[SPOILER] Discussion/Speculation Thread

An original action espionage film releasing in IMAX on August 12, 2020
User avatar
Posts: 1210
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
speedy117 wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 9:00 pm
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 8:58 pm
KEM wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 8:42 pm

Neil also speaks Estonian, and Sator is obviously from that part of the world, so that is considered to be another hint towards the theory
That was the big one I was missing. Thanks, I knew there was one!

There's just no way that's coincidence.
I really don't know how to feel about this theory and it's killing me. Usually there is some closure in Nolan films because there is sufficient evidence, and while there is evidence in Tenet, it just seems like a bit of a reach.
Would you agree that the canonical inclusion of this would have made it a better film? That's mostly why I brought it up. Clearly the speculation was always there, but no one once asked whether this actually improves the film or not. I'm under the impression that it does majorly. It's a larger payoff that brings things full circle.

KEM
Posts: 490
Joined: December 2019
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 9:04 pm
speedy117 wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 9:00 pm
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 8:58 pm


That was the big one I was missing. Thanks, I knew there was one!

There's just no way that's coincidence.
I really don't know how to feel about this theory and it's killing me. Usually there is some closure in Nolan films because there is sufficient evidence, and while there is evidence in Tenet, it just seems like a bit of a reach.
Would you agree that the canonical inclusion of this would have made it a better film? That's mostly why I brought it up. Clearly the speculation was always there, but no one once asked whether this actually improves the film or not. I'm under the impression that it does majorly. It's a larger payoff that brings things full circle.
I certainly think it does and I’m totally fine with it not being confirmed cause it gives us a lot more to talk about, same as the ending to Inception, both have tons of hints and clues pointing to the answer but not getting it up front is a great choice in my opinion. Every I tell this theory too has their mind blown and ends up loving the film a lot more

User avatar
Posts: 1210
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
KEM wrote:
September 14th, 2020, 1:36 am
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 9:04 pm
speedy117 wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 9:00 pm

I really don't know how to feel about this theory and it's killing me. Usually there is some closure in Nolan films because there is sufficient evidence, and while there is evidence in Tenet, it just seems like a bit of a reach.
Would you agree that the canonical inclusion of this would have made it a better film? That's mostly why I brought it up. Clearly the speculation was always there, but no one once asked whether this actually improves the film or not. I'm under the impression that it does majorly. It's a larger payoff that brings things full circle.
I certainly think it does and I’m totally fine with it not being confirmed cause it gives us a lot more to talk about, same as the ending to Inception, both have tons of hints and clues pointing to the answer but not getting it up front is a great choice in my opinion. Every I tell this theory too has their mind blown and ends up loving the film a lot more
The difference is Inception's payoff already feels grander and more tangible for audiences.

And just as you said, people end up loving it more once they learn about it. Think about the 99.91% of audience members who aren't even aware of the thought.

User avatar
Posts: 87
Joined: March 2017
It seems like a lot of people have a problem with the ending because
it's possible for Tenet to dig up the algorithm even after it's buried and Sator dies, and the only explanation I can think of is the fact that only The Protagonist and Ives seem to know its location (since they purposely don't spread that info among their team, who doesn't even seem to know that one of their objectives is to get the algorithm). So if The Protagonist and Ives die in the explosion, then their knowledge dies with them.
Dialogue from the screenplay:
SATOR (during his bad-guy speech at the end): You fight for a cause you barely understand. With people you trust so little you’ve told them nothing. When I die, the world dies with me. And your knowledge dies with you. Buried in a tomb like an anonymous Egyptian builder, sealed in a pyramid to keep your secret.
And then there's this exchange from earlier when Ives is briefing his team:
IVES: Now our job is to fail to diffuse that bomb, while the splinter unit achieves its task undetected.

RED SOLDIER 3: Which is…?

IVES: Need to know, and you don’t.

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3551
Joined: May 2012
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
September 14th, 2020, 1:50 am
KEM wrote:
September 14th, 2020, 1:36 am
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
September 13th, 2020, 9:04 pm


Would you agree that the canonical inclusion of this would have made it a better film? That's mostly why I brought it up. Clearly the speculation was always there, but no one once asked whether this actually improves the film or not. I'm under the impression that it does majorly. It's a larger payoff that brings things full circle.
I certainly think it does and I’m totally fine with it not being confirmed cause it gives us a lot more to talk about, same as the ending to Inception, both have tons of hints and clues pointing to the answer but not getting it up front is a great choice in my opinion. Every I tell this theory too has their mind blown and ends up loving the film a lot more
The difference is Inception's payoff already feels grander and more tangible for audiences.

And just as you said, people end up loving it more once they learn about it. Think about the 99.91% of audience members who aren't even aware of the thought.
Imagine Dunkirk ending with Tommy saying, "I wonder how my father Farrier is doing" :lol:

I feel it's better as the maybe-sorta-wink-wink, maybe-sorta-nudge-nudge thing that it is now.

User avatar
Posts: 1210
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Oku wrote:
September 14th, 2020, 3:20 am
MuffinMcFluffin wrote:
September 14th, 2020, 1:50 am
KEM wrote:
September 14th, 2020, 1:36 am


I certainly think it does and I’m totally fine with it not being confirmed cause it gives us a lot more to talk about, same as the ending to Inception, both have tons of hints and clues pointing to the answer but not getting it up front is a great choice in my opinion. Every I tell this theory too has their mind blown and ends up loving the film a lot more
The difference is Inception's payoff already feels grander and more tangible for audiences.

And just as you said, people end up loving it more once they learn about it. Think about the 99.91% of audience members who aren't even aware of the thought.
Imagine Dunkirk ending with Tommy saying, "I wonder how my father Farrier is doing" :lol:

I feel it's better as the maybe-sorta-wink-wink, maybe-sorta-nudge-nudge thing that it is now.
Yes, but Tenet's emotional crux is entirely tied to that of Kat. She is the only character who absolutely sheds any sort of weight toward her wants/needs/desires. It's one thing to break free from Sator, and she can do that at any time... but if she wants Max, then she's going to have to stay with him. She chooses to stay because she chooses to be with Max. She wants Max more than the world... there is literally a line in the movie that implies exactly that!

We don't know shit about Max. We don't care about Max. Max is a nobody to us. Yes, we want her to want Max, but we also don't want the world to end. It would be nice for us to want reason to want Max since Protag is so hellbent on keeping that relationship alive and well. It would be something if Protag was something in Max's life this whole time, and if Max came back to perpetually assist him in assisting his mother. Neil saved Protag's life at least three times, and sacrifices himself once in the process.

This connection absolutely matters for this film. It's the piece that's missing. It really is.

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3551
Joined: May 2012
Yeah, I can see what you're saying.

I would need to see it in action, though, to make sure.

TENET: The MuffinMcFluffin Cut. Coming soon! :lol:

User avatar
Posts: 1210
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Oku wrote:
September 14th, 2020, 3:34 am
Yeah, I can see what you're saying.

I would need to see it in action, though, to make sure.

TENET: The MuffinMcFluffin Cut. Coming soon! :lol:
I'm telling you, it just takes one word... and it's not "Tenet," lol.

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3551
Joined: May 2012
How about having Neil unnamed throughout the film like the Protag (and like with the Protag, don't make it obvious that we don't know his name).

Then at the end/ending shot, show the red string tied to Max's backpack, tying it all together literally and figuratively.

User avatar
Posts: 1210
Joined: May 2017
Location: Elk Grove, CA
Oku wrote:
September 14th, 2020, 3:43 am
How about having Neil unnamed throughout the film like the Protag (and like with the Protag, don't make it obvious that we don't know his name).

Then at the end/ending shot, show the red string tied to Max's backpack, tying it all together literally and figuratively.
Symbols do tend to be better than words. Though I like how the name fits in among many other clues, the others not being as subtle heh.

Post Reply