Top vs. Ring: Theories About the End

This 2010 contemporary sci-fi actioner follows a subconscious security team around the globe and into the intimate and infinite world of dreams.
Posts: 40
Joined: January 2013
Jungian wrote:
Ponsonby wrote:
That seems like hand-waving the issue--unless there's evidence in the movie to the effect that 'the way Dreamshare works is that it keeps people from seeing their children's faces.'

???
Dreamshare obviously gave Cobb flashbacks of guilt right? And he said at the same time it was the only way he COULD dream. He was a drug addict lost in shame and guilt over his actions and whenever he used the Dreamshare device wired up with the somnacin drug it truly messed with him.

I am saying if he dreamt without the machine he would dream about anything.

But the rules of Dreamshare would never let him continue to live with the woman of his life after in reality he killed her. And it would not let him see the faces of his children because in reality he left them. His shadow self was trying to continue to live as it used to be, but his other half of a hole, himself would also not let him. Majorly conflicted. But he managed to say goodbye to his shadow self in the end. And hopefully he would never use Dreamshare again.
What's your support, from either movie dialogue or Nolan's statements, for the bolded claims about the "rules of Dreamshare"?

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
Ponsonby wrote:
Jungian wrote:
Dreamshare obviously gave Cobb flashbacks of guilt right? And he said at the same time it was the only way he COULD dream. He was a drug addict lost in shame and guilt over his actions and whenever he used the Dreamshare device wired up with the somnacin drug it truly messed with him.

I am saying if he dreamt without the machine he would dream about anything.

But the rules of Dreamshare would never let him continue to live with the woman of his life after in reality he killed her. And it would not let him see the faces of his children because in reality he left them. His shadow self was trying to continue to live as it used to be, but his other half of a hole, himself would also not let him. Majorly conflicted. But he managed to say goodbye to his shadow self in the end. And hopefully he would never use Dreamshare again.
What's your support, from either movie dialogue or Nolan's statements, for the bolded claims about the "rules of Dreamshare"?
Your highlighted parts is obviously about Cobb's guilt projecting his troubles from the past (Mal, Limbo Freightrain, Memories, Faceless Kids) (how the hell could you miss that?) while using Dreamshare. He has no way of supressing it whenever he uses Dreamshare, and he has a hard time separating Dream from Reality afterwards.

So then.. according to you, Ariadne would not really need any training at all?
Now that..is a BOLD statement

Posts: 40
Joined: January 2013
Jungian wrote:
Ponsonby wrote:
What's your support, from either movie dialogue or Nolan's statements, for the bolded claims about the "rules of Dreamshare"?
Your highlighted parts is obviously about Cobb's guilt projecting his troubles from the past (Mal, Limbo Freightrain, Memories, Faceless Kids) (how the hell could you miss that?) while using Dreamshare. He has no way of supressing it whenever he uses Dreamshare, and he has a hard time separating Dream from Reality afterwards.
No, my "highlighted parts"* is "obviously" your claim about "the rules of dreamshare."

What is your support, from either movie dialogue or published remarks by Nolan, for your claims about these "rules"?
Jungian wrote: So then.. according to you, Ariadne would not really need any training at all? Now that..is a BOLD statement
What statement? You are claiming here that I said "Ariadne would not really need any training at all"....where is it that you are claiming that I posted such a thing?



* since the forum software wisely prevents infinite nesting of quotes, here's the bit that was nested within our previous posts, and to which both you and I refer:
Jungian wrote:But the rules of Dreamshare would never let him continue to live with the woman of his life after in reality he killed her. And it would not let him see the faces of his children because in reality he left them.

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
Stop being such a fan of the said word by word in the film. Have you read the script by any chance? Seen any virals? There is alot more to interpet between the lines. The viral campaign had some interesting tid bits that showed the Dreamshare manual, where its military purposes is shown. And as Arthur stated, Dreamshare was actually invented for military purposes.

So yea, there are rules. Would Ariadne need training if there wasnt any? Inception does not spoonfeed you with everything as you might have realized. The "rule set" is right there. The totem aspect was actually a part of that, something which Mal discovered but she hid it from Cobb until he found it and made the one mistake that would come back to haunt him ever since Mal suicided because of it.

Posts: 40
Joined: January 2013
Jungian wrote:
Ponsonby wrote: No, my "highlighted parts"* is "obviously" your claim about "the rules of dreamshare."
What is your support, from either movie dialogue or published remarks by Nolan, for your claims about these "rules"?


What statement? You are claiming here that I said "Ariadne would not really need any training at all"....where is it that you are claiming that I posted such a thing?
* since the forum software wisely prevents infinite nesting of quotes, here's the bit that was nested within our previous posts, and to which both you and I refer:
Yea, there are rules. Would Ariadne need training if there wasnt any?
Oh dear. Mr. Reading Comprehension has failed us again.

Notice that in not one single post do I say "there are no rules."

Instead, I am asking you to provide support for your claim that "the rules of Dreamshare would never let him continue to live with the woman of his life after in reality he killed her. And it would not let him see the faces of his children because in reality he left them." I am asking you to provide supportive evidence, from movie dialogue or from Nolan, that the rules (which exist!) work in the way you claim, here, that they work.





Also: So, you're (apparently) abandoning your earlier claim that I'd posted "Ariadne would not really need any training at all"....??? You are hoping that your claim will pass unnoticed? That is probably wise.

But please don't abandon the question of where you find support for your "the rules of Dreamshare would never let him..." claim. Where did you locate rules that would "never let him continue to live with the woman of his life" and rules that "would not let him see the faces of his children"....?

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
Ok. I'm so sorry for using the wrong words. The "rules" would have been much better. But...you still don't understand what I am saying right? I will hope your literal obsession is worn off in the coming posts.

And did I claim that you said Ariadne didnt need training? Sorry.

I only asked because; if there are no rules, she would not need all that training!

Posts: 40
Joined: January 2013
Jungian wrote:Ok. I'm so sorry for using the wrong words. The "rules" would have been much better. But...you still don't understand what I am saying right? I will hope your literal obsession is worn off in the coming posts.
And did I claim that you said Ariadne didnt need training? Sorry.
I only asked because; if there are no rules, she would not need all that training!
Sure, but since I never claimed that the movie didn't present any rules for Dreamshare, the point about Ariadne is rather irrelevant.

Let's get back to what began this:

I stated, in so many words, that in the world of Inception, no totem could prove to its owner that he or she was AWAKE:

***a top falling over normally after a period of spinning could not prove wakefulness
***a wedding ring being absent from a hand could not prove wakefulness
***the sight of children's faces could not prove wakefulness
***a tossed die stopping to show a certain number could not prove wakefulness
***a chess piece falling on a certain side could not prove wakefulness

And why none of these events can prove that the totem-owner is awake: because the movie demonstrated time and again that people bring things into dreams without consciously intending so to do. Thus, nothing would prevent Cobb from dreaming that his top fell; nothing would prevent Arthur from dreaming that his die fell on the 'right' number; and nothing would prevent Ariadne from dreaming that her chess piece tipped in that 'special' way.

Your counter to this, again in so many words, was (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Rules of Dreamshare would prevent people from dreaming that their totems behaved in the 'awake-indicator' mode. (Which, if true, would have the effect of making the totems usable as proof that the owner is awake.)

I asked you for evidence from the movie or from Nolan's statements, that would support your theory that the Rules of Dreamshare worked in this fashion.

That's where it's been left.

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
Cobb was quite lost, obviously. But the rest of the team were in control while under, and I dont remember them bringing in any projections. So whos to say the totems didnt work for them? It was never made a huge point of in the movie until dissected to off the wall afterwards. It was between topple or "just spin and spin". Dreamshare added something special. A dream using Dreamshare is not like any other normal dream. They were afterall drugged down, sharing a constructed dreamspace, connected with wires into a suitcase which technology we sadly never got to know much about.

And if one of its users is plagued with an extreme form of guilt while using it, bad things might happen.

Posts: 40
Joined: January 2013
NOTE: some comments about the movie Prometheus follow that might give away a plot point (a minor one, so I'm not tagging it).
Jungian wrote: A dream using Dreamshare is not like any other normal dream.
Sure. But you're making a very specific claim about the way that Dreamshare is different, a specific claim about what Dreamshare lets people dream or prevents them from dreaming, that is not supported by anything in the movie or in Nolan's remarks. You had to invent the explanation. That's the point I'm trying to make.

People invent and retcon things in movies all the time. It's an enjoyable pastime. But it's important to realize that the speculations and retconning come from somewhere other than from the movie's creator(s). It's important to realize that simply believing something must be true, doesn't make it true.


It's as if some extreme fan of Prometheus became disturbed at the way people kept pointing out how unlikely it is that planet-exploration craft would have all these sophisticated devices that let people on the ship see what the extra-vehicular explorers see, and even map spaces---yet would lack a simple camera on the outside of the ship that would let them see what's out there. People keep pointing out how unlikely it would be that planet-exploration craft would be designed so that the ONLY way to see what's out there is to open the large bay door--permitting access to the inside of that bay, and to all the vehicles there, and to all the PEOPLE there--to whatever might be just outside the ship. People point out that this is...implausible and that it really wouldn't work.

But the extreme fan, anxious to prove that it really WOULD work, comes up with elaborate theories as to why (in the world of the movie) planet-exploration craft would be designed this way---that this is the ONLY way they could be designed (according to the fan's theory).

It wouldn't matter to the fan that nothing in the movie itself supports the theory. The fan would claim that since the theory explaining the odd design HAS to be true, that people are obligated to accept the theory, and that if they fail to accept the unsupported theory, then they are failing in the obligation to extrapolate and read between the lines.

It's not a logical position to take. It's fine to invent theories on why something in a movie is the way it is--but it's not legitimate to claim that one's theory MUST be true, unless the theory is specifically supported within the movie or from the filmmaker's own words.

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
TL;DR. Big breath: Its just a movie.. I am not gonna dissect them to the point of being off the wall as you are now. I did rename the word rules to "rules" for your consideration. Inception was pretty clear (to me anyway) that an abuser/addict of Dreamshare (like Cobb) which struggles with their guilty subconscious might have a hard time using it, and especially after being lost in Limbo for "something like" 50 years.

Post Reply