CopyPastehas never been so tasty!

Inception argument :D

by anonymous

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

red - him

black - commentary

blue - me


Inception went down like this....
First thirty minutes: What the heck am I watching, and where the heck is this going.
Afterwards: Ok, we get that Inception is going into one's mind, we GET it. Now do something more than bending one's mind. Maybe a bit more story would be nice.

You don't need to be smart to understand it, Inception used "special effects" that had been used before and I was not impressed. There are movies that have been view by millions of people, and there are even the best analizers of the movie still don't know what the fuck happened. Christopher Nolan's Momento for example. The movie is played backwards, is beautifully filmed and has zero special effects. 2001: A Space Odyessy is another. Beautifully filmed and musically genius. The special effects and editing were fantastic for 1968, and if you don't believe me, then I will show you.

I understood Inception perfectally, and I know if it is really a dream or not at the end. If you want me to spoil it, I will. If there is one thing you should know about me, its that I love movies, and I understand symbolism better than anyone else. Name a movie, and I will give its significance and symbolism. 

(Yes, my spelling is a bit flawed)



and then he ranted about Leonardo DiCaprio for a while, which didn't really have anything to do with anything.



sf,jsdklfjdsklfjdslkfjlsd I typed a ton and then my browser just died. fml. I'll try to retype it. I was sad :(

V that's my response, which I retyped. it's not as good as the first one, & I gave up on proper punctuation cuz I was mad. D:


like I said, I liked Inception because it makes you think, but it doesn't really make you think about the nature of dreams or the subconscious or any of that. It just throws definitions at you and sees if you can keep's about keeping the audience off balance with a constantly shifting set of definitions.

I admit that the idea behind the movie far outweighs what the movie actually delivered, that it didn't really reach its full potential: the potential to really delve into the depths of the human consciousness and discover the hidden wonders of the mind. it came really close though, which kind of made me sad. /:

this whole argument is completely based on personal opinion, so we're probably not going to convince each other of anything, but personally, I love it - in movies, books, lectures, anything - when facts are just thrown at me and I'm expected to follow along. it's definitely not about intelligence (& I'm sorry for wording it that way in my original comment). it's more a certain subtype of intelligence, combined with a willingness and ability to not over-analyze while still taking in information. basically Inception was the epitome of throwing information at the viewer and expecting them to keep up and be caught up, which is what happened with me.

if they had, as you suggest, focused on a more well-rounded plotline, the side of it that they DID focus on wouldn't have been nearly as developed, and the general audience would have complained that it was dull. if they'd gone all out and tried to accomplish both things, the movie would likely never have been made. I think they successfully trod a very fine line between awesome concepts and the general movie-going public being able to engage with it.


and then he was like, "Dang. that was perfect. I give up." and I felt happy. :)

Add A Comment: