Talk:Inception

Gross takings too accurate?

Hi, I see there are minute adjustments. Wouldn't it be better to round it off to the nearest million dollars? Otherwise, it suggests the figure is being changed almost daily. As well as misleading, it's a rather onerous requirement for the editors, isn't it? Tony (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The tendency is to update the figure based on the reference, which itself changes daily. I agree that it would be easier to round off, but I'm not sure if it's worth pursuing. I don't see the task as onerous; some novice editors seem to engage in such minutiae without complaint. The same thing happens with changes in Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic as well. Ultimately, the theatrical run will conclude, and we'll have a final figure from its run. If you want to round it off here, I've no problem with that. It might be that the popular tendency is to use specific figures, and it's not worth the pushing back and forth. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest rounding, there's no point in using an exact number as it's always going to be incorrect. Every minute. Of every day. Completely wrong. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, then. Even the final figure is likely to be wrong; not every dollar will be counted. It's just what's reported, and it's not like the changing figure is completely off-the-mark. It's just a number that changes to keep on target with what goes on in reality. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest waiting until it's finished it's run in cinemas in a few months, then round that final worldwide figure. But also, that's as accurate as it's going to get. Pilakoutas (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ending

I've added that the top does wobble at the end. As controversial as this may be here, it is, I think, adequately referenced. I stopped short of saying that this proves it is reality because, in my opinion, it reads fine but people are welcome to make that change if they like. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that another user reverted my change. I re-added the ascertion that the top wobbles and the reference to confirm this. The user that reverted the change seems to be confused between reality and fiction in that they debukned the source on the grounds that Micahel Caine was in France and therefore claimed the reference unverifiable. While he may have been in France in the film and playing a fictional character, when he gave the interview in the reference he was in a BBC studio in his capacity as an actual, real person explaining a project with which he was invovled. Any concerns please raise them here, don't remove referenced material. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like his own interpretation of the ending, rather than fact. Personally the only source I'd consider reliable for the ending would be Nolan himself. But hey ho. Rehevkor ✉ 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd rather go back to the consensus text for the plot but perhaps find a way to work in the actor's interpretation in the cast or another section. Millahnna (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the films project has been far too tolerant of additions to plot sections in general. Can someone tell me what the interpretation of the top wobbling as to do with plot? Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean that response for me (because I think we basically agree that the wobble business has no place in the plot )? In any case I'll answer from my own perspective. People are trying to say that the wobble indicates whether he was still in the dream or not. But since no one can seem to agree on whether or not it does wobble, the consensus on this page has been to simply leave it at "spins the top and is distracted by the reunion," which, as I indicated above, I feel is preferable to the current text. My only exception would be if, as Rehevkor suggested, Nolan were to say something one way or the other about it; then I would be comfortable mentioning the wobble in the plot. But like I said, I don't see a problem with mentioning Caine's interpretation in the cast section or something. Millahnna (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be added to an interpretations or theme section, not the plot. The question of whether the top is wobbling or not, or whether he is still in a dream or not may have an answer, but since that answer lies with us and not the plot, it doesn't belong there. As I've said previously, it is possible to describe the top spinning at the end without interpreting its meaning. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for switching back to the consensus text. Millahnna (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The ending indicate to me, and anyone else who can follow logic, that Dom has been dreaming all along. When he see's his children in the final scene they appear exactly as they have in his sub-conscious perceptions, unless we are supposed to believe Dom has powers to see the future; predicting what they will look like when he meets them, why would they appear unchanged from those same sub-conscious memory/projections of his kids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.86.149 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum, discussions and analysis such as this as nothing to do with the development of the article. Rehevkor ✉ 17:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What is forum as do can explain by why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.106.9 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

? Rehevkor ✉ 18:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo

Why do all the citations from Box Office Mojo have a link to IMDB? Zustra (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is owned by IMDb, technically. From the article: "In July 2008, the website was purchased by Amazon.com through its subsidiary the Internet Movie Database." BOVINEBOY2008 13:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Inception: The Shooting Script

This book should be added to the article and used as a source. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Dream Level

The synopsis said the third dream level they were entering was Fischer's dream, but in the movie (I literally just checked several times) they only say, in the hotel room, that they're going into Fischer's subconscious (which is true, i.e. the hospital room in the third level, plus the fact that each of the levels contains each of their subconscious minds), but Dom also explicitly states, once in the dream, that the dream is that of Eames ("Eames, this is your dream, I need you to go draw the security away from the complex..."). This also makes sense 'cause in each of the dream levels the dreamer stays behind to administer the kicks (Yusuf in the van, Arthur with the explosives, Eames here dropping the fortress, especially since throughout the entire 3rd dream level Eames is the only one that doesn't go lower). long story short, I changed the article for this reason.

Also on an unrelated note, I believe the plot summary is a little wrong, but I'm pretty unclear about part of it myself. I don't think that the 'limbo' where Dom and Ariadne go to rescue Fischer is the real limbo, because Dom and Ariadne get there by way of the PASIV machine; also because if Fischer was able to be revived after being shot I think he A. at least wasn't completely dead and B. Dom and Ariadne actually just went into a shared dream state to kick Fischer's mind back up a level when resuscitated. (Otherwise, how would it have been so easy to release Fischer from Limbo?) This all leads me to believe that in fact the "Limbo" to which Mal took Fischer was actually just one level deeper of a dream, and not a real limbo; Thus, when Ariadne and Fischer wake back up to the snow level, then ride that level's kick and the one in elevator of the hotel, they wake up in time to get out of the submerged van. This, however, I believe is where Dom stays in his limbo dream so that he dies in the sinking of the van, thus joining the by-then dead Saito in real limbo, otherwise how does Dom randomly wash up on shore? Clarification would be nice. If this issue is clarified I think we can change the article to reflect what actually happened. Austin Joseph Billings 17:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck

I have added a section on the Scrooge McDuck controversy. Expansion is due, and in case anyone wants to contribute, material is aplenty (see here). --uKER (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this was already mentioned in another section at some point. But the thing is, it wasn't a "controversy" by any stretch of the imagination, very few sources actually took it seriously, and having its own section really is giving the issue undue weight. Rehevkor ✉ 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rehekvor... It should be mentioned, but not have its own section.

Maddox (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll see to integrate the paragraph somewhere else. --uKER (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussions About the Ending

Wikipedia may not be a suitable place to collect the many "ending theories" for this movie. Even comments on it by Damon Lindelof, Michael Caine and other famous people may not belong in this article. However, I do think it should mention that the film's ending has been up for debate. Simply that. What all these "critics" and "reviewers" think of the film, how much out of 10 and what % the film scores, that's nice and all... but what about the general public, their reaction to the film? There have been and are many intense debates about the films ending. Someone who doesn't know the movie and reads this article, can tell by the Plot section that it was an open ending ("Cobb spins his totem top to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion."). But then they still don't know about the audiences' response to this. One of the most discussed endings ever. Or not. If you read this article, you have no idea. Sure, looking for inception+ending via Google give you some idea, but I think we could mention something about this in the article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can find enough sources to use that talk about this, a sub-section under reception might be informative. Perhaps we could pull a fair amount from reviewer interpretations? I haven't read many of the film's reviews though, so I don't know if reviewers were being super "spoiler free" about the end. Millahnna (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea and it may stop the constant interpretation at the end of the plot. Shaunthered (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see MOS:FILMS#Plot: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." This does not belong in a plot subsection, and the claims are suspect and open to interpretation. My understanding is that the ending is not discussed in the production notes book, but I'm open to correction on this. If true, this means that the ending is subject to interpretation by the reviewers, and belongs in a section about themes and interpretations, not plot. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel it's worth covering, although the plot section is not the place for it. Rehevkor ✉ 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved below for further discussion. There are a lot of problems with this content, and most of the claims are not supported. If anything, we need good sources with specific claims attributed to authors/reviewers. The claim that "the ambiguous ending was designed to leave the audience with open questions and spark discussion" does not seem to be supported. Anything remotely resembling this content belongs in a well sourced interpretation section. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The ambiguous ending was designed to leave the audience with open questions and spark discussion over what really happened. Did the top stop spinning at the end, or will it keep going to infinity? Right before the film cuts to the end credits the totem wobbles, however it keeps spinning. This keeps both possibilities open that it will either stop spinning soon, or never stop spinning. However, Michael Caine has since revealed the "true" ending of the film, stating that, "[The spinning top] drops at the end, that's when I come back on. If I'm there it's real, because I'm never in the dream. I'm the guy who invented the dream."

I don't have access to the original BBC interview, but I'm going to add some of this back into a new interpretation section. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Added verifiable, neutral content back in (minus the opinion) with the Caine quote, into a new interpretation section. However, the only source coverage on this is from blogs. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Parodies

The film has been parodied in South Park episode Insheeption. Should we add a section about it? --Alexc4ge (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, not unless the parody itself receives coverage from reliable sources. Doniago (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way things work. You make it seem as if you were questioning the South Park episode's notability or even existence. The episode has its own article here so the link can be established right away. --uKER (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only an essay, but WP:POPCULTURE suggests that if no reliable sources have written about a pop culture reference, and the subject of the parody itself hasn't commented, then it's a one-way connection and we shouldn't link back from the reference's subject. --McGeddon (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly the way things work, near everything needs to be referenced. Saying that, as a South Park episode I'm sure references and coverage is a plenty. Rehevkor ✉ 15:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup. List-bloat is a pet peeve of mine. Doniago (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

vague plot summary

Hello. I'm new to editing on wikipedia and contributed a much clearer (in my opinion) plot summary which was promptly deleted by another user and then by the bot on my second attempt (because I thought I hadn't "saved" it correctly). Sorry! I wasn't aware a consensus was needed to add a major edit to an article. I watched the film once and came here to read the summary because I was a little confused but the plot summary here on wikipedia confused me even more because it was vague and a little confusing (in my opinion). I watched the film again and understood it better and thus came here to update the article (no disrespect meant to the author). Again, I'm new to editing articles and figured I'd just give it a shot, I wasn't trying to vandalize anything. Is there a way I can submit my plot summary to be reviewed and if it is deemed "worthy" have it replace the current summary? I'd like to start editing articles and this is my first try so pardon me if this is the incorrect way of doing things.

Sorry for the inconvenience, I'd really just like to give editing a shot and figured I'd start here. Any help or feedback telling me how to submit my proposed plot summary would be appreciated.

KeithLD (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Keith. I reverted one of your plot additions, can't recall who got it another time but we both reverted for the same reason. It was way too long. I don't disagree with you though, that there are some points that are a bit vague. We went through quite a round trying to get a summary that was concise and accurate but not too long when the film first came out so this one is going to be a hard one to add to. First thing I would suggest is that you check out both WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOT. You'll note that the film plot guidelines give a range of 400-700 words for most film plot summaries, but that it also notes that there are exceptions when films are complicated to explain (Memento being the example used, if I recall correctly). For that matter there are exceptions where 400 words is way too many. Those should give you an idea of why some of us felt your version was too long. My next tip would be to note here on the talk page what points in the plot specifically you feel are not clear enough for a reader to get the basic plot structure. Let's see if there is room to expand a point or two. This film was certainly complicated enough that it wouldn't be surprising if the summary went a few words over the guidelines. I'm a plot junkie myself (well a text flow junkie but that means I end up on plots a fair bit) so if I can help, I'd be happy to. Happy editing! Millahnna (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized it was long, but didn't realize there was a specific word limit. I actually edited my original plot summary (which was around 2000+ words) down to around 700 words. The 700 word summary is the one I'm asking to post if it would please the wikipedia fandom out there. With an intriguing, albeit complicated, film like this I think it's acceptable to have a longer article explaining the plot. My format follows the chronological order of the film in terms of beginning-to-end. I think if you saw the film and understood it, then you'd probably understand the plot summary already posted here. But if you either haven't seen the film or were confused, I don't think the current article is all that helpful. No offense is meant to the author of that article. Again, since this is my first time editing anything on wikipedia I just wanted to take a shot at it. Should I post my new 700 word article for you (or anyone) to review? Or is there somewhere else I should provide it first and then if it gets "O.K'd" then post it? KeithLD (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps post it here (i.e. in the Talk section) and let some more experienced editors review it and establish consensus as to whether it would be an improvement over the existing summary. It may be prudent to review Template:Collapse and apply that to your summary as well so that people not interested in the conversation can skip past it. I look forward to reading your version! Doniago (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The term "vague" may have been a poor choice for describing the article. Excuse me. I just found that a chronological summary helped me and a few others that I emailed understand the narrative a little better. I think I managed to restructure the existing article and cite all the important plot points and how they relate to the narrative without rambling on too long. Again, it's just my offer for a contribution and for better or for worse I just consider it "editing practice." If the following post is deemed unnecessary or unhelpful then I'll accept that decision. The plot summary below is about 800 words but can easily be edited down to 700 if what I came up with is still considered too long. I'm just trying to get the hang of online editing. I'll wait for a reply. Here is my revised plot summary:

I agree that the chronological explanation is easier to understand for this one. Where do others stand on that point? In particular I think it helps place Mal's role in the story which I don't find to be very clear in our current plot summary. I do see a few spots in your version where a little grammar polish might cut a few words here and there but overall I don't find the length too problematic (when I've got some more time, if you don't mind, I'll touch the spots I think could use it here on the talk page). I tend to agree with what the consensus here has been regarding the very last sentence. I would take:

The film ends with Cobb spinning the totem on a table but cuts away before the reveal of whether it topples or remains perpetually spinning, leaving the audience to decide if the reunion takes place in reality or in a dream.

and cut it down to something similar to what we have now in that spot:

Cobb uses his totem to test reality but is distracted by reunion with his children before he can see if it continues to spin.

In general, I advise staying away from "the film does this" type of language because it usually adds unneeded length and makes for awkward sentences. I've personally made exceptions in the case of films that use unusual cuts to help with storytelling (abrupt cuts in The Uninvited (2009 film) were hard to describe in any other way and lead into the film's climax). In this particular case I don't think it's necessary to note that the film cuts to black before the audience sees if the top falls as long as we note that Cobb doesn't see it. Millahnna (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

od

Point taken. The opening three sentences and the last four sentences of my plot summary could be merged into a three-sentence explanation of Cobb's rescue of Saito. Also, there are probably at least half a dozen other sentences that could be shortened or merged (which is what I meant about this 800 word version being chopped down to 700). If anyone else feels this version is adequate (after the mentioned minor edits) then I'd like to post it. Again I'll just wait for more feedback.71.231.182.218 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you undid it, I wanted to drop you a quick note as to why I made the suggestion for the last sentence. Since the function of the totem has already been explained elsewhere in the plot summary, there's no reason to be so specific: "...before he sees if it topples indicating he's awake or remains perpetually spinning to prove he's dreaming." "...before he sees the results" would be sufficient and less redundant. Overall though, I think the work you've done on this page is much better than what we have in the plot section now. While I'm sure many of us would make small tweaks to it, I would fully support this version going into the article. Millahnna (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. In reference to your note about the final sentence, I agree it is somewhat superfluous to add the extra information about what specifically are the results of the spinning top. But since there is no mention in the summary for the spinning top's specific purpose, in terms of what "toppling" or "perpetually spinning" indicates to him, I decided to include a brief definition. The phrase "to test reality" is a little vague in my opinion, but I can see how the current version could be considered redundant. How about I'll leave it as it is and if others agree it's unnecessary they're free to edit it? KeithLD (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point; somehow I thought I'd read those specifics earlier in the summary (I've read many versions of summary for this film so I'll blame that). Is there an easy way to get the explanation of how a totem works into the plot earlier? I was originally thinking it would work near the introduction of Ariadne but you have that section fairly concise as it is and dropping the totem in there would be awkward. Millahnna (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree about getting the explanation of the totem in earlier (which is why my original draft opened with "Cobb washes ashore on the desolate beach... and Saito recognizes the spinning top as a totem...") In fact the only reason I started that way was to include the totem's significance. I'm sure it could be included elsewhere in the article, perhaps where Ariadne gets to know Cobb's problems. If you like, you could try and give it go to include it somewhere earlier and see what you come up with. In truth, I'm just eager to get an "official wikipedia contribution." KeithLD (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Making an attempt now. I think it's a little wordier than necessary but my first draft of the sentence implied that all totems were tops so the bulk came from an attempt to fix that. Still kind of awkward though; I'm fairly certain I made a major grammar error somewhere but I can't seem to spot it. Millahnna (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's tricky. I tend to write my summaries with "3 paragraphs worth of information into 1" and hence I produce a lot of run-on sentences. But I prefer reading summaries that are loaded with detail in sacrifice of "proper grammar in the strictest sense." There's also something to be said for relevant points being included. The reason I felt the existing plot summary was "vague" was because it makes little mention of Mal's role in the film, yet she's a pivotal character. Inception is about Cobb's journey to catharsis. His struggle with his guilt is the driving force of the plot. That's why my version includes the bits about "Cobb's projection of Mal sabotages the plan..." and "Ariadne learns of Cobb's tremendous guilt..." and "Cobb attains catharsis by confessing his role in Mal's suicide..." etc. I think you have to mention those points because they're vital to the story. The story isn't about stopping a powerful corporation from establishing a monopoly. That's Saito's story, not Cobb's. Hans Zimmer's theme "Time" plays at the end because Cobb has freed himself from his personal guilt, and not because he "saved the world from being subjected to an evil corporations global dominance." But I digress...

There's also a flow to the summary in which each sentence should lead into the next, in terms of the way information is presented. I found it difficult to include the explanation of the totem anywhere else except in the final sentence because that's when it's necessary for the reader to know its function: that Cobb is using it to test reality. When I included the explanation in the beginning I decided to go with the introduction of the opening scene first, in which Saito recognizes Cobb's totem. I don't mind collaborating, feel free to reorganize the summary in any way you wish to (restructuring and/or deleting sentences). Perhaps you can find a place where the totem explanation fits if you scramble a few sentences around or something. I considered removing the explanation of Michael Caine's character and inserting the totem explanation there.

Instead of: "Cobb's father-in-law Stephen Miles introduces him to Ariadne..."

it was something like: Cobb tasks student-architect Ariadne with designing the labyrinth of the dream landscapes and she is advised on the significance of a totem; a personal object unique enough to an individual to determine if one is dreaming or awake. She constructs a weighted queen chess piece in accordance with Cobb's spinning top and Arthur's loaded dice...

But I felt that was a little too elaborate and chopped it. Good luck. KeithLD (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume that's you Keith? I haven't had a chance to drop a line on the WP:FILM talk page and ask for my eyes to form a consensus. I'm on a computer that makes my wiki activities really really difficult fora few days. I, for one, fully support this version that you've worked on on the talk page. I feel it's much more clear than the version we currently have. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Because I'm seriously tempted to just drop it in. Millahnna (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling either way except for the usual "before he sees if it topples indicating.." etc etc speculation that has no place. Rehevkor ✉ 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree for slightly different reasons (i don't feel it's speculation so much as overly wordy). If I'm remembering the conversation correctly between Keith and I, he only included that in this instance because there was not an explanation earlier on what the totems were and how they worked. I added a couple of relevant sentences to his draft to explain the totems much sooner in the plot. With one more sentence to further explain how the top specifically works, i think e can go back to the more condensed final sentence. Millahnna (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. I don't mean to press, it's just that every time I see an advertisement on t.v. for the upcoming DVD/BluRay release for Inception I'm reminded of this plot summary. I hadn't read through the arguments posted in a previous subsection on this talk page about the "interpretive" ending when I wrote the version I posted here. I'm in full agreement that plot summaries should be free from speculative wording, but honestly I don't feel that- "Cobb uses his spinning top to test reality but is distracted by his children before he sees if it topples indicating he's awake or remains perpetually spinning to prove he's dreaming." -is speculation. Cobb did use his top to test reality and he was distracted by his children before the reveal of whether or not it toppled. The reason he spun the top was to test reality. If he was sure he was back in the real world, there would be no need to spin the top. I suppose there's the growth of his character to consider, i.e. that once he purged himself of his guilt he no longer needed to question reality anymore, and so perhaps he intentionally decided to not wait and watch whether the top kept spinning and instead decided that his children are what's important. Perhaps he was demonstrating that he was trying to break the habit of constantly being unsure of reality? But, again, that's all just subjective to the viewer. I do, however, think it's fair to say that he did spin the top to test reality and didn't see the conclusion. Perhaps there's a better way of phrasing it? KeithLD (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I like this version better than the one posted. It flows a little neater as opposed to the way the current article jumps around to explain things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.190.221 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Expert dream thief Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) along with his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) attempt corporate espionage by stealing confidential information from the mind of wealthy businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) during a dream. Cobb encounters a projection of his deceased wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) who sabotages the heist. Saito is impressed by the two-level "dream within a dream" strategy and offers Cobb a chance to be cleared of the charges of his wife's murder if he can perform "inception"; the act of implanting an idea in a person's subconscious mind which they genuinely believe to be their own. Saito hires Cobb to inspire Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), the heir to a vast energy conglomerate, to break up his father's business empire. Cobb assembles his team: Ariadne (Ellen Page) the architect tasked with designing the labyrinth of the dream landscapes, Eames (Tom Hardy) an identity forger, and Yusuf (Dileep Rao) a chemist who concocts the powerful sedative needed to stabilize the layers of the shared dream. Ariadne learns of the tremendous guilt Cobb struggles with when she shares a dream with him in which he relives a collection of painful memories of Mal's suicide and the moment he fled from his children as a fugitive. She is also advised on the significance of a totem, a unique object used to determine if one is dreaming or awake, and constructs a specifically weighted queen chess piece in accordance with Cobb's spinning top and Arthur's loaded dice. The job is set into motion when Maurice Fischer (Pete Postlethwaite) dies and Robert accompanies his father's body from Sydney to Los Angeles. During the flight, Cobb sedates Robert and the team uses a device carried in a briefcase to bring him into the three-level shared dream. The plan consists of keeping a point man on each level while the remaining team members fall asleep within the dream to travel further down into Robert's subconscious to plant the idea. The team will then ride a synchronized system of "kicks" back up the levels to wake up to reality. Trouble arises in the first-level down, a rainy metropolitan area, when the team successfully abducts Robert but come under attack by his militarized subconscious projections trained to hunt and kill extractors. Saito is mortally wounded during the shootout but due to the strength of Yusuf's sedative, dying in the dream will not return them to reality, but instead will send them into limbo; a deep subconscious level in which they could be trapped indefinitely and eventually lose their grip on reality. Eames takes the appearance of Robert's godfather Peter Browning (Tom Berenger) to suggest Robert reconsider his opinion of his father's will. On the second-level down, a corporate hotel, Cobb persuades Robert to join the team as Arthur runs point, fighting in a zero gravity environment to ward off the relentless projections. The team descend to the third dream level, a snowy mountain fortress, where Saito succumbs to his wounds and Cobb's projection of Mal sabotages the plan by shooting Robert dead. Cobb and Ariadne elect to risk entering limbo and there Cobb confesses he was responsible for Mal's suicide although it was unintentional. To help her escape from limbo during a shared dream experience, he inspired in her the idea that her world wasn't real. Once she returned to reality she became convinced she was still dreaming and needed to die in order to wake up. Cobb attains catharsis and remains in limbo to search for Saito while Eames defibrillates Robert to bring him back to the third-level mountain fortress where he enters a safe room and discovers and accepts the idea to split up his father's business empire. Leaving Cobb behind, the team members escape by riding the kicks back up the levels of the dream. Cobb eventually finds an elderly Saito who has been stuck waiting in limbo for decades. The two help each other to remember their arrangement and Cobb suddenly wakes up back on the flight to find his team waiting for him. Saito arranges for Cobb to get through U.S. customs and he goes home to reunite with his children. Cobb uses his spinning top to test reality but is distracted by his children before he sees the results.

KeithLD (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ariande's role

Though she is known as the Architect, shouldn't there be a little bit of info of how she helps Cobb let go of Mal? Several analysists suggest Ariande acts as a form of mentor or therapist to Cobb, shouldn't there be something in her description about that? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:53 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are these reliably sourced analysts, or are we talking about original research? In any case, it would seem this information could perhaps be put in the Plot section, and the Cast section should really talk more about the actors than the characters. I'm not saying it would be inappropriate, but if we're going to give Ariadne a role it shouldn't be coming from us, but from an external source. Doniago (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

[1]. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:27 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not considered reliable. Another source would be preferable, though if another editor chimes in, I'm willing to be overruled. Doniago (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake

In the last paragraph in the Plot section, there is the word "layer". I'm assuming this is meant to be "lair" and have corrected it.  RND  T  C  18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)