Quoted from sniper Oh, did he now?

-Exactly!  See, this is the funny thing - many arguments are rendered obsolite since there are so many uncertanties in the film, what with all the dreams within a dream and such.

Goooood morning,

Quoted from RunningFox -Exactly!  See, this is the funny thing - many arguments are rendered obsolite since there are so many uncertanties in the film, what with all the dreams within a dream and such.

So would you fellas consider a story, as written by the screenwriter,* deliberately leaving a few questions unanswered at the end of the film:
A. clever for inciting debate & stimulating conversation.
B. sloppy for not buttoning up loose ends.
C. depends upon the audience. Kids won't get it, semi-adults will twitter about it, mature adults won't like it.
D. depends up on the individual viewer. Some will. Some won't. Can't make everyone happy.
E. dances along a razor's edge, so you better know WTH your doing.
F. other.

Thank you

*The studio, producer, director, actors & editor are going to Franken-script it anyway.

It really depends on the questions that are left unanswered and - more importantly - how they are left unanswered.

But if done right, I would go with an almagamate of A and E.

Quoted from RayW Goooood morning, So would you fellas consider a story, as written by the screenwriter,* deliberately leaving a few questions unanswered at the end of the film: A. clever for inciting debate & stimulating conversation. B. sloppy for not buttoning up loose ends. C. depends upon the audience. Kids won't get it, semi-adults will twitter about it, mature adults won't like it. D. depends up on the individual viewer. Some will. Some won't. Can't make everyone happy. E. dances along a razor's edge, so you better know WTH your doing. F. other. Thank you *The studio, producer, director, actors & editor are going to Franken-script it anyway.

To be honest, I'm not really a fan of the term clever - it's a little snobbish.  Of course Inception is a clever film, but not just because of its ambiguity.  Die Hard, for example, has practically zero ambiguity, but that's not to say it isn't a clever film.  It's a very straight forward film done very cleverly.  Inception just happens to be an ambiguous film that's also done very cleverly.  I can tell you I definately wouldn't call it sloppy.  I would consider the story as written by the screenwriter a deliberately artistic choice - and by default, such a choice isn't going to please the mass audience, and it will split opinions, that much is inevitable.

I guess it comes down to what it always comes down to; taste.  I just feel that sometimes, the folks who are ripping on the film often fail to realize that it's not actually for them.

I'm a HUGE fan of the TV show Lost, which is a deliberately ambiguous show - incidentally, a show which shares a lot of similarities to Inception.  And one thing I've come to understand is that audiences either love it or they hate it.  But generally, what they don't do is waste time nitpicking, instead they realize the show is just not to their taste and they move onto another one.  That mentality in movies, however, is different quite.  People automatically assume that because a film is being released world wide, then it's supposed to be for everyone - that it's supposed to be for them, and that it's supposed to entertain them, and if it doesn't, then there's something wrong with the film, which of course simply isn't true - in fact, that very notion is just ludicrous.  

I guess some folks just need to realize that maybe the film wasn't actually meant for them and just move on to something else.  And I'm not just talking about Inception, a similar thing happened with Inglorious Bastards, which I loved, but a lot of people didn't.  And it's the same thing, people came out of that film feeling cheated because they assumed they were supposed to like it when they didn't.  Often, many of the copmplaints of a Tarantino film is that they don't like the artistic flourishes and that they should just be dropped in favour of something that's more widely acceptable.  But if those flourishes were dropped, then it would no longer be a Tarantino film.  QT doesn't set out to please everyopne, he recognizes that he's gonna turn a lot of people off, but all too often the people fail to recognize and understand that fact.

I didn't think Inception was all that ambiguous at all. The questions I had were in regards to the technology and no one seems to be discussing that at all. They're discussing the characters. I wonder if anyone would be doing that if it weren't for the last shot. That seems to be the only thing that's made anyone question what happened.

In regards to the question, I really can't sum it up better than this.

Quoted from sniper It really depends on the questions that are left unanswered and - more importantly - how they are left unanswered.

I'd say all outcomes are possible though.

Quoted from James McClung The questions I had were in regards to the technology and no one seems to be discussing that at all.

It would obviously have been interesting to hear more about the device/technology used in the movie but depending on how you think the movie ends...you have to wonder whether or not the technology even exists.

I didn't find it an ambiguous story either, I mean, I have my interpretation of the end (and the movie as a whole) but I can totally see if someone saw it differently. Regardless of what happens after the screen goes black, Cobb didn't care anymore. In his mind, he had reached his goal. Otherwise he would have kept his eyes on the top.

If any of you want to read a bit more about the PASIV-device and procedures, the please see below links (rar files).

PASIV Device Instruction Manual

Dream-Share Employment Procedures

Fun, if nothing else.

Quoted from sniper Rick, I remember you mentioned in the F13 Remake thread how amazed you were with the fact that two people can see the same movie and still come down with the exact opposite reaction. And you're right, that's what movies do. If you can't buy into the characters then the movie will simply not do it for you. That's a completely fair and valid point with any movie. What amazes me though, are the things you felt destroyed Inception for you since they are basically the same things that made Avatar such a hit for you. I don't understand that. But it doesn't matter cos, like you said, we'll never agree and that's what makes movies so wonderful. One thing, you say the worst thing that can happen is that they end up in limbo - and that Leo already got out of it once... Oh, did he now?

That's not strictly true. The number one thing that Avatar did that no other in movie history has done for me was that it made me feel like I was walking on an alien planet. That was the reason I loved it so much, it went beyond anything I've experienced in a cinema before. It was an experience...it went beyond entertainment...and why I kept on at people to watch it in 3D.

The criticisms of the film were all valid, predictable, bad dialogue, but for me all of that was irrelevant because for the first time cinema superceded such trivial matters.

A bit like someone asking "What do you think of the Beatles?" and someone else replying "I'm not sure about John Lennon's hair-do". Avatar as a film was good, with some elements of mediocrity, bu it was the greatest experience I've ever had in a cinema. "It was just Pocahontas". "Who cares, I just walked on Pandora!".

It was also the opposite to Inception in that it was all about emotion; Love, spirituality, nature, acceptance etc. Inception was a very cold, sterile film with no soul. All images and no heart. I cared about the Na'avi, and about the characters in the story. I was emotionally invested in the film at every turn. The "characters" in Inception were perhaps not the worst I've ever seen, but they were arguably the most forgettable (Obviously I'll have forgotten any more forgettable ). Until I read the thread I couldn't have honestly told you a single one of their names.

As for the second point. I agree that he probably never made it out of limbo in "reality". However on the first level (the story narrative) he did. The worst case scenario on a plot level was that they would go to a place that we already knew they could escape from. It meant that each and every character in the group was invincible and so nothing that happened had any tension.

Each and every scene in the film was equivalent to the Matrix 2 fight when Neo faces a million agent Smiths....you knew he was the One and so it was completely boring because he was unkillable.

The fix for it would have been to have their actual bodies coming under physical threat. Eg perhaps the real life security guys of Fischer know what is going on and launch an assault to get him back..whatever, there are a million things they could have done to make it more interesting, the fact is that they didn't.

Ultimately the story told us that the only danger was getting stuck in limbo, but it also told us that Cobb had been there and escaped, thus refuting that there was any danger at any point and making everybody on the team completely invincible from harm. Which, in turn, also highlighted the paucity of imagination on display. We're in a dream world yet the best they could come up with was humans with guns, how incredibly dull (but that's a whole other point).

Basically, regardless of what we interpret to have happened at the end, during the film it was established that there were no consequences to any of the actions that the antagonistic forces took. The result was a complete snoozefest because there was nowhere for the story to go (on the narrative level) other than the inevitable and complete victory for the team of Neo's.

This situation was compounded by the fact that the mission itself was pointless and weak. I didn't care if they succeeded because it was a rubbish plot-line (and even further undone by having the seeming bad guy on the home team!) and it made no difference if they failed either. So I had zero interest in the story and zero interest in the outcome.

I saw a great line from a reviewer that said something like "Chris Nolan may have directed the dreams in Inception, but it's pretty clear that Nolan's dreams are directed by Michael Bay".   I thought that was pretty good.

To be fair, at least Nolan had the decency to use the ending to suggest that what you've just seen is a load of bollocks. I can admire honesty at least.

^?!

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films We're in a dream world yet the best they could come up with was humans with guns, how incredibly dull (but that's a whole other point).

As I understand it, isn’t the purpose of the dream to convince the mark that they’re not dreaming? That they’re awake and in the real world?

I haven’t seen the movie yet but I thought that was the basic premise.


Breanne

Quoted from Heretic ScarTissue and RunningFox, you guys are gentlemen and scholars both.  A well-held discussion Hey JC!  This part is me so I will respond if I may -- Of course the film will create opposing interpretations.  It has sequences set in varying realities, and this combined with the end will of course lead to what seems to be the hot debate topic: did he make it into reality at the end? Here's where I'm coming from:what real-life statement, consciousness-raising, theme, what real-life message can be attributed to either interpretation that applies to our real world?  Why is it important?  What real-life (like, our real lives, as an audience) relevance does this have?   None.  If the top falls over, he's in the real world, he's got his kids back, he's let go of the idea of eternity with his wife.  Great.  But what if it keeps spinning?  What does that mean for our world?  That we might be in a dream state?  The mind-blowing idea of dualism, which was explored in, for example...The Matrix?  What else?  What actual relevance do the "bigger" ideas in this film (that is, bigger than the plot and character arcs) have to us as humans or as a society? I say none.  And that is why I couldn't enjoy Inception as anything more than a much-above-average action movie -- not that there's ANYthing wrong with it being that. Off the top of my head, here's an example of what Inception lacks -- and other films have -- from what I believe is (subtly) intelligent entertainment, and also happens to have been, at its time, the most expensive film ever made: In the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day, the T-101, as it prepares for its own (essentially-) self-destruction, says to John Connor, "I know now why you cry". Interpretation 1:  The T-101's sophisticated learning computer has deconstructed the causes for human sadness, and while it is unable to replicate a like response, it does understand. Relevance to real life:  Human emotion is a sacred and un-replicable thing that we should cherish as a unique and wonderful aspect of our beings.  Even if we are able to build robots as advanced as the T-101, they will never be able to experience fully "human" life...at best, they may enjoy a polarizing stint as a surprisingly non-partisan governor.  Still, as Sarah mentions earlier in the story, does this lack of emotion mean that they are any less capable as fathers, partners, et al?  Perhaps, on the flip side, emotion is not vital to functioning in human society today... Interpretation 2:  The T-101, having been "taught" the error of its violent ways and having found a family, has discovered real emotion in the form of sadness at the loss of its loved ones.  It is genuinely experiencing emotion. Relevance to real life:  It's possible that in the future, further than just being able to "understand" human emotion, advanced machines will be able to replicate the thinking patterns associated with emotions and actually "experience" them to a degree that we will be unable to tell the difference between a human feeling a "real" emotion and an android feeling a "fake" one.  At this point, will it be possible to prove that a machine is not experiencing emotion?  If so, how? These are interesting, relevant (more so by the day, in fact), vast topics that allow for hours of informed and uninformed argument.  The philosophy of dualism is a fascinating topic in its own right but Inception added nothing original to the discussion, and certainly didn't cover any ground that The Matrix didn't. ALL THAT SAID, I don't think Inception should be compared to the Matrix in particular.  They're completely different films, and both very entertaining in their own right.

You can make the case that the film is about happiness and reality...what's more important, being in reality or being happy?

That's as far as it goes...and like you say, it's nothing that the Matrix didn't deal with in more depth.

That being said, I thought the best thing about the whole thing was the level of interpretation that the film allows for. That part of it is quite fun. I've seen 8 or so different interpretations:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/2522824,CST-NWS-roep22.article


Although it's inherently pointless, it's a bit like considering a paradox. There's no real solution, but there's some interest to be found in trying to seek one.

In opposition to you, where I found the film collapsed was on the rudimentary level...as an action thriller . On that level it was amongst the most boring films I've ever seen.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson As I understand it, isn’t the purpose of the dream to convince the mark that they’re not dreaming? That they’re awake and in the real world? I haven’t seen the movie yet but I thought that was the basic premise. Breanne

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. Just that it was incredibly dull.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I'm not saying it doesn't make sense. Just that it was incredibly dull.

It does seem like a waste. With dreams, the visual possibilities are limitless, yet here they’re used to create… (drum roll)… reality.

Haha sounds silly when it’s put that way.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson It does seem like a waste. With dreams, the visual possibilities are limitless, yet here they’re used to create… (drum roll)… reality. Haha sounds silly when it’s put that way. Breanne

Precisely.  

Especially when it comes from someone who hasn't seen the movie.