In Time (2011)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 13944
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
apw wrote:Stuff like that never bothers me. I've never left a cinema and though 'too much exposition".

But then I'm not a screenwriter and haven't read a billion books on what is supposedly the "right" way to write a screenplay.
Neither have I... but bad exposition is still painfully obvious to me. :?

User avatar
Posts: 43129
Joined: May 2010
Crazy Eight wrote:
apw wrote:Stuff like that never bothers me. I've never left a cinema and though 'too much exposition".

But then I'm not a screenwriter and haven't read a billion books on what is supposedly the "right" way to write a screenplay.
Neither have I... but bad exposition is still painfully obvious to me. :?
Crazy Eight do you think you are more wise then Chris Nolan?

Posts: 2224
Joined: July 2010
allstarr55js wrote:
Crazy Eight wrote:
Neither have I... but bad exposition is still painfully obvious to me. :?
Crazy Eight do you think you are more wise then Chris Nolan?
Jeeze stop dick riding. My god. The guy doesn't jive with some of Chris' script choices, not a matter of being wise just a matter of taste. Obviously it doesn't bother you. Stop jocking bloody tosser.

User avatar
Posts: 43129
Joined: May 2010
Jeeze stop dick riding. My god. The guy doesn't jive with some of Chris' script choices, not a matter of being wise just a matter of taste. Obviously it doesn't bother you. Stop jocking bloody tosser.
I was just wondering if he does think he is. He is highly intelligent you bloody wanker.

Posts: 2224
Joined: July 2010
allstarr55js wrote:
Jeeze stop dick riding. My god. The guy doesn't jive with some of Chris' script choices, not a matter of being wise just a matter of taste. Obviously it doesn't bother you. Stop jocking bloody tosser.
I was just wondering if he does think he is. He is highly intelligent you bloody wanker.
I'll be a wanker. TROLL. Get out of here with your patronizing nonsense. That post you made wasn't going anywhere good. Always instigating something. FYL muppet. I don't understand why you can't just post proper responses instead of trying to bait people into conflict. Grow up mate. You've posted that post a million times already. Yeah I'm drunk, so what, I'm calling you out yet again.

User avatar
Posts: 43129
Joined: May 2010
Yeah I'm drunk, so what, I'm calling you out yet again.
lol drunk rambling classic!

Posts: 2224
Joined: July 2010
allstarr55js wrote:
Yeah I'm drunk, so what, I'm calling you out yet again.
lol drunk rambling classic!
SAVE THAT POST. Screen shot it. You can use it in one of our later encounters!

User avatar
Posts: 43129
Joined: May 2010
SAVE THAT POST. Screen shot it. You can use it in one of our later encounters!

lol I never offended you really... you just always take little comments so seriously.

Posts: 3669
Joined: June 2009
apw wrote:Stuff like that never bothers me. I've never left a cinema and though 'too much exposition".

But then I'm not a screenwriter and haven't read a billion books on what is supposedly the "right" way to write a screenplay.

I don't think most people leave a cinema thinking "too much exposition" or know what's the "right" way for exposition to be put in a film. It's more the feeling you get after a line of dialog, a scene, or a film, and then figuring out why it didn't work for you. I think less verbal exposition makes for a better cinematic experience, rather than it being better because a book say it's the "right" way to write a screenplay.

User avatar
Posts: 20188
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
George wrote:
Vader182 wrote:I don't understand those complaints. His exposition largely vanishes into the narrative for me, as the exposition itself tends to work on several levels within the narrative or on a character level.
I think exposition can be divided up between surface exposition and thematic exposition.

In Inception Nolan lays on the more surface explanation of things for the audience. I'm not sure whether or not Nolan does this because he thinks the audience isn't smart enough to put the pieces together themselves or if he just likes writing this kind of dialog.

Here are some of the less obvious examples (the obvious ones being Cobb explaining rules to Ariadne):

Cobb: There's no use threatening him in a dream, right, Mal?
Mal: It depends on what you're threatening. Killing him will just wake him up. But pain...
[shoots Arthur in the knee]
Mal: Pain is in the mind, and judging by the decorum we're in your mind, aren't we, Arthur?


Ariadne: Cobb can't build anymore, can he?
Arthur: I don't know if he can't, but he won't. He thinks it's safer if he doesn't know the layouts.
Ariadne: Why?
Arthur: He won't tell me. But I think it's Mal.
Ariadne: His ex-wife?
Arthur: No, not his ex.
Ariadne: They're still together?
Arthur: No, she... she's dead. What you see in there is just his projections from her.


Eames: That's Fischer's projection of Browning. Let's follow him and see how he behaves.
Saito: Why?
Eames: Because how he acts will tell us if Fischer is starting to suspect him just the way we want him to.


*This one is more aimed at Arthur's last line, which very blatantly explains what we are seeing happen with Cobb in the back room.
Arthur: So, a totem. It's a small object, potentially heavy, something you can have on you all the time...
Ariadne: What, like a coin?
Arthur: No, it has to be more unique than that, like - this is a loaded die.
[Ariadne reaches out to take the die]
Arthur: Nah, I can't let you touch it, that would defeat the purpose. See only I know the balance and weight of this particular loaded die. That way when you look at your totem, you know beyond a doubt you're not in someone else's dream.




In The Dark Knight we get more thematic explanation. Stuff like the dinner scene early in the film that lay out the themes in a more blatant way (ex, Harvey Dent: You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.)

On one hand, I think a wonderfully chaotic version of this film would have been amazing. No explanations, only the audience completley needing to piece together things on his/her own. That said, Inception's complexity (especially in determining whether it's real or not) certainly needed this level of direct exposition, and that complexity later in the film is worth the straight-shot answers we're given early on. That said, I love the way he does most of this. I didn't even realize this was exposition in my first few viewing, until I could separate myself enough to analyze more than be involved.

Post Reply