think the game play features should entail