they mentioned that dying inside a dream will kick you out, however if your body is heavily sedated one level above, then dying inside the dream will send you into limboeeeebo wrote: Dying in a dream, just because you took a Nyquil, puts you in a coma? Sorry, that makes zero sense.
Edit: And anyway, it doesn't matter--they mention multiple times that limbo lasts for decades--because of the length of the sedative * the multiplier. If you never got out no matter what, it wouldn't be decades. It would be infinite.
For Those Who Have Questions
Posts: 782
Joined:
May 2010
Posts: 4
Joined:
July 2010
?Dan_87 wrote: they mentioned that dying inside a dream will kick you out, however if your body is heavily sedated one level above, then dying inside the dream will send you into limbo
How is this a response to what I said?
Posts: 782
Joined:
May 2010
oh sorry...i thought nyquil is a sedatives, what it is actually?eeeebo wrote:?Dan_87 wrote: they mentioned that dying inside a dream will kick you out, however if your body is heavily sedated one level above, then dying inside the dream will send you into limbo
How is this a response to what I said?
Posts: 4
Joined:
July 2010
No, it is. The point of my post was that it would be stupid if limbo lasted forever, until you killed yourself. Think about it--if you took heavy sedatives, had a dream, and fell to your death in your dream, you would end up in a coma. Obviously this does not happen, so it would be stupid if this is how it worked in the movie.Dan_87 wrote: oh sorry...i thought nyquil is a sedatives, what it is actually?
In addition, my post mentioned that at many points in the movie limbo is described as lasting decades, rather than, you know, infinity.
Posts: 782
Joined:
May 2010
why its stupid?your mind will be stuck in limbo forever if you don't realize you're in a dreameeeebo wrote:No, it is. The point of my post was that it would be stupid if limbo lasted forever, until you killed yourself. Think about it--if you took heavy sedatives, had a dream, and fell to your death in your dream, you would end up in a coma. Obviously this does not happen, so it would be stupid if this is how it worked in the movie.Dan_87 wrote: oh sorry...i thought nyquil is a sedatives, what it is actually?
for others you may looked coma in real life, but your mind still think that you're in reality
in fact that's how it worked in the movie....or at least it happens when they used the dream sharing machine
[/quote]MrFang wrote:
That's what they told Fischer they were going to do, but there are a couple problems with Fischer being the main dreamer: First, how would he know the layout of the dream that Ariadne had designed? He couldn't have known that because he wasn't a part of the team. But more importantly, how could the dream have remained intact when he was dead and floating around in limbo? If he had been the dreamer, the dream would have collapsed then and there.
When you watch the movie again, listen to the dialogue between Ariadne and Dom. They make reference to Eames being the dreamer multiple times.
Fischer THOUGHT they were going into Browning's mind; this way, Fischer would be convinced of the veracity of the information he thought he was extracting. In other words:
Level 1 -- The kidnapping/torture sets up a situation in which Fischer believes he's been kidnapped. He never sees Browning get tortured, though, and Eames's Browning says various things that throw Browning's motives into suspicion.
Level 2 -- Fischer believes that level 1 is reality, and that level 2 is a dream in which Browning is attempting to break into his mind. In this level, because Browning's motives have already become suspect, Fischer creates Browning as a projection, and the team convinces Fischer to break into Browning's mind to retrieve his motivations for pulling off this terrible crime. In fact, however, they simply descend into a new dreamstate in which Eames is the dreamer.
Level 3 -- Fischer believes he is breaking into Browning's mind, but is in fact placing an idea within his own subconscious. He needs an explanation for why his father would want to split up the company and why Browning would want to stop him, so he creates one, subconsciously. This is the secret that he finds within the safe. Because of the levels above, Fischer believes he has extracted the idea from Browning, when in reality he has incepted it into himself.
Exactly, how could they be going into Eames' dream when they were going into the projection's? Or is that's just what they told him and they did something the opposite and went into Eames'?
Posts: 5
Joined:
July 2010
I'd like to challenge the Mal/Ariadne theory. If it was Mal who wants to rescue Cobb from his limbo via all these elaborate and complicated plans, how come Mal repeatedly asks Cobb to stay with her in limbo? If the theory was true, wouldn't Mal just tell Cobb that he's still dreaming and should kill himself to get out? For me, while possible, the theory lacks sufficient evidence in order for it to be taken seriously. Though, it's possible.
Also, so many people have talked about how the kids don't seem to age or change clothes. I do accept that these could be signs that Cobb is still dreaming but the way I look at it is: Nolan uses these (kids' ages/clothes) as an instrument to create theatrical/emotional effects for the audience. Wouldn't be weird/anti-climatic if when Cobb comes home, the kids are in different clothes? That'd just be too conclusive. For me, the clothes are always the same because 1. throughout the movie when Cobb thinks of his kids, they wear the same clothes and thus, in order to create suspension/emotional climax, they also wear the same clothes at the end 2. Nolan wants us to pick on this point to discuss.
Overall, after thinking and reading about this movie, I felt that Nolan purposely leaves a lot of 'points of divergence' in the movie which audience can pick on small details to create a bunch of theories. That gives me too much headache because then no one really know the truth except Nolan himself. As for me, the movie makes a lot of sense and is already super awesome if the last scene is reality.
Also, so many people have talked about how the kids don't seem to age or change clothes. I do accept that these could be signs that Cobb is still dreaming but the way I look at it is: Nolan uses these (kids' ages/clothes) as an instrument to create theatrical/emotional effects for the audience. Wouldn't be weird/anti-climatic if when Cobb comes home, the kids are in different clothes? That'd just be too conclusive. For me, the clothes are always the same because 1. throughout the movie when Cobb thinks of his kids, they wear the same clothes and thus, in order to create suspension/emotional climax, they also wear the same clothes at the end 2. Nolan wants us to pick on this point to discuss.
Overall, after thinking and reading about this movie, I felt that Nolan purposely leaves a lot of 'points of divergence' in the movie which audience can pick on small details to create a bunch of theories. That gives me too much headache because then no one really know the truth except Nolan himself. As for me, the movie makes a lot of sense and is already super awesome if the last scene is reality.
Posts: 254
Joined:
June 2010
A poster whose seen the film multiple times said the kids are wearing similar clothes but they're not identical. But you're right, the similarity is to create an emotional response. In particular, the reveal of seeing their faces. The kids' faces not being seen is a BIG deal throughout the whole movie (Leo refuses to look at them at one point with Mal), and it's been ignored by the "it's a dream" theories.
The emotional arc of the story and Leo's character development do not support the dream theory either.
The emotional arc of the story and Leo's character development do not support the dream theory either.
How exactly did Cobb and Ariadne enter limbo? I can't remember
Posts: 11
Joined:
July 2010
Mal was out of his dream from the time she jumped off the ledge. What he sees is a subconscious projection of her.dewtu335 wrote:I'd like to challenge the Mal/Ariadne theory. If it was Mal who wants to rescue Cobb from his limbo via all these elaborate and complicated plans, how come Mal repeatedly asks Cobb to stay with her in limbo? If the theory was true, wouldn't Mal just tell Cobb that he's still dreaming and should kill himself to get out? For me, while possible, the theory lacks sufficient evidence in order for it to be taken seriously. Though, it's possible.
Also, so many people have talked about how the kids don't seem to age or change clothes. I do accept that these could be signs that Cobb is still dreaming but the way I look at it is: Nolan uses these (kids' ages/clothes) as an instrument to create theatrical/emotional effects for the audience. Wouldn't be weird/anti-climatic if when Cobb comes home, the kids are in different clothes? That'd just be too conclusive. For me, the clothes are always the same because 1. throughout the movie when Cobb thinks of his kids, they wear the same clothes and thus, in order to create suspension/emotional climax, they also wear the same clothes at the end 2. Nolan wants us to pick on this point to discuss.
Overall, after thinking and reading about this movie, I felt that Nolan purposely leaves a lot of 'points of divergence' in the movie which audience can pick on small details to create a bunch of theories. That gives me too much headache because then no one really know the truth except Nolan himself. As for me, the movie makes a lot of sense and is already super awesome if the last scene is reality.
