Talk:Inception: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:05, 20 July 2010

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Albums B‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Plot Section

I think the plot section misses out a few points and has a couple of errors. For instance, it says that they have to get a new architect because Nash was taken by Saito, when actually they had to get a new architecht because Saito proved that Nash was unreliable and would probably give them away if he got caught. Also, the ending just says that the top slows and begins to wobble. Perhaps it should be made clearer that we never actually see if it falls over or not? Maybe a section on theories of what happens in the end might be cool too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.187.198 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this notion, I don't think the person who wrote the plot understood it all. Also for the ending section, I think it is pretty obvious and important that we don't know for sure if Cobb was in reality or still dreaming. The top was standing up for an unusually long period of time, but the wobbling at the end is what confuses the audience. This needs to be made clear in the ending section because it just says that the top begins to wobble and slow, and to anyone who hasn't seen the movie or maybe just doesn't understand the movie, they would think that this means he was in reality, when in truth we don't know for certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.217.24 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New information soon?

It seems the official site will be launched when the top stops spinning. Mundane observation I'm sure.

http://inceptionmovie.warnerbros.com/teaser.swf http://inceptionmovie.warnerbros.com/teaser1.swf http://inceptionmovie.warnerbros.com/teaser2.swf http://inceptionmovie.warnerbros.com/teaser3.swf http://inceptionmovie.warnerbros.com/teaser4.swf

GumOnShoe (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC) gumOnShoe[reply]

NolanFans.com reliable?

NolanFans.com appears to be a self-published fan site. Can this therefore be a reliable source used in a Wikipedia footnote? --Melty girl

This man

why does "this man" redirect to this page?

I would like to know the same. - Simeon (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Times

'Inception' breaks into dreams, an article to be included. Erik (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

writing

the writing in this article is absolutely terrible. this article needs to be aggressively re-written. 129.170.241.160 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Is this similar to anything to you lot? Psychonauts with guns, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.151.140 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paprika_(2006_film) 95.154.230.252 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot seemed very similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existenz, particularly the ending and the idea of different "levels". I'm sure similar plots get used all the time, that was just the example that sprung to mind watching "Inception". 24.251.224.203 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing New

While this movie might be a new twist and even well done, the dream sharing is nothing new, and has been done before, such as in the movie Dreamscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamscape_%28film%29 and even in the new Outer Limits or new Twilight Zone TV show where a scientist sits you in a chair with another to share the same dreamland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.38.30 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a ridiculous simplification. "It has dreams! You can go into those dreams! TOTALLY SAME THING". It's not. 203.173.28.196 (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

It reminded me of Phillip K. Dick's novel Ubik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.150.15 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more fleshing out of the synopsis?

Right now it's quite vague as to exactly how any of this occurring. If someone could establish a little background on the world they live in and exactly what situation and plot mechanism allows them to enter peoples minds, it would create a little bit more of a plot basis. Rather than just "oh, they do this" without any context as to what the hell they are talking about. 203.173.28.196 (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

Plot synopsis from someone whose seen the film?

I've seen the film at the preview screening, I can offer a general outline of the plot or at least give some information to satisfy the criticism above, though may I note the criticism above is quite unfair considering a great deal of the 'aura' of this film is it's purposely vague nature to those who have not seen the film, i.e the advertising does not provide 'background on the world they live in'

Melonmaster (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plane's not small. It's a commercial jet liner. A point is made of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.198.37 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copy/paste job

I removed the synopsis, because it was copied verbatim from promo materials for the film. The rest of the article probably needs to be checked for that kind of crap too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacrito (talk • contribs) 01:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you removed the sourced, official synopsis for the film because it wasn't original research? *facepalm* 203.59.35.207 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Inception has been carried out.

If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Inception (film) → Inception — The film is clearly the primary topic. Going off page stats for June, this page was viewed over a quarter-million times, whereas the other pages were viewed only 676 times total (see [1] and [2]). ~DC _{Let's Vent} 05:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inception → Inception (disambiguation)

Oppose - primary topic is not determined by popularity or page views. BOVINEBOY2008 10:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For a term as generic as 'inception', I think a disambiguation page is better. Ocaasi (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Approve. This is a big film that a lot of people will associate with Inception. The other two are vastly unimportant and will hardly ever be associated with this word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Gilling (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and if we don't set primary topic based on popularity, how do we do it? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 18:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might differ from Bovineboy; I do think popularity is important; I just don't think it's the only criterion. I think we should keep users in mind either way: we have the disambiguation page be the main page, or we go with the film but add a link to the disambiguation page on top of it. Ocaasi (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, popularity can be a bit of a double-edged sword: although it suggests way more people are looking for the film, it also shows they are getting there just fine.Ocaasi (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - for the sole purposes of the film not being made, Inception would refer to the definition of the term. I would think the (film) disambiguation is necesary to avoid confusion with the definition of the word. ChaosMaster_Chat 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I'm missing something, there is no definition of the word given anywhere. If that we're the case, I'd support it though. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We decide a prime topic based on which pages share the title, not on dictionary definitions. Those are covered by Wiktionary, and in this case we have no Wikipedia article on the dictionary definition. From the other articles which we do have, this is very clearly the prime topic, and is likely to remain so in the future. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Current arrangement of articles clearer. Edgepedia (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I recognize BovineBoy's arguments, I think Skinsmoke hit the nail on the head here. Right - popularity is not a critical consideration for a primary topic, but in comparison to the other pages this is a primary topic. DR04 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are other articles with the same title which are not derived from this film. That this subject has a hype is not a valid reason to handle it differently. Smetanahue (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:RECENTISM ... this is introducing bias towards new things. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per skinsmoke. Per normal disambiguation convention (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) this is clearly now the primary topic, sufficient to justify moving it; it doesn't matter that it's recent since this relative prominence compared to the other existing topics is unlikely to be temporary. Rd232 ^talk 00:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's hardly necessary. I had no trouble finding the page. Renaming it will not make things any clearer. Bolesey (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Due to the fact that most people looking for "Inception" are most likely going to be looking for the movie I think it would be easier if this was the page the user was directed to. SashaJohn (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:RECENTISM and the fact it's what more people are looking for doesn't mean we change the article on 300 to be re-directing to the film (which is what I assume people are looking for). Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'"Support"' will be easier for people to go to inception rather than Inception movie
I an not taking sides here but it does make more sense to keep it the way it is. Furthermore I just recently put this here. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I reverted it. See WP:NAMB. BOVINEBOY2008 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's ok. I get it. I just realized what I done. but if the name does change it does have to be on there. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, but the way its looking, we are at either no consensus or oppose. BOVINEBOY2008 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - True! It looks that way. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        And since Inception is a definitive word. I don't think it needs to be changed. I am surprised the disambiguation page doesn't describe the definiton. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There is absolutely no need to change this. None. Inception and Inception are two different entities altogether. We have to keep it as is. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 0:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - It's the first link on the disambiguation page. Really not that difficult to find the film's article. Mike Allen 01:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The nominator has fallen prey to infatuation with a film and completely disregarded WP:RECENT and much wider meanings of the term "inception". Clearly NOT the primary meaning of the term. And a year from now the film will be a thing of the past. Very bad idea. Cresix (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't see how this falls under recentism; when you compare the film to the other two entries on the list (there exists no definition pace for the word "inception") based on link and search trends in the present and past, as well as the marketing scale of the film, it seems clear enough that it will remain the primary topic for the foreseeable future as far as we're concerned. If there were a definition page I would see this differently, but as it stands this move seems like a reasonable action. Also, the nominator had a perfectly valid point, and likely wasn't acting on emotion. The film will be no further a "thing of the past" than the 1962 jazz album it competes with. Sfxsigma (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - When you think of "Inception" you don't necessarily think of the big budget movie, there are various other meanings for the word. I don't think it would be wise to redirect someone to this movie every time they look for history or a definition.--PeterGriffin • Talk 10:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't determine the primary topic by considering dictionary definitions that we don't have articles on. If you want the dictionary definition you go to Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. We have to decide whether there is a primary topic from the articles that exist. We therefore have to choose between a much anticipated film (which will be well known either because it is successful or because it flops, given the amount of publicity it has had); a retrospective album of tracks that hadn't even been released previously by an obscure Canadian band; or a debut album by a little known, but seemingly influential, American jazz pianist. You don't really need to be a brain surgeon to work out which of those is the primary topic, do you? Skinsmoke (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is still one better reason why the disambiguation page should still keep the name. No need to have it saying disambiguation on the page and the film just using the name since the film is not the primary meaning of the word. And plus the disambiguation will always link to Wiktionary. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The supporters have made a decent case here, and I respect that, but I think it is the 'encyclopedic' way to leave this as is. As noted above, it is not difficult to find this page. Jusdafax 12:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While the Inception (film) page may have been viewed much more than the others, it is just because it is closer to the film release date. This wave will not be forever. Keeping the disambiguation page for the word Inception is the better way, IMO. --RumInAGlass • ｔａｌｋ 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:RECENTISM, as 76. and others have said. --Joe^Talk_Work 06:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there have been a meaning with the word Inception from the disambiguation page, but this is a film with that same title & I don't see any point why it should be changed. Just leave it the way it is SilentmanX (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The film hasn't reached enough long-term acclaim to become THE primary meaning of the word "inception". (Current page-views aren't sufficient to make it the primary meaning.) If it wins major awards (i.e., Academy Award for Best Picture), maybe move it then; but definitely not now. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support RBBrittain makes a good point. I believe that if the film continues to great success (box office, awards, etc.) as it appears to be doing. "inception" should redirect to "Inception (film)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.57.35 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Except the film's eventual success cannot be known right now, and Wikipedia does not make a change with every momentary up and down of a film's performance. Cresix (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion How about we wait six months and see whether the film turns out to be memorable or not? Skinsmoke (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - while I enjoyed the movie vastly it is not the only thing in the world referred to as "inception", nor is it the first thing or the last thing to be referred to as "inception". If it filled any of those categories (first, last, or only) I might agree, but until any of that changes I believe that it should remain under the page name Inception (film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.26.20 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The term "inception" in the common usage refers to inception, and not this film or the other dab page entries. If an article related to creation or establishment (per the plain meaning of the word) can be found, the dab page should refer to it as well, with the possible option of inception redirecting to that page. Even if no such article exists, the plain meaning of the word remains the primary usage and should be at least a partial focus of the dab page. Even if this film goes on to win major awards, that is no clear indication that the primary usage of the word "inception" has shifted to this film. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Regardless of how popular the topic/film is it is not the only "inception". In order to maintain consistency with other topics and film titles, it would be logical to have either a disambiguation page or to append (film). If it does indeed get moved, then I will motion to have the word Predator go directly to the film, as well as the word "up", or any other commonly used word that happens to be a title of a film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.126.53 (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

please don't use the terms 'in early reviews' because this is a relative phrase. just by using 'the film has received critical acclaim' it instantly implies this has been gathered from all the reviews so far. so lets keep things in general terms. thanks.Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I think the critical reviews should be cut down, because the numerous reviews detract from the section. It should consist of the first paragraph, then perhaps one positive/one negative review.

Should have immediately went into protected status

Seriously. Now there's no Synopsis or Plot section. The blanking of the Plot section in the edit history should alone be enough to get this one locked. --99.186.108.193 (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request. BOVINEBOY2008 23:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its been semi-protected for two weeks. BOVINEBOY2008 12:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three cheers for due diligence, sir. --99.186.108.193 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eames in plot synopsis

just saw the film last night. the plot synopsis here indicates that tom hardy's character eames was in the opening heist in saito's dream but he actually was not introduced until later in the film when cobb recruits him in north africa (morocco?) someone should fix this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.103.2 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues, claims the father Fischer finds is a "forger". However, in the movie they said they could not use the forger, that for inception to work he had to get the idea from himself. The father was a projection of the ideas they had been building in him for the first two levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.70.234 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot given is too bad

Even the so badly limited plot has so many mistakes for eg. when cobb and others drug fischer in the plane and take him to the fist level they actually kidnap him. It is only in the second level that cobb impersonates a dream security officer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themasterhimself (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 90.217.221.119, 16 July 2010

The following is incorrect: The team and Saito are brought back to the real world (in England)

It should read The team and Saito are brought back to the real world (in Japan)

90.217.221.119 (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Please change "The team boards a small plane occupied by Fischer" to "The team boards a Los Angeles bound jumbo jet occupied by Fischer"

The spinning top/totem was described in the movie as never stopping in *Mal's* dreams, not Cobbs. This changes the meaning of the film significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.118.217 (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box-office opening

Depending on where you live, right now (July 17 22:45 IST local time, for me, that is) it's been at least more than a day since 'Inception' was released (worldwide). How has the film fared at the box-office on its opening day? 59.184.137.177 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 204.14.101.147, 18 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} After the end there is the sound of something small falling, likely stating that the totem fell

204.14.101.147 (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Davtra ^(talk) 10:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armond White

Should he really be included in any Wiki article? The man is a renown attention seeker, disagreeing with critical opinion solely for the sake of attention. Ebert even called him out as a "troll". Giving him a significant portion of the criticism against this movie would be extremely biased for all the wrong reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.165.163 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.70.62 (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 68.7.197.117, 18 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} She didn't leave the letter with the police, she left it with their lawyer. The letter incriminated him in her death because it said she was afraid for her life and that he had been threatening her. She also had herself declared legally sane by three psychiatrists, so he had no way of defending himself against her accusations.

68.7.197.117 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Please be more specific about what text you want removed from the plot summary, and what you want inserted. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

A piece that was crucial, in my opinion, was the fact that when Eames is impersonating/projecting as Browning, he mentions Fischer's father will. He mentions that it contains information about the company (sorry I cant remember the specifics). But even more importantly, on level 3, Fischer opens the safe, and at first you see the will, but then you see a paper windmill (he most undoubtedly made as a child). This let's the audience know that the Inception did in fact work, because they wanted to repair Fischers relationship with his father to make him believe Browning was gunning for him.

Edit request from 69.249.164.18, 18 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

There are some serious spoilers, please revise.

69.249.164.18 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When using edit requests, please make specific requests. Also, please see WP:SPOILER. BOVINEBOY2008 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Mrojas1212, 18 July 2010

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Inception. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Nash is dragged away by Saito's men because he betrayed his team. He went to Saito to bargain for his life since Nash knew the company that hired him (Cobalt) to go into Saito's mind has already figured out they have failed and will be looking for him. That is why Nash is on Saito's helicopter and is why he offers cobb the chance to kill him. Cobb says that's not the way he handles things so Saito orders his henchmen to take him away. Cobb asks what they are going to do with Nash. Saito replies that he will do nothing, but Cobalt will.

Mrojas1212 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Inception. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I recently watched the film Inception and I was reading this article on it and I noticed something was wrong. In the film, Cob's (Leonardo De Caprio) wife was named Molly (Marion Cotillard) and he refered to her as Mol, but in this article everytime the "creator" used the term "Mol", he actually put Mal. And I know this isn't a big screw up, but it is wrong regardless and was bugging me, so if this could be fixed it would be greatly appreciated. ~Bernice9701 Bernice9701 (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Movielovinggraham, 19 July 2010

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Inception. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

In the cast, that Malorie "Mal" The Shade is the film's main antagonist.

Graham Abraham 00:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.246.50.55, 19 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Inside Plot:

"Time slows down with each level, so that five minutes of real time would appear as an hour in the first dream, which feels like 10 hours in the next level, and so on."

Should be 20 hours, not 10.

76.246.50.55 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done:, couldn't find that sentence in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 75.24.245.111, 19 July 2010

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Inception. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

In the glossary of relevant terms, "Jump" is listed as the jolt/shock that pulls you out of a dream state. That term is never used in the film and I'm not sure where the writer got it from. The term used in the film (several times) is "Kick". As in "Give him the kick." (spoken by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the trailer). http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/inception/ 75.24.245.111 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Netizen1138, 19 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

add the {sprotected} tag to indicate article is semi-protected

Netizen1138 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the notes in the cast section are incorrect.

"Leonardo DiCaprio as Dom Cobb, the Extractor – a man who specializes in subconscious security, but steals his clients' ideas.[15]"

Actually the subconscious security bit was just a ploy, Saito was not yet his client, but was the mark on that job and Cobal Engineering was the client.

"Tom Hardy as Eames, the Forger – a sharp-tongued team member who impersonates the target within the dream world and forge an identity in a physical form.[19]"

This is a bit misleading and may imply he impersonates the mark, which he does not. 71.21.231.101 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 66.91.86.30, 19 July 2010

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Inception. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

I think its important to add to the end of the plot synopsis, that while the spinning top did possibly slow down and wobble slightly, it never actually stopped spinning before cutting the screen to the credits, suggesting that perhaps the entire movie itself was a part of Cobb's dream. 66.91.86.30 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Olugbam, 19 July 2010

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Inception. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Please change

"It was there that long hotel corridor able to rotate a full 360 degrees to create the effect of zero gravity for scenes where dream-sector physics become chaotic was constructed by production designer Guy Hendrix Dyas, special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, and cinematographer Wally Pfister."

to

"It was there that long hotel corridor able to rotate a full 360 degrees to create the effect of alternate directions of gravity for scenes where dream-sector physics become chaotic was constructed by production designer Guy Hendrix Dyas, special effects supervisor Chris Corbould, and cinematographer Wally Pfister."

because the spinning corridor did not create effect of zero-gravity. The spinning corridor is what enabled it to seem like gravity moved from pointing down to the ground to pointing to the wall or ceiling or so forth. The zero-gravity (weightless) scenes were is described in an article from the wall street journal found at

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/07/16/inception-how-special-effects-helped-joseph-gordon-levitt-fly/

as being accomplished by

"To create the effect of zero gravity, several other sets were constructed: vertical sets; horizontal sets; upside down sets; at the same time, the “weightless” actors were hung on wires, or supported by rigid poles like big Popsicle sticks, or even laid down in fiberglass molds built to fit their bodies."

Some of the other weightless effects are sworn secrets and that can be seen in the same article.

"One particular challenge for the sequence was a scene in which Arthur takes five weightless sleeping bodies, wraps a chord around them, and floats them down the hall into an elevator. “How did we do it?” Corbould asks. “Chris has sworn ourselves to secrecy on that one.” "

Olugbam (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ending

At the end of the film when the screen goes black you can hear a thud leading to the logical conclusion that the top fell over and it was not a dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.65.231 (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't hear a thud.The Great Morgil (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment on ending and the "kick" theory

The film did not leave me with but one conclusion which is that the top stops spinning. Everyone that ever had a spinning top knows that when it starts to wobble it is only a matter of time before it falls down and that the top falling is based on how perfect the spinner is able to balance it from the beginning. In a perfectly created world the top would never have started wobbling. I have never owned a spinning top that was able to recover from the wobble.

Also perplexing to me was that throughout the move a "kick" is needed to return to reality. At the end Cobb shows up with a gun and the spinning top leading me to believe that the gun was to be the kick? However, thinking while I am writing this the gun couldn't be the kick. What happens when you are killed in limbo? Do you wake up? Anyway, my original thought was that a murder/suicide had to be commited for them to wake up. Mal was killed in Limbo and seemed to die, but I see that without knowing the answer to what happens when you are killed in limbo needs to be answered. Perhaps you wake up?Deshibrit (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This isn't a forum. Please take your wonderings and analysis to a forum, perhaps IMDb. BOVINEBOY2008 20:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New at this. Will look for the right place to talk about thisDeshibrit (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:05, 20 July 2010 edit The Great Morgil (talk \| contribs) 212 edits →‎Ending ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:05, 20 July 2010 edit undo The Great Morgil (talk \| contribs) 212 edits →‎Ending Next edit →
Line 319:		Line 319:

	At the end of the film when the screen goes black you can hear a thud leading to the logical conclusion that the top fell over and it was not a dream. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.129.65.231\|74.129.65.231]] ([[User talk:74.129.65.231\|talk]]) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		At the end of the film when the screen goes black you can hear a thud leading to the logical conclusion that the top fell over and it was not a dream. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.129.65.231\|74.129.65.231]] ([[User talk:74.129.65.231\|talk]]) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	I didn't hear a thud.[[User:The Great Morgil\|The Great Morgil]] ([[User talk:The Great Morgil\|talk]]) 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)		I didn't hear a thud.[[User:The Great Morgil\|The Great Morgil]] ([[User talk:The Great Morgil\|talk]]) 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)