I would like to know how they created the hotel hallway fight scenes because they were incredible.

They built a rotating set and used wires. that was an awesome scene.

Do you think it is possible for any of the character's in Inception to have super powers while invading someone else's dream? Or can only the person that is sharing their dream be the only one with super powers?

Yeah the wire work was possibly the best I've seen out of any movie. Not once did I think "he's hanging by a cable."

I was thinking about this a little bit last night, and my current question is the following:

Spoiler: I was thinking about the possibility that Cobb and his wife delve deep into their subconscious and arrive at Limbo, where they seem to age gracefully until he tires of it. He wants to kick back up, but she doesn't so he plants the seed deep inside her subconscious that nothing is real, symbolized by his opening the safe and setting her totem to spin indefinitely. After a while, she is overcome with the same feeling he has, and they begin to withdraw to higher levels. They arrive at a level where he feels they are in reality, but she doesn't - but perhaps they've both lost touch with reality to the point that they can't recognize it. She kicks out - or commits suicide - and he is left with two problems. Guilt that he may have led her to suicide, and doubt that she may have been correct coupled with loneliness for his wife.

IF he was still in his subconscious, he could have developed a mechanism in order to fool himself into releasing his guilt and doubt by creating the entire inception on the kid. While his subconscious defenses lead him to believe he is going in to plant the inception on the mark, he is actually implanting his own inception to let go of his fears and doubt so that when he returns to his original level, still within his own subconscious he is able accept it as reality without his anxiety. Thus, the top spinning at the end - which is still spinning but seems to perhaps totter, might symbolize the fact that he has the choice to accept this level of consciousness as reality or to reject it - with the overall message being that we must choose to accept reality or reject it, sensory perception is an illusion, etc.

I'm still playing with interpretations - but thus far that one works for me given the similarity of the ending scene to all of his dreams sequences.

Here's the plot: Spoiler: Cobb was arrested for killing his wife and admitted to a mental hospital where Ariadne was his psychotherapist. She places him into a dream that coaxes him to do an inception, making him feel comfortable and in control while she performs an inception on him at the same time. In the end, he releases himself from the guilt of his wife's death, but we never get to see real reality.

Evidence:
"Reality" is still surreal. Chase scenes, kids didn't age, top didn't stop spinning, Saito conveniently buying an airline to accomplish a task, etc.
Ariadne is not her real name. Ariadne is the name of the girl in Greek mythology who leads Theseus out of the labyrinth.
The "combination" is actually his prisoner number.

With all that said, I'm not sold on the mind's ability to speed up to 10x10x10x10x10 and still process things coherently.

Spoiler: um, as I said in my first comment, the kids did age, check imdb.com, there is two sets of actors, one set from the memories, and another set in reality. Phillipa is 3 and 5, while james is 20 months and 3 years old. There is no way at 20 months that he was talking the way he did on the phone. And which chase scene in reality was surreal?

And how is having a girl named ariadne make that not her real name? Maybe nolan liked the name from the mythology and thought it would be appropriate seeing as how she was the architect and would help cobb. None of these things at all suggest that he is in a mental hospital.

Your theory is stretching way too far. Nothing in the movie suggested anything like this. You are trying to find something that is not there at all.

Thanks for using the spoiler tags guys, I haven't had a chance to gather a group to go see it yet :)

Absolutely fantastic movie. Movies like this restore my confidence in modern film-making. As one critic said on Rotten Tomatoes, why aren't more movies like this greenlighted where a talented director knows EXACTLY what to do and what they want in a movie and can sculpt it like a piece of art? Nolan had an idea and he perfected it via film. I wish more movies were this good!!!!!!

Speaking to all of the conspiracy theories in the thread - I think you guys are looking too far into it! The movie at face value was pretty complex; I don't think there's another layer of complexity that most viewers are overlooking. I think "what is, is" with this movie.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt FTW!!!!!

This is what happens when you take a talented risk-taking filmmaker and let him write, produce, and direct his vision. Someone was telling me about an interview with Nolan, and they asked him about the writing process. Apparently he wrote his story without thinking much about the limitations of filming it. He just let himself create. The film-making considerations came mostly afterward.

I also want to give him and his crew kudos for keeping CGI to a minimum. They seemed to use it only where "necessary."

Yes, but I will say that the entire cast did an excellent job.

Article

Inception’s Dileep Rao Answers All Your Questions About Inception. Spoilers in the above article, so only read it if you have already viewed the film.

That's a great article. I'm struck by how intelligent Rao's responses are; he seems like a very bright guy. I've always liked him as an actor, too (he was great in Drag Me To Hell).

Anyways, he says exactly what I'd like to say here about some of the theories floating around, but in a much more intelligent fashion:

Spoiler: What if Leo is the one being "incepted" with an idea? We keep hearing the phrase "Do you want to become an old man, filled with regret?" and it's like someone — maybe Ellen Page's character because she's the catalyst of his emotional catharsis — has set this all up so he can let go of his regret over Mal's death. That's why at the end with Saito he offers to come back and be young again (not old, full of regret). Even the Edith Piaf song they use to signal ten seconds before kick translates to "No, I regret nothing." And there's so many scenes where Ellen Page is talking to Leo, getting him to reveal his issues, in the same way that Eames tricks Fischer into revealing his issues. Also, Leo's kids are the same age at the end, right?

I'm not trying to be authoritative, so this is just my understanding of how I approached it from my work on it. But you're saying it's like some sort of crazy-ass psychotherapy session where the whole thing is a constructed narrative of massive complexity only to distract Cobb so that he will achieve his change? I mean sure, you could totally say that that's what it is. In a way, that's what we're doing to Fischer, so it's not unfounded.

The problem for me is that you're using negative evidence to support a story that isn't there. I don't know what to say about a character who only exists before and after the movie. You're talking about a character who isn't onscreen. And I mean on one hand, it's awesome that this movie can sustain that kind of discussion. It shows you just how well-thought-through and comprehensive it is, but I mean I don't know where that kind of speculation ends. It's like people who are convinced 9/11 is an inside job. It's a mental heuristic failure to think that one or two minor details explain absolutely everything. I mean, kids wear the same clothes all the time.

To me, it's a far more elegant story if it's a vast job that Leo has to pull off. The threat is real, the growth is real, the adversary is real. The weakness of "It's all a dream" — why we hate that, why we feel cheated when narratively anything is revealed to be all a dream — is that you've just asked me to spend so much time and emotional capital investing in the stakes of this, and you've now swept it away with the most anti-narrative structuralism that doesn't have anything to substitute in its place. It's laughing at you for even taking it seriously. You don't want to feel like a victim of the narrative, and I don't think Christopher Nolan would do that.

lol this is just flat out wrong! And Dileep Rao agreeing makes it official IMO.

Thank you for that! It puts to rest so many ridiculous conspiracy theories.

This sums it up nicely.
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/8...sinception.jpg

I saw this picture today and had a good laugh.

http://poststuff2.entensity.net/072810/leo.jpg

Yeah, I think people are reading way too much into this. There are obvious similarities with the Matrix, but a far more taut and superior storyline and pacing. My only complaint about Nolan has been that all of his movies were 20 mins too long for me. This is by far his best movie for me, and the best movie i've seen this year.

Frankly, I think the movie on its "surface" is good enough that it doesn't require imagining all sorts of theories that aren't there. The story stands up well as presented.

I think the beauty of it is, it rewards reading on many levels. The ambiguity of the last frame is obviously an invitation to speculate, BUT that sort of misses the point. Cobb has walked away from his totem. Wherever he is, that's what he's calling home. He no longer cares if it's real or dream; he's found where he wants to be, and that's good enough for him.

I hope the studio doesn't insist on a sequel. Inception works best as it is.

Here's another theory revolving around Cobb's wedding ring.

INCEPTION: Wait.. Whatomghappened? |

One thing I noticed, and I'm not sure if its an inconsistency or a hint, but Spoiler: when they were in limbo they said they grew old together, but when it showed them kicking out (on the train tracks) they were young...

yes, I noticed that the first time I watched it but I guess I forgot about it. Hmmmm, I doubt it was just an inconsistency.

Not entirely true. The first time, yes. But there was a later closeup image of that scene where they weren't.

I've been thinking of posting this for a since nearly after this thread was live post-release, but haven't because I'm not trying to start some internet dick-waving-a-thon...but what I don't understand is how people can attempt to quash speculation about possible interpretations of the movie's plot with a movie that seems clearly intended to fan such speculation. If Nolan wanted to have the movie read simply as presented, that would have been easy enough. Put the kids at the end in some sweat pants in the front yard, and have the top definitely stop spinning. It seems to me that Nolan intended for people to look deeper within the presentation of the film, and personally I find the alternative theories more interesting than acceptance of the film directly as presented.

As to the last bit about the ages when they kicked out - was the train the first kick out, or a kick-out from a higher level? I can't remember, but if it wasn't the first time that would explain why they might be younger. I seem to remember at least one scene where they were senior citizens.

It looks like I'm alone in being disappointed with the movie. It had good effects, but the editing IMO was bad.

Although dated (1984) at this point I thought Dreamscape was better.

I loved this movie. If you haven't seen it, go do so.

I think one of the most brilliant things about the movie is that it has true artistry. People are so focused on which interpretation of what happened is the right one, and I don't understand why. The movie is more like a poem, or a painting: no one's interpretation of a particular poem or painting is right, except for them.

That said, I watched the movie and came to the same conclusion Will did. I like it that way.

...or a dream.

what an interesting long, long, con. I enjoyed it alot. Still trying to digest it.

Was it clever? yes. Was it a good flick? yes. Was it brilliant? hardly.

The first hour consisted of nothing but exposition. I couldn't have cared less about the characters. As an artist, Nolan makes a fine engineer.

But, it was entertaining.

Fugly, I think that this is the first time I've ever completely agreed with you about something. I think you'd agree when I add "was it smart? yes."

I loved this movie but it's really getting on my nerves how people are talking about how complex and "smart" this movie is on the Internet. And how some people will "get it" and some people won't. There's nothing to get. They go inside dreams...what more is there to get? This isn't any more complicated than The Matrix.

Absolutely. Smart, but mostly soulless.

Watching the film, I was reminded of Alex Proyas' "Dark City," which was much more atmospheric and convincing.

It is a very good movie. I really loved The Prestige and for me they are really on par with each other. Inception is a bit better due to the concept.

Sorry to have missed this thread when it was fresh, but since the movie is one of the few things I "like" on my FB page, this link was provided on my wall this morning. It was interesting to hear just a hint of Nolan's ideas.

Christopher Nolan (Somewhat) Explains INCEPTION