• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
blueEbola

Anyone seen Inception yet?

96 posts in this topic

Saw it yesterday. Great movie, but I should not have seen the trailer. It had no surprise at all for me, and that was sad. Very predictable. Still great made, so no problems. But I like to be 'fooled', as stated somewhere above...

and to 'mikeman', about 'what is real'. depends on who you are. my dreamworlds mess with me in all the ways i've seen it in this movie, including not knowing if i'm awake, even if i am.. so maybe it's a personal thing, but for me, the movie more or less showed how i dream.

maybe that was why i wasn't surprised at any point? :) (and yes, i use the typical items and physic tests to verify i'm in reality, + killing to wake up, etc.. :) do this since i'm 10 or so?)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by davepermen
and to 'mikeman', about 'what is real'. depends on who you are. my dreamworlds mess with me in all the ways i've seen it in this movie, including not knowing if i'm awake, even if i am.. so maybe it's a personal thing, but for me, the movie more or less showed how i dream.


Well, I don't know...maybe there are exceptions, but personally I've never met anyone that thought he was dreaming when he was awake, unless of course he was under the influence of halluciogenics or had psychiatric problems.

Spoilers:

























Another big flaw I forgot: All throughout the movie, we keep hearing about the 'subconcious'. Now, I may have missed something, or the makers of the movie either misunderstand the term or just lieing to the audience because it sounds 'deep', but *what* subconcious? There isn't absolutely any depiction of that in the movie. The subconscious(or rather, the unconscious mind as is the correct term), is supposed to be filled with repressed desires,memories,etc. On the contrary, everything that is in the dream is perfectly legitimate, perfectly conscious memories. Actually, scratch that: There is only 1 manifestation or 'projection' in the whole dream, and it's Cobb's wife(and seriously: tormented by guilt about his dead wife, who appears as ghost/projection/manifestation to him? Forget Solaris, Leo played the *exact same* role last year in Shutter Island!) and sporadically images of his children. Those are *memories*. Everything else(apart from the nameless henchmen which are...subconscious defenses(!) ) are just fabrications that the team prepared carefully in order to trick Fischer into believing something. I mean, when the freaking "The Cell" with freaking J.Lo gets(not executes) the idea better, you know you have the problem. Unless the whole thing is indeed a dream, in which case we were probably witnessing Cobb's 'subconscious', but at that point, at the very last scene, it's too late to care: By the same token, I could take any movie ever made, add a scene where it is shown all implied that it was all a dream, and 'blow your mind'. The movie isn't complex at all, it just seems to be because you have to keep track of all the rules and 'planted kicks' and at which depth level each character is, a problem you could easily solved by just not giving a shit, because it doesn't matter at all, it's all the same. They might as well have a HUD in the screen where they display each character's(which, by the way, would be a compliment to call them 2-dimensional) stats. Meh. The more I think about it, the less and less I like the film. I think it will be forgotten pretty fast.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by mikeman
Quote:
Original post by davepermen
and to 'mikeman', about 'what is real'. depends on who you are. my dreamworlds mess with me in all the ways i've seen it in this movie, including not knowing if i'm awake, even if i am.. so maybe it's a personal thing, but for me, the movie more or less showed how i dream.


Well, I don't know...maybe there are exceptions, but personally I've never met anyone that thought he was dreaming when he was awake, unless of course he was under the influence of halluciogenics or had psychiatric problems.


I rarely think I'm dreaming when I'm awake, but I almost always feel like I'm awake when I'm dreaming. I rarely think I'm dreaming until after I wake up.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by mikeman
Well, I don't know...maybe there are exceptions, but personally I've never met anyone that thought he was dreaming when he was awake, unless of course he was under the influence of halluciogenics or had psychiatric problems.


nowhere in the movie they are "thinking they're dreaming when awake" for sure.. :) (that's what i knew will happen in the ending.. the typical 'maybe it's all just a dream itself' kinda thing).

well, try to stay up for 50 hours, and you will sure lose control over your conscious and subconscious reality. then, reality is just another dream.

and for me, waking up is often followed by a check if i'm really awake. problem is not "reality like a dream", but "dreams like reality". once you have had realistic enough dreams, you start to not trust reality anymore.

and no, i don't think i have psychiatric problems :) maybe i do, but i fit perfectly well into "normality", so i don't care :) 'reality' is a fun term anyways. i'm capable of changing reality to what ever i want realtime and experience it like on halluciogenics with no problems, too. without any need for drugs or anything.

reality is always the interpretation of reality in your brain. once you got control over that, welcome to dreamworld in the 'real world'.

but i do know i'm quite alone with it. but it's awesome :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, in the end, it doesn't matter anyway. The plot of a movie doesn't have an inherent value by itself. It's something Nolan made up, as any writer of course. Debating on what Nolan was thinking when he was in his office writing a script is an pointless exercise; who cares? The important fact is, the movie just had poor storytelling. It was filled with dispropotionally long action-packed sequences featuring car chases, jet ski chases(seriously, are we sure the editor didn't work simultaneously in a James Bond movie and got some footage mixed up?) and wire-fu whose relevance to the supposed story ranges from miniscule to zero. Meanwhile, the scenes which are supposed to be pivotal for the viewer in order to "connect" to the story and the characters, are few and sparse, and last about 30 seconds, with character just exchanging the lines they have to exchange, so that we can proceed to the next 10-minute explosion fest.

It's poor management of filmic time, and bad storytelling. They spend dozens of minutes explaining in detail the 'rules' of when you wake, when you die, when you're in limbo depending on the "dream level" and the rest, which has no significance at all, since they could be switched to another consistent set of 'rules' and nothing interesting would really change, and the scene at the beginning/end with old Saito, lasts, what, 30 seconds? What's going on here, the same director needs half an hour to list some mostly arbitrary videogame-like rules, but at the same time is capable of compressing in a few seconds the scene which is one of the most important for the relevation of the supposed "mind-bending" underlying story?

So, since the story, whatever it was, was told poorly, I have no interest to sit and decipher the flowchart that Nolan had in his mind. I saw the movie, there in the dark room and the big screen where movies are to be experienced, didn't connect or cared about the story or characters because the film didn't take the time to develop them and *make* me care, so the moment passed. That's it. Sitting now in my home, exchanging 'theories' about what the very few scenes that actually might mean something tried to say...what's the point? I'm not going to derive any pleasure by formulating any theory about what was Nolan's intentions, and I don't win a prize if I get the correct one. The joy of cinema lies in good storytelling, and this wasn't. So that's that.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
problem is, it was good story telling. just somehow not in a language you do understand... :)

for me, the only boring part was, that i knew exactly what happened based on own experience. but everyone else i was watching it with wasn't. and they liked the story (and the female parts couldn't care less about the action scenes).

but i guess it's a story that has it's details hidden for those who can't dream at least a bit in those ways. it was tons of details about dream worlds.

and yes, there was a low amount of dialog based story telling. but very much visual based story telling.

you might have missed that / never liked that. i very much enjoy that, and enjoy nolans movies because of it. it allows more imagination to happen realtime while watching a movie.

and why the runaway behaviour by you now? i was not actually analyzing the movie per se, i was just saying that one can experience the world very much the way they do in this movie (and can imagine if you could do the stuff you can there, and do it 'for the job', you easily lose control over reality. i would). it's something not imaginable for you. very much so, for me.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

and yes, there was a low amount of dialog based story telling. but very much visual based story telling.


Ok. Can you list some scenes where there was rich 'visual based story telling'? There is a long scene with Cobb explaining to Ariadne the job of the 'level designer', and her performing some spatial paradoxes to the world. What is the significance of that in either the character development or story? Does the mirror trick or something similar appear anywhere else besides this 'test level'? Does the space folding? There was a long scene where they are chased in a van by some henchmen with machineguns. Again, what is the importance of that? Again, a long scene with some martial arts in variable gravity. Other than visually impressive, does that really hold any valuable information about any character or any part of the story?

And seriously, I doubt yours, or anyone elses dreams is as dull. That's all you see in your dreams? Distortions of the 3 newtonian laws? These are *dreams* we are talking about. The potential is so vast it's overwhelming to think about it. What about when we dream ourselves stuck and not be able to move? Not be able to talk? Not having control of one of our limbs? Talking some times with sentences that don't seem to have any meaning in our 'regular' language, but again they seem to have all sorts of meaning? Using words that doesn't exist at all? Long streams of words that pop and feels like you're writing a poem on the fly? Figuring out a perfect solution to a problem that's been bothering you? Figuring out an absurd solution to a problem that's been bothering you but it seems perfect at that time? Trying to figure out the solution to a problem that you never had? Characters that represent a desire, or a fear, a superstition, a genetic memory? Sudden switch in the story, where the characters somehow take each other's place, or merge, or split, or disappear? When you see your very self being in another form? When elements from folklore or religion appear, not necessarily with the exact form and role they have in those stories? You don't dream any of that, just gravity and time distortion? God, they should really do some reruns of Twin Peaks on TV at some point...The 10 seconds of "How's Annie how's Annie how's Annie" was 50 times more spine-chilling than the 2 and the half hours of Inception...

[Edited by - mikeman on August 8, 2010 8:24:26 AM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by mikeman
What about when we dream ourselves stuck and not be able to move? Not be able to talk? Not having control of one of our limbs? Talking some times with sentences that don't seem to have any meaning in our 'regular' language, but again they seem to have all sorts of meaning? Using words that doesn't exist at all? Long streams of words that pop and feels like you're writing a poem on the fly? Figuring out a perfect solution to a problem that's been bothering you? Figuring out an absurd solution to a problem that's been bothering you but it seems perfect at that time? Trying to figure out the solution to a problem that you never had? Characters that represent a desire, or a fear, a superstition, a genetic memory? Sudden switch in the story, where the characters somehow take each other's place, or merge, or split, or disappear? When you see your very self being in another form?


The biggest issue is that in a single film using all those ideas would have made it downright inane and no more compelling than an actual dream, which is almost always incomprehensible when consciously analyzed. What's so bad about a movie just focusing on a few ideas and playing with them for a few hours?

Also, the rules didn't seem arbitrary at all to me. They were more or less what I would have expected intuitively based on the real-life mechanics of dreaming. I don't think the movie would have worked for most people if this had been otherwise.

I haven't seen Twin Peaks, but it seems to have been a two-season-long TV series. Surely that made it significantly easier for that show to play with more difficult dream concepts, like the ones you mentioned. Do you think that's the case?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:

The biggest issue is that in a single film using all those ideas would have made it downright inane and no more compelling than an actual dream, which is almost always incomprehensible when consciously analyzed. What's so bad about a movie just focusing on a few ideas and playing with them for a few hours?


I didn't of course implied they should use all of them. My point was that they should use something that has more 'meat' in it, in respect to character development. Instead, they went with architecture/time/gravity distortion, which are also way too mechanistic and completely irrelevant to any of the character's 'subconscious'. They're just a result of either careful designing from the extractors, or random events on the 'upper levels'.


Quote:

Also, the rules didn't seem arbitrary at all to me. They were more or less what I would have expected intuitively based on the real-life mechanics of dreaming.


Were they? I mean, ok, let's talk about it a bit, really. What rule exactly is based on real-life mechanics of dreaming? I can accept the part where, if you dream yourself dieing, you wake up. Apart from that? What's with the 'falling' in the upper levels that wakes you up? I've had that feeling of 'falling' in a dream, as we all have...the fall happens in the *dream*, and the causes could be traced I've heard in things from simple as,say, blood pressure to more psychological ones. The only sure thing is, I'm not actually falling from my bed(the 'upper level') in that instance! It's kind of backwards in the movie, isn't it? And on top of that, at the end they get backwards their own backwards rule: Ariadne leaps from the building in limbo(the 'lowest level') and wakes up in the upper level! And how in the name of christ do they induce sleep in a dream? They seem to do it with some kind of drugs, just like in real life! What the hell? It's a dream, not a chemistry simulation, did Nolan's mind briefly wandered off and thought he was making a Matrix sequel or something? If the explanation is that they fall asleep because they believe they're in reality and being administered a real drug, first of all, the Extractors know the truth so how it works on them? And second, if that somehow magically works on all, then just go ahead and use a placebo in real life too instead of a dangerous sedative.

Also, gravity gets distorted based on what happens to the upper level? Does that makes sense at all? What, if we suppose I sleep hanged upside-down, all my dreams will have reversed gravity? There's a scene in which in the upper level the van takes a sharp turn, and, accurate as a swiss clock, the dream world starts 'falling' towards that direction for as much time as whatever the hell the upper level/lower level ratio is...does that happen, like, *ever* ? I've slept on cars, I've slept on planes, I don't remember the gravity on my dreams suddenly changing directions! I don't find that any of the rules have any similarity to how dreams work at all, either in respect to physiological or psychological causes. They just make cool action sequences, which I did enjoy of course...and I'm not pretending I didn't like all the intricate rules(irrelevant if they make sense or not) and the slight touch of *some* originality in the script; however to say I was 'blown away' and it was 'mind bending' or that it had something to say about the nature of dreams or the sub(un)conscious? Not in a million years.

Quote:

I haven't seen Twin Peaks, but it seems to have been a two-season-long TV series. Surely that made it significantly easier for that show to play with more difficult dream concepts, like the ones you mentioned. Do you think that's the case?


Well, I did say that. Of course, it's not like a film is impossible to develop these 'more difficult' dreams...you just have to not spend about 2/3 on car chases and bombs. I hate to keep referring to David Lynch, but there is Mullholand Drive, Blue Velvet...not to mention earlier films like,say, the Andalusian Dog, Cocteau's movies...I'm not asking of course from Nolan to do exactly that(they're pretty outdated for today's cinema anyway), but he could make it so what happens in the film aims in character development and not cool fighting scenes(Eternal Sunshine? Being John Malcovich?). Or Nolan could just do a movie with wire-fu and bullet-time since he wanted it so damn bad, without all this useless excess weight. Since Dark Knight gathered like 1/5 of the planet's money, he would have free reign to do a movie with smaller(but still decent) budget where he would toy with more provoking themes, instead of this leviathan that aims to please everyone and anyone.

[Edited by - mikeman on August 8, 2010 11:27:36 AM]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw it and was really impressed. This is coming from someone who is very picky about movies and thinks 99% of them are garbage.

One thing I wanted to say though is I dont understand why everyone (not necessarily in this thread) is implying that the movie was mind-bending and confusing and hard to understand. I actually found it to be very easy to understand. I dont think there was a single moment that I didnt understand everything that was going on. Thats pretty rare so I thought it extra wierd that people were saying this movie was confusing.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loved this film to death. I think the "all a dream?" question is Nolan pulling the same inception trick on us that Cobb pulled on Mal, using the top pretty much in the same way. It's clever, it works, and it works just as inception is described in the film. We think it's our idea, but it's 100% engineered, planted. I dismiss the "all a dream" theory simply on its suckiness and lameness (and the kids in the final scene being played by different actors and wearing similar but different clothes from the ones in the memory is really strong proof as well).

Secondly, I think it is required that Cobb be a mark of inception. What he goes through so closely matches the description of what Fischer goes through (catharsis) it simply has got to be inception.

How Cobb's inception was done and by whom seems to me the real question of the film. I think it has to be just Ariadne. There's the Penrose scene with just Arthur and Ariadne which would not exist if all characters were simply plotting to fix Cobb, and there's the Fischer hospital level scene which also does nothing for Cobb who's not there to witness it. Besides, the Fischer arc is extremely well done and I won't stand for it to be not real or not relevant in itself.

I think Ariadne stole more than she lets on from sharing Cobb's memory dungeon dream - the film is ambiguous on how architects teach their designs to the dreamers, but I think it has to be through shared dreaming automatically uploading the whole level - and she does see the "train" memory which is set in the limbo world Cobb and Mal built - so she could have at least some general idea of the layout.

I think she put the train in the first dream level on purpose, and the same for the kids / broken glass Cobb sees in level two, both to convince Cobb he has to confront Mal and forgive himself or never see his kids again. Cobb was damaged goods but he definitely wasn't such a trainwreck as to bring unsolicited trains on level 1 of a dream - yes, Mal showed up on level two in the Saito dream at the start, but that was it.

I think when Cobb and Ariadne use the dream machine on the hospital level they don't go to limbo but to a level 4 dream - Ariadne's recreation of Cob&Mal's limbo world - she being the dreamer.

This explains how Cobb is young and Saito is old when Cobb gets thrown in limbo: he doesn't take the kick from Ariadne's dream, but he does drown in the van in the level 1 dream, and only then he gets to limbo, which by now is Saito's world. It takes maybe 5 minutes for Cobb to drown, which accounts for Saito's growing old (we don't know how fast limbo time is compared to level 1 time - Yusuf says it might be decades, it might be infinity, and Cobb's experience there doesn't really measure it).

To tie the loose ends in my theory, the Mal we see on the hospital level needs not be Cobb's projection but may be an automaton Ariadne designed into the level. We don't know that fake Mal's gun in that level is a real gun and actually kills Fischer (it may be it just stuns him unconscious), and the defibrilator is also designed by Mal and may undo the stun effect, and possibly affect Ariadne who's dreaming nearby in unknown ways - the physics of the hospital level after all are still designed by her. Fischer and Mal on the fourth level may both be Cobb's projections.

Eames may or may not be in on Ariadne's plan. Cobb's descending into limbo to rescue Saito wasn't planned by Ariadne, but if everything had gone according to her plan that wouldn't have been necessary.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting film, liked it a lot. Lots to think about, but im in the "it was all a dream camp".

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW:

Its established that the architects design the dream spaces. But only twice were they the actual dreamers...Lucas Hass is the dreamer of level one in the opening of the film. And Ellen Page is the dreamer when she folds Paris upon itself.

The main dream to place inception follows like this:


Top "real world" layer they are all on the 747.

Level one dream 'rainy city streets': The chemist is the dreamer. The chemist, Cobb, Ellen Page, the forger, Saito, Arthur, and Cillian Murphy are in this dream

Level two dream 'hotel': Author is the dreamer. Cobb, Ellen Page, the forger (as teh hot girl and the family lawyer/godfather), Saito, Arthur, and Cillian Murphy are in this dream

Level three 'snowbound fort': The forger (Tom Hardy) is the dreamer. Cobb, Ellen Page, the forger, Saito, and Cillian Murphy are in this dream.

Level four 'Cobbs city': Cobb is the dreamer. Cobb, Ellen Page, and Cillian Murphy are in this dream.

Saito is shot in Level one, and "dies" in level three AFTER level four dream has started. This is important, as it ties into the idea that Cobb finds Saito in "limbo". Following the rules the film estblished at the point (IE: Arthur cannot be in levels three or four as his dream level two is continueing)...Two things must have happend off screen after dream level four (cobbs dream) is finnished...The other chracters in level three tied Saito into Cobbs dream before getting kicked back up to level one...Or Cobb woke from level four dream then went over and tied himself into Saito's "limbo" dream.

Which ties back into the film opening.

Lucas Hass is the dreamer of level one 'Saitos house as the mob attacks'. Lucas Hass, Cobb, Arthur, Saito are in this dream.

Saito is the dreamer of level two 'Saito's other house and limbo'. Cobb, Arthur and Saito are in this dream.

Note: Saito is awake from level two, holding Arthur at gunpoint before Cobb splashes into the tub.

This also ties back into the very opening...Cobb washed up on shore and taken to see old Saito.

As for the "totem" (spinning top thing) Saito holds it in the opening scene of the film. Which according to Arthur is a bad thing in the scene where the totem function is spelled out (he wouldn't let Ellen Page even touch his loaded die totem). This (and the fact it was actualy Cobbs wife totem) means Cobb no longer has the ability to tell dream from reality. Cobb never had a totem to begin with.

Which is the key piece of the puzzle to understanding the ending. Cobb gets home, spins the top...and BEFORE watching if the totem falls over...heads outside to meet his kids. His kids are Cobbs new totem. Doesn't matter if the top falls over or not...To see his kids faces, he had to work out the guilt he had over his wife...But she was only a personification of his memory of her (Cobb never shoots her). So the validity of totems is questionable.















0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just saw it yesterday and wow! It is rather brilliant. I don't get why people are saying the plot is too complex. I didn't find it difficult to follow at all, though it still required some effort to keep track of things.

Naturally, I would've preferred an unambiguous ending but since it's open to interpretation, I'm simply sticking with it's got to be reality. It makes it easier for me to accept that there was a point to the whole thing.

Ultimately, it's a great movie. Everything was well done. Also, the hotel action sequence during the van's free fall was the best. Fact.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great movie. I doubt even Nolan knows if the final scene was real or not. The ending really seems to have been made to be a mind f*ck, there are clues that point to it being a dream, others that point to it being reality and, of course, all of them are questionable. Even the final scene was edited so you would be unsure whether the totem was stopping its spinning or not.

And about questioning our own reality, I think it's always a valid point. I find the world is more "real", whatever that is, the more I sleep.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got back from seeing it.

A very complex and rich story and narrative, and I don't think I'm actually intelligent enough to get my head around all of it. The story would probably make sense after another 10 viewings, but I found the film too long and don't think I could sit through it again.

8/10 for the special effects.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anyone else recognise the old EA Chertsey building in the scene in which Arthur first explained The Penrose Steps to Ariadne? To my shame I got foolishly excited and loudly pointed this out to people during the film.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe so much people here loved that movie that much. For me it was The Thirteenth Floor / The Matrix poorly combined. Not to mention that Di Caprio just did almost same thing in Shutter Island few months back and better. By all means I am not trying to troll here and I assume I will be bashed ;) but really, didn't you feel while watching it that you've already seen it all? Why is so special about that movie? And please don't reply that I probably didn't understand it ;)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well written. Well directed. Well photographed. Well acted. Well musicalized.

I couldn't ask much more from a movie. I've read some critics saying that this movie wasn't thought-provoking but seeing how many people didn't get it (even when it was tutorialed at the beginning and I was able to follow it without effort) I have to disagree.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think the greatest thing about it is how it takes a surreal plot and while it doesn't make it fully understandable to everyone it at least makes it digestible to the average joe

from the movie synopsis i knew that it would have that ambiguous ending, but the fact that it managed to pass that to my mom who usually cant follow movies at all is just amazing
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Yudhisthira
Quote:
Original post by blueEbola
Quote:
Original post by Yudhisthira
I saw it, it's a good movie. I think it has been a bit over-hyped in my opinion, it is worth a watch. It's one of those films that you'd want to watch twice as the storyline gets somewhat complex (didn't help that I had a late night before!). The ending implied there will be more movies to come. Overall a really unique storyline which is well executed.


The ending may seem to imply that, but I don't think it will happen. I've read that he's not very big on sequels -- he's only done it for the Batman series because, well, it's Batman.


I always thought if a movie does well enough at the box office they will make a sequel whether the original director/cast are on board or not, just from a purely financial perspective. Especially if the storyline lends itself to one.


Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't do sequels (see imdb), so they will have to bring in a totally new cast if they wanted to do it again.
But, I see plenty avenues for revenge plots here. It shouldn't be hard to make another.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by noe
I can't believe so much people here loved that movie that much. For me it was The Thirteenth Floor / The Matrix poorly combined. Not to mention that Di Caprio just did almost same thing in Shutter Island few months back and better. By all means I am not trying to troll here and I assume I will be bashed ;) but really, didn't you feel while watching it that you've already seen it all? Why is so special about that movie? And please don't reply that I probably didn't understand it ;)


Um...short answer. Inception a movie that captured our attention and fueled our imagination. Everything else is debatable and subjectable. Just as it is for any movie for anyone.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by benryves
Quote:
Original post by cowsarenotevil
I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't know how the music is, but I'm worried that Hans Zimmer is doing more and more "experimental" music that seems to lack emotion (not to mention other things like melody and harmony). Is this the same way?
I tend to find that a good score works with the picture, but this score makes use of a distracting foghorn blast that I've seen likened to the vuvuzela at the World Cup. The trailer may give you a good idea of what it's like.


No, a movie trailer's music does not necessarily give you any idea what the movie score is like. The trailer music doesn't even have
to come from the movie itself! I've seen trailer music ripped from 5 different pieces before, all edited seamlessly together.

As for Inception, you won't find this trailer music anywhere in the score. There's like 3 different trailers, and the last one wasn't
even created by Hans Zimmer. Music from trailer #3 is called "Mind Heist" by Zack Hemsey.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0