Inception
- Thread starter Jon Starr
- Start date
You can't wake them up within the dream on the same level. You can only wake someone up with a kick from a higher level dream or reality. When the business man was shot in dream level 1, someone awake (on the plane) would have had to somehow know it and given him the kick. None of them could get out of the current dream or they would have aborted immediately on learning what they learned about the target's subconscious. Highlight for spoiler: that his subconscious was militarized. If they could get out of that dream they would have right then. The way this would be done from within the dream would normally be to commit suicide or shoot someone in your party. That person could then wake up and wake everybody else up. But no they couldn't do that this time because of the sedative. So if you are in the dream and shot and dying you're in danger of going into limbo. The only way someone could wake up is if someone on the plane gave them the kick. No one on the plane knew hew was shot. So ... like the rest of them, all of whom wanted to abort as soon as they learned Cillian's subconscious was militarized, he was trapped until the sedative wore off. The only way around this would have been if they had had the foresight to have one member of their party on a different sedative where they could have been shot in the first layer or two if everything went FUBAR so that individual could wake them up on the plane.
So no, not silly that he wasn't given a kick. A kick can only be given from a higher level of dream or reality. No one on the "reality" level / plane level that was awake knew that the Asian dude was shot in level 1. Level 1 can give a kick to wake you up from level 2 to 1, like in the first big sequence that went from the mansion to the hotel room, that was a kick given in level 1 that woke DiCaprio up from level 2. To wake up from level 1 you have to be given a kick in reality. Everyone in reality was sedated for 10 hours so no one could save the Asian dude.
So I don't see that as a hole. I do find it a little questionable that they wouldn't prepare under the assumption that the type of person who'd have a 10 million dollar kidnapping insurance policy (i.e., someone with lots of money, power, info, i.e,. someone highly kidnappable) wouldn't have a militarized subconscious. So work under that assumption even if the "research" didn't show it. You think Jobs or Gates are not trained what to do in case of a kidnapping? Also, again, why not have a fail safe on the team of one person with a lighter sedative.? Because the movie wouldn't happen and it would take several long scenes to setup and facilitate what happened in 4 lines of dialogue is why. But that's more hole pokeable than not giving him the kick, which was not possible.
A five-to-one ration means that every twelve minutes is an hour (60/5=12).
This is sewn up in dialog:
Cobb: You were supposed to do a full background check! You should have known this! That's your job!
Joseph Gordon Levitt: It slipped! I didn't see it! I'm sorry!
You did point that out, but if we apply the same assumptions to our world of Cinema Production, each person is supposed to do their job, you trust them to do that. Assumptions are generally not a part of the process when going to the front line. Although, some may not see this as a passable excuse, I definitely agree that it is not a plot hole.
My thoughts on the film / hype:
Film was very good. Not mind blowing as proselytized by its acolytes. But good. I think mostly people are shocked at a smart action movie from Hollywood. But it was way over hyped for me. Maybe that alone kept my mind or socks or any other part of me from being blown. Don't mean to sound like I didn't like it. I did. Masterful filmmaking that amounted to 2.5 hours of smart entertainment. Just didn't need a change of underwear and did not question my own existence or craft afterwards.
4 out of 5 stars.
Film was very good. Not mind blowing as proselytized by its acolytes. But good. I think mostly people are shocked at a smart action movie from Hollywood. But it was way over hyped for me. Maybe that alone kept my mind or socks or any other part of me from being blown. Don't mean to sound like I didn't like it. I did. Masterful filmmaking that amounted to 2.5 hours of smart entertainment. Just didn't need a change of underwear and did not question my own existence or craft afterwards.
4 out of 5 stars.
The Hallway scene definitely made me question whether or not I'd ever reach the level of play where you can afford to master an intense moment like that... without CGI.
This is also not Nolan's best feature. I stand by THE PRESTIGE as his number one. It is to be noted, as well, that The Prestige is also derived from existing literature. Where-as INCEPTION was not.
rogar-Mark-01(DBG)
I said they sewed it up in dialogue. I'm saying that dialgue is not very plausible. I said it would have taken a long time and lots of scenes to address it otherwise and it would have made it a lesser movie. But my point was that - come on - if this technology were real, it would be the assumption that anyone in Cillian Murphy's position would have militarized training in the dream world. Not an "oops didn't show up in the research." That would be like going to kidnap Bill Gates and going "Crap he has body guards and a security system. Damnit how could you let this happen? Sorry it slipped." So I said in my post that yes they tied this up in 4 lines of dialogue. I'm saying the 4 lines of dialogue are bullshi*, (if you are going to look for bullshi*) but that I don't care. Movie would have been worse if they went through a couple of long scenes just to facilitate what could be facilitated in 4 lines of dialogue. There's just no way they wouldn't operate under this assumption and no way that someone like Jospeh Gordon what's his name who was described as "the best at his job" wouldn't work under the assumption that one of the world's most powerful men wouldn't have been prepared for this.
Along your analogy - would Macgregor or Balcomb forget to bring media for the camera, especially if the stakes meant death or insanity? But the movie's saying someone who's "the best at their job" just didn't think about something that obvious. But again, I would have done it the same way.
It's what Hitchock calls a refrigerator question - meaning that if the audience is along for the ride, they won't stop and question it until they get home and open the refrigerator to make a sandwich (if they ever even question it). My point wasn't that it was a hole. Yes it was "sewn up" with some dialogue. Addressed (which is really all an audience wants most of the time). So my point wasn't that it was a hole. Just not very plausible when you stop to think about it. "Really? Brad pit has body guards? I can't just walk up and mug him? That didn't show up in the research." But it was the right choice as anything else would have bogged down the script. My point was that the kick wasn't a problem. But if you wanted to poke holes in something (for the shear sake of poking holes) that notion of being utterly clueless about an internationally powerful man having been trained to handle this is pretty indefensible.
Don't know that CGI or not has much to do with it. At 150 million dollars you're only limited by your imagination, talent and your department heads. If you can envision it your team can realize it at $150 million. Whether the best way is with CGI, a anti gravity flight, a rotating set with wires, that's a meeting you have with people that know more about it than the director (though he/she must have a good deal of knowledge). The director can push it to a new level maybe like Speilberg with Jurraisic park. Lucas with eps 4-6, Cameron with "pick-a-movie", or use it smartly like Jackson did in the LOTR series blending practical and CGI so well, each suited best for each event. But in terms of the shots, pacing, movement, at $150 million you should be able to put it on the screen with or without CGI (whatever works best) if you can imagine it. IMHO.
Along your analogy - would Macgregor or Balcomb forget to bring media for the camera, especially if the stakes meant death or insanity? But the movie's saying someone who's "the best at their job" just didn't think about something that obvious. But again, I would have done it the same way.
.
I'm definitely deliberating from the world presented, not outside of it, and not disagreeing that the "refrigerator question" is valid. We're both pretty much saying the same thing: in the movie, it is sufficient.
Right... at one-hundred and fifty million dollars. That's what I said. LoL. My preference would be to do it just as the team decided, which costs tons of money. And, that money is inaccessible to talent that can't prove they can bring it back.
So, it made me question whether or not I would get to see a one-hundred and fifty million dollar budget to pull off an amazing, content-serving visual masterpiece that was the Hallway scene.
I thought you meant that at $150 with the best professionals in Hollywood as your department heads that you wondered if you'd be up to snuff. Not whether you'd ever get the budget and team to attempt such a thing.
If I had the $150million (to spare) I'd give it to you.
Digigenic
Well-known member
SEMI-SPOILER ALERT
===============
Okay, IMO the actual reason Arthur slipped in such a bad way on his assignment was because he was preoccupied with teaching Ariadne the architecture of a dream, in which they were a developing love interest. You only get glimpses of it (the largest of which was the kiss on the 2nd dream level), in small patches, but it was there and had to exist more but got cut down. It could also be argued Ariadne had a thing for Cobb as well, but I think that was sympathy at work for fear of what his projection of Mal might do to her.
This was a part of the story that slipped through the cracks because of the inherent complications of telling a story as complex as this in traditional cinema fashion with limited time and limited dimensions.
===============
Okay, IMO the actual reason Arthur slipped in such a bad way on his assignment was because he was preoccupied with teaching Ariadne the architecture of a dream, in which they were a developing love interest. You only get glimpses of it (the largest of which was the kiss on the 2nd dream level), in small patches, but it was there and had to exist more but got cut down. It could also be argued Ariadne had a thing for Cobb as well, but I think that was sympathy at work for fear of what his projection of Mal might do to her.
This was a part of the story that slipped through the cracks because of the inherent complications of telling a story as complex as this in traditional cinema fashion with limited time and limited dimensions.
I thought you meant that at $150 with the best professionals in Hollywood as your department heads that you wondered if you'd be up to snuff. Not whether you'd ever get the budget and team to attempt such a thing.
If I had the $150million (to spare) I'd give it to you.
Please do. Much needed.
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
Saw it, enjoyed it. Want to see it again.
I am not sure it's in my top 10 or anything, but it was really good.
I am not sure it's in my top 10 or anything, but it was really good.
diego1235467
Well-known member
So apparently, I can make it to the IMAX using the Culver City Bus. And tickets seem to cost the same as the theater down the street.
This may just be my first IMAX experience
This may just be my first IMAX experience
Mark Harris
Pain in the ass
Really enjoyed this. Was along for the ride the whole time.
Also really liked the discipline shown with the EFX. Afterward, I was imagining just how terrible the same idea would have been in the hands of so many others who think they need to spray us every second with digital gizz. I really appreciated how some efx were just glimpsed in the background.
I'm not a huge fan of how Nolan uses the camera. I think it's one thing I didn't like about Dark Knight. It's not choreographed, yet it's not faux "documentary" ala Private Ryan, say. It always just feels sloppy to me. And I think this movie would have benefited from more stable, composed shots. But that's his thing so I'm just saying I don't like the style that much.
Likewise with the fight scenes. I hate crappy close-up fight scenes. The one in the hall with JGL was friggin AMAZING. I was just mesmerized by it.
But I had a great time with this and was really really excited to see a action film geared toward people with an IQ above room temperature. I had skimmed through 2012 earlier today and I think I actually became stupider with each moment I watched.
Given my taste, I would have liked some more mind-****, less exposition dialog and allowing the audience to be a little more perplexed(as you often are in dreams themselves). But I think judging from the audience reaction, the crowds feel the same about having an adult action film. It was packed and people were glued to the screen throughout.
Felt like Ellen Page's character was kind of pointless. I understand her function in the film, but she felt a lot more like a device than a person.
Dicaprio was all right. I like him more and more as the years go on and he ages. But more than that I like his taste in projects. He could have based a whole career on his face and lived happily ever after by not really doing much work at all, but he obviously loves films and wants to do really quality work.
Also really liked the discipline shown with the EFX. Afterward, I was imagining just how terrible the same idea would have been in the hands of so many others who think they need to spray us every second with digital gizz. I really appreciated how some efx were just glimpsed in the background.
I'm not a huge fan of how Nolan uses the camera. I think it's one thing I didn't like about Dark Knight. It's not choreographed, yet it's not faux "documentary" ala Private Ryan, say. It always just feels sloppy to me. And I think this movie would have benefited from more stable, composed shots. But that's his thing so I'm just saying I don't like the style that much.
Likewise with the fight scenes. I hate crappy close-up fight scenes. The one in the hall with JGL was friggin AMAZING. I was just mesmerized by it.
But I had a great time with this and was really really excited to see a action film geared toward people with an IQ above room temperature. I had skimmed through 2012 earlier today and I think I actually became stupider with each moment I watched.
Given my taste, I would have liked some more mind-****, less exposition dialog and allowing the audience to be a little more perplexed(as you often are in dreams themselves). But I think judging from the audience reaction, the crowds feel the same about having an adult action film. It was packed and people were glued to the screen throughout.
Felt like Ellen Page's character was kind of pointless. I understand her function in the film, but she felt a lot more like a device than a person.
Dicaprio was all right. I like him more and more as the years go on and he ages. But more than that I like his taste in projects. He could have based a whole career on his face and lived happily ever after by not really doing much work at all, but he obviously loves films and wants to do really quality work.
diego1235467
Well-known member
I agree about the camerawork. The shakiness distracted the hell out of me in some scenes. The movements should've been as fluid as the zero g fight.
dust'n the callipygous
Well-known member
so i've only seen it once, and it was at midnight. it's a late movie, so i'm sure i missed a few things. fill in the gaps for me.
SPOILERS/ QUESTIONS
1) wondering about limbo. leo said him and his wife were in limbo for about 50 years. Don't you have to die in a dream while under sedation to get into limbo? all they really mentioned was going deeper and deeper into each others minds--no mention of dying in there. also, how do they get out of limbo once they get there? at that point, it appears as if they can just kill themselves (under the train, old ken shooting himself), but that goes against everything they've said before. if that was the case, they could have just let ken die, go into limbo and then shoot himself to be immediately back out. is limbo only possible during sedation?
2) just something i noticed, but when cobb tried spinning the top early on, he wasn't able to. i'm sure this had to do with the ending.
3) this part i'm really confused about. his wife's deep dark secret. maybe i just spaced out when they said what it was. i still have no idea. all i know is that leo spun the top in the safe, where her secret was supposed to be locked away. i assume this was him trying to get her to realize the world wasn't real and to go back to reality. so when cobb said to ellen page that it was mal who gave him the idea of their little objects only they know about, did that idea really stem from leo? or was that just him using her own idea against her? so anyway, i know he planted the idea in her head that their dream world wasn't real, but what did that have to do with her secret?
4) what was the talk about 10 years in dream-world early on? i guess they were just saying how long 10 hours would feel like on the third level
5) this isn't a question so much as my take on part of the film. i thought it was extremely well-paced and had a really interesting way to keeping tension. one thing i was left wanting was that as the levels progressed. so would the surreal nature of their dreams. they did in a sense, but i would have liked to see the changes much more dramatic, directly correlating to the amount of difference in perceived time. i also think this film would have been even better without the existence of the matrix, but it does exist.
SPOILERS/ QUESTIONS
1) wondering about limbo. leo said him and his wife were in limbo for about 50 years. Don't you have to die in a dream while under sedation to get into limbo? all they really mentioned was going deeper and deeper into each others minds--no mention of dying in there. also, how do they get out of limbo once they get there? at that point, it appears as if they can just kill themselves (under the train, old ken shooting himself), but that goes against everything they've said before. if that was the case, they could have just let ken die, go into limbo and then shoot himself to be immediately back out. is limbo only possible during sedation?
2) just something i noticed, but when cobb tried spinning the top early on, he wasn't able to. i'm sure this had to do with the ending.
3) this part i'm really confused about. his wife's deep dark secret. maybe i just spaced out when they said what it was. i still have no idea. all i know is that leo spun the top in the safe, where her secret was supposed to be locked away. i assume this was him trying to get her to realize the world wasn't real and to go back to reality. so when cobb said to ellen page that it was mal who gave him the idea of their little objects only they know about, did that idea really stem from leo? or was that just him using her own idea against her? so anyway, i know he planted the idea in her head that their dream world wasn't real, but what did that have to do with her secret?
4) what was the talk about 10 years in dream-world early on? i guess they were just saying how long 10 hours would feel like on the third level
5) this isn't a question so much as my take on part of the film. i thought it was extremely well-paced and had a really interesting way to keeping tension. one thing i was left wanting was that as the levels progressed. so would the surreal nature of their dreams. they did in a sense, but i would have liked to see the changes much more dramatic, directly correlating to the amount of difference in perceived time. i also think this film would have been even better without the existence of the matrix, but it does exist.
I wasn't bothered by the actual camerawork. What did bother me though was that the snow battle itself was like something from a generic action film compared to the hotel fight, which was something I'd never seen before.
The snow battle felt like Nolan was auditioning for the next James Bond film or something.