Talk:Inception

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Inception has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Film (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
 

Running time[edit]

I've got Inception on DVD and the back of it says that it is '142 Mins. Approx'. Is it worth changing the running time to say 142 minutes or should it stay as 148 minutes. Boushenheiser (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick search. Google lists the running time as 148 minutes, IMDB lists it as 148 minutes, and IMDB trivia lists the running time as 8888 seconds (148m21s). I think the article should exhibit a 148 minute running time. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've read at several place the duration was 2 hours 28 minutes (which is 148 minutes) as a reference to the first recording of Non,_je_ne_regrette_rien (the song they play to warn people in the dream), 2 minutes and 28 seconds. Also, this is the duration of the movie I have.--199.243.65.6 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are in a country that uses PAL television then the reduced running-time is probably due to PAL speed up. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Analyse of the ending[edit]

Can we add this theory : http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/video/20130528.OBS0961/un-fan-aurait-perce-le-mystere-de-la-fin-d-inception.html

Sorry, it is a french text, but can be easily translated. Marouane Mazid explains how he has found the answer. To sum up the video, during a dream the Cobb's left hand is often hidden. In reality not, his left hand is always in he field of view. During a dream, in few time we can see that Cobb has his wedding ring on his left hand. During reality, we can see that he has not any ring. So, at the end he has not his wedding ring, he is in the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.213.68 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It would probably [sarcasm] be better, as it "can be easily translated", if you translate it and then present it with your argument for its inclusion in the article. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The source is actually a YouTube video. Is there any indication that it's reliably published? Who uploaded it? An individual? Яehevkor 23:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of speculation on the ending and on other, it would be better to add a section about the speculation about the movie, but this could be a theory, you are welcome to write in English an abstract of the French article, or you could translate the French section on the ending, that could be a start.--199.243.65.6 (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Cyberpunk[edit]

Can't we say this is a Cyberpunk movie? Lots of cyberpunk themes, like Megacorps, moral ambiguity, confusion between real and virtual, "high tech, low life" (specially when finding the drug specialist) and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.209.55.54 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing either cyber or punk about this movie. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course there is... It does have many instances of the cyberpunk theme. like his suggestions say 82.4.97.209 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sources please. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph's "Overrated" bit[edit]

Per this reversion [1]: I see nothing wrong with including this. The "overrated"-ness of a film is only going to be something that comes in time, just as being considered a best film of all time. The Telegraph is a reliable source, and Tim Robey's cited throughout other film articles as a predominate critic. Given the fact that there is negative reception of the film at the time of its release, having something negative in the long run view against several "top film" mentions is no way UNDUE, and actually needed to keep NPOV. Further, Inception being overrated is not a unique idea, just that this is the best source for it. For example [2] [3] are RS that bring this up, though I wouldn't use them to include that fact. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Also,"We don't add every single opinion, just prominent opinions. If other critics regard it to be one of the most overrated films ever made then that would warrant inclusion." (the edit summary above) is not the right way to write reception sections. Outlying opinions from significant reliable sources should, if not must, be included to highlight what that critic found to be different from the mass of them - whether positive or negative. For reviews that stay in the same "average" range as the other views, then yes, we don't need to spend time on every signal review, but outlyier reviews that are from key sources are key sources. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your response Masem, and I actually agree with most of what you say. This issue has affected some other articles though so I have started a discussion at the Film project where you can read my full explanation.I don't want to get involved in multiple discussions about the same thing but I think you'll find my explanation at the Film project addresses many of the points you raise here. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
(link for those interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Most_overrated_films_ever_made?) --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced the twice-removed, cited assertion that the movie is overrated with a paragraph cititing five different critics and their opinions that the movie was generally regarded as overrated. Each of these opinions was expressed by prominent reviewers in prominent articles. Hopefully, this is enough to meet User:Betty Logan's vauge bar for inclusion and will not be reverted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Sammyjankis88 performed a reversion of the "overrated" reviews, this time removing the paragraph that includes four or five references to prominent sources. Remarkably, the edit summary given claims that the references weren't a concensus even though the provided links are more than most of the other opinions brought to the article. The user makes the assertion that "one can, with ease, find articles deeming any film overrated". This is obviously false; the bar of inclusion are opinions from reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines, and this edit has met that bar. As such, I've replaced the text. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"Reviewers have found the film to be overrated." This is at best misleading since most critics praised the film. These are also WP:WEASEL words. TheSmokingJacket.com and whatculture.com are FAR from strong sources. The latter is a site without paid writers producing clickbait articles. Angel Woods has written three articles; "10 Completely Overrated Movies", Valentine’s Day 2013: "20 Greatest Love Songs Of All Time", and "5 Greatest Singers Turned Actors". You call that reputable? TheSmokingJacket (might as well source yourself) also deems films like On the Waterfront, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Pulp Fiction, and Star Wars, among others, overrated. That is reputable? Also deeming something "overrated" is not encyclopedic at all.Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Overrated" is an evaluation just as valid as any other critical reception. "Reviewers have called" is not much different than "Not all reviewers gave". -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You can find the term "overrated" being used to describe ANY film or work of art. In fact anything at all. Someone will always think of something as overrated, not to mention how often sites (like Whatculture!) uses these kind of articles as way to get traffic. With a quick google search I can find more reputable magazines and sources calling films like The Godfather and Annie Hall overrated. It means nothing and definitely has no place in an academic or encyclopedic text. The way you presented this information was also very misleading since the big minority of critics liked the film. Examples of WHY prominent critics find a film weak can certainly very interesting, just don't present a minority as consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.240.72 (talkcontribs)
(ec) If it's a notable critic, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. The Angel Woods piece, though, appears to just be a snarky rant, and The Smoking Jacket's piece even says "humor" in the URL. Why isn't the current version, without those two, a good compromise for now? I would argue that the LA Times "informal poll" shouldn't be included either, actually, but at least the Telegraph piece, which is reasonably well-written, represents the same viewpoint. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

references to "production notes"[edit]

There are many references in this article to "production notes". What is the specific reference meant to be? (Are these verifiable?) -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the "production notes" references might refer to the Inception: The Shooting Script book in the "further reading" section, but checking a few makes it quite clear that they don't. How can these references be converted into something verifiable? As they stand, they fail verification and should be converted to {{fact}} tags. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged these references with {{failed verification}}. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about this particular case (I didn't put in those cites) but in general, for most feature films, the film promotion people will put together a set of "notes" for release to the media before the film comes out which gives the official inside scoop on how the film was made. Sometimes they are made available directly from the film's own official Web site, sometimes they appear on the studio's Web site, and sometimes they are distributed directly to media outlets by email and then some media outlets post them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like they're readily available, then. And even if they are, they're a primary source. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

plot[edit]

Overall I think it's good work on summarizing the difficult plot points. One part which seems out of order: "Cobb reveals to Ariadne that he spent '50 years' with Mal in Limbo..." this aside and flashback came earlier in the movie, before they get to the fortress. Of course that backstory continues at the fortress, another level down in the ruined city... Somewhat difficult to explain, so i won't try to make the change myself. Hopefully someone else more familiar with this article can give it a go. El duderino (abides) 06:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We're allowed to edit the plot to be out of "film order" if it helps us to simplify/condense the plot. Trying to explain the entire opening scene before we get to the basis of the movie would be difficult, as the film becomes much easier to go on once the concept of the inception process is explained. Though we could mention that some parts of the Limbo story occur in medias res at the start of the film. I'd hve to check to see if that makes sense. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)