[SPOILER] Discussion/Speculation Thread

Christopher Nolan's time inverting spy film that follows a protagonist fighting for the survival of the entire world.
Posts: 1230
Joined: January 2019
Law wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 9:04 am
Anyone else kind of upset there
wasn't a climatic ending like Nolan's previous films.. it kind of just, ends.
That final voice-over speech wasn't really something to remember. But I get Nolan making a very ambiguous ending, character-wise, instead of story-wise. And I think ending with Debicki and her child was the right choice.

Posts: 1423
Joined: February 2011
Location: Italy
I don't even know how many years have passed since my last post on here, but lately I've been reading your comments about Tenet. I haven't seen it yet (probably tomorrow), but, unfortunately, I've been spoiled some major plot points about Kenneth Branagh's character (don't worry, the spoilers didn't come from this forum ;) ).

At this point, I've decided that I'm more curious than angry, so I have a couple of questions for those of you who have already seen the film:

1. Sator's threats towards his wife sound a bit empty when she knows he's terminally ill. It looks like Kat's "safest" choice would be to just play the good wife and wait until he dies, then live her life as she pleases. Why does she still choose to rebel against him?
I suppose she has lots of valid psychological reasons, like finally asserting her own dignity, etc., but I'm curious to know if her motivations are explained in the film.

2. I know Sator has been "hired" by people from the future who have inherited a devastated world (by the way, why is the world like that? War? Natural catastrophe?) and hope to improve their present by wiping out their past. Is this theme discussed further in the film? Are these people from the future and Sator ever presented in a "redemptive" light?

3. Nothing to do with Sator in particular, but what is the film's stance on the ideas of predestination/free will? (I assume a film about time inversion must deal at least superficially with these issues...)

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3759
Joined: May 2012
Demoph wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 9:09 am
Law wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 9:04 am
Anyone else kind of upset there
wasn't a climatic ending like Nolan's previous films.. it kind of just, ends.
That final voice-over speech wasn't really something to remember. But I get Nolan making a very ambiguous ending, character-wise, instead of story-wise. And I think ending with Debicki and her child was the right choice.
It doesn't touch Dunkirk's ending, I agree.

But on repeat viewings, I'm warmer on it.

It's a tribute to the everyday or unseen heroes, the ones working in darkness who will never have their heroic feats known or celebrated by the public and yet sacrifice their bodies and lives for the greater good anyway without expecting a word of thanks.

User avatar
Forum Pro
Law
Posts: 17034
Joined: July 2010
Location: Moonlight Motel
^^ good point.

Question about the end battle
who are they fighting? I see each team shooting at, I assume are enemies. Do we ever see who they're firing at?

User avatar
Posts: 3344
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
Law wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 10:03 am
^^ good point.

Question about the end battle
who are they fighting? I see each team shooting at, I assume are enemies. Do we ever see who they're firing at?
Sator's man. I agree that we barely get to see what they are up against in terms of numbers though
Mr. Alley wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 7:39 am
Understood almost everything after my second viewing but still have a question:
In the end when Neil and JDW talk about Neil having to go back down there why is Neil boarding the helicopter?
And how does he end up down there at the gate inverted?
I assume
he's getting taken by helicopter to the machine that will invert him since the one underground is impossible to get to due to the explosion.[/Spoiler

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3759
Joined: May 2012
Law wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 10:03 am
^^ good point.

Question about the end battle
who are they fighting? I see each team shooting at, I assume are enemies. Do we ever see who they're firing at?
I saw a hilarious comment about this that I can't help but chuckle over every time I remember it.

It said something like: "The last battle scene was ass-stupid. Can't see the enemy, only the Red and Blue teams running around like their balls are about to drop off. They're running around non-stop clumped up like a bunch of ants, but you can't even see any of them dying."

Oh, and another one: "They looked like Reserve Forces doing survival training."

Posts: 1230
Joined: January 2019
First name in the "Producer would like to thank" list is Kip Thorne.

Posts: 69
Joined: May 2019
Lynn wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 9:45 am
I don't even know how many years have passed since my last post on here, but lately I've been reading your comments about Tenet. I haven't seen it yet (probably tomorrow), but, unfortunately, I've been spoiled some major plot points about Kenneth Branagh's character (don't worry, the spoilers didn't come from this forum ;) ).

At this point, I've decided that I'm more curious than angry, so I have a couple of questions for those of you who have already seen the film:

1. Sator's threats towards his wife sound a bit empty when she knows he's terminally ill. It looks like Kat's "safest" choice would be to just play the good wife and wait until he dies, then live her life as she pleases. Why does she still choose to rebel against him?
I suppose she has lots of valid psychological reasons, like finally asserting her own dignity, etc., but I'm curious to know if her motivations are explained in the film.

2. I know Sator has been "hired" by people from the future who have inherited a devastated world (by the way, why is the world like that? War? Natural catastrophe?) and hope to improve their present by wiping out their past. Is this theme discussed further in the film? Are these people from the future and Sator ever presented in a "redemptive" light?

3. Nothing to do with Sator in particular, but what is the film's stance on the ideas of predestination/free will? (I assume a film about time inversion must deal at least superficially with these issues...)
I'll take a crack at it....
1. She gets dragged further into it by the Protagonist. Also a big part of it is not letting him die thinking he had won.

2. Sator says something along the lines of "the rivers overflow". so I am assuming its a natural catastrophe. Bad enough that he wonders if God would forgive him if he let his son live through it. And I guess it just depends who side you are on...from their point of view they are doing the right thing.

3. What's happened has happened and always will happen....maybe :D

Posts: 1230
Joined: January 2019
Just noticed reading a tweet about it that the first line is "Wake up the americans."
There are so many subtle ways in which this film is about Trump's America. The obvious one being Sator.

Posts: 1423
Joined: February 2011
Location: Italy
KingOfTheNorth wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 2:15 pm
Lynn wrote:
September 1st, 2020, 9:45 am
I don't even know how many years have passed since my last post on here, but lately I've been reading your comments about Tenet. I haven't seen it yet (probably tomorrow), but, unfortunately, I've been spoiled some major plot points about Kenneth Branagh's character (don't worry, the spoilers didn't come from this forum ;) ).

At this point, I've decided that I'm more curious than angry, so I have a couple of questions for those of you who have already seen the film:

1. Sator's threats towards his wife sound a bit empty when she knows he's terminally ill. It looks like Kat's "safest" choice would be to just play the good wife and wait until he dies, then live her life as she pleases. Why does she still choose to rebel against him?
I suppose she has lots of valid psychological reasons, like finally asserting her own dignity, etc., but I'm curious to know if her motivations are explained in the film.

2. I know Sator has been "hired" by people from the future who have inherited a devastated world (by the way, why is the world like that? War? Natural catastrophe?) and hope to improve their present by wiping out their past. Is this theme discussed further in the film? Are these people from the future and Sator ever presented in a "redemptive" light?

3. Nothing to do with Sator in particular, but what is the film's stance on the ideas of predestination/free will? (I assume a film about time inversion must deal at least superficially with these issues...)
I'll take a crack at it....
1. She gets dragged further into it by the Protagonist. Also a big part of it is not letting him die thinking he had won.

2. Sator says something along the lines of "the rivers overflow". so I am assuming its a natural catastrophe. Bad enough that he wonders if God would forgive him if he let his son live through it. And I guess it just depends who side you are on...from their point of view they are doing the right thing.

3. What's happened has happened and always will happen....maybe :D
Thanks a lot for your reply! You've actually made me even more curious, especially with answer #3... :D
I'm very interested in Sator. I've read a lot of reviews that complain about lack of characterization in general and
describe him in particular as an over-the-top Bondian villain, a caricature more than a character, but from what I've heard it looks like he could be an interesting character, driven by despair, fatalism and a sense of personal failure... I hope the writing really isn't so bad that none of this emerges in the film. I mean, Nolan has never really been the best dialogue writer, but IMO his films have always been thematically rich.

Post Reply