I see a *meme developing... And, well, it's been two weeks so I guess it's cool to hate on Inception now.

Adding video to channels (Meme) - requested by Kevlar.

I don't mean to be this guy, but if you paid attention, the movie wasn't that complicated.

I dunno. I consider myself a real Nolan fan, yet I never liked Memento, and don't rate Inception extremely high either. I feel both movies focus far too much on mechanics. Now that it's been a couple weeks my memory of Inception is a lot like this clip... people explaining shit to each other for two hours.

>> ^budzos:
I dunno. I consider myself a real Nolan fan, yet I never liked Memento, and don't rate Inception extremely high either. I feel both movies focus far too much on mechanics. Now that it's been a couple weeks my memory of Inception is a lot like this clip... people explaining shit to each other for two hours.


That's Nolan's gift, grounding the fantastical in reality. It's what I love about him as a storyteller and a director. It's what made his Batman movies so unique among comic book films. They take the unbelievable and make them believeable, and that too is what makes Inception such an amazing piece of science fiction.

What you seem to be saying, although I apologize for trying to extrapolate your meaning from so short a post, is that you'd rather he explain less and just let the audience experience. I think the movie would have been a catastrophic failure if it didn't labor, reasonably, to create rules for its grand idea. Just look at the ending. There is so much rampant speculation on the internet and around water coolers as to what it meant. Imagine what people would think of other parts of the movie, about the movie as a whole, if much more was left ambigious and unexplained.

For myself personally (and I would wager for most who absolutely adored the movie as much as I did), I believe that suspension of disbelief is at its strongest when care is taken to ground things in reality, in some realm of possibility. Sure, we can't enter each other's dreams in the real world, but the way Nolan guides the story, the way he introduces the concept, allows for the possibility.

I feel his ability to make tremendous concepts like this one feel so accessible (and whether you disliked the film or not, you have to concede, I would argue, that he succeeded in getting far more people to buy into so high-concept a film than most directors could) is his greatest strength, and it's why I can't wait to see what he does with his Superman film.

>> ^budzos:

I dunno. I consider myself a real Nolan fan, yet I never liked Memento, and don't rate Inception extremely high either. I feel both movies focus far too much on mechanics. Now that it's been a couple weeks my memory of Inception is a lot like this clip... people explaining shit to each other for two hours.


I kinda felt this way about Inception too. It felt like it was the dramatic conclusion of a trilogy, except for budget reasons they never made the first two films, and therefore were forced to explain a huge amount of the universe's mechanics through exposition.

That, and I wondered why so much of the action was utterly conventional fistfights, gunplay, and car chases, and not nearly so much about the really wacky kinds of things a dream world can do.

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus was a lot more in line with what I would expect a dream world to look like. In Inception, it seemed so dreadfully drab and realistic, like it was the Matrix, not a dream world.

Can't wait for Nolan's Superman. Hope he doesn't try and get too psychological with it, and give us a fucking Clark Kent movie. I also really don't want to sit through another origin story. Just give us a massive scale Superman story where he saves the world via super powers. He should super-punch a giant robot at some point.

Exactly my thoughts NetRunner... but man was the hallway fight cool

^NetRunner

Ya net, I kind of felt the same way. It would of been nice to have all the story mechanics out of the way first then break into the meat. As it was, I still really enjoyed it. He did what he could with the time he had, and it was very nice. It got me thinking of how fun a dynamic it was and I started to create my own dream scape. That is how I know a movie has done a really good job, when I take it home with me and don't want it to end. I keep toying out the idea. In that, though, it did have a very rushed, hurried feel which like you said, made it seem like it was the climax of a trilogy.

I also wondered the same thing about some of the gun fights. Why would you design your guns to be pistols and not bazookas? Like bazookas for each arm, then back up bazookas? Instead, the plincked it out with pee shooters and the occasional high powered rifle.

It might be a neat new stratagem for movies like this, to release maybe 30 min or hour webisodes and establish the premises, then release the movie. Problem is, getting people to watch the webisodes. But if you make it foreknowledge that the webisodes are as much a part of the movie as the movie, perhaps it can work.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm with others in this thread in thinking that Inception was not a great movie. I thought it paled in scope next to The Matrix - and for character development didn't hold a candle to a movie like Moon. It was a high-concept film with a couple of cool ideas - and a plot that tried to flesh those ideas into a narrative.

Not sure what's with all the hate towards Inception lately. It really is a fantastic movie. There are a lot of comparisons to The Matrix, but I feel that it was a lot less pretentious and a lot more focused on the characters and emotions. It didn't have the fantastic fight scenes or massive special effects sequences, but it didn't need them. To focus on action and visuals would take away from the plot.

What impressed me the most was that not only was the movie stand-alone, not a sequel, based off a franchise, or a comic-book movie of any sort, but it was also relatively clean. There was no cursing, no sex or nudity, and the violence wasn't excessive. It's encouraging to see that a great science fiction movie can be made while still being PG-13.

As for the ending, I think it's quite clear that it doesn't matter whether Cobb was still dreaming or was awake. He finally got the happiness he was seeking, and decided not to further question it. People can argue one theory or another, but the driving point is that Cobb finally achieved his dream.

(And comparing it to Moon, Dag? Come on, the movies are of two completely different types and both are excellent in their own way. The more quality science-fiction movies the better.)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

But it did have the fantastic fight scenes and massive special effects - but that's not what made the Matrix good.

For me, what made the Matrix a great movie was the moment that Thomas A. Anderson is sitting in that chair, after taking the red pill, and as a viewer you don't know what the fuck is about to happen. The moment, of him waking up in the pod, was one of the most impressive SF mind-fucks of all time.

I mentioned Moon because I think it's a good example of excellent character based Science Fiction. I thought the characters in Inception were completely forgettable. What were the names of anyone in that movie? I can't remember. But I still remember Thomas Anderson, Agent Smith, Trinity, Morpheus and even that little guy who ratted them out - (though not by name).

>> ^Sylvester_Ink:

Not sure what's with all the hate towards Inception lately. It really is a fantastic movie. There are a lot of comparisons to The Matrix, but I feel that it was a lot less pretentious and a lot more focused on the characters and emotions. It didn't have the fantastic fight scenes or massive special effects sequences, but it didn't need them. To focus on action and visuals would take away from the plot.
What impressed me the most was that not only was the movie stand-alone, not a sequel, based off a franchise, or a comic-book movie of any sort, but it was also relatively clean. There was no cursing, no sex or nudity, and the violence wasn't excessive. It's encouraging to see that a great science fiction movie can be made while still being PG-13.
As for the ending, I think it's quite clear that it doesn't matter whether Cobb was still dreaming or was awake. He finally got the happiness he was seeking, and decided not to further question it. People can argue one theory or another, but the driving point is that Cobb finally achieved his dream.
(And comparing it to Moon, Dag? Come on, the movies are of two completely different types and both are excellent in their own way. The more quality science-fiction movies the better.)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Truest line in this: "Don't you see? The complexity is what makes it all so brilliant!"

Ouch.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I think I'm now equipped to watch it!

I agree that it was a fantastic film. Your point of it being 'clean' and that being impressive I don't agree with though. Everything is clean now, everything is PG13ified now in order to get return business from children. It is a business decision for high budget films to get money back. In real life people swear, and violence actually causes peoples bodies to be brutally hurt. I would have preferred Inception to be R rated film because of this.

This was one thing that District 9 did last year that made it stick out, and made it feel more real. There hasn't been a full on well made R rated sci fi in 20 years. T2 was the last one. The Matrix was R rated, but didn't have any f-bombs in it. I think Inception is a better film then D-9 though. District 9 had too many logic flaws. It was the opposite approach to Inception actually. It didn't explain anything, or at least very little. Something defenders like a lot about it.


>> ^Sylvester_Ink:

Not sure what's with all the hate towards Inception lately. It really is a fantastic movie. There are a lot of comparisons to The Matrix, but I feel that it was a lot less pretentious and a lot more focused on the characters and emotions. It didn't have the fantastic fight scenes or massive special effects sequences, but it didn't need them. To focus on action and visuals would take away from the plot.
What impressed me the most was that not only was the movie stand-alone, not a sequel, based off a franchise, or a comic-book movie of any sort, but it was also relatively clean. There was no cursing, no sex or nudity, and the violence wasn't excessive. It's encouraging to see that a great science fiction movie can be made while still being PG-13.
As for the ending, I think it's quite clear that it doesn't matter whether Cobb was still dreaming or was awake. He finally got the happiness he was seeking, and decided not to further question it. People can argue one theory or another, but the driving point is that Cobb finally achieved his dream.
(And comparing it to Moon, Dag? Come on, the movies are of two completely different types and both are excellent in their own way. The more quality science-fiction movies the better.)

I assiduously avoided any commentary about the film until I was able to judge it for myself, and was interested to see that Nolan had started work on the script while shooting Memento. Given that The Matrix came out in 1999 and Memento in 2000, it's not a stretch to consider that Nolan had seen The Matrix and, like the rest of us, was really thinking about it. Now most people HATEHATEHATE the Matrix sequels, but there's a moment at the end of the second one where it still could have been all right, where all the craziness would suddenly make sense, but the filmmakers would have to trust the audience to follow them down the rabbit hole. I speak of course of the moment when Neo raises his hand and shuts down the Sentinels. How the frick could he do that?!? The answer, to me, was obvious: Neo/Thomas Anderson realized that "The Desert of the Real" (as Morpheus referred to it) was just another construct fashioned by the machines. Everything we've been told supports this conclusion. I don't want to go into too much detail, but as I was watching Inception, it occurred to me that Nolan came to the exact same conclusion I did, and was just as pissed as I was when the Wachowskis failed to trust their audience (as seen in the third film). Inception, then, is a think piece not only about the nature of reality, but how little things can build to dangerous proportions if we let them.

To me, the most wonderful thing about Inception was its completely incomprehensible trailer. We were shown disparate images that make not a lick of sense, and left me feeling rather put out. Upon watching the film, I realized that the trailer showed us EVERYTHING without actually telling us ANYTHING. It was the fevered fragments of a dream, seconds after waking. Since that's pretty much what the movie is about, mission accomplished, trailer-makers.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Good analysis. I too wish the Wachoskis had gone that route.>> ^timtoner:

I assiduously avoided any commentary about the film until I was able to judge it for myself, and was interested to see that Nolan had started work on the script while shooting Memento. Given that The Matrix came out in 1999 and Memento in 2000, it's not a stretch to consider that Nolan had seen The Matrix and, like the rest of us, was really thinking about it. Now most people HATEHATEHATE the Matrix sequels, but there's a moment at the end of the second one where it still could have been all right, where all the craziness would suddenly make sense, but the filmmakers would have to trust the audience to follow them down the rabbit hole. I speak of course of the moment when Neo raises his hand and shuts down the Sentinels. How the frick could he do that?!? The answer, to me, was obvious: Neo/Thomas Anderson realized that "The Desert of the Real" (as Morpheus referred to it) was just another construct fashioned by the machines. Everything we've been told supports this conclusion. I don't want to go into too much detail, but as I was watching Inception, it occurred to me that Nolan came to the exact same conclusion I did, and was just as pissed as I was when the Wachowskis failed to trust their audience (as seen in the third film). Inception, then, is a think piece not only about the nature of reality, but how little things can build to dangerous proportions if we let them.
To me, the most wonderful thing about Inception was its completely incomprehensible trailer. We were shown disparate images that make not a lick of sense, and left me feeling rather put out. Upon watching the film, I realized that the trailer showed us EVERYTHING without actually telling us ANYTHING. It was the fevered fragments of a dream, seconds after waking. Since that's pretty much what the movie is about, mission accomplished, trailer-makers.

Well, I'm going to really go 'out there' and say I loved the film, was a great ride from start to finish.

And I truly don't understand how people were confused by it... how fricken hard was it to understand? Geeze. And the whole 'you really have to pay attention' malarky... huh? What do most of you DO at the movies, studiously investigate the artwork of your popcorn box or something?

It makes me think that maybe hollywood isn't underestimating their audiences when they release mindless drivvle, seems like that's all the majority can understand.

Yeash.

I upvote this video though, for Batman

LOL @ the ending!