• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

INCEPTION |OT| Movie of the Forever

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to see a film similar to this set in nightmares or something. And preferably more crazier, I understand why Nolan made it seem so grounded in reality with the occasional crazy moment (zero-g, train etc.) buuuut...I'd like to see somebody go all-out with the concept of setting an action blockbuster in the mind.
 
Mr. Snrub said:
I could maybe see women as frightening and repellent in Memento, and Inception. But The Dark Knight? Batman Begins? The Prestige, where the two main characters are assholes/neglectful men?

Nolan clearly has a masculine tone to his movies, but "frightening and repellent" female roles.

You could certainly make the argument that Nolan's representation of women are quite representative of society's history of marginalization. They're either wicked and controlling in the most negative sense of the words, or naive and subservient.

Discotheque said:
I would like to see a film similar to this set in nightmares or something. And preferably more crazier, I understand why Nolan made it seem so grounded in reality with the occasional crazy moment (zero-g, train etc.) buuuut...I'd like to see somebody go all-out with the concept of setting an action blockbuster in the mind.

Inception was originally envisioned as a horror film according to Wikipedia.
 
harSon said:
You could certainly make the argument that Nolan's representation of women are quite representative of society's history of marginalization. They're either wicked and controlling in the most negative sense of the words, or naive and subservient.

Inception was originally envisioned as a horror film according to Wikipedia.

I would say Rachael from Batman Begins was neither of these things...
 
Am I the only one that thinks White does a great job in detailing why he doesn't like movies but when it came to why he considered stuff like Michael Bay's work original he got more vague? I don't know, I just wish he had done a better job in explaining WHY he finds it so original and 'not adolescent'.
 
polyh3dron said:
ugh for the millionth time the dreams in Inception are engineered to fool the dreamer into thinking they are real. It's a science fiction movie where you can share dreams with people via a made up machine.
It's horrible. I don't see how it can even remotely be facilitated
by the way dreams happen or the human brain works.

The movie is almost entirely based on floating concepts that have no, or little, basis in reality. If those concepts are floating in someone's head as if the whole movie were a dream, then the movie works. It seems most likely that isn't the case, so the movie doesn't work. Which is why I like to call it silly, or say that it doesn't actually make sense. The internal logic works for most things, although many things are awkward, but that logic itself is dumb.
 
harSon said:
You could certainly make the argument that Nolan's representation of women are quite representative of society's history of marginalization. They're either wicked and controlling in the most negative sense of the words, or naive and subservient.

Guess he's a bigger fan of Michael Mann than I thought!
 
Zoramon089 said:
I would say Rachael from Batman Begins was neither of these things...

How many times is she rescued by Batman within Batman Begins? She's pretty much representative of most love interests within comic book worlds, ultimately dependent on the masculine super hero to save them.
 
BobsRevenge said:
It's horrible. I don't see how it can even remotely be facilitated
by the way dreams happen or the human brain works.

The movie is almost entirely based on floating concepts that have no, or little, basis in reality. If those concepts are floating in someone's head as if the whole movie were a dream, then the movie works. It seems most likely that isn't the case, so the movie doesn't work. Which is why I like to call it silly, or say that it doesn't actually make sense. The internal logic works for most things, although many things are awkward, but that logic itself is dumb.

IT'S

SCIENCE

FICTION

Of course it has little basis in reality; that's the conceit of the whole genre!

Do you really not understand this or are you just trolling?
 
"I think it's fair to say Roger Ebert destroyed Criticism"

"What he did was not criticism, it was blabber"

"I think he does not have the training [...] I've got the training"
 
Blader5489 said:
IT'S

SCIENCE

FICTION

Of course it has little basis in reality; that's the conceit of the whole genre!

Do you really not understand this or are you just trolling?
It's SCIENCE fiction. Without the science its just fiction. The movie is pure fantasy.
 
Mr. Snrub said:
Guess he's a bigger fan of Michael Mann than I thought!

Definitely. The misrepresentation or over-representation of a particular kind of women is not exclusive to Nolan, it's an issue perpetuated by many within film and is an extension of social issues.
 
:lol

Armond must be upset that Ebert has been going off on him lately.

And he's insulting the internet writers to their face. Oh mayn.
 
BobsRevenge said:
It's SCIENCE fiction. Without the science its just fiction. The movie is pure fantasy.

Blade Runner, The Matrix, Back to the Future, and Terminator are all science fiction. They have about as much basis in reality as Inception.
 
harSon said:
How many times is she rescued by Batman within Batman Begins? She's pretty much representative of most love interests within comic book worlds, ultimately dependent on the masculine super hero to save them.

But the thing about superhero movies is that everyone depends on the hero, she just happens to get the spotlight because of her relationship to Bruce. I'd be different if she was a damsel in distress and the only one constantly needing saving but she's just an everyday person like the rest of Gotham's residents. The only way to make her anything "stronger" would be to make her some sort of masked crusader as well
 
polyh3dron said:
ugh for the millionth time the dreams in Inception are engineered to fool the dreamer into thinking they are real. It's a science fiction movie where you can share dreams with people via a made up machine.

But
all of that goes out of the window when they perform Mr. Charles on Fischer and clue him in on the fact that he is currently dreaming.
 
Zoramon089 said:
But the thing about superhero movies is that everyone depends on the hero, she just happens to get the spotlight because of her relationship to Bruce. I'd be different if she was a damsel in distress and the only one constantly needing saving but she's just an everyday person like the rest of Gotham's residents. The only way to make her anything "stronger" would be to make her some sort of masked crusader as well

From what I can remember, she is
saved three times
:lol

Ariadne within this film or Rachel within The Dark Knight would fit your argument a lot better.
 
Man it gives me such a boner to see this guy, who's reviews are NOTORIOUSLY hated by nearly everyone, to come onto a popular film podcast and just destroy sacred cows left and right.
 
harSon said:
From what I can remember, she is
saved three times
:lol

Ariadne within this film or Rachel within The Dark Knight would fit your argument a lot better.

Dude, so is Gordon in TDK. Just saying...
 
Kusagari said:
Am I the only one that thinks White does a great job in detailing why he doesn't like movies but when it came to why he considered stuff like Michael Bay's work original he got more vague? I don't know, I just wish he had done a better job in explaining WHY he finds it so original and 'not adolescent'.

This. Apparently Transformers 2 doesn't fall into this adolescent category, despite the fact that it's based off a hit cartoon show that was strictly directed at adolescents.

This is a prime example that simply being intelligent shouldn't reward you with credibility as a film critic.
 
polyh3dron said:
WITH the science it would be REAL.
Science fiction is meant to be an extrapolation of current knowledge and science into the future. The quality of the science fiction is in either how good the message is, or how accurate and well thought out the extrapolation is.

Inception doesn't really have a subtle message. It has a common Hollywood message about regret without any special kind of depth that would justify the outlandishness and/or a pointless "what's reality?" message. The extrapolation is largely on misconceptions and makes up weird logic seemingly out of the blue and only to serve Nolan's ability to write something pointlessly complex.
 
BobsRevenge said:
It's SCIENCE fiction. Without the science its just fiction. The movie is pure fantasy.

I don't think you quite understand what science fiction is...it's pretty much a subgenre of fantasy that incorporates technology in a way that attempts to draw real world analogs-basically attempts to make it seem feasible. You're arguing that Inception did a bad job at this but that's completely irrelevant because the fact that it tried to is enough to allow it to be considered science fiction
 
BobsRevenge said:
Science fiction is meant to be an extrapolation of current knowledge and science into the future. The quality of the science fiction is in either how good the message is, or how accurate and well thought out the extrapolation is.

Inception doesn't really have a subtle message. It has a common Hollywood message about regret without any special kind of depth that would justify the outlandishness and/or a pointless "what's reality?" message. The extrapolation is largely on misconceptions and makes up weird logic seemingly out of the blue and only to serve Nolan's ability to write something pointlessly complex.
No offense but you either don't understand what science fiction means or..just don't understand at all. =/
 
Kusagari said:
Am I the only one that thinks White does a great job in detailing why he doesn't like movies but when it came to why he considered stuff like Michael Bay's work original he got more vague? I don't know, I just wish he had done a better job in explaining WHY he finds it so original and 'not adolescent'.

Yeah, he starts comparing and referencing films and directors over the last hundred years when talking about Inception, then during the Transformers 2 discussion is just mostly "It's scope and epic" and "The action had rhythm"
 
Are any of the other episodes of the /filmcast any good, the hosts seemed pretty boring.

Of course that may be due to the company they had with him.
 
harSon said:
Armond, Armond, Armond, Armond and Armond

Who are the five greatest film critics?

lDt3W.jpg
 
Zoramon089 said:
I don't think you quite understand what science fiction is...it's pretty much a subgenre of fantasy that incorporates technology in a way that attempts to draw real world analogs-basically attempts to make it seem feasible. You're arguing that Inception did a bad job at this but that's completely irrelevant because the fact that it tried to is enough to allow it to be considered science fiction
This is a semantic argument on a label. Ultimately that's separate from criticism of the movie, since its just a description. You're right I suppose.

edit: I should say that I haven't read a science fiction book outside of a class in, like, 5 years. I'm also not a huge fan of the genre in general. So I can see why I wouldn't have a wide understanding of it. :lol

The last sci-fi book I read was Solaris, which is very much a scientifically founded novel.
 
This was easily the most entertaining podcast I've listened to since 1up invited Dennis Dyack to 1up Yours.

You are truly an artistic god among frivolous heathens Armond White, I bow to your all-mighty presence.
 
Calcaneus said:
Are any of the other episodes of the /filmcast any good, the hosts seemed pretty boring.

Of course that may be due to the company they had with him.

They grow on you, they have a guest everyweek too, which helps keep the show fresh.
 
DMczaf said:
Yeah, he starts comparing and referencing films and directors over the last hundred years when talking about Inception, then during the Transformers 2 discussion is just mostly "It's scope and epic" and "The action had rhythm"

It's easy for him to criticize films he hates but when it comes to justifying his ridiculous reviews of films he enjoys, he drops to the kind of one word defense that an "adolescent" would use.
 
harSon said:
This was easily the most entertaining podcast I've listened to since 1up invited Dennis Dyack to 1up Yours.

You are truly an artistic god among frivolous heathens Armond White, I bow to your all-mighty presence.

I laugh at your attempt to become as eloquent as him. :lol :lol
 
harSon said:
You could certainly make the argument that Nolan's representation of women are quite representative of society's history of marginalization. They're either wicked and controlling in the most negative sense of the words, or naive and subservient.
'Evil' Mal is Cobb's projection, so...
 
harSon said:
This was easily the most entertaining podcast I've listened to since 1up invited Dennis Dyack to 1up Yours.

You are truly an artistic god among frivolous heathens Armond White, I bow to your all-mighty presence.
1pzc5e.gif
 
Calcaneus said:
Are any of the other episodes of the /filmcast any good, the hosts seemed pretty boring.

Of course that may be due to the company they had with him.

They are usually quite entertaining, but have a severe lack of knowledge in classic film. They just got obliterated tonight. :lol
 
BobsRevenge said:
This is a semantic argument on a label. Ultimately that's separate from criticism of the movie, since its just a description. You're right I suppose.

But your criticism is that the movie is not grounded enough in reality, when the whole point--for both Inception as a sci-fi film, and the sci-fi genre as a whole--is that it does not need to be accurate to real world science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom