Inception (with implanted spoilers)

The first Transformers was ALSO a very straightforward movie. you don't have to be a family-pandering action movie to be straightforward!

I also note that instead of actually talking about how "Inception" isn't straightforward, you're just throwing your hands up in the air. Which basically is about what I expected; you didn't like the movie because it wasn't what you wanted it to be, and now you are bending over backwards attempting to ascribe intentions and motives to it that it didn't fulfill for you that may not have even been part of the movie's intent.

"I wanted it to be THIS and it wasn't" is a very different (and defensible!) criticism from "The movie tried to do THIS and failed" (which can be defensible but actually requires more work than lazy disdain and incomplete arguments).

I mean, I agree that the movie wasn't very deep, but I don't think it was trying to be. This is pretty common in most of Nolan's work (at least in the movies I've seen); he takes an off-kilter premise and then tells a pretty simple, easy-to-follow story within its framework.

first Transformers was an allegory for the Desposyni

Nolan says in that Voice interview that, following his success, he feels "a massive responsibility to do something that you genuinely feel to be meaningful," which sounds like he wants it to be a LITTLE more than just "entertaining," though yeah, I think his main goal was to make people go "oooh, a puzzle!"

my problem is that none of the human drama stuff is credible or about life as it is lived. this is not in general a problem in lots of movies, but it's clear that the people came after the premise. and in this case it's a total failure. there is no character development. who gives a shit about imaginary problems due to mental illness induced by an imaginary technology? and his goal is to accept he was right and successfully move house?

anyway, you're left with an action film about a technological idea and the entire weight of the film is on the audience finding (what nolan does with) the premise interesting per se. so yes, exploring dreams is more than just a macguffin, but not in a good way.

puzzle movies = buy yourself a killer sudoku book and get tae fuck.

his is pretty common in most of Nolan's work (at least in the movies I've seen); he takes an off-kilter premise and then tells a pretty simple, easy-to-follow story within its framework.

ehhh I don't know: TDK had lots of psychobabble put in the mouth of Heath Ledger about good and eeee-vil, and that's not counting the way he shot, lit, and edited him so that he gets maximum time to impress the audience with it. The first Burton Batman had drivel in its script too, but it was faster and sillier.

my problem is that none of the human drama stuff is credible or about life as it is lived.

Good point. Also I must comment that humans vary rarely get upset that the father of their unborn son is killed after traveling in time by a machine, so let's throw out Terminator too while we're at it.

yeah but that movie had AWESOME action sequences

Terminator is a successful action film, which is something no one afaict is claiming for this movie.

erm I thought the last half hour of Inception was pretty awesome visually, both on and off IMAX. Not so much the combat as much as how the three dreamstates were integrated.

and Linda Hamilton and Michael Biehn are very good in it.

xpost

lol so the rules only apply to films people don't consider action? fwiw I considered this sci-fi with a touch of drama and action.

translation of the above: "It doesn't apply to Terminator cuz I liked it"

I think, in general, I am more of a structuralist when it comes to enjoying movies, in terms of I often don't give two shits about how relatable I find the characters if I find the mechanics of the plot engaging. As a result, I didn't care that Ellen Page was about as convincing as a pancake (aside from when they were in level 4, where she made me lol hardcore) or that every main character aside from Ken Watanabe and Tom Hardy looked like they were still in high school; I thought the plot and how it all fit together was awesome.

definitely will admit this movie's a gift for architects

I prefer movies about dreams that actually convince me that these dream sequences are possible – and much shorter than two-hours-plus. Not a fair comparison, but Buñuel's Mexican movies were pure pulp (basically telenovelas), cost $18, and boasted non-existent acting, but they're totally batshit in the best way.

not sure you know what straightforward means if you think inception fits the bill. but yes, transformers was.

I mean, I agree that the movie wasn't very deep, but I don't think it was trying to be. This is pretty common in most of Nolan's work (at least in the movies I've seen); he takes an off-kilter premise and then tells a pretty simple, easy-to-follow story within its framework.

and how do you know it wasnt trying to be? until you have confirmation from nolan you should prob hold back on this kind of speciousness.

Wait, so what did you read into the first Transformers, then?

oh, funny.

Man I have a feeling I shouldn't debate kung-fu cinema with half the people in this thread!

until you have confirmation from nolan you should prob hold back on this kind of speciousness.

Well, really, who cares what the director thinks? Intentionality doesn't matter.

and how do you know it wasnt trying to be? until you have confirmation from nolan you should prob hold back on this kind of speciousness.

That pendulum swings both way, is the point I am making and which you appear to be too thick to comprehend.

or, as Alfred puts it, "who cares what the director thinks?"

Once the work is out there, it's out there. People are going to interpret it however they want; if you want a specific meaning taken out of it, you'd better make sure you build your context accordingly.

I don't know about "a gift for architects", another film with a fundamental misunderstanding of what an architect is/does.

VERY VERY, BARELY A SPOILER ALERT HERE:
Minor nitpick with the film in that regard, when Juno was constructing her totem on that drafting board she had the vise screwed to the tabletop directly above the straightedge, which would have prevented the straightedge for being useful on that drafting table AT ALL.

I think, in general, I am more of a structuralist when it comes to enjoying movies, in terms of I often don't give two shits about how relatable I find the characters if I find the mechanics of the plot engaging.

This, pretty much. There were certainly points throughout the film where I was all 'hmm, whatever' but the larger mechanics as noted carried it. That's why I'm wondering what a second viewing will be like.

I thought "a gift for architects" meant "a gift for people who like outlining movie plots", not "a gift for actual, real-life architects because finally they are getting the film representation they deserve"

@Ned--I will say after I got the basic plot digested after the first viewing, I noticed the interactions of the characters more the second time around, and there's more there than meets the eye. Although it isn't exactly ARthur Miller.

All interpretations are valid, intentionality doesn't matter.

xpost

No, I know, I was just tossing out a general gripe off the back of that comment.

(xpost)

"a gift for actual, real-life architects because finally they are getting the film representation they deserve"

The Fountainhead! oh wait...

No, the criticism of the absence of successful character development or engaging human drama in Inception doesn't apply to Terminator not because Terminator is labelled an "action" movie, but because it does action sequences very well. Most people seem to agree that the action sequences in Inception are not its strong point (they're right, the action sequences are turd), and I don't think _anyone_ is saying they carry the film like they do in Terminator.

Inception shouldn't be held to higher standards because it's an attempt at intelligent mainstream film -- if there was an dully directed snow palace sequence in Eternal Sunshine then I would have been fine with that, especially if the director appeared to have a sense of humour. But when it totally fails to explore the things its actually about (the mind, human relationships) because Nolan is too busy talking to a (depressingly uninteresting) production design dept., it's OK to criticise it's failure to do _anything_ except take a giant turd on my Sunday morning.

xxxxps to San Te there btw

Is San Te new or is he one of Dom's btw?

Well, really, who cares what the director thinks? Intentionality doesn't matter.

i agree. what matters really is what you can see. although its easy enought to have an idea about what the intent was from all the trailers, the lead ups, the marketing, the general bits of blurb you hear from everyone involved. its pretty easy to get the gist of what they were aiming for.

"which you appear to be too thick to comprehend."

says the person who is unable to read properly so is still trying to argue that oh actually transformers IS straightforward when ive already said as much.

xpost Considering the depths he'll go to avoid facing a depressing reality, I'm guessing he's Leonardo DiCaprio.

this may be newbieism here but what/who is Dom?

the lead character, christ weren't you paying attention?

why do you think DiCap's always got a scrunchy face?

xxpost

(depressingly uninteresting) production design dept

Now, see, I thought the design of the snow palace was pretty awesome. I loved the Bond villain hideout aspect.

referring to this, da croupier:

Is San Te new or is he one of Dom's btw?

It was a joke, Leo.

oh, ok. make sure to give me a signal next time.

The snow palace design wasn't dreadful. I mean as a whole, it was a really dull film thing to look at.

so you basically didn't think the whole "Leo made his wife kill herself" thing was at all relevant to the movie or the events that transpired therein...?

xp: hahahahahahaha um if you're going to accuse someone of not being able to read, you should probably be able to do so yourself, or at least be able to determine which posts were the ones he wrote and which ones were written by completely different people blatantly making fun of you

If you are talking about this:

The first Transformers was ALSO a very straightforward movie. you don't have to be a family-pandering action movie to be straightforward!

... what most people who understand English would interpret that as is me saying "It is possible for 'Inception' to be a straightforward movie, like the first Transformers movie is a straightforward movie, without the former being a family-friendly action film." I've said nothing else about "Transformers" since then. Moron.

guys, pls, take this to the Big Boi thread

I'd give this a half-star more if David Bowie had Ken Watanabe's part

when it totally fails to explore the things its actually about (the mind, human relationships)

IS that what it's actually about? Granting the question of intentionality mattering, what I've taken away most from Nolan's comments about the film has been less "I am making a Big Grand Statement About Things" and more "I had this idea kicking around for a while inspired by a few lucid dreaming experiences and wanted to see what I could do with it."

This is all reminding me why I hate self-help books, for whatever reason.

^^^^^^^ "Inception was first developed by Christopher Nolan, based on the notion of "exploring the idea of people sharing a dream space—entering a dream space and sharing a dream. That gives you the ability to access somebody’s unconscious mind. What would that be used and abused for?"[7] Furthermore, he thought "being able to extract information from somebody’s brain would be the obvious use of that because obviously any other system where it’s computers or physical media, whatever—things that exist outside the mind—they can all be stolen ... up until this point, or up until this movie I should say, the idea that you could actually steal something from somebody’s head was impossible. So that, to me, seemed a fascinating abuse or misuse of that kind of technology".[7]

He had thought about these ideas on and off since he was 16 years old, intrigued by how he would wake up and then, while falling back into a lighter sleep, hold on to the awareness that he was dreaming, a lucid dream. He also became aware of the feeling that he could study the place and alter the events of the dream.[26] He said, "I tried to work that idea of manipulation and management of a conscious dream being a skill that these people have. Really the script is based on those common, very basic experiences and concepts, and where can those take you? And the only outlandish idea that the film presents, really, is the existence of a technology that allows you to enter and share the same dream as someone else".

This is all reminding me why I hate self-help books, for whatever reason.

lolololol

oh just shut the fuck up hi dere. all youre saying amounts to 'i see the intent AND it was achieved!' and then 'i came into this film wanting it to be good... and well it WAS! i see the LARGER MECHANICS where plebian others do not!'.

I suppose what I'm saying is if you make a film that isn't a successful action movie, you better have something else more interesting going on than your premise/Act 1 (which is what San Te has helpfully pasted). This is often when characters come in use.