Jump to content

Talk:Inception/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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

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.

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)

Los Angeles Times

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

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


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)


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)

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)

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

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).
  • 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.
  • I concur with the person that says not to use 'in early reviews.' Just say something along the lines of 'Inception has received positive reviews" or 'Inception has received critical acclaim.' No need for the 'markedly backward' statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.92.25 (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new user and I notice that this page is semi-protected, so can someone else change the top critics rotten tomatoes rating. In the article I think it says it has 79% based on 38 reviews, when in fact it has 100% based on 13 reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inception/?critic=creamcrop

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)

I put in a request. BOVINEBOY2008 23:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Its been semi-protected for two weeks. BOVINEBOY2008 12:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Three cheers for due diligence, sir. --99.186.108.193 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Davtra  (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

Agreed from here, as well. Just read some of his reviews that are aggregated on RottenTomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author/author-2725/ --174.99.10.62 (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Edit request from Mrojas1212, 18 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

 Not done Please specify what you want to be edited and re-post the edit template. TQ, BejinhanTalk 11:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

 Not done The credits has her listed as Mal. Your explanation is logical, but it is not so uncommon for people to spell their nicknames differently than their actual name. There does seem to be substantial confusion on this as a google search does generate more hits for Mol than it does Mal, so you are definitely not alone. --MATThematical (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Movielovinggraham, 19 July 2010

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

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

 Not done Can you please post a reliable source to verify that and put up the edit template once you've done that. TQ, BejinhanTalk 11:14, 20 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)

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

Edit request from 75.24.245.111, 19 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

Already done  Davtra  (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

Edit request from Olugbam, 19 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

Done No one has rejected your proposed change, so I added it into the article.  Davtra  (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Improvements

Just compiling some refs for future use of improving the BO section. Feel free to update the section yourself if you want. ChaosMasterChat 00:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I added some. The NYT article needs a free login. This might also be of interest: [6]. BOVINEBOY2008 01:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Projections / Subconcious

{{editsemiprotected}}

"Objects and characters in the dreams are projections of the dreamers' minds,"

That is false. The projections are people, or objects being shown through the dreamers' subconscious. If you think I'm wrong, please refer to the line where Cobb clearly states this whilst he's training their new Architect. She didn't understand the concept, thus why she was killed within Cobb's dream by his wife "Maul", as I so like to call her.

My request is to change this sentence into "Objects and characters in the dreams are "projections" caused by the dreamers' subconscious."Caledir (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Somebody had already reworded it. The quoted text isn't in the article anymore.  Davtra  (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for the name change

{{editsemiprotected}}

There is a clear spelling error in the plot section where the name of the character by Dileep Rao is written as Yusef, where the actual spelling is Yusuf. Nadesai (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Already done  Davtra  (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis error -- Arthur actually dreams the mission dream

Currently the synopsis implies that Cobb is the dreamer of the mission dream, but in fact they decide to have Arthur be the dreamer and so he is the dreamer, not Cobb. Please fix (I'm not sure where to put that in the current synopsis). Softlavender (talk)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Cannot you edit the page yourself?  Davtra  (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Swent, 07/21/2010

You have included many positive reviews from the top critics in the second paragraph of the "Critical reception." However I think you should also include Richard Roeper, especially since you mentioned Ebert and since he is one of the most well known critics around. I would suggest the following sentence immediately after the Ebert sentence:

Richard Roeper of The Chicago Sun-Times also gave Inception a perfect score of "A+" and noted that it is "one of the best movies of the [21st] century.”[1]

Swent (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do.--J.D. (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrbrutus111, 21 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the grammar in this sentence "to try and extract" to "to try to extract."

This is a common grammatical error. Please effect the change whenever possible

Mrbrutus111 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)mrbrutus111

Done  Davtra  (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for a spolier warning

sorry new to wiki, but there is no spoiler warning on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.141.122 (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings were removed from Wikipedia almost a year ago. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be as full and complete a collection of knowledge as is possible. It was decided that spoiler warnings and deliberately keeping spoilers out of articles contradicted this. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Yes... the Forger is able to transform or forge his appearance within the dream word. The second part works; "forge a physical identity within the dreamworld." Whatever works/however you say it.

Eames was also the Thief, too. Arthur or Cobbs said something along the lines of "we don't just need a Thief, we need a Forger." I think when Cobbs met him in the casino, they alluded to him stealing, perhaps even forging/counterfeiting the chips...? That could be irrelevant, though. He did however steal the wallet in the dream world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.59.251 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Meantime, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Found some typos:

1. there is the text 'an bring' which should be 'and bring'.

2. 'impores' should be 'implores'.

3. the text 'shoot himself and wakeup' should be 'shoot himself and wake up'.

4. 'inheritence' should be 'inheritance'

5. 'compund' should be 'compound'

6. 'he created wih Mal' should be 'he created with Mal'

7. 'the van in slo motion' should be 'the van in slow motion'

Meantime (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done BOVINEBOY2008 10:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Cobol Job Reminder

Why isn't there any section related to the Cobol Job? I think if it was included, it would help explain the situation in the beginning when they attempt to extract information from Saito's mind. It doesn't have to be large, but at least someone should make sure it is noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.246.168 (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.151.210.176, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

kicks at at higher levels. Please remove repeated word 72.151.210.176 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done  Caledir Chat 23:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Snakesnaga, 21 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "The team then enters a van and into the next dream stage, the hotel where the team tricks Fischer into believing that the kidnapping on the first level was orchestrated by Browning. Cobb convinces him as Agent Charles to enter Browning’s subconscious in order to find out his motives but in fact the team enter into the third dream - a snowy Mountain fortress with Fischer's projections guarding it. Fischer must break into the fortress to ultimately locate the idea the team is planting, but but is shot by Cobb's projection of Mal and falls unconscious. Cobb guesses Mal will have taken Fisher deeper into his subconscious so he will have to find her and get him back. He and Ariadne then enter deeper into Cobb's subconscious and find Fischer in Cobb's dream of his home with Mal and are confronted by Mal." to "The team then enters a van and into the next dream stage, a hotel where the team tricks Fischer into believing that the kidnapping on the first level was orchestrated by Browning. Cobb convinces him to enter Browning’s subconscious in order to find out his motives but in fact the team enter deeper into Fischer's. The third level is a snowy mountain fortress Fischer must break into to ultimately locate the idea the team is planting, but is killed by Cobb's projection of Mal and goes into limbo. Cobb and Ariadne follow him to this fourth level in an attempt to salvage the mission and are confronted by Mal." Also please change "A wounded Saito dies and Cobb allows himself to die in his unconscious to reach limbo and locate Saito." to "A wounded Saito dies and Cobb remains in limbo to locate him."

The old version of this synopsis was correct and was incorrectly changed- nothing in the movie states that Cobb became unconscious after being shot- it is pure speculation and isn't an offical interpretation- Ariadne asks if Mal killed him and Cobb answers that it's over. In addition to this they refer to his mind as being "trapped down there" and that they need to "find" him: The same way they talk about people in limbo. Limbo was filled with what Cobb had left there while he had been there with Mal as that is explained in the beginning- that limbo is filled with whatever its previous inhabitants had built. He knows Mal will be there and that she will likely have Fischer (Mal doesn't take Fischer anywhere- how is that possible given that she was clearly shot in level 3...even if she hadn't been it isn't clear how she could take him somewhere- once again the user making the change has speculated on something) because she wants to convince Cobb to stay behind in Limbo with her. To further support the fact that where Fischer went to was limbo, Cobb says that Saito is down there and he wants to remain there to find him as well. The change saying that Cobb dies and then goes to limbo is also speculation- we can infer that he has stayed behind in limbo searching for Saito based on the fact that he has cuts on his face and trouble remembering why he wants to find him. The only explanation given for why the plot was changed is because the user has seen the movie three times. I have too and disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakesnaga (talk • contribs) 15:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Snakesnaga (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The plot summary has changed since the time of this request. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.1.253.114, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a sentence in the plot synopsis that currently reads - 'they wake up in the hotel as the elevator changes direction, causing a kick and waking them up inside Yusuf's van as it hits the water below, sending them back to the trans-Pacific flight'. This isn't strictly true and should be changed. The first part of the sentence is correct, 'they wake up in the hotel as the elevator changes direction, causing a kick and waking them up inside Yusuf's van as it hits the water below' however the van hitting the water is NOT the reason for them waking up on the trans-Pacific flight. This is shown in the movie because after the van has hit the water, some of the characters get out of the van and on to the beach to talk about where Cobb has gone (into Limbo to find Saito). What actually happened is that the dream sharing machine has a countdown and when that countdown has ended the machine wakes the subjects up. That is why everyone on the plane woke up with the exception of Cobb and Saito who woke up because Saito killed them both in Limbo (suggested by the fact you see Saito put his hand on a gun and then you see Cobbs eyes open on the plane where everyone else is awake. 94.1.253.114 (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even think the van hitting the water was even a kick then. If it had no purpose besides having them all at the bottom of a lake/ocean, whatever it was, then it wasn't a kick.  Caledir Chat 17:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems that the van was a kick, it just wasn't to wake them up on the trans-pacific flight as the synopsis on here states. Because the dreamers are so heavily sedated they all need to 'ride' simultaneous kicks from every dream level in order to get back to reality. But, again because of the heavy sedation, not only must there be a kick on the dream level above you, there must be one on the level you are in - so there was a kick in "every" dream level. It's fairly clear the falling van didn't wake them up on the trans-pacific flight because there was no 'kick' in reality to wake them. They were in fact woken up because the dream sharing machine they were using had a countdown and it ended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.253.114 (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding, the van hitting the water was supposed to be a kick to bring them out of the hotel dream. to come out of each level, the previous level has to kick them back into it. like in the beginning, to get out of the hotel in saitos mind, Cobb is kicked into the water. and to get out of the hideout, the machine wakes them up. it would be the same scenario. which means the explosion in the elevator in the hotel brings them back from the snow fortress, and the explosion at the fotress brings them out of limbo. (which doesnt work so this theory is slightly flawed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.140.146 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Science fiction or speculative fiction?

I have no problem with the film being in science fiction categories, but I believe in the lead the term speculative fiction may be more appropriate.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Speculative fiction is part of science fiction.[7]. Let's keep it simple. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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 [8] and [9]). ~DC Let's Vent 05:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
  • 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. ChaosMasterChat 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose Current arrangement of articles clearer. Edgepedia (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose WP:RECENTISM ... this is introducing bias towards new things. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • '"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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose WP:RECENTISM, as 76. and others have said. --JoeTalkWork 06:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

May I ask why this article was moved after the conclusion was to not move? ChaosMasterChat 01:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Being bold. It's quite possible that he wasn't even aware of this discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
User talk:NuclearWarfare#Inception move. My comments still apply. NW (Talk) 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ar Tonelico

Is this not like proxy dive of Ar Tonelico? A dream inside of a dream..... maybe not.. its just a thought..... and the levels of a dream... Cosmosphere?? Architecht=Dive Therapist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.179.220 (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 142.68.83.204, 26 July 2010 information error is wrong about movie Inception

Hi,

I noticed while reading the entry on Inception, a fairly significant error under the "Plot" section. It says that Saito would like inception performed, so that Fischer will break up his fathers empire so that Saito's company can run unchallenged.

I've watched the movie numerous times, and this is an incorrect conclusion. Saito specifically mentions that if the empire is not broken up, they will control more than 50% of the world's energy resources, and in effect, make them a new superpower. Nothing about letting his company run unchallenged.

Fairly minor, but fairly crucial to the accuracy of the plot and story. The assertion that it's to let his own company run unchallenged is a greedy motivation. To prevent the development of a superpower (and in the context of oil and energy), it's a humanitarian goal. Much different!

142.68.83.204 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the sentence. It uses more words than before but it is clearer and closer to what Saito said in the film about not wanting the company to become a monopoly and put him out of business. -- Horkana (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The plot doesn't need to be expanded anymore. This is clearly why it doesn't have to be detailed. Personally, I consider the Plot right now to be just fine. Caledir Chat 23:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammar

"The objective is to make Fischer break up his father's company and prevent it becoming a monopoly, forcing Saito out of business. "

Can't edit the page myself, so if someone who is able to could change the previous to: "The objective is to make Fischer break up his father's company, preventing it becoming a monopoly and forcing Saito out of business. "

Little things set off my OCD.

The current plot is written by a 12 year-old for his school project. Apparently that's what Wikipedia has become, all the good articles get reduced to inferior chunks of text written by kids who speak English as a second language. Don't worry too much about it.

Please sign your comments with ~~~~.
I changed the text to:
"The objective is to convince Fischer to break up his father's company, preventing it becoming a monopoly, forcing Saito out of business." -- Horkana (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.91.86.30, 19 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

Not done: We can't publish original research, which this addition contains (unless there is a third-party reference for that "suggestion"). I have not, however, seen this movie yet, so it may well be appropriate to add. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

also, the entirety of the movie could not be Mal's nor Cobb's dream, because the top stops spinning and falls numerous times prior. the ending implied he may have never left the "limbo," and everything afterwards was his dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.227.81 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot cut

While editing the plot summary, I noticed the tag asking to reduce it. I came up with a version, which I will post here. It's only about a paragraph shorter, and honestly, I prefer the "current" version, as it explains key plot points in a better way...This version glosses over a lot of content, and for only a paragraph's worth of lessened summary...I dunno. I'm also going to post it in the event that someone runs with it and finds a better way to trim it down. TO be honest, I've read through the current version and I find it comprehensive and not riddled with unnecessary detail. I wonder if the nature of the plot--requiring an explanation of the technology and world to understand the consequences, Cobb's personal story, and the kick plotline--just lends itself to a long summary. Opinions?Luminum (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right that it does lend itself to a longer summary than is the norm but I still think we can get it shorter. Right now the version you've been working on today is at about 2100 words (about a 6 page essay back in my school days). The one below is about 1800. I feel pretty confident that we can get it down further. That said, your writing is strong and I think that will make it easier for those of us who run around plot trimming to do our thing. For me, a lot of times its not the details themselves but the transitions between them that I find places to cut stuff. I'm hoping to go see the movie again this weekend or early in the week and I'll take a stab at whittling if no one has beaten me to it by then. I figure I'll shoot for 1000 - 1200, but as you said it's definitely one of those "longer than guidelines normally recommend" type of things. No worries, though. It's a team effort and we'll get it to some kind of ideal eventually. Good work. Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the "Setting" section out of the article... ChaosMasterChat 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. I didn't even count that when I did my word count check. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll start trimming the summary below now and feel free to play with it as well.Luminum (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Story

A wealthy and powerful businessman, Saito (Ken Watanabe) contacts two professional thieves to request an assignment. The thieves, Dominic "Dom" Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and point-man Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are known as "extractors", professional thieves who utilize technology developed by the military to access a subject's dreams and steal important information. Saito, head of a powerful and influential international energy company called Cobol Engineering, asks that they implant an idea in the mind of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), son and recently deceased rival energy mogul Maurice Fischer's (Pete Postlethwaite) own company FischerCo. Saito requests that they plant the idea of breaking up his father's empire into Robert's mind, thus preventing FischerCo from becoming a global energy monopoly and running Cobol Engineering out of business.

While stealing an idea is called "extraction", planting an idea is known as "inception" and is significantly more difficult to accomplish as well as potentially dangerous to the individual receiving the idea. An idea must be carefully structured and implanted, otherwise the recipient will instinctively reject the idea as foreign and will not accept it as an original idea. Likewise, once placed, an idea cannot be controlled and can persist, resulting in obsession. Arthur believes inception to be impossible, though Cobb states that he has done it once before and accepts the mission. In return, Cobb cryptically requests that Saito repay him by securing him passage back home to the USA, where his children live, to which Saito agrees.

To accomplish this mission, they assemble a team with the necessary skills to infiltrate Fischer's mind, including Eames (Tom Hardy), a "forger" who is able to shift identities inside dreams, and Yusuf (Dileep Rao), a chemist who concocts the powerful sedatives necessary to support the several layers of dreams required to successfully implant an idea. The final member of the team is the new but highly adept Ariadne, (Ellen Paige) who serves as the "architect", one who creates the physical aspects and settings of the dreams.

The process of entering dreams requires a portable machine, which induces sleep in all participants and allows them to share dreams. During shared dreaming, all the members' subconscious areas of the mind are open. With each succeeding layer of dreams within dreams, the dreams become less stable and perceived time is increased. Pain can be felt as psychologically real in dreams, but death will result in waking up. Because of the complex nature of the mission, waking up naturally requires that they are simultaneously awoken by synchronized stimuli in each dream, called "kicks". Additionally, because dreams can feel convincingly real, members of the team utilize a trick to keep aware of reality: personal items called "totems"—small, personal items whose unique qualities allow an individual to tell if they are dreaming or awake. Cobb's totem is a metal toy spinning top.

While sharing a dream with Cobb, Ariadne discovers that a projection of his deceased wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard) exists in his subconscious. Cobb reveals that when he and Mal were married, they often shared dreams, once spending the a perceived fifty years together in the deepest areas of the subconscious, "Limbo", building their own world. However, when they eventually awoke, Mal continued to believe that she was dreaming and killed herself in order to "wake up". In an attempt to force Cobb to follow her, she implicated him in her death. Cobb refused and was forced to flee the USA and leave behind his and Mal's two children. His totem, the metal top, was originally Mal's, which would spin forever when used in the dream world. Ariadne learns from Cobb that this projection of Mal that exists in his subconscious is beyond his control and is able to appear and interact like any another dream-sharing individual. She is a saboteur, however, intentionally derailing Cobb's missions while incessantly calling to him to join her. Alarmed that Cobb has not told their teammates about the true level of danger that Mal poses to their mission, Ariadne resolves to serve as a watchful eye for the team in the event that Mal appears.

To conduct the inception, the team—including Saito, who joins to ensure that the mission is carried out in full—plan to create several "dreams within dreams". Using Robert's strained relationship with his father as a platform to plant the idea, they board a private flight with him, drug him, and begin the inception:

In the first dream, a rainy city hosted by Yusuf, the team pose as ransomers and kidnap Robert, claiming that his father owns a hidden safe that contains something of importance to the fate of the company. Threatening to torture Robert's godfather, Peter Browning (Tom Berenger) (actually Eames in disguise), they demand the code to the safe. However, the team are surprised to find that Robert received mental training to protect his subconscious from extractors, which manifests as mercenary "projections" that attempt to kill the them. Saito is shot and seriously wounded. Realizing that they were unprepared for this, the team wish to abort, but Cobb reveals that because of the sedatives needed to create the three dreams within dreams, dying will not result in awakening, but will instead cause an individual to become lost in their own Limbo, where they will be unable to tell reality from dreaming for the rest of the mission, which will seem like 50 years. Their only option is to see their mission through to completion. They must act quickly, because if Saito dies, his mind will be wiped clean and he will not remember his agreement with Cobb. As the team prepares to dive, Yusuf stays behind to oversee the process and wake them up from the second dream.

The team then dive into the second dream, a posh hotel hosted by Arthur, where they use a successfully manipulate Robert into believing that the team are the protectors created by his mental defenses, granting the team easier passage through his mind. They convince Robert that the kidnapping was real and caused by Browning, who was attempting to gain the vault's contents—a will that can legally dissolve the company. The team trick Robert into diving further into his own subconscious (the third dream) under the guise of diving into Browning's subconscious to determine the "true" purpose of the will. Arthur stays behind to supervise the dive and wake them up from the third dream.

The third dream is a snow fortress hosted by Eames and the team manage to get Robert to the vault, where he will discover the idea that his father wanted him to be his own man and dissolve the company, completing the inception. However, before he is able to open it, Mal appears and shoots him, "killing" him and sending him to Limbo, ruining the mission. Meanwhile, Saito succumbs to his injury, "dies", and is also lost in Limbo. With no other options, Ariadne proposes that they conduct a dive into a fourth dream to retrieve Robert from Limbo and allow him to complete the inception. Cobb knows that it is a trap set by Mal to get him to enter Limbo, where she dwells, but he accompanies Ariadne. Eames stays behind to oversee their dive and send Robert to the vault once he revives.

The fourth dream is Cobb's version of Limbo, the now-decaying city he created with Mal. When they find and confront Mal, Cobb reveals to Ariadne why he knows that inception is possible: When they were stuck in limbo for fifty years, Mal refused to leave the dream world and convinced herself that it was real. To motivate her to wake up, Cobb planted the idea in her mind that her life was a dream, performing his first and only inception. However, Cobb found that the idea could not be controlled. The idea persisted even after waking up, and Mal became obsessed with the idea that her real life was still a dream, leading to her suicide. Therefore, Cobb's projection of Mal sabotages him because it is a manifestation of the guilt he feels about her death. Revealing the truth, Cobb finally accepts that Mal is dead and that any projection of her within his dreams will not replace her. Mal attacks him and Ariadne shoots her.

Ariadne locates Robert and successfully sends him back to the third dream. He opens the vault, where he finds a subconscious projection of his father, Maurice, on his deathbed. Maurice says that he is disappointed not by the fact that his son couldn't follow in his footsteps, but that he didn't follow his own path. Robert is able to find emotional catharsis and resolution with his father, and he resolves to break up the company, striving to succeed as a man in his own right, as he believes his father wanted, thus successfully completing the inception. In Limbo, Cobb says he will stay to retrieve Saito. Ariadne understands and returns to the third dream, where she and the rest of the team successfully execute the complex series of "kicks" needed to safely bring them back to the waking world on the original airline flight.

Cobb manages to find Saito in his personal Limbo, where he has since aged into an old man due to the exponential nature of time in successively deeper dreams and has lived an entire life not knowing that he was dreaming. Finding the metal top on Cobb's person, Saito spins it, now realizing upon seeing its spinning that he is dreaming. Cobb awakens on the plane to find everyone well, including Saito, who honors his agreement. He places a call and Cobb successfully returns home as the rest of the team go their separate ways. Upon entering his home, he spins the top, but is distracted by his children playing outside. The top keeps spinning and starts to wobble slightly as the film ends, leaving the question of whether Cobb is still dreaming unanswered.

  • I liek. Except 'mercenaries' is the wrong word for Fischer's dream cops IMO. Mercenary suggests that they're 'soldiers of fortune' rather than his dreams' 'security detail'. I'm not sure 'security guards' really works either but only because the mental picture of security guards is that of some fat dude on a graveyard shift in a tatty uniform with a badge and a baton. --Piepie (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rant about Inception's acclaim

First off, Metacritic is almost NEVER taken into consideration in regards to film - that's generally relevant with videogames and to a lesser extent music.

Second off, the actual average critic rating is a an 8.2 which is a strong rating. To put this into perspective the critics darling movie 'hurt locker' has an 8.7

For what it's worth imdb's review is a 9.3 and the the media has been constantly reporting that it's been getting "rave reviews" or "strong reviews"

the 'mixed reviews' bit is disingenuous at best and a deliberate slur at worst. If this isn't changed by Wednesday I'll change it myself. Bumpherp (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As of July 2010 Metacritic reads "Generally favorable reviews". Perhaps the version of this article chose to ignore what was actually written there and changed the wording to fit their own view and the article simply needed to be changed back to actually match the source. For now the article seems to accurately reflect what is shown on Metacritic. -- Horkana (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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

not sure where to put this.BUT MAL means not just Evil, but more relevantly: PAIN...Mal is a projection of Cobbs guilt and also his pain...the choice of 'evil' is not altogether apt. Jalusbrian (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chandresh, 23 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Hi, I wanted to add to the Plot by providing a grid based info. I made this grid to understand the dream-sequence and the chain of events clearly, after having watched the movie last night.

STATE LOCATION HOST WHOSE SUBCONSCIOUS WHO IS OUT OF DREAM METHOD OF KICK LIMBO STAGE
Reality In-Flight Flight Attendant Fischer - - -
First Dream Van Yusuf Fischer None Van falls of the bridge -
Second Dream Hotel Arthur Fischer (originally planned to be Browning's) Yusuf Explosives detonate under hotel room -
Third Dream, Snowbound Fortress Eames Fischer Yusuf, Arthur Explosives under the fortress -
Fourth Dream Wasteland city Cobb Cobb Yusuf, Arthur, Eames, Saito Jump off the balcony Cobb, Saito


Wikichandresh (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Chandresh

ahem, Brownings subconsious was alleged to Fisher to be used at level 3 not 2. Jalusbrian (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how that adds anything to the article when prose would suffice. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I like this grid. It's very easily understood, and able to be followed. I'd like to see others opinions first though.  Caledir Chat 17:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that it makes the info presented in the article much clearer. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 05:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the 2nd dream is Fischer's subconscious. Isn't it Arthur's? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

none of the dreams are Fischers..he just provides the subconscious contents(all those projections). levl one is Yusufs dream, level 2 is arthurs, level 3 is eames. Jalusbrian (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
your right i think, none of the states are Fischers because he is the subject in all of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.152.236 (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference between "host," the person that stays behind for the next dream level, and the person whose subconscious they are entering. In all cases (except the final limbo), Cobb's team (or whatever fragment of it) is in Fischer's subconscious. The most obvious proof of this is that they are constantly being pursued by Fischer's (armed) projections; if they were in someone else's subconscious, it would be that person's projections attacking everybody else. 173.30.3.227 (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
As an addendum, it may serve to clear up some confusion if you simply use the term "subject" (to quote Cobb) instead of "Whose subconscious." 173.30.3.227 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Saito's location durring the fourth dream state should be added, as well as who's dream it is when Cobb is washed up on the shore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.152.236 (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Limbo is not a dream - it is a state into which one enters when they die within a dream, yet remain too sedated to wake up. It is comprised of the collection of subconscious of the inhabitants Javsav (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This is very good, much clearer that trying to explain the complex layers with words, and should absolutely be included in the main article. This is exactly what I was looking for when I came to the main page. I would suggest the following edits: I agree with the comment above that the column "whose subconscious" should be changed to "subject," as all three main layers are within Fischer's mind. The second layer was not planned to be in Browning's, that was a lie (the Mr. Charles bit) to trick Fischer into volunteering to go into the next level of his own unconscious. There is not really a fourth dream layer, that is the limbo stage, so the bottom of the first column should reflect that. The last column could then be removed, or replace with a "who is in the dream" column as a companion to "who is out of the dream." Finally, Ariadne is not mentioned. I suggest another column for who is the architect (Ariadne in the first 3 dream layers, Cobb in the Limbo layer). Ariadne should also be added to the "who is in the dream" column I recommended above. Readmorebooks (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Armond White's Review

Hey, just wanted to say that Armond White is a notorious "troll" among movie reviewers, and as such nobody takes his reviews seriously. And I mean this literally - in Armond White's very own Wikipedia article, it says: "Although initially defending White's review of District 9, after being presented with a list of films that White had liked and disliked, film critic Roger Ebert withdrew his original article stating that 'White is, as charged, a troll; a smart and knowing one, but a troll.' " I'm not going to delete his comment outright because doing so would certainly just get the change reverted, but the fact is a man whose reviews aren't taken seriously shouldn't be cited in a compilation of serious criticisms of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.102.148 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, White is still regarded as a critic of some significance, whether you agree with his opinions or not. The man gets a lot of press and has a lot of noteriety. Plus, I didn't want the Critical reception just to have nothing but rave reviews. The handful of negative ones by major critics also needed to be represented.--J.D. (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
By legitimate critics, Armond White is a contrarian who just says the opposite of what the main stream opinion is. Find someone else. Atheuz (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Borges

Nowhere in this article: http://www.thestar.com/article/836236--howell-relax-and-enjoy-the-ride-inception-director-says which is cited does anyone mention Borges's story The Circular Ruins. The other citation does mention that a small aspect of The Secret Miracle inspired a small aspect of the film, but there's no mention of The Circular Ruins in either. I'll add a "citation needed" tag.--jenlight (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Agreed. Examples include: "preventing it becoming a monopoly" should be "preventing it from becoming a monopoly," or even better changing the whole sentence "The objective is to convince Fischer to break up his father's company, preventing it becoming a monopoly, forcing Saito out of business" to "The objective is to convince Fischer to break up his father's company, which would benefit Saito's business." Later, "At such a dream depth, the duration of the plane's flight would be..." is written, though "the plane" had not previously been explained. Clearly "which represents by Fischer's trained subconscious defenses" is nonsensical, and should be "which represent Fischer's subconscious defenses" (note it also eliminates "trained," another unnecessary element that was not previously explained). The examples go on, and the above examples were included in just over a paragraph. Again, it needs to be re-written. Readmorebooks (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to go through it before (see a draft version below), but this time, I'm finding the current summary to be more and more inaccurate, compromising the main plot for brevity. What's currently up is a patchwork of different versions, and I agree it needs to be rewritten. But trying to rewrite it and cram it within the space of 800 words is difficult and only seems to produce what you see up there now. As it is, I think a casual reader will be confused. (Ex. Why mention the first scene if it's so brief? What plane trip is the article talking about? Did Cobb and Mal actually spend years of time or just dream-years of time? Why is Ariadne in Cobb's mind? Why are they trying to extract information from Fischer in the first dream? Why the first two dreams if he just needs to open a vault in the third?) The draft below that a few editors were planning on working on (though I can't say if they plan on it anymore) can probably be cut down and save the integrity of the plot, if you want to play around with it. Right now, the current version's writing quality seems low and the plot seems fractured and nonsensical.Luminum (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I really like the grid that someone proposed below. It makes the many layers of the plot much easier to understand. It should absolutely be included in the plot summary. Readmorebooks (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd edit it directly, but I want to make sure I understand fully first - the rotating corridor set is described as 100ft long, inside 8 concentric rings equidistantly spaced along its length - the word concentric I think is incorrect. That means the rings have the same center point - which would tend to mean the rings are of varying size, or that they are of different rotation. The only way I can think this set could work is in 8 rings of the same size, spaced down the length to make it as if the corridor were inside a cylinder that could be turned. I think it should read that the 100 foot corridor is contained by (or suspended inside) 8 identically sized rings, 12.5 feet apart. 24.131.190.95 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Ryan D Durant

Honestly, all of the measurements and such are simply unneeded detail. They don't help advance an understanding of the events of the plot at all. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

References

"A Dream of Wessex, `about a group of twentieth-century dreamers who create a consensus virtual-reality future'", written by Christopher Priest, who also wrote The Prestige, directed by Christopher Nolan. Viralmeme (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/A_Dream_of_Wessex

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)

It seems to me similar to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Paprika_(2006_film) 95.154.230.252 (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The plot seemed very similar to http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

The whole "dream within a dream within a dream" concept is very reminiscent of the "world within a world within a world" concept depicted in The Thirteenth Floor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afarkas (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The kids age

It may be noted that, at the end of the movie the kids seams to be more or less exactly the same age as in all his dreams. However i can't remember if it was told in the movie ho long ago it was since he last saw them.

But considering on how he seams to handle the situation with his wifes death, and the way the grandfather talks to him i presume it was quite some time. I am not shore but i think i got the idea from some "simmular" movie however i can't remember witch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.152.146 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Check IMDB. They did age, as they changed who played the part. Halofanatic333 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus on the internets now is that the second set of actors credited on IMDB were not the actors at the end of the film but rather the actors doing the voices of the children during Cobb's phone call near the beginning of the film. However, apparently the costume designer for Inception has now confirmed that the children's clothes at the end of the film are slightly different to their clothes throughout the rest of the film and that they are wearing different shoes at the end of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.57.60 (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Dominic"?

Is he ever referred to as Dominic in the film? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Dominick", on the plane ticket. TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Critical response

The article has a long Critical response section. It contains the reviews of many critics. There is room for improvement but deleting critics is not the way to do it and does no help to a really good editor who might bring the section up to the level of a really good featured article.
Most articles have a list of positive and negative critics, but the best form of Critical response section does much more and distills the consensus and evaluates film, using the critics to make points about the film. The very best way is to take aspects of the film such as performances of the actors, direction, writing and so on, then use the critics to note the various parts of the film that were praised.
It would be premature to cut down the critics list if it is not part of an effort to rephrase the whole Critical response section into one of much higher quality. -- Horkana (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. If, as the section is rephrased, we find that some critics' views are redundant to that purpose ("distills the consensus and evaluates film, using the critics to make points about the film"), we can make individual cuts there. Millahnna (mouse)talk 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the right editor for the job of distilling the critical response into Feature Article quality and I would encourage an editor with more experience with that sort of work. I feel it is necessary to restrain those who would delete critics they claim to be non-notable, when what is important is insight and writing a good article and leave it to some one who can do the bigger task and rather than chipping away at what we have now. -- Horkana (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Nor am I. Had I the time I think I could manage it just fine but I don't at the moment. If it's still in need of major work when my schedule clears I'll take a proverbial stab at it. Millahnna (mouse)talk 12:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Negative reviews removed?

Someone removed all of the negative reviews from the critical response section. I didn't revert because the movie has largely received positive reviews so I wasn't sure if the negative reviews we had were too many and starting to to err on the side of WP:UNDUE. But I thought it would be good to include some negative reviews at least since it wasn't universally loved by everyone, as it were. What does everyone else think? Millahnna (mouse)talk 13:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a couple of reviews, either lukewarm or negative, should be included, recognizing the critics as detractors from the consensus. I would also recommend avoiding citing Armond White; there's too much controversy over referencing him when we can cite negative reviews that are acceptable. I think Edelstein's review at New York Magazine would be a good inclusion. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dom or Dominic

I can't find anything anywhere which is a reliable source, which calls him Dominic. Even the official website calls him Dom. Imdb calls him Cobb. Unless somebody can provide a reliable source for "Dominic", I'm going to change evert place where we use Dominic, to Dom. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing I was asked to chime in here because of this revert. I don't feel strongly either way, but if he's credited as just "Cobb", there's probably no reason not to use that. Searching "Dominic Cobb" yields little that is reliable, "Dom Cobb" brings up a few. Rehevkor ✉ 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Supposedly, as I understand it, his plane ticket is visible and his name on that is Dominic (or Dominick?). Really ought to be confirmed, though, or we shouldn't use it. john k (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

CURRENT PLOT IS TOO VAGUE

Revert to the previous one. This one is terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.240 (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The older longer version was better but the seemingly arbitrary word count imposed by WP:PLOT guidelines restrict us from doing much more. Maybe you could stretch the summary to a higher word count. Also you may be able to explain some of the details under the Development and Writing sections. -- Horkana (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the structural complexity of the film's plot represented both by the nesting of dreams within dreams and the use of certain fictional devices, I feel the word limit is inappropriate in this particular instance. I would favour reverting back to the longer version. I note that the guideline is just a guideline. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Even the guideline notes that some films will be complicated enough to require a longer plot summary. As I said above, I think we can whittle down the 2000 word version by way of examining word choices. But just like The Crazies is not neraly complicated enough to warrant more than 400-500 words, this film is entirely too complicated to expect the plot summary to fit into 700. I think we can get it down to 1500 and still be clear (maybe even 1000 though that will be extremely challenging) on the major events that move the plot forward. Millahnna (mouse)talk 12:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I see nothing in the guidelines (and WP:PLOTONLY, which is the most detailed, is merely a proposal) imposing any arbitrary word limits. What is everyone talking about? john k (talk) 13:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:FILMPLOT is what most of us are referring too in this instance. Per the WP Films MOS. Millahnna (mouse)talk 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's just silly to treat that as a hard word limit. john k (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. The longer version is WAY TOO MUCH INFORMATION. Only someone who doesn't write for a living would find it appropriate. I get criticized for rambling sometimes, but the long version makes me look concise. The current version neatly summarizes all the key plot points. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Having just read WP:FILMPLOT it does seem to acknowledge a carve-out to the word limit rule for plots which are too complex to feasibly contain within the word limit, citing Pulp Fiction as an example. I think that on this basis I would like to suggest that the longer version is reinstated. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. My take would be to reinstate the longer version and whittle down. But then I find it easier to trim a long plot than to try and add details to a shorter plot. Others may work differently and find the opposite method easier. From my perspective, trying to squeeze things into a plot that isn't as thorough as it needs to be results in confusing paragraphs that are bulky and overly wordy. Again, I think we could take the 2000 word summary from above and easily get it down to 1500 words or less by examining word choices and making good use of wikilinks to relevant details. I'm fairly confident we could even get it down to 1000 words and still maintain its clarity. Millahnna (mouse)talk 13:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the version we have is sufficient (in fact I believe it can be cut further). We don't need a blow by blow description of events, we just need a summary. If a 1000 page Wheel of Time can be summarised in 800 words I can't see why this can't be done in that, or less. Rehevkor ✉ 13:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reflecting further, I support the approach suggested by Millahnna (mouse) in commencing with the longer version of the plot synopsis and carefully paring back its length. The current version simply lacks sufficient detail to do justice to the plot. With great respect to Rehevkor, I think that drawing an analogy to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time novels is an imperfect one. Contrawise, when I cross-referenced the Wikipedia entry for the first book in that series, (The Eye of the World), its own plot synopsis appeared to me to be manifestly longer than 800 words; in fact just the sort of length which the Inception plot synposis could aspire to (although I think that this one is somewhat excessive). However I did like the use of sub-headings in that article and indeed they could prove to be of use here. Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Eye of the World is a pretty bad example, being pretty much a plot only article, try The Gathering Storm (novel). Rehevkor ✉ 12:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're saying about feeling the current plot can be pared back more. I guess the problem I have with it is that it seems to expand on details that don't help with an understanding of the major events while leaving out details that do. If you see what I mean. I'm usually a real stickler for keeping plots as short as possible, but more than that I'm all about them being as clear as possible. Dwelling on the technical details of the story (see the above discussion about the rings and how big and far apart they are) generally doesn't help the clarity of the plot in this instance, at least not for me. All of that said, when I do a word count on the current plot (just shy of 1700), and consider your thoughts about paring it down more, I do agree on the target word count (hypothetically). I think you and I are of a similar mind about what an ideal length for this one would be. My ideal goal would be to shoot for around 1000 and see where it goes from there. Mind you my target word counts for plots are just guesses; I've shot for 700 and hit 900 instead and shot for 600 and only needed 450.
I think I'll try this week (time permitting) to grab the text from the previous 2000 word version and the text from the current version, and dump both into a sandbox in my user space and see what I can come up with; there's some great stuff in both and perhaps some hybridization will help us get this beast under control. If I get the chance to start playing with it, you guys might see a couple of weird temporary reverts from me so that I can grab full text + links. I always self revert to the current when I'm done. If I manage to come up with anything, I'll drop it into the article and we'll see how it goes. Anyone else, feel free to beat me to it. Millahnna (mouse)talk 13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Connected to my last post: I copied the current plot and the one Luminum was working on here on the talk page over to my sandbox to start playing with. They have the same word count and Luminum's has fewer problems (i.e. more clarity, better language usage, doesn't resort to quoting actual dialogue, etc.), I propose we copy Luminums back in and try to pare down from that. But I'm still playing in my sandbox if no one else is game to go with that plan. Millahnna (mouse)talk 13:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest similar, creating a draft at Talk:Inception_(film)/Plot or something. Rehevkor ✉ 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. If anyone wants to play with the two I just grabbed you can find it in my sandbox here. I have them stored so feel free to edit right there if you like. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave it for now, seeing it again tomorrow so will take a stab while it's fresh in my mind. Rehevkor ✉ 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, remember that WP:IGNORE exists for these kinds of situations, where there are rules, but following them would hinder the quality of a page.Luminum (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

More Plot Nitpicking

Should it be mentioned that when Cobb starts to interact with Fischer in the second dream state, as Mr Charles, he's going against 'protocol' by telling him it's a dream? He flips the script on the team by interacting with Fischer to salvage the mission by suggesting to Fischer that he needs to enter Browning's subconscious contrary to the original plan. --Piepie (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No his not that was the plan. Valoem talk 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

SEMI PROTECT PAGE >>> Plot

I made the plot section at the rightish amount, and with Wiki policy in mind. I think it can be even shorter. It seems fine by me, is clear and concise, and covers the story.

Yet, some random IP's, probably fresh off watching it and die hard fans, have not taken my comments into account and keep adding heaps of info to the plot section.

I beg anyone with a brain and mod powers to change the page to semi-protect it a while and save me from having to revert every time. Thanks JTBX (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be good with anything that cuts down on the plot bloat. Why not ask for page protection? Doniago (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the current version of the plot should suffice, but I'd still like to point out that strict adherence to WP:PLOT should be tempered by WP:IGNORE—concise plot within the rational levels of clarity.
I also wonder if requesting semi-protection for the sole purpose of your convenience is an appropriate use of semi-protection at all. Yes, IPs and some unfamiliar users may be adding to the plot in a way that disagrees with WP:PLOT, but those edits are not vandalism—they are generally good faith edits that should be treated as such with appropriate explanation and reverting as necessary. In this case, though the edits may violate a Wiki policy (potentially the only thing supporting a semi-protection request here), the policy is neither so inflexible nor would the edits be so severe that they would warrant a semi-protection. If users are only trying to contribute positively to the page's plot, then I would also consider one of the guidelines: "The negative effects of semi-protection on discouraging positive contributions should be more of a concern than the positive effect of decreasing vandalism." And since no actual vandalism is happening...well...Luminum (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur with JTBX. Actually, full protection may be necessary for at least two weeks until the hubbub over this movie calms down. I propose reverting the plot summary even farther back to over two weeks ago just because that version was A LOT cleaner and more concise. This article has been heavily vandalized (you can verify that by reviewing the edit history) during the past two weeks. We are having massive problems with too many 12-year-olds or dumb high school dropouts vandalizing the article so that the plot summary keeps rambling like a schizo. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Most edits seem to be in good faith.. protection should really only be used in cases of high levels of vandalism. Rehevkor ✉ 11:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rehevkor. Additionally this plot is the best combination of short and concise we've had so far. It's only 900 some odd words (a reasonable interpretation of WP:Ignore in regards to length guidelines in this case), well under the length most of us thought we could get it to, and covers most of the main points without interpretation. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt for several eyeballs to give it an extra once over for copy edit and the like. But I don't see any major problems in this version. Of course, we'll have to go through this all over again when it's out on DVD. Such is life. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
One issue that seems to be in contention is the ending, we should probably get a consensus on how to best phrase it without making conclusions. Rehevkor ✉ 20:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Wildbill hitchcock (talk · contribs) keeps adding, "However, the clothes of the children are completely different from previous scenes, so that would determine that he is not dreaming actually" and I keep removing it as OR. Yes, the costume designer says the children are wearing different clothing, and yes, this should be mentioned in the article.[10] No, the costume designer does not say that this would "determine that he is not dreaming actually", and Wildbill hitchcock should not keep adding this OR to the plot section. Wildbill hitchcock's musings, properly sourced, belong in an "Interpretations" section, not the plot section. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Clearly OR. I shall assist in removing this given the opportunity. I have warned him for edit warring. Rehevkor ✉ 12:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, thread starter here. So I'm back, I haven't asked for semi protection yet (I was hoping one of you guys could?) but the plot is a definite problem for constant (and erroneous) edits by fans and IP's.

What I have here is my plot, which I have placed in the article. Let me know what you think.

The film begins in media res as Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) washes up on a beach and is brought by guards into the chamber of an elderly man. The scene then cuts to him alongside his trusted pointman Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), on an extraction mission within the mind of powerful businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe); involving the infiltration and theft of mental information through dreams. Extractors and their victims sleep in close proximity to one another, connected by a device that administers a sedative and share a dream world built on their mental projections. In the dream world, pain is psychologically experienced as real, but death results in awakening. Cobb carries a spinning top called a totem, which either spins unceasingly or topples to determine whether he is dreaming or awake, respectively. The mission is aborted after Saito reveals he is auditioning the team to perform the act of inception—using dreams to secretly implant an idea. Having failed the current mission and realizing the consequences of being terminated by their employer, Cobal Engineering, the team accept Saito's offer.

The target is Robert Fischer (Cilian Murphy), son of Saito's terminally ill corporate rival, Maurice Fischer (Pete Postlethwaite). The objective is to convince Fischer to break up his father's empire, preventing it from threatening Saito's. Cobb recruits Eames (Tom Hardy), a forger who can change appearance inside dreams; Yusuf (Dileep Rao), a chemist who develops sedatives; and Ariadne (Ellen Page), a student whom he and Arthur train as their dream world architect. Along the way Cobb barely escapes Cobal's agents. Due to the plan involving multiple dreams within each other and stronger sedatives, death will not awaken the person but send them into a limbo world where they will be stuck for an indeterminate amount of time. Ariadne enters Cobb's dream and discovers that his deceased wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), continually haunts him, sabotaging his missions. Cobb reveals to her that he and Mal spent years in limbo forging their lives. After waking, Mal remained convinced that they were still dreaming and committed suicide, trying to force Cobb to join her by incriminating him in her death. Cobb refused and was forced to flee the U.S. and leave his children to avoid murder charges. In return for the mission, Saito promises to clear the charges and reunite Cobb with his children.

When the elder Fischer dies in Sydney, Saito and the team share the flight with Robert Fischer back to Los Angeles and drug him. They enter his dream, a rainy downtown area, and kidnap him. However, they come under attack by his trained mental projections, and Saito is badly injured. Eames changes into Peter Browning (Tom Berenger)—Fischer's godfather, to extract information from him. They then enter a van and sleep into the second dream, a hotel where the team tricks Fischer into entering Browning's mind, making him believe that the kidnapping on the first level was orchestrated by his godfather. In reality, the team enter deeper into Fischer's subconscious, a snowy mountain fortress, which Fischer must break into to reveal the planted idea. However, he is killed by Mal and goes into limbo. Ariadne and Cobb follow him down and confront Mal. There she attempts to convince Cobb to stay in limbo by making him question reality, as he was chased by agents that could have been projections. Cobb reveals that he planted the idea in Mal's mind to wake, making him indirectly responsible for her suicide. She attacks him, but Ariadne shoots her. To wake and protect the team, a member stays behind at each level with timed kicks: Eames with explosives in the mountain fortress, Arthur with the hotel elevator hitting its shaft, and Yusuf crashing the van into a river. Saito dies and Cobb remains in limbo to locate him, while Fischer and Ariadne are able to return to the mountain fortress where he comes to the intended conclusion that his father wanted him to be his own man.

The film returns to the opening scene, where Cobb finds an aged Saito and convinces him to return to reality. Cobb suddenly awakens to find everyone on the plane, including Saito, up and well. Saito honors their arrangement and Cobb enters the United States, reunited with his children at home. Cobb spins his totem to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion. The top wobbles slightly but the scene cuts to black, leaving the question of whether Cobb is dreaming or in reality.

This is *not* science fiction, it is fantasy; please don't make "science fiction" a meaningless term

Yes, I know it doesn't involve elves or swords. There are also no wizards or dragons. Nevertheless, it is fantasy. "Science fiction" isn't a dumping ground for action movies when you can't come up with a more specific genre, and as Inception has no science in it, it is not science fiction. There is no shame in being a fantasy movie. You don't need to defend your new favorite film from the "fantasy" label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Millikin (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? Geoff B (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Source is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Science_fiction , specifically:
Science fiction is a genre of fiction, usually set in the future, dealing with the impact of imagined innovations in science or technology. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature".
Inception is set in an undefined, near-modern time. It has no imagined scientific advancements, and the only difference from our world (the dream-merging drug) is not possible under any known natural laws. If the actors used the word "potion" instead of "sedative", the movie would have been at all altered. John Millikin (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Allmovie calls it science fiction [11], Businessweek calls it a science fiction thriller [12], Cinefantastique which reviews specifically genre films calls it science fiction [13], The Guardian calls it a science fiction thriller [14], And Christopher Nolan himself says in the article here "olan has said that the film "deals with levels of reality, and perceptions of reality which is something I'm very interested in. It's an action film set in a contemporary world, but with a slight science-fiction bent to it". Keep it as science fiction. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Journalists know only two genres, "fantasy" and "science fiction". Anything which doesn't take places in a faux-middle ages with elves and magic is called "science fiction". That's fine for tabloids, but Wikipedia should strive to be more accurate. John Millikin (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That i'm afraid runs under original research. WP:OR. The Guardian and Nolan himself are hardly "tabloids". Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not original research, unless you count "understanding words" to be research. The Guardian is entirely a tabloid, and Nolan said it's got a "science-fiction bent", not "it is science-fiction". Look -- do you consider Toy Story to be science fiction? What about Sorcerer's Apprentice or Twilight? I'm sure some journalist has named all three of those "science fiction" also. John Millikin (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's Nolan again discussing the films theme of entering someones dreams as science fiction [15]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, wikipedia can't be used as a source to cite itself. so that argument of yours isn't very strong. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I will agree that this is science fiction, not fantacy. ChaosMasterChat 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From your link (emphasis mine):
Do you think we’ll ever have the technology to access other people’s dreams?
Christopher Nolan: I don’t think we will, no. I think that whilst I enjoy playing with the idea as a science fiction idea, and as a jumping off point for the story, I came away from the experience thinking it was extremely valuable. But our dreams are private and we have the opportunity every night to look at our lives in a different way and process them with no consequences. So, I don’t think it would be a god thing. Also, when you start really thinking about the potential of the human mind and its ability to create an entire world while you’re sleeping, I come away feeling like our minds are not remotely understood by science and that makes it very unlikely that such a technology could exist.
So, even Nolan feels what the movie portrays it not possible, and that such a potion could not exist. So what part of it do you feel is "science", again? John Millikin (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's a giant cube out in space and I don't think Stanly Kubrick does either, but that didn't stop 2001 from being science fiction. Your argument is very weak as you've only brought your own opinion and no further points to back it up. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
2001's plot is based around science, while Inception's is based around magic. This is not my opinion -- anybody who has watched the movie will tell you the same thing. If you really think Inception is science fiction, then where's the science? The airplane? The train? The guns? John Millikin (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, magic? did I miss something? One of the plot devices is a machine, an invention. Not magic. 62.235.182.31 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
From the plot itself: "all sleeping in a special drug-induced state in close proximity to each other, connected by the device that administers the drug. Objects and characters in the dreams are projections of the dreamers' minds, and may be lacking in unconsidered details. Dream crimes perpetrated by the likes of Cobb usually involve extraction of secrets from a target's mind.". The whole entering the dream, or entering the body has been done in other science fiction films as well, such as Dreamscape. Again, you've only provided original thought which shouldn't be published on wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Dreamscape isn't science fiction either -- it's about a psychic who is recruited by the government to enter people's dreams. Again, there's no science there -- just because a movie isn't real doesn't make it science fiction. I think you're forgetting about the "science" part of that term. John Millikin (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The director of the film is not a scientist. Just like Obama is not an oil expert. And though Nolan himself thinks it wont happen, how do any of us know 250 years down the road it won't? Therefore, it is possible. Furthermore, this quote from the definition of Science fiction from the link above even further proves it: "imagined innovations in science or technology". Uhm, is having access to dreams imagined innovations? Duh. ChaosMasterChat 19:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Having access to dreams is the "fiction" part. To be science fiction, a film must also involve science in some way. John Millikin (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Without sources to back up your opinion, you are wasting your time. Geoff B (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a source, it's called a "dictionary". They're very useful! They let people communicate meaningfully by giving words different meanings! For example, they define "science" and "fantasy" so that a film about science is "science fiction", and a film about magic is "fantasy". John Millikin (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
How does the human mind, body, and brain not fall into "science"? Its not considered fiction now, is it? ChaosMasterChat 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe I have to say this, but just because a movie involves people does not make it science fiction. Inception contains no more science than, for example, Twilight -- do you think Twilight is science fiction? I hope you don't, though it wouldn't surprise me if you think Inception is. John Millikin (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I came into this discussion late. Looks very similar to the horror/thriller debate at Last House on the Left. My gut is to go with the sources which say science fiction/action, science fiction thriller, science fiction, science fiction thriller, and science fiction action. I don't see a single source calling it fantasy. Although we did come to a consensus at the other debate to leave it out of the lede sentence and categorize it as both. BOVINEBOY2008 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

John, the film obviously focuses on the dreams, brain, devices, travel into other dreams/brains, more than, say, Twilight. And honestly, Twilight would be a romantic-fantacy, as wearwolves and magic and vampires are not as science fiction as a movie focuses on dreams. In response to BivineBoy, I agree. None of those sources state fantacy. So why list it on Wikipedia? ChaosMasterChat 20:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is science fiction as most critics, media, and production staff say so. You are free to have your own opinion on the subject. 216.165.10.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

Why can't we just call it an action/thriller film with a slight science fiction bent, just as Nolan describes it. I agree that based on the traditional definition it really isn't science fiction. It is being called science fiction because it has a science fiction feel to it (as in the style of the movie is similar to science fiction movies, even though the specifics of the movie aren't). So why can't we just say that? --MATThematical (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds really wishy-washy when you put it in that way and doesn't let a sentence flow. If it were very very minutely science fiction based such as Déjà Vu, than this would stand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"an action film with a science fiction feel" really isn't much more wordy. Perhaps the concern is that "feel" sounds wishy washy, but the statement would be much more accurate. --MATThematical (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Nolan's statements should be taken as set in stone either however. It reminds me of when people cite musicians genres from their myspace pages when they label themselves whatever they want. We need to use third-party sources for these kind of things and most third-party sources are going by science fiction as seen in the above samples. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You cite Wikipedia's entry on scifi to prove that Inception is not scifi, but did you even read the entry beyond the first few sentences? Stories that "involve technology or scientific principles that contradict known laws of nature" are allowed in science fiction. You should have already known that if you had spent any time reading scifi literature and watching scifi movies. The vast majority of scifi is not scientifically accurate or realistic. Inception is scifi without a doubt, just like Philip K. Dick's stories were. Dubyaninja (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this will help John Millikin: I whole-heartedly agree the movie is not science fiction--it doesn't follow the right conventions, use the right jargon, etc. At the same time, I am well aware that most (if not all) reliable sources call it science fiction. Thus, I am required, by the rules of Wikipedia, to use the category "science fiction." If you look at the very first sentence of WP:V, it explicitly states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Had to laugh at this 'doesnt follow RIGHT conventions' etc etc...What conventions? it seems Inception is seen as being on the wrong side of the tracks. Jalusbrian (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What? There are no shared conventions and jargon in scifi stories. Do you have even the slightest idea what scifi is? Dubyaninja (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC).
  1. ^ Roeper, Richard. "Inception Review". The Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2010-07-21. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inception/Archive_1&oldid=1140128144"