Kevin's Watch

Tulizar wrote:I just assumed Miles would be in LA with his grandchildren. Miles (Caine) was working in Paris, but he was preparing to go to LA to visit his grandchildren. When on the phone talking to his children, Cobb mentions something about sending gifts with their grandfather to give to them. When Cobb meets with Miles in Paris, he gives Miles a bag of gifts to take to the kids.

I agree. Miles' presence in LA didn't seem at all odd to me.

Tulizar wrote:He even goes so far as to turn away to avoid looking at their faces in the dream sequence when Mal tries to convince him that the children are real. Not sure if this is significant, just seemed odd to me. Does seeing their faces make them real to Cobb?

When Cobb looked away, I thought it might be something like not being able to remember their faces, and not wanting to look upon his faceless children. Later, at the end, I thought maybe it was that he thought if he saw their faces he wouldn't be able to make himself leave. It was similar to him walking away from the top. He was willing to see their faces now because he had no intention of leaving anyway. I could well be completely wrong, though.

Syl wrote:The question Mal posed about the sense of some shadowy organization trying to kill him was never answered.

They stopped chasing him once Saito made the call and Cobb was allowed back into the US. That wouldn't happen if they were chasing him because they were alerted projections, as Mal claimed. This seems to point to the final scenes being reality.

CovenantJr wrote:

Syl wrote:The question Mal posed about the sense of some shadowy organization trying to kill him was never answered.

They stopped chasing him once Saito made the call and Cobb was allowed back into the US. That wouldn't happen if they were chasing him because they were alerted projections, as Mal claimed. This seems to point to the final scenes being reality.

I don't remember her saying they were alerted projections. Why would they be attacking the dreamer? I just think it represents his persecution of himself (and hints that Cobb is either a closet programmer or BSG fan). Saito making the call is a solution to the problem (if not a convincing one), but it's not a rationale for having the problem in the first place. It seems there's a prequel comic out there that presents a reason for Cobol going after him, but that story makes it difficult for Saito to call it off.

Syl wrote:

CovenantJr wrote:

Syl wrote:The question Mal posed about the sense of some shadowy organization trying to kill him was never answered.

They stopped chasing him once Saito made the call and Cobb was allowed back into the US. That wouldn't happen if they were chasing him because they were alerted projections, as Mal claimed. This seems to point to the final scenes being reality.

I don't remember her saying they were alerted projections. Why would they be attacking the dreamer? I just think it represents his persecution of himself (and hints that Cobb is either a closet programmer or BSG fan). Saito making the call is a solution to the problem (if not a convincing one), but it's not a rationale for having the problem in the first place. It seems there's a prequel comic out there that presents a reason for Cobol going after him, but that story makes it difficult for Saito to call it off.

Projections always attack the dreamer. Witness Ariadne's first dream - populated by Cobb's projections, which began to attack her.

Mal seemed, to me at least, to be asked Cobb why he hasn't noticed the resemblance between being hunted in the 'real' world and being chased by someone else's projections - that he should take this as evidence that he's still dreaming. You're right that it maybe doesn't make sense, though. The projections are the creations of the subject, so in order for Mal's suggestion to be at all accurate, Cobb would have to be the dreamer but with someone else sharing his dream as the subject. Mal herself perhaps? A little confusing...

Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I thought Ariadne was the architect in Cobb's dream. And remember Saito's dream? They didn't attack him, nor did Fischer's attack Fischer. They were always going after the intruders. It would make sense if that's how it worked, since one known target would be easier to handle than an unknown number of unknown targets (though I personally think any such kind of defenses are silly, since there would be no biological or evolutionary need for such a thing. The subconscious is actually pretty pliant to direct manipulation).

CovenantJr wrote:

Tulizar wrote:He even goes so far as to turn away to avoid looking at their faces in the dream sequence when Mal tries to convince him that the children are real. Not sure if this is significant, just seemed odd to me. Does seeing their faces make them real to Cobb?

When Cobb looked away, I thought it might be something like not being able to remember their faces, and not wanting to look upon his faceless children. Later, at the end, I thought maybe it was that he thought if he saw their faces he wouldn't be able to make himself leave. It was similar to him walking away from the top. He was willing to see their faces now because he had no intention of leaving anyway. I could well be completely wrong, though.

Ok, that sounds about right. It seems that Cobb was so confused about what was real and what was a dream and what was a captured memory, that he had some difficulty figuring out when he could be with his children again. After he resolved his conflict with Mal and "rescued" Saito in Limbo, I don't think it mattered to Cobb whether or not he was in a dream, as long as he was with his children on his terms (at his house, without Mal who he knew for certain to be dead.)

Syl wrote:Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I thought Ariadne was the architect in Cobb's dream. And remember Saito's dream? They didn't attack him, nor did Fischer's attack Fischer. They were always going after the intruders. It would make sense if that's how it worked, since one known target would be easier to handle than an unknown number of unknown targets (though I personally think any such kind of defenses are silly, since there would be no biological or evolutionary need for such a thing. The subconscious is actually pretty pliant to direct manipulation).

I think you're right. The projections of the dreamer attack any foreign bodies when things become obviously dream-like. Sort of a defense mechanism to protect the dreamer.

The designer revealed that the final scene is not a dream. They got older actors to play the children as well as new costumes.

Syl wrote:Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I thought Ariadne was the architect in Cobb's dream. And remember Saito's dream? They didn't attack him, nor did Fischer's attack Fischer. They were always going after the intruders.

When Cobb is teaching Ariadne about dreaming, he describes the two roles in each dream: the Dreamer and the Subject. We'll leave the architect aside because as far as I can tell the architect just designs the dreams - it's entirely possible to be either architect and Dreamer or architect and not Dreamer. In theory, it should be possible to be architect and Subject too, if you know how it all works.

When Cobb was showing Ariadne around her first dream, she was the Dreamer (she created the setting) and Cobb was the Subject (he filled the setting with his projections). Cobb's projections then began to attack Ariadne as she made it more and more obvious to them that something was wrong.

When Cobb was playing Mr Charles in the hotel, Arthur was the Dreamer and Fischer was the Subject - Arthur provided the hotel and Fischer populated it. So Fischer's projections attacked Arthur, Cobb and the rest of the team because they were all not Fischer.

In Saito's dream, the little apartment is invaded by an angry mob of projections. Saito says it's his dream, and the architect (whose name eludes me) responds, "No, it's mine" (or words to that effect). The architect was the Dreamer and Saito was the Subject, which is why the team needed to hurry - the mob was composed of Saito's projections, trying to eliminate the anomaly. Kill the Dreamer in the dream, and the dream ends.

The hostility of the projections isn't about people intruding into your dream. It's about realising that your dream is actually someone else's dream. You're not in your own mind. Your projections seek to free you from this external dream by killing the Dreamer and thereby ending the dream.

Loremaster wrote:The designer revealed that the final scene is not a dream. They got older actors to play the children as well as new costumes.

I just saw this for a second time last night, and I can confirm this. It's very subtle, but it's true. The children are slightly older ... it's most noticeable in the girl, and the clothes are slightly different. It's very cool. And that spinny-top-thing, does waver quite a bit at the end, unlike any other dream-time experience with it.
So, in my mind at least, I now know that the last bit was not a dream. As someone said earlier, this is a sci-fi version of Ocean's 11, right down to that happy ending.

Actually, if you look at it, the movie is filled with (loving) rip-offs of many other movies, including James Bond, but does it so well, that it is refreshing.
Watching it a second time was a destinct pleasure, and I noticed so much of the other subtleties that are in this movie...
nicely crafted.

yo dawg i heard you like dreams. so we put a dream in your dream so you can dream while you dream.

I think the whole damn thing was a dream. Cobb's dream. The proof of this is very subtle, and it happens early into the movie. There is one scene in a bathroom where everyone is supposed to be in "reality." Cobb is at the sink, splashing water on his face. He spins the top, and it falls to the floor. This makes it look like everything is real. But the camera does a fast pan over to the window, and in that window there is an image of Mal on the ledge, obscured by thin curtains.

So if he's in reality, how the hell are we seeing Mal?? Cobb doesn't even see her. Only the audience.

I think she really did kill herself after they did their little limbo experiment, exactly as he described. And then maybe he put himself in a dream state because he couldn't deal with that reality. And the point of this was to do an Inception on himself (like Rigel said), to trick himself into thinking that he had returned to reality and everything was okay. But first he had to convince himself to let go of her memory.

Loremaster wrote:The designer revealed that the final scene is not a dream. They got older actors to play the children as well as new costumes.

For someone to come out and say it like this, makes me feel just a little sad

They could at least wait ten years or so, like Ridley Scott did with Blade Runner.

Usivius wrote:

Loremaster wrote:The designer revealed that the final scene is not a dream. They got older actors to play the children as well as new costumes.

I just saw this for a second time last night, and I can confirm this. It's very subtle, but it's true. The children are slightly older ... it's most noticeable in the girl, and the clothes are slightly different.

I just saw it a second time and to me there is very little difference in the kids at all; the same orange dress for the girl and checkered shirt for the boy. If they aged it's cause for his dream to accept that it's "reality" he made them a bit older (like a month or two). He's dreamin'.

It's supposed to be an ambigous ending, but I suppose the sequel will let us know more.

I think the spinning top was a red herring. Sure, if it never stopped spinning, you can be pretty sure you're in a dream, but you couldn't be sure you're not in somone else's dream (someone else who has seen this top ... it's not like he kept the thing hidden). However, if it fell over, that wouldn't prove anything whatsoever. Why can't tops fall over in dreams? Nothing whatsoever precludes it.

So the top doesn't work either as a test for reality or a test for making sure he's in his own dream.

The ONLY conclusive clue one way or the other would be if he saw a dead person when he was supposed to be in reality. That would prove that he's dreaming. And that's exactly what Nolan showed us, if we were paying attention (the scene I mentioned above).

Saw it last night, and generally enjoyed it, but.....

It's basically a big-budget reimagining of The Thirteenth Floor with a little twist. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though that did mean that I had the ending very early on in the film. That said, it was visually stunning, and offered a tremendous performance from Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

And I agree that Mal was right, there's at least another level up they could go, Cobb didn't care at that point; he was with his kids in what he perceived to be reality.

I saw this yesterday and really enjoyed it. I think I might have to go see it again at the weekend.

There is one scene in a bathroom where everyone is supposed to be in "reality." Cobb is at the sink, splashing water on his face. He spins the top, and it falls to the floor. This makes it look like everything is real. But the camera does a fast pan over to the window, and in that window there is an image of Mal on the ledge, obscured by thin curtains.

This completely slipped by me. I'll have to keep an eye out when I watch it next time.

Marv, yeah keep an eye out and get back to us. After reading hundreds of Inception posts all over the Internet, I've only seen one other person catch this detail. So at least I know I'm not imagining it, but it must have been fairly subtle. I'm pretty sure it was right after Cobb tried out the drug in India (?), in the dreaming parlor where the owner tells him that people come there to dream for 40 "hours" a day, and who are we to tell them what is dream and what is reality.

After thinking about this movie some more, plot holes inevitibly reveal themselves. For instance, why would the "kick" work multiple levels down, when it depends upon the inner ear detecting changes in body orientation? There was no actual change in body orientation when the van hit the water, or when the elevator dropped, etc., because these were dreams. In fact, there was no external kick on the plane at all. They were all sitting comfortably in their first class seats the whole time. So how did they wake up on the plane? (Answer: they didn't.)

And there are problems with the mechanics of the nested dreams. For instance, the movements of the van caused the physics and gravity of the hotel to alter, but movements of the person dreaming the hotel--the 3rd Rock kid who was fighting in zero g in the hotel hallway--didn't cause gravity to go crazy in the snow fortress. Nor did the movements of the elevator cause universal changes in that dream's physics. In fact, there should have been no effect on the gravity of the hotel to begin with, since the van wasn't really moving, wasn't causing inner ear fluctuations in the dreamers riding in the van.

Either these were a glaring inconsistencies, or intensional clues that there was a problem with our expectations. I vote for the latter, combined with this all being Cobb's dream.

In fact, there was no external kick on the plane at all. They were all sitting comfortably in their first class seats the whole time. So how did they wake up on the plane? (Answer: they didn't.)

There is a very simple answer to this: the drug is timed. They have to wake up at this time. Unless someone is present to administer more drugs (as in the beginning scene with Sato), then they will wake up. They can wake up sooner if the kick is initiated (as indicated in that earlier scene, which, was in fact, a dream within a dream already).
The triky part seems to be if your mind ends up in limbo... if there, potentially you don't return to your 'real' body at all -- you are in a coma.

Another thing about the clothes and the children at the end. It's true: they are different. I watched for it specifically. The girl is obviously older,a nd the boys plaid shirt is different... everybody notices that it is plaid, but the colour scheme of it is reverse.
I am editing this post because I did a google search and found the images to proove it. But having a pain to post the images here.
OK, found a blog with the argument: www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=i27.tinypic ... s%3Disch:1
(geez, sorry, didn't realize it would be so huge...)

But I agree that there are potential plot holes, such as the gravity shifts in a dream world caused from experiences in the previous dream or real state.
...of course you can simply solve all these contradiction by giving in to the 'catch-all': that it it all a dream ... which I still don't buy.

Zarathustra wrote:There was no actual change in body orientation when the van hit the water, or when the elevator dropped, etc., because these were dreams.

In the world of Inception, that mechanic makes complete sense because that's the way dreams work. We're dealing with a new phenomena - well, dreams aren't new, but exploring them is - that Nolan fleshes out. In the mechanics of the movie, it works.

Zarathustra wrote:And there are problems with the mechanics of the nested dreams. For instance, the movements of the van caused the physics and gravity of the hotel to alter, but movements of the person dreaming the hotel--the 3rd Rock kid who was fighting in zero g in the hotel hallway--didn't cause gravity to go crazy in the snow fortress. Nor did the movements of the elevator cause universal changes in that dream's physics. In fact, there should have been no effect on the gravity of the hotel to begin with, since the van wasn't really moving, wasn't causing inner ear fluctuations in the dreamers riding in the van.

First, they explain that there's a time delay. Everything in the fortress happens in a short time - so by the time the van flips over, it's probably too late to effect the snow region. Second, from the perspective of the dreamers, they were moving with respect to the world. The same way that we sense falling when we are dreaming. Remember, first level down they dream they are being flipped over in the van while they are dreaming they are in the hotel while they are dreaming they are in the mountain hospital . . .

Usivius wrote:it it all a dream ... which I still don't buy.

Maybe you're right, maybe it's not all a dream. But there are definitely parts which we assume was real that have to be a dream. You can't see dead people in real life. So when he was trying out the drug in India, he may have entered a real dream parlor. But if so, he never came back out. So everything up to that point could have been real, but the rest could not have been. Mal *was* in the window.


Lore, I'm not saying you're wrong. I just--in Usivius's words--don't buy it. I understand the time dilation effect for nested dreams. This is why so much could be done in the nested dreams while the van was still falling. Time went "faster" the farther down into the levels you go, relative to the larger reference frame of the top dream. So whatever happens in the van would have "stretched out" effects in the lower dreams, becuase those events which happen in a relatively short time span for the van would span a much larger amount of time in the hotel, etc. This is why the water tilted slowly as the van swerved quickly. [I'm saying all this to get it straight in my own mind ... bear with me. ]

Loremaster wrote:Everything in the fortress happens in a short time - so by the time the van flips over, it's probably too late to effect the snow region.

Yes, the entire snow fortress dream happens while the van is falling (I think). So the van wouldn't have any effect on the fortress because it's in freefall. But why don't effects in the hotel--which "contains" the snow fortress in the same way the van "contains" the hotel--affect the fortress? 3rd Rock kid ties up the dreamers, flips them over, transports them to elevator, etc. These movements aren't reflected in the fortress physics at all.

I assume your second point addresses my criticism that the nested dreams shouldn't have been affected by the higher dreams at all. I still don't think this has been adequately explained. When they are in a lower dream, they have no awareness whatsoever of the higher dream. So movement in the higher dream shouldn't affect the physics of the lower dream. I understand what Nolan was trying to say: it's akin to the experience we all have when we hear noises while we're asleep, or need to go pee, etc. These external cues are often incorporated into our dreams. Indeed, Cobb asked the van driver (who was the dreamer of the van dream) why he didn't go to the bathroom beforehand, because it produced rain in that dream. But these effects happen because our body is aware of external input, external to the dream. This is impossible in nested dreams, because there is no real body in the van, for instance, to feel the movement. Sure, while they are in the van dream, they could experience the illusion of inertia. But they would have to be aware of this illusion in order for it to be an illusion at all. Once they leave that dream, there is no longer any awareness of it, and no cues traveling through your body independently of the dream (like we experience in real life).

After checking out U's links, I don't see how anyone can conclude anything from those fuzzy pictures. The lighting is different in each shot. White plaid vs red plaid? Try looking at a white shirt at sunset.

It cracks me up that people keep bringing up the fact that different child actors were used in different scenes as if that proves something internal to the film's logic. That's like saying that a stunt double proves something about the character he's playing. It completely ignores the fact that movies take time to shoot, children age quickly, or sometimes children aren't always available for a shot (they have strict limits on how much time they can spend behind the camera).

In my opinion, the differences are so slight, nothing can be concluded.