Jungian wrote:

Ponsonby wrote:As many have noted, Nolan's use of the wedding ring is impressively consistent throughout the movie. We see the ring on Cobb's finger in scenes that are clearly marked as being dreams, or as Cobb-described flashbacks; and we see Cobb's ringless finger in scenes not clearly marked as being dreams. Much effort has been expended by many, many viewers, in trying to clearly see Cobb's left hand in the final scenes of the movie--scenes over which Nolan, again, has taken much care (this time to hide DiCaprio's hand from the camera).

All this is remarkably well-done.

But...what does it prove? What can it prove? What would prevent a man dreaming of sci-fi concepts called "dream-share" and "inception" as he traveled homeward on a 747, from dreaming that sometimes his wedding ring was on his hand and sometimes it was not?

It proves the ring is on Cobb when he is married, and off him when he is not
In the end when he hands over the passport it should have been easy to spot, but its not there
And in Limbo across the table from Saito, Cobb still wears the ring, and that is even after he has "let go" of his subconscious torment/marriage to his guilt. I am sure Mal will keep appearing for Cobb, even in his normal dreamshare-less dreams

Groebner wrote:"But then there's the theory that the entire film could have been a big con to get Cobb to let go of his past guilt..." I think I agree with this.
But I do not think that the spinning of the top, on which a lot of people seem to concentrate, is the key to the plot. I think the kids are, more specifically, the ages of the kids.
I see two "versions" of the girl, the 3-year old with blond fluffy hair, and an uneven cut at the back; and the 5 year old, with darker hair and a straight cut at the back.
I think that the "clue" to the plot is around 2:01, when Mal essentially tells Cobb that he is wrong about the kids, and that she is right. Of course, we are all inclined to discard her statements, but if you look at the kids, it is the "older version" of the pair which appears at this point.
Now, Nolan shows us the kids repeatedly as projections of Cobb's, during various stages of the narrative, and during the immersion, e.g. when Cobb runs away w/o looking at their faces, and then in various other instances as fleeting images (e.g hotel). Each and every time we see the younger version -- and that is normal, as Cobb has not seen his kids after that age.
So, if we get to see the "older version" at 2:01, it means they are the projection of someone else. At that point, they can only be the projections of Mal, Ariadne, or Fisher. One can envision various scenarios, depending on whose projections they are. I'd say, Fisher is unlikely, and they are either Mal's or Ariadne's -- in my mind, both are likely. If there is one character name which has engrained meaning, it is "Ariadne" (greek mythology, helping Theseus escape the labyrinth) -- here, she would help Cobb escape the labyrinth of his mind.
Also, if one accepts the premise that someone (Mal, Ariadne, Fisher) brought a "newer" (older) version of the kids (projection) into Limbo, than the immediate logical conclusion is that there is a level above Cobb's "reality", and that therefore, Mal has not killed herself by "committing suicide". Whether she has managed to re-enter reality is open for debate, maybe her brains were already fried. Depending on the answer of whether she has re-entered reality, one can conjecture on whether it is Mal running the whole show, or whether it is Cobb's father-in-law (Miles). One way or the other, I don't think that Ariadne is a "real" character, but rather a creation of either Mal or Miles.
Now, on the issue of whether at the end we are in "reality" or not -- it is entirely up to Nolan and whether he wants to make a sequel. What is certain is that Cobb has been kicked up one or more levels -- he sees the "older version" of the kids. Whether he is now in reality or not, there is no way to tell (again, his brains might be fried and all his loved ones could do for him was to liberate him from his guilt, so that he might live out his life in a blissful coma).
Also, if Cobb was not "in reality", then the whole issue of the "magic phone call" to get rid of his charges is moot: he was never charged to begin with.

Ponsonby wrote:I agree that Cobb's wife (presumably actually dead in his real life) will keep appearing in his dreams.

Ponsonby wrote:But you haven't addressed the question "what would prevent a man...from dreaming that sometimes his wedding ring was on his hand and sometimes it was not?"

Ponsonby wrote:(All this is aside from the fact that Nolan provides two contradictory explanations of totems: Arthur, of course, states that they tell you whether you're in your own dream or someone else's; while Cobb's dialogue supports the 'dream versus reality' concept. More movie-goers seem to have latched onto the latter than to the former, which I find fascinating.)

Jungian wrote: Cobb's totem has a special property in the dreamworld, and not reality. That is also a major point. Mal was the genius that created it idea, and Cobb twisted it to get her out, but sadly the idea stuck and the first Inception was done without any cautious pre-planning. Ultimately the totem helped Cobb keep track of what was reality when it spun across the table with Saito during the scenes.

Ponsonby wrote:

Jungian wrote: Cobb's totem has a special property in the dreamworld, and not reality. That is also a major point. Mal was the genius that created it idea, and Cobb twisted it to get her out, but sadly the idea stuck and the first Inception was done without any cautious pre-planning. Ultimately the totem helped Cobb keep track of what was reality when it spun across the table with Saito during the scenes.

But what would prevent Cobb from dreaming either that the top behaved according to the 'dreamworld special property,' OR according to the Reality property?

We're shown, time and again, that Cobb brings things to dreams (trains, Mal) without consciously intending to bring them. What would stop him from bringing into the dream---without conscious intention!---a top that behaves in the Reality fashion?

Jungian wrote:

Ponsonby wrote:
But what would prevent Cobb from dreaming either that the top behaved according to the 'dreamworld special property,' OR according to the Reality property?

We're shown, time and again, that Cobb brings things to dreams (trains, Mal) without consciously intending to bring them. What would stop him from bringing into the dream---without conscious intention!---a top that behaves in the Reality fashion?

Could be because it was Saito that spun it. Saito treated it like a normal top..but it did not behave normally as Cobb noticed. Just spin and spin, then it kickstarted the deja vu between Cobb and Saito.

Ponsonby wrote:

Jungian wrote:
Could be because it was Saito that spun it. Saito treated it like a normal top..but it did not behave normally as Cobb noticed. Just spin and spin, then it kickstarted the deja vu between Cobb and Saito.

But Saito didn't spin it until the end of the story. (Recall that the 'old Saito in his castle' scene shown at the beginning of the movie actually took place near the end--after the Saito Extraction Job, assembly of the team to incept Fischer, and the Incept Fischer Job.)

So how would this theory ("because it was Saito that spun it") explain Cobb's use of the top earlier in the story? For instance, why would he have bothered to spin it in Tokyo, gun in hand? He knew as well as anyone that he was not in control of what he brought into dreams. He had to know that he could have brought a "top that would behave normally" into a dream---and thus his test was pointless.

Jungian wrote:

Ponsonby wrote:
But Saito didn't spin it until the end of the story. (Recall that the 'old Saito in his castle' scene shown at the beginning of the movie actually took place near the end--after the Saito Extraction Job, assembly of the team to incept Fischer, and the Incept Fischer Job.)
So how would this theory ("because it was Saito that spun it") explain Cobb's use of the top earlier in the story? For instance, why would he have bothered to spin it in Tokyo, gun in hand? He knew as well as anyone that he was not in control of what he brought into dreams. He had to know that he could have brought a "top that would behave normally" into a dream---and thus his test was pointless.

Pointless? Really? Ok..no more time to waste here. Have a good one.

Jungian wrote: The point is Cobb is never sure if he is dreaming or not, hence why he does not even care in the end. Saito's subconscious had seen the top before only for a short glimpse in reality, but enough to remember it. It spun for a long while and that is what snapped Cobb out of it. In all the other scenes when he tests himself, it TOPPLED. It toppled in Japan, it toppled in Mombassa on the floor. But across Saito in Limbo? Never toppled.

Ponsonby wrote:

Jungian wrote:
Pointless? Really? Ok..no more time to waste here. Have a good one.

Having spent a lot of time on message boards, I've seen a variety of attempts to avoid an admission that the conversational-opponent's point can't be countered. I have to say that this is a particularly ineffective such attempt, given that intelligent readers will note that if you genuinely had no "time to waste here," you wouldn't be posting a reply! (Let alone going on to post an additional paragraph.)

But of course your back-door admission that my point can't be countered is entirely appropriate. The top-totem test is pointless if your goal is to prove that you're awake. Moreover, Cobb has to know that the test is pointless--he knows that he can't control what he brings into dreams, and therefore can't be sure that the top he's brought into the dream will behave as a reliable indicator. (That is: he can't be sure he hasn't brought into a dream, a top that will behave 'normally' in falling over after a bit of a spin. Therefore he can't use 'the top has fallen over' as any sort of proof that he's awake--he could easily be dreaming of a top that falls normally.)

Jungian wrote: The point is Cobb is never sure if he is dreaming or not, hence why he does not even care in the end. Saito's subconscious had seen the top before only for a short glimpse in reality, but enough to remember it. It spun for a long while and that is what snapped Cobb out of it. In all the other scenes when he tests himself, it TOPPLED. It toppled in Japan, it toppled in Mombassa on the floor. But across Saito in Limbo? Never toppled.

Yes, if a top spins forever without toppling, you can be sure that you're in a dream.

But you can never be sure, from a top-test, that you are awake. (Because you could have brought a top-that-topples-normally into your dream--you cannot rule out that possibility.)

This is the point. The top-test is useless for 'proving' that you are awake.