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: 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.
I'm surprised that anyone writing in 2013 still believes that either "TL;DR" or "it's just a movie" could be effective as face-savers when on the losing end of a difference of opinion. You could have saved your face more successfully, I think, had you refrained from resorting to tactics that carry that certain taint of adolescence.

Some people enjoy hashing out disputes over movie elements to their logical conclusion; some don't. No dishonor attaches to the latter position.
Jungian wrote: 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.
I still wish you'd share the dialogue from the movie that indicates, to you, that Dreamshare gives an "abuser/addict" a "hard time using it," but if you feel that information must remain undisclosed, then that's the way you feel. You certainly have every right to your own opinions.

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
Ponsonby wrote:I still wish you'd share the dialogue from the movie that indicates, to you, that Dreamshare gives an "abuser/addict" a "hard time using it," but if you feel that information must remain undisclosed, then that's the way you feel. You certainly have every right to your own opinions.
All I can do is facepalm. You want direct quotes when Cobb's actions speak louder than words. He was in limbo for 50 years. Mal made herself believe she was in reality sharing limbo with Cobb, and not even thinking about the kids up above. Someone (Cobb) was also totally addicted to Dreamshare after her death, while the rest of the team managed to keep it in good control throughout. You gotta stop with your moot personal attacks. I suggest you watch the movie some more.
Ponsonby wrote:on the losing end of a difference of opinion
:clap: :clap: :lol: :lol:

Please do yourself a favor.

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
Ponsonby wrote:I'm surprised that anyone writing in 2013 still believes that either "TL;DR" or "it's just a movie" could be effective
tl;dr in 2013 still means the same. I simply did not bother to read your sure to be boring and pretentious post as I stopped with you including Prometheus to your extremely valid argument and opinion..

Posts: 40
Joined: January 2013
Jungian wrote:
Ponsonby wrote:I still wish you'd share the dialogue from the movie that indicates, to you, that Dreamshare gives an "abuser/addict" a "hard time using it," but if you feel that information must remain undisclosed, then that's the way you feel. You certainly have every right to your own opinions.
All I can do is facepalm. You want direct quotes when Cobb's actions speak louder than words. He was in limbo for 50 years. Mal made herself believe she was in reality sharing limbo with Cobb, and not even thinking about the kids up above. Someone (Cobb) was also totally addicted to Dreamshare after her death, while the rest of the team managed to keep it in good control throughout.
Here you are simply listing plot elements of the movie--plot elements which certainly do exist, but which do nothing whatsoever to support your claim that
Jungian wrote: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.
Recall that the issue at hand is: can a totem prove to its owner that he or she is awake?

Your claim is that Cobb's "addiction" meant that "the rules of Dreamshare" would, in some unexplained way, keep him from dreaming that his totem was behaving in the "proof of wakefulness" manner. (You've been somewhat vague about what you consider Cobb's totem actually to have been, by the way. If you want to clear up what it is you do believe about this--what Cobb's totem was--that might advance the discussion.)

Let's leave the question of Cobb and his "addiction" for the moment. How does your theory (that "addiction" somehow activates "rules of Dreamshare" that affect dreaming about totems) apply to Arthur? To Ariadne?

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
Cobb's heavy guilt projected nothing but trouble whenever he used Dreamshare after Mal's death.

Posts: 1
Joined: August 2013
Do you remember the ending of Inception, and how frustrated you were, probably, at the ending? You know, that stupid top? Well, I'd like you to forget about that stupid top. Why, you may ask? Well, that's not Cobb's totem. He himself says it isn't his. It was his wife's, remember? Alright, back to business! So, you might remember his kids. Well, did you happen to notice he only sees his kids in his dreams doing the exact same thing, every single time? He never sees their faces in his dreams, only their backs. My theory (and my friend's) is: his kids' faces are his totem.
Dream World: Doesn't see their faces
Reality: Sees their faces (Or hears their voices)

Last Scene...

He sees both their faces and hears both their voices...

Well?? Makes you think, doesn't it.
My work here is finished.

:gonf: E.HARDY signing out :gonf:

Posts: 128
Joined: February 2011
E.HARDY wrote:Do you remember the ending of Inception, and how frustrated you were, probably, at the ending? You know, that stupid top? Well, I'd like you to forget about that stupid top. Why, you may ask? Well, that's not Cobb's totem. He himself says it isn't his. It was his wife's, remember? Alright, back to business! So, you might remember his kids. Well, did you happen to notice he only sees his kids in his dreams doing the exact same thing, every single time? He never sees their faces in his dreams, only their backs. My theory (and my friend's) is: his kids' faces are his totem.
Dream World: Doesn't see their faces
Reality: Sees their faces (Or hears their voices)
I get annoyed when people say his ring or his kids are his totem. We clearly and consistently see that it is the top. The totem part was over-explained in the film and examined thoroughly by fans ever since then.. It helps you see when you are in someone's dream.

Posts: 1
Joined: September 2013
Hi - have watched Inception a few times now and have a question...

How does Saito know the inception was successful (his real reason for being within the dream(s) in the 1st place?!?) ?
Didn't he slip away in to coma (snow dream)/limbo before Fisher entered the vault/opened the safe with his father?

How would be know? and therefore make the call from the plane when he woke up from Limbo?!

Or did he make the call out of respect/thanks to Cobb for not leaving him in Limbo?? rather than completing the inception?

Haven't seen this asked/addressed anywhere before now so perhaps I'm missing something obvious? :(

Thanks
Nathan

Posts: 238
Joined: November 2013
I noticed that Cobb himself never spins the totem in any of the 4 dream levels in the movie. The only time the top is spun is by Saito in limbo at the end and by Cobb himself (when supposedly in the real world).

After thinking about the entire movie for a long time, I have come to my own conclusion (and maybe it's Nolan's as well).

Firstly, I believe at the end Cobb has indeed returned to his kids in REALITY. Why? Because if he was dreaming, it would mean all the other scenes that we thought were reality (Kyoto train, Kyoto hotel, Mombasa, aircraft flight) would also have had to have been a dream. This means there would have been a new level above, where Mal was actually alive and Cobb's actual kids were. The problem with this is the dream machine. Either the timer would have run out or Mal would have switched it off.

Cobb says he has been trying to get back to his kids for years, so if he was actually dreaming, the machine on the level would have to have been on for a huge amount of time.

I believe Nolan's intention was to perform Inception on the viewer (audience), that is to leave people questioning their own reality, and thus at some point in the film the emphasis of 'dream' vs 'reality' is shifted from Cobb to the viewer.

At the end, WE observe the totem, not Cobb. We are subjective, Cobb is objective. Cobb spinning the totem is used to show that Nolan's narrative has been achieved;

THAT IS : WE HAVE BEEN INCEPTED WITH THE IDEA; IS YOUR WORLD REAL?

Post Reply