Talk:Inception/Archive 2

Paprika
anyone else agree that the article should include influence from Paprika? I read that C. Nolan cited one of his influences from paprika.. now i gotta find it 99.131.26.237 (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree to this if Nolan did indeed state Paprika as one of his influences. Personally, I see a significant connection between the two - as there are with many other works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.221.190 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

K. I'm still looking, but all I found was just a french article that indirectly quoted Nolan as using Paprika as an influence and that the main character of the anime inspired Ellen Page's character in this movie. 76.226.97.189 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think so, numerous media sources have pointed out that Nolan has cited Kubrick, Wachowski Bros and many others but he did not mention anything about Satoshi Kon or Paprika, he already thought of this idea in 2001, way before Paprika's release in the west, what only stopped him was that Dark City, Matrix eXistenZ and the 13th floor were all release in the same decade. Also, regarding Ellen Page's character, it should be noted that in one French Article, it was only an opinion wherein the reporter of that article thought that Nolan's inspiration for Ariadne may have been derived from the protagonist of Paprika, but it has already come to light that Ariadne is derived from myth of Ariadne who helped Theseus find his way through the labyrinth, same can be said with Ellen Page's character in the movie since her role is the Architect who designs the whole location. --Animecheck (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this plot summary correct?
According to this plot summary Ariadne play no role in the heist. Isn't she the architect which means she forged all or at least one level of the dream? Valoem talk  19:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is wrong, since Ariadne designed all of the dreams, First Yusuf's layer, Second Arthur's and Third is Eames, This can be noted by the fact that she mentions that she didn't remember placing a train in the first layer when they were attacked, second was when Dom asked her if Eames added a shortcut on her design and she said yes, which happens to be the air vent. If this hasn't been fixed yet, I hope somebody does. --Animecheck (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Rules of Inception
As this scifi flick has rules just like any other scifi movie, it seems to me that there should be a section on this page that has the rules of how the dream world works in this movie (such as how one goes into a dream, how one gets out of it, what sends someone into limbo etc.) Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.186.226 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now that seems to fit best into the plot summary, to me. If enough articles came out discussing that element of the film specifically, though, I could see a section getting expanded or added to include some info in that regard. If that makes any sense.  Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Millahnna, I think it's rather best to wait for an official information to be released by Warner Bros., So far, What has only been confirmed are the positions like Architect, Point man, Forger, Chemist and Mark(I'm not sure if Shade is counted, since it is not mandatory for a "dream" team) and that the machine they use is called the Dream Share, which can be found in the prequel comic called "The Cobol Job" found in the official website. --Animecheck (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic genre
keeps trying to add the Fantastic literary drama to the lead section, and he has gone so far as to modify the very article on the genre to support his edits.


 * 20:05, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) Inception (film) ‎ (minor formatting change)
 * 20:04, 10 August 2010 (diff | hist) Inception (film) ‎ (reinserting reference to Fantastic genre - please do not undo without discussion on talk page)
 * 23:08, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Fantastic ‎ (→Definition of: dreams and reality)
 * 23:06, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Fantastic ‎ (→In Literary Works)
 * 23:03, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Inception (film) ‎ (minor sp)
 * 23:02, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Inception (film) ‎ (the fantastic)
 * 22:58, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Fantastic ‎ (→In Film)
 * 22:56, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Fantastic ‎ (→In Film)
 * 22:55, 9 August 2010 (diff | hist) Fantastic ‎ (Inception)

This appears to be original research, and I've asked him to stop. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No - you didn't ask me - you lectured and bullied. It is not original research, just a plain fact - the film falls into the genre - just as it falls into the heist genre. I have removed the comment re Inception and will wait until I find a suitable reference before reinserting.

Please note also that the comment that I have modified the original article to support my argument is slanderous - I had only not entered citations, which are now there.

Perhaps if you read soemthing about the fantstic genre you may enjoy learning how the film falls within the genre and unnderstand another level of this great work by Nolan Kunchan (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to be clear original research to me. Can you provide a source for this "genre"? Without strong sourcing we would need consensus, of which none has been provided or gained from what I can see. I see you used the ol' "please do not undo without discussion on talk page" tactic, you will need consensus on the talk page to add this to begin with, I think you'll find. Rehevkor ✉ 00:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A source for the genre? Are you disputing this as a genre in film? There is the seminal work by Todorov and Manguel (quoted in the article) - and the Amsterdam (in 26th year http://www.imaginefilmfestival.nl/english), Brussels (www.biff.org), Korean (in 14th year http://www.pifan.com/), and Sitges (http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/eng) Fantastic Film festivals show how well-established this is as a genre in film: or am I misunderstanding you?
 * So.. no source for the genre of Inception, the film, the subject of this article? Rehevkor ✉ 01:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The top falling over? (end sequence before credits)
Hello all,

The following addition has been made to the article (NOT by me) that besides needing some wording cleanup, I do not recall, nor do I know how citable IMDB is on "suggesting" others' beliefs on the matter.


 * "As the credits appear, the sound of top falling is heard. Additionally, IMDB credits the Cobb's children, Phillipa and James with different ages and actors, which would suggest they actually aged rather than him dreaming."

I don't plan on removing that (just yet) as (though I did stay through most of the credits) I cannot claim with 100% certainty that such an event did not happen. I have left a note on the editor's talk page hoping they will discuss it further and fix the grammar error(s).

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already reverted this, as it is clear original research. Rehevkor ✉ 23:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cobol Job
Why is there no mention of the comic book released to drum up more attention for the movie? A simple google search reveals that it's quite well-known: http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=inception+the+cobol+job&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b7e72bfbd7e7f5d6

Dilcoe —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC).


 * I'd like to see this added as well under Marketing. The comic features the artwork of UDON studio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattMoylan (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Cobol
Is it Cobol or Cobal? The Spanish subtitles say "Cobol" but this article says "Cobal". --Error (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Duration of each dream state
Is it worth putting in the MacGuffin about how long each dream state is expected to last in relation to the dream state above it? They have 10 hours on the plane to work with and that translates into:


 * 1) Level 1: 8.3 days
 * 2) Level 2: 166 days
 * 3) Level 3: 3333 days, 9.25 years, 9 years, 4 months
 * 4) Level 4: 185 years

Sauce: http://www.nolanfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2243&start=0#ixzz0upN3aVYs --Piepie (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You would want to have a source from the writers, producers, or a reputable reviewer before suggesting the dream state is a MacGuffin (I considered it but I don't think it strictly fits that definition, the writers might say otherwise).
 * A different plot summary might have been able to squeeze some mention that they time is (exponentially?) longer in each level of the dream but since so much effort has been made to write a very minimal summary it would be difficult to squeeze it in there. The relative amounts of time spent in each level of the dream state are unlikely to amount to much more than trivia. Probably best to leave it out. -- Horkana (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Geometrically, not exponentially, I believe.  Each dream time is 20 times longer than the amount of time occurring in the next level closer to waking reality. john k (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. However, it might help explain limbo as part of the summary better. The thread I linked to calls it Level 4 but if iirc, limbo is infinite in the movie. --Piepie (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't find a mention about the concept of subjective time in the article. It is important for the plot. --Error (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck Comic Plagiarism
Shouldn't this article acknowledge the fact that some elements of the movie were taken wholesale from Donald Duck's "The Dream of a Lifetime" comic? Several elements seem to have been derived from concepts created for this comic book. Available online here: http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/show.php?num=1&loc=D2002-033&s=date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.175.86 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any independent sources to verify the plagiarism of a comic no one ever read? Rehevkor ✉ 23:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's online. Anyone can read. By the way, there is a section about it. Travisharlem (talk) 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I noticed. Rehevkor ✉ 02:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The film does have elements that appear in the comic, however that does not mean that they were taken wholesale from it. People can independently come up with concepts and ideas that are virtually identical without having heard of it before, for example Calculus, the Ophthalmoscope, the board game Hex, or something most of us have probably thought of: Raëlian cosmology(Specifically the part where the entire Universe is just an atom in something else). Nolan did say that he had been working on this idea for 10 years, and this comic book came out in 2002. Mind you I love everything about Don Rosa and his canon stories, but stealing dreams is something a lot of people have thought of and he even got the idea from a French fan. The idea of going into a dreamworld has been explored in a lot of different movies for example The Cell or to some extent The Matrix. It is entirely possible Nolan was influenced and got inspiration from these movies and even the comic, but I don't see that as plagiarism. Atheuz (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys are misusing the word "plagiarism" which is a VERY serious charge to be making. Plagiarism is the creation of nearly identical material. The connection between Inception and the Donald Duck comic should not be called "plagiarism" because it tends to suggest that Christopher Nolan did something immoral/illegal even *if* he had seen the comic previously. (Silifi (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

Ending
At the end of the film when the screen goes black you can hear a thud leading to the logical conclusion that the top fell over and it was not a dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.65.231 (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't hear a thud.The Great Morgil (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither did I. This shouldn't be something to discuss seeing as the purpose of the image going black was to leave the viewers in a state of confusion. Caledir (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume that neither of you own a copy of the movie yet where as I do and during the black screen there is indeed a thud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.65.231 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pirating movies is bad sir. Either way, the thud could be anything in the movie theater while the movie was being taped illegally. It could also be a hitting of the camera, or anything else that could be very similar. Caledir (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

the thud is not a disturbance from the theater because the copy was made from a real and not a video recorder. also, bad is relative and not the point of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.65.231 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have also read numerous comments elsewhere that there is a thud. Ω  pho  is  00:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The top falling over wouldn't mean it wasn't a dream, though... 72.25.80.183 (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It removes the implication that he is dreaming, though. Ω  pho  is  18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really because the top isn't his token. None of the other characters in the movie allow you to touch their token. Anyways the rules behind the token are not fully explained in the movie with regards to what happens when using other people's tokens, so we wouldn't be able to make any conclusion either way. Anyways the top falling should probably be placed in the article, however its implications probably shouldn't be discussed in the article. --MATThematical (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is his token. Though it was his wife's, he starts using it after her death (as detailed throughout the movie). Ω  pho  is  20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First, those items are called, totems, not tokens. I still stick by my story. I did not hear a thud.  Caledir  Chat 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's too much focus on the spinning top. Recall that at the ending he also sees his children's faces for the first time in the movie. Never in any dream world are his children's faces shown. The fact that their faces are shown in the scene at the end leaves little question as to whether he is still trapped in a dream or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.51.171 (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, since his kids don't appear to have aged at all, despite the implication that he hasn't seen them in several years. If anything, this gives some weight to the idea that he's still dreaming at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.10.30 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That he sees his children's faces doesn't mean that he is not dreaming since he didn't want to see them in a dream but could have done so if he had wanted to: When his wife calls them in the Limbus he turns away because he wants to see them only in reality. Anyway I 've read that Cobb does wear his wedding ring in every dream but not in reality (making it his real totem since the top is his wife's) and that he doesn't wear it in the final scene which proves it is reality. I didn't notice the ring when I saw the movie myself. So can anybody else confirm that he wears the ring when he dreams but not in reality?-- BECK's 21:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone taken the musical suggestion into consideration? The music during the spinning of the his wife's totem is (IIRC) a piano tone played backwards, ending of course with an attack (as in attack-delay-...) that can sonically illustrate the falling of the totem. The attack appears AFTER the screen turns black. The piece is also the last track on the soundtrack album, and maybe this reversed attack is the THUD some people seem to hear. I own the soundtrack and saw the movie in a full theater, although the audience was as quiet as a mouse. -- 87.188.214.60 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

One information regarding the opinion that the children haven't aged: according to the credits (saw the film a few hours ago) there are two different actors for each of the children which implies that they have aged at some point - for example there was a 3 and a 5 year old version of one child. 88.150.9.111 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who watched Lost through all six seasons, the supposed "thud" to me was not the top falling, but the closing sound. The thud was unrelated to the top, and is a common technique used to bring a closing title card on the screen. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.4.114 (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

totem
Ok, so as the plot summary currently is, the idea of a totem is completely missed. The top doesn't tell Cobb whether he's dreaming or not. It's to tell him whether he's in someone else's dream. So whether or not the top stops spinning is not an indication of dreaming versus reality. It's an indication of his dream versus (presumably) an extractor's dream.

This is clearly explained by Arthur to Ariadne in relation to his loaded die. He tells her that she can't touch it because only he is to know how it is weighted. Obviously in his own dream he will know that too, so this doesn't help him distinguish whether he's dreaming or awake. But it will tell him whether someone is tricking him, presumably because either that person will not know of the totem or be unable to replicate its exact properties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.106.215 (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That does not entirely mesh with the use of the spinning top to point out that they were stuck in limbo. 188.141.110.20 (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot please discuss

 * Hi guys, original thread starter here. So I'm back, I haven't asked for semi protection yet (I was hoping one of you guys could?) but the plot is a definite problem for constant (and erroneous) edits by fans and IP's.

What I have here is my plot, which I have placed in the article. Let me know what you think. Also to note is someone keeps adding that the dreams they go into are separate, such as Yusuf's Eames's etc when clearly they are all Fischer's which is even mentioned in the film. Can the person who keeps doing this please stop.

The film begins in media res as Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) washes up on a beach and is brought by guards into the chamber of an elderly man. The scene then cuts to him alongside his trusted pointman Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), on an extraction mission within the mind of powerful businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe); involving the infiltration and theft of mental information through dreams. Extractors and their victims sleep in close proximity to one another, connected by a device that administers a sedative and share a dream world built on their mental projections. In the dream world, pain is psychologically experienced as real, but death results in awakening. Cobb carries a spinning top called a totem, which either spins unceasingly or topples to determine whether he is dreaming or awake, respectively. The mission is aborted after Saito reveals he is auditioning the team to perform the act of inception—using dreams to secretly implant an idea. Having failed the current mission and realizing the consequences of being terminated by their employer, Cobal Engineering, the team accept Saito's offer.

The target is Robert Fischer (Cilian Murphy), son of Saito's terminally ill corporate rival, Maurice Fischer (Pete Postlethwaite). The objective is to convince Fischer to break up his father's empire, preventing it from threatening Saito's. Cobb recruits Eames (Tom Hardy), a forger who can change appearance inside dreams; Yusuf (Dileep Rao), a chemist who develops sedatives; and Ariadne (Ellen Page), a student whom he and Arthur train as their dream world architect. Along the way Cobb barely escapes Cobal's agents. Due to the plan involving multiple dreams within each other and stronger sedatives, death will not awaken the person but send them into a limbo world where they will be stuck for an indeterminate amount of time. Ariadne enters Cobb's dream and discovers that his deceased wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), continually haunts him, sabotaging his missions. Cobb reveals to her that he and Mal spent years in limbo forging their lives. After waking, Mal remained convinced that they were still dreaming and committed suicide, trying to force Cobb to join her by incriminating him in her death. Cobb refused and was forced to flee the U.S. and leave his children to avoid murder charges. In return for the mission, Saito promises to clear the charges and reunite Cobb with his children.

When the elder Fischer dies in Sydney, Saito and the team share the flight with Robert Fischer back to Los Angeles and drug him. They enter his dream, a rainy downtown area, and kidnap him. However, they come under attack by his trained mental projections, and Saito is badly injured. Eames changes into Peter Browning (Tom Berenger)—Fischer's godfather, to extract information from him. They then enter a van and sleep into the second dream, a hotel where the team tricks Fischer into entering Browning's mind, making him believe that the kidnapping on the first level was orchestrated by his godfather. In reality, the team enter deeper into Fischer's subconscious, a snowy mountain fortress, which Fischer must break into to reveal the planted idea. However, he is killed by Mal and goes into limbo. Ariadne and Cobb follow him down and confront Mal. There she attempts to convince Cobb to stay in limbo by making him question reality, as he was chased by agents that could have been projections. Cobb reveals that he planted the idea in Mal's mind to wake, making him indirectly responsible for her suicide. She attacks him, but Ariadne shoots her. To wake and protect the team, a member stays behind at each level with timed kicks: Eames with explosives in the mountain fortress, Arthur with the hotel elevator hitting its shaft, and Yusuf crashing the van into a river. Saito dies and Cobb remains in limbo to locate him, while Fischer and Ariadne are able to return to the mountain fortress where he comes to the intended conclusion that his father wanted him to be his own man.

The film returns to the opening scene, where Cobb finds an aged Saito and convinces him to return to reality. Cobb suddenly awakens to find everyone on the plane, including Saito, up and well. Saito honors their arrangement and Cobb enters the United States, reunited with his children at home. Cobb spins his totem to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion. The top wobbles slightly but the scene cuts to black, leaving the question of whether Cobb is dreaming or awake.

JTBX (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dom, not Dominic. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Smartfaqt link
An IP keeps adding a link to this website. As this seems to be based on user driven content alone and is not in any way reliable, basically covered by point 10 of WP:ELNO. Any further input is welcome here. Rehevkor ✉ 04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm yes, if its the same guy I was having trouble with who keeps adding these faq details to the plot. You are correct, it is user generated and it is actually fischer's dreams they go into which is mentioned in the film. Just semi-protect the article I reckon. Its getting out of hand. I need help on how to do so, so I think someone else should.JTBX (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

spelling error in proposed change
There's an error in a proposed change: "Their, Miles introduces Cobb to Ariadne (Ellen Page)," should be "There," Msilverstar (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

MOS:FILMS on plot sections

 * "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." [...] If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article."

The MOS is clear. Please stop adding interpretations like "It isn't revealed if the top falls or not, though it does begin to wobble, indicating it might be reality", and "leaves the question of whether he is dreaming", and other things, like "the screen turns black. Ending the movie." These types of things (barring the last) belong in an interpretations section, not the plot.

As for describing the conclusion, I see nothing wrong with "Cobb enters the United States and finally returns home. Cobb spins his top to test reality, but is distracted by his children." If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the plot section, please share them. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought just noting that the top is spinning and the screen cutting to black was fine in this case (as long as the wobble isn't mentioned specifically since that is a point of contention amongst viewers). Normally, I'm not keen on plot summaries that describe movies in terms of "the film starts with this and then cuts to that."  But for some abrupt scene changes, it's not necessarily a bad thing.  If it's the only way to take a "just the facts please" approach on the situation then I'm fine with it.   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  04:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Millahnna, I have to agree mentioning the "cut" is agurably the most notorious sequence in the movie. The sheer amount of people IP's try to add the cut to black is indicate we should mention the cut. I agree that whether it wobble or not is irrrelavant (personally i never saw it wobble at the end). Viriditas also remember the people adding that phrase are mostly IPs and new accounts thus probably ignorant of policy and citing it is not too much help here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The currently phrasing "Cobb spins his top to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion." is sufficient here, the section is used for describing the plot, not filming techniques - and that wording makes it unnecessary. Rehevkor ✉ 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is fine as well. I would be fine with either this or mentioning the cut to black as long as no version of "before we can tell if it's wobbling" or "leaving the audience to determine if it's reality" is included.  That sort of extended explanation is unnecessary (which I think you and I totally agree on, Reh).   Millahnna  (mouse)  talk  00:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Calderón de la Barca Life is a Dream
Have any reviewers compared it to Pedro Calderón de la Barca's play Life is a Dream? P. S. Burton (talk)  20:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Influences Section
The section title influences seems a bit misplaced. I don't understand why they are called influences when Nolan has not claimed any of them as such. I think a better title needs to be there or the section should go down. Thanks. 76.92.234.79 (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the editor who changed the name, I think you're right. The entire section should be merged into a reception subsection.  "allegations of plagiarism" wasn't really appropriate considering the so-called allegations were just speculations from bloggers. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention as a possible influence the movie Dreamscape, released in 1984, which starred Dennis Quaid. In Dreamscape, Quaid's character and another character had the power to enter and change other people's dreams and nightmares. At first, they needed technology (provided by a government research project) to augment their natural ESP ability, but they eventually learned to do it unaided. SEppley (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because nobody's located any reliable sources citing Dreamscape as an influence. Doniago (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot ending; pulled from my talk page
''I'm dropping this conversation from my talk page here for reasons that are probably obvious to most WP:FILM editors. I don't particularly want to engage in this conversation after this so I'm hoping other editors will address any further concerns raised by this person. The diff they are speaking of is here. The next edit is me reverting it. I then dropped a "edit test" warning on their page; in hindsight I think I should have gone with a different warn template. In any case, not my concern anymore. Millahnna (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)''

You recently rolled back my slight alterations to the plot outline of INCEPTION immediately after I entered them, and sent me a note calling my changes a "test" (which flat-out isn't the case) and telling me to use the Sandbox to "experiment further." I wasn't goofing around; the film ends SHOWING the top continuing to spin and the article's current ending "Cobb spins his top to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion" is simply incomplete. Please explain? 69.231.211.133 (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you'd read the editorial note and the talk page, you'd realize the summary ended as it did for a reason. Millahnna (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did. The editorial note (by you, I assume) asked not to add unnecessary details to plot or speculate about the ending. My edits were neither unnecessary nor speculation. Unless you have no other reason other than you simply prefer your own editing to mine, you have no basis for pulling administrative rank to remove them. 69.231.211.133 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not add the editorial note. You stating that the top is spinning goes against the consensus here (on the aforementioned talk page which I suggested you read) which was developed due to the fact that people can't seem to agree on whether the top was spinning or not.  If a reliable source (in this case an interview with the film's creator) declares it either way, this issue will probably get revisited.  I am not an administrator.  I was not pulling administrative rank.  None of the text in the plot is currently "mine" so this isn't a matter of preferring my own text.  I'm simply the person who saw it first; most (if not all) of the other editors who watch the page would have also reverted that edit.  Millahnna (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Interpretations section
It's going to be very difficult before the DVD release, but I suggest that interested editors start this section using the information we have at our disposal, because I really can't see it going to B or GA without it. Reliable sources should discuss the following, if considered important or notable:


 * 1) Clues: The team (and apparent significance of cast names), totems, ring on finger, wife, Cobb's children, "Non, je ne regrette rien", the song used to "kick" (pp.25-26, production notes)
 * 2) Inception: Who really received it? Was it Fischer as we are led to believe, or actually Cobb? Could it have been the audience watching the film?
 * 3) Conclusion: Limbo or back to reality? Dream or awake? Is a single answer possible, or are multiple interpretations intended and  desirable?
 * 4) Filmmaker as dream-maker allegory (DiCaprio compares Inception to 8½, plays Cobb as Nolan)
 * 5) Neurological interpretations
 * I really enjoyed Inception before I read all this. Over-analysis fail.  raseaC talk to me 09:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but a good interpretations section will have these elements. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A note that we should steer well clear of WP:OR, but such a section would be valuable.
 * One reference of use, summarizing main interpretations, is:
 * Five Ways of Looking at Inception
 * …which I’ve added to the “Further reading” section for now. Hope this helps!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It does help, good job. Now, all we have to do is write it!  Want to help? Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish that people would just take the movie at face value. Sure, there's something to be said for subtle hints, but even the most credible of these theories (that the whole movie is Cobb being the subject of inception) are silly. I like the idea, but it rests on most of the movie being unexplained. Any explanation that requires you to fill in so many blanks (in this interpretation, who is Saito? Who is Fischer? Are they just a forger?) is not a good one. And I REALLY wish people would stop talking about his children looking the same. Did it occur to those people that this was simply to make things clear to the audience? You see the children several times in the movie. Wouldn't it be jarring to have Cobb come home to completely different kids? When Occam's razor is applied to these alternative theories, they just look silly. 137.22.11.122 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the costume designer who said the children were wearing different clothes. Viriditas (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Links about visual effects
Links about visual effects for the Wikipedia article's visual effects section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * VFX from Inception at Animation World Network
 * Inception at fxguide

Lead
The lead text "thriller science fiction action film" seems a bit awkward to me doesn't roll off the tongue too well, can we improve this at all? "Science fiction action thriller" perhaps? Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 12:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Chigurgh (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can work with that. Millahnna (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

three adjectives is pushing it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think science fiction film works fine. We don't add "action" just because there are some action elements. A lot of science fiction films have action in them. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Action is strong in this film so I think it should be science-fiction action. Chigurgh (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with science fiction film alone. I'm going with Erik on this one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is too easy to add "action" to the lead sentence on account of the film containing action elements. A film like The Expendables (2010 film) is acknowledged outright as an action film. If we ordered the genres for Inception, science fiction would come first, and action would come after it. It's not a tie of genres, so I don't think we should pair them in the lead sentence. It's not like the articles shies away from describing the action elements and the background of them. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel "science-fiction thriller" would be best suited. But this is entirely my own opinion. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 15:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should it even matter if it 'rolls off the tongue too well', that sounds more like, as it states, your own opinion. This isn't an article meant to be read aloud, and even if it sounds as it does in the long-winded form, it should accurately state it, rather than what sounds good. You're too nit-picky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.246.168 (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Saito
Why did they bring saito through the levels. Why didn't they kick him.??.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.80.135 (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Though this does not contribute to the article.... maybe they just needed an extra plot device to add more "conflict" But actually, the real reason was already told when Eames attempted to give Saito the kick by killing him.  However, Cobb told him he couldn't do such a thing because since they were under powerful sedatives, he would end up in limbo, instead.  Ironic, since he ended up there, anyway--the only good thing coming out of it was they made him useful in helping them accomplish their plans.  :)Zhanzhao (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot Section
I think the plot section misses out a few points and has a couple of errors. For instance, it says that they have to get a new architect because Nash was taken by Saito, when actually they had to get a new architect because Saito proved that Nash was unreliable and would probably give them away if he got caught. Also, the ending just says that the top slows and begins to wobble. Perhaps it should be made clearer that we never actually see if it falls over or not? Maybe a section on theories of what happens in the end might be cool too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.187.198 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I second this notion, I don't think the person who wrote the plot understood it all. Also for the ending section, I think it is pretty obvious and important that we don't know for sure if Cobb was in reality or still dreaming. The top was standing up for an unusually long period of time, but the wobbling at the end is what confuses the audience. This needs to be made clear in the ending section because it just says that the top begins to wobble and slow, and to anyone who hasn't seen the movie or maybe just doesn't understand the movie, they would think that this means he was in reality, when in truth we don't know for certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.217.24 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the film contains enough information to judge whether the very last scene is reality or just another dream. However, we should not focus just on the spinning top but on another crucial "detail" in the movie: the kids. Although Cobb left the U.S. for a longer time, his children did not change. In the last sequence, they look the same as they did when Cobb had to leave them. At the same time, we know that children of this age grow and change very fast. In my opinion, this contradiction indicates that Cobb dreams another dream where he meets only the images of his children existing in his mind (i.e. the images which preserve their look at the time he had seen them for the last time in the reality). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrooveck (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

To the above comment, i'll find a source later, but a costume designer did say that the clothes of the children were slightly different in the last scene, you just have to look closely, and the top definitely wobbles, its the whole draw point of the ending, the part that makes you seriously thing after watching the movie - Mzplatinum  —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

At the credits there are two actors for each kid listed playing Philippa 3yr. and Philippa 5yr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.13.176.204 (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk of the spinning top at the end is incomplete without also mentioning the point where Cobb that level of dream state likely starts. It seems fairly clear that when Cobb enters a dream state in Yusef's basement he doesn't actually wake up. He tries to spin the top but is interrupted and never actually spins it until the end of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.52 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose this "notion." Although you two are indeed correct about where Nash was taken away, the Plot doesn't require much in-depth detail, as so stated by the blurp (or whatever you want to call it) below the Plot heading. As for when the top begins to slow down and wobble.. it's meant to be like that. I'm sure the producers and everybody left that "cliff-hanger" feeling that is shown in many other theatrical films, where it's sole purpose is to be discussed and debated about with your friends and others through conversation. If it fell, or if it didn't, it wouldn't matter. Obviously the movie doesn't reveal whether it was a dream or not, so of course who's to say regular people such as you, I, and all the others reading this are going to discover if it was, or wasn't. Caledir (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I think he has a very good point about the scene in Yusuf's basement. It links forward to the very end, establishing the ambiguity early on about whether or not Cobb is dreaming or not.  I have put in a sentence or so to explain this.90.214.159.151 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If the plot section doesn't require so much detail, then why is it so long and unweildy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.187.198 (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: The top at the end spins for a good 15 to 30 seconds or more -- longer than it would normally spin upright. A top of that size without a special launching mechanism cannot spin upright on its own for longer than that, that's just physics. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

--The Plot section has some glaring, factual errors about whose dream is whose, and the answers have been stated in numerous forums. The first dream they enter on the plane, where it is raining, is not Fischer's, as the plot summary says. It is Yusuf'f (he has to pee which makes it rain). The second dream in the hotel is Arthur's. The third, with the snow, is Eames. The fourth and final level is the "limbo" which is shared space, but Cobb has been there and created a world so he knows it best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.130.22 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---The first dream is actually Ariadne's dream, not Yusuf's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrescabral (talk • contribs) 13:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were Ariadne's dream, she would have stayed behind to protect the others. She's the architect; her purpose was to design each level of the dreamscape and teach it to the others. But she never actually ha a dream of her own. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the first dream is Yusuf's, but the third dream is Fisher's, but he is entering his own conscious through the projection of his godfather —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.182.252 (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To help clarify the plot and clear up any misunderstandings, it might be a good idea to consider this recommendation- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Inception_%28film%29#Edit_request_from_Chandresh.2C_23_July_2010    Miles Blues  (talk · contribs) 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have missed something in the movie, but i was under the impression that the snow base dream was in fishers mind. when cobb tells fisher they are going into brownings mind but instead tells arthur (or maybe eames) that they are going into fishers mind. also this plot has a few other errors. eames does not go into limbo, it is only Ariadne and Cobb who go, and Ariadne is the one who pushes fisher to create a kick. And cobb knows limbo so well because it was his creation. It is stated during the first half of the movie that when you wind up in limbo the dream layout is not a special level created by an architect, but rather whatever anyone who was once in limbo (and is connected to the others in the shared dream) has imagined. so because Cobb was in limbo before they all see his design in limbo because he is connected to all them through the machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.140.146 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The plot is very well written at all; for instance, it references the duration of a plane ride taking 50 years in a dream state before mentioning a plane ride. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.113.50 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC) To grasp the end one should look at the returns from each state. from stage 4 limbo, ariadne returns to stage 3 by falling, we then follow her to stage 2 by collapsing building and to stage 1 through the kick from the elevator. Everyone gets out of the van, but synchronisation took place only through stage 2,3 and 4 the woman in the plane only had one kick not a series as far as I could see and remember(seen movie once only sry). So we end up with Cobb in stage 4 limbo forever as he never returned on time (after the kick he is still unconsious in the van, and yes indeed his kids do not grow) and the rest of the team are in level 1 forever and you can see fisher at the side of the river talking and really thinking that he is in reality as that is what he thought before he went into the deeper levels. You can also see the 'double' identity (peter?) still playing a trick on the mind of fisher, you can see him change. But all of this might be just in the mind of cobb as he might overthink the whole operation in the cellar...The plot thickens try to follow saito, wow. The end and the beginning, You do not remember and in the beginning Cobb wakes up on the beach, dragged to saito, in the end the same. The message? I think it might be: Don't play around with someone elses brain trying to plant idea's. You might lose sight of reality yourself. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimothers (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's something I found online: . This should help people understand the plot and avoid confusion. - Rockmandrum (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(My sincere apologies if I'm putting this in the wrong place.) The plot section is also extremely... link-rich, almost absurdly so. Do we need links to "mind," "dream," "sleep," "pain," "death," "awakening," "audition," "idea," "suicide," and "Los Angeles"? I do feel that it's good to provide links to pertinent articles, but this seems excessive enough to warrant reconsideration if not revision.

Sorry for not referencing this or anything properly, but the last sentence reads as follows "Cobb spins his top to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion before any kind of resolution is seen." I think it could use some more detail, to be something along the lines of: "Cobb spins his top to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion of his kids before any kind of resolution determining reality is seen." 06:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.124.133 (talk)

I agree. The first level of the Inception is of Fischer and not of Yusuf as Arthur mentions in the movie soon after Saito is injured, in the warehouse, that Fischer was trained to oppose the extracting forces-mentioned in Fischer's profile.Nishantsparmar (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Nishantsparmar  —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC).

- This plot has no citations. According to editors OrangeMike and ActiveBanana, this warrants synopsis deletion for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulate_(song) "But until you provide reliable third party sources to support claims, the content will unceremoniously removed from the article" I am therefore applying their editor standards to this article. Don't shoot the messenger! 81.101.20.45 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest reviewing WP:FILMPLOT, but the upshot is that the plot section doesn't require sourcing in general. Doniago (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving this page to just Inception
Hey guys, just a quick proposal. Since this film is the most popular of all the pages (not opinion, see statistics) presented by the Inception page, I think we should move this page to just Inception and the other page to Inception (disambiguation). Is there a problem with that?173.95.138.76 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been proposed and turned down, see /Archive 1. BOVINEBOY 2008 03:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder why, since it seems to meet the requirements for a primary topic. I'm a huge jazz fan and the McCoy Tyner album on the dab page isn't really that known, and neither is Download (band).  Can't see a reason to keep the dab page. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that editors who opposed it think that a specialized topic cannot be a primary topic when the name of it is also a definition (which would not have an article anyway). WP:DAB says not to factor in dictionary terms when discussing disambiguation. Recentism was another reason, which I think is a better one than the one about definition. I would recommend revisiting the consensus a year from the film's release—July 2011—and make it clear upfront that the presence of a dictionary term does not matter. It's not like people are not able to find this article; it's one of the most highly-trafficked on Wikipedia. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Undoubtedly you think that Apple Inc. should be at apple. LOL.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.106.215 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not even remotely analogous. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, why not just use Template:About? Something like that. <font style="font-size:92%">&mdash;C Teng(talk) 22:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this title is not ambiguous. People aren't going to search for "Inception (film)" to find either album. BOVINEBOY 2008 04:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't clarify. I meant that we should move this page to Inception and use Template:About. <font style="font-size:92%">&mdash;C Teng(talk) 20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We could explore that possibility, but I think that should be done at a later date. The last requested move was recent, and the film is still out in many places. I think we can judge "Inception" as a primary topic better when it is out of theaters and behind us. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Gross takings too accurate?
Hi, I see there are minute adjustments. Wouldn't it be better to round it off to the nearest million dollars? Otherwise, it suggests the figure is being changed almost daily. As well as misleading, it's a rather onerous requirement for the editors, isn't it? Tony  (talk)  08:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The tendency is to update the figure based on the reference, which itself changes daily. I agree that it would be easier to round off, but I'm not sure if it's worth pursuing. I don't see the task as onerous; some novice editors seem to engage in such minutiae without complaint. The same thing happens with changes in Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic as well. Ultimately, the theatrical run will conclude, and we'll have a final figure from its run. If you want to round it off here, I've no problem with that. It might be that the popular tendency is to use specific figures, and it's not worth the pushing back and forth. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest rounding, there's no point in using an exact number as it's always going to be incorrect. Every minute. Of every day. Completely wrong.  raseaC talk to me 19:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it, then. Even the final figure is likely to be wrong; not every dollar will be counted. It's just what's reported, and it's not like the changing figure is completely off-the-mark. It's just a number that changes to keep on target with what goes on in reality. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest waiting until it's finished it's run in cinemas in a few months, then round that final worldwide figure. But also, that's as accurate as it's going to get. Pilakoutas (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo
Why do all the citations from Box Office Mojo have a link to IMDB? Zustra (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo is owned by IMDb, technically. From the article: "In July 2008, the website was purchased by Amazon.com through its subsidiary the Internet Movie Database." BOVINEBOY 2008 13:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Inception: The Shooting Script
This book should be added to the article and used as a source. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Dream Level
The synopsis said the third dream level they were entering was Fischer's dream, but in the movie (I literally just checked several times) they only say, in the hotel room, that they're going into Fischer's subconscious (which is true, i.e. the hospital room in the third level, plus the fact that each of the levels contains each of their subconscious minds), but Dom also explicitly states, once in the dream, that the dream is that of Eames ("Eames, this is your dream, I need you to go draw the security away from the complex..."). This also makes sense 'cause in each of the dream levels the dreamer stays behind to administer the kicks (Yusuf in the van, Arthur with the explosives, Eames here dropping the fortress, especially since throughout the entire 3rd dream level Eames is the only one that doesn't go lower). long story short, I changed the article for this reason.

Also on an unrelated note, I believe the plot summary is a little wrong, but I'm pretty unclear about part of it myself. I don't think that the 'limbo' where Dom and Ariadne go to rescue Fischer is the real limbo, because Dom and Ariadne get there by way of the PASIV machine; also because if Fischer was able to be revived after being shot I think he A. at least wasn't completely dead and B. Dom and Ariadne actually just went into a shared dream state to kick Fischer's mind back up a level when resuscitated. (Otherwise, how would it have been so easy to release Fischer from Limbo?) This all leads me to believe that in fact the "Limbo" to which Mal took Fischer was actually just one level deeper of a dream, and not a real limbo; Thus, when Ariadne and Fischer wake back up to the snow level, then ride that level's kick and the one in elevator of the hotel, they wake up in time to get out of the submerged van. This, however, I believe is where Dom stays in his limbo dream so that he dies in the sinking of the van, thus joining the by-then dead Saito in real limbo, otherwise how does Dom randomly wash up on shore? Clarification would be nice. If this issue is clarified I think we can change the article to reflect what actually happened. Austin Joseph Billings 17:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrooge McDuck
I have added a section on the Scrooge McDuck controversy. Expansion is due, and in case anyone wants to contribute, material is aplenty (see here). --uKER (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this was already mentioned in another section at some point. But the thing is, it wasn't a "controversy" by any stretch of the imagination, very few sources actually took it seriously, and having its own section really is giving the issue undue weight. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 15:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rehekvor... It should be mentioned, but not have its own section.
 * Maddox (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll see to integrate the paragraph somewhere else. --uKER (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Parodies
The film has been parodied in South Park episode Insheeption. Should we add a section about it? --Alexc4ge (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, not unless the parody itself receives coverage from reliable sources. Doniago (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the way things work. You make it seem as if you were questioning the South Park episode's notability or even existence. The episode has its own article here so the link can be established right away. --uKER (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only an essay, but WP:POPCULTURE suggests that if no reliable sources have written about a pop culture reference, and the subject of the parody itself hasn't commented, then it's a one-way connection and we shouldn't link back from the reference's subject. --McGeddon (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is certainly the way things work, near everything needs to be referenced. Saying that, as a South Park episode I'm sure references and coverage is a plenty. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 15:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the backup. List-bloat is a pet peeve of mine. Doniago (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

vague plot summary
Hello. I'm new to editing on wikipedia and contributed a much clearer (in my opinion) plot summary which was promptly deleted by another user and then by the bot on my second attempt (because I thought I hadn't "saved" it correctly). Sorry! I wasn't aware a consensus was needed to add a major edit to an article. I watched the film once and came here to read the summary because I was a little confused but the plot summary here on wikipedia confused me even more because it was vague and a little confusing (in my opinion). I watched the film again and understood it better and thus came here to update the article (no disrespect meant to the author). Again, I'm new to editing articles and figured I'd just give it a shot, I wasn't trying to vandalize anything. Is there a way I can submit my plot summary to be reviewed and if it is deemed "worthy" have it replace the current summary? I'd like to start editing articles and this is my first try so pardon me if this is the incorrect way of doing things.

Sorry for the inconvenience, I'd really just like to give editing a shot and figured I'd start here. Any help or feedback telling me how to submit my proposed plot summary would be appreciated.

KeithLD (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Keith. I reverted one of your plot additions, can't recall who got it another time but we both reverted for the same reason.  It was way too long.  I don't disagree with you though, that there are some points that are a bit vague.  We went through quite a round trying to get a summary that was concise and accurate but not too long when the film first came out so this one is going to be a hard one to add to.  First thing I would suggest is that you check out both WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOT.  You'll note that the film plot guidelines give a range of 400-700 words for most film plot summaries, but that it also notes that there are exceptions when films are complicated to explain (Memento being the example used, if I recall correctly).  For that matter there are exceptions where 400 words is way too many.  Those should give you an idea of why some of us felt your version was too long.  My next tip would be to note here on the talk page what points in the plot specifically you feel are not clear enough for a reader to get the basic plot structure.  Let's see if there is room to expand a point or two.  This film was certainly complicated enough that it wouldn't be surprising if the summary went a few words over the guidelines.  I'm a plot junkie myself (well a text flow junkie but that means I end up on plots a fair bit) so if I can help, I'd be happy to.  Happy editing!  Millahnna (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I realized it was long, but didn't realize there was a specific word limit. I actually edited my original plot summary (which was around 2000+ words) down to around 700 words. The 700 word summary is the one I'm asking to post if it would please the wikipedia fandom out there. With an intriguing, albeit complicated, film like this I think it's acceptable to have a longer article explaining the plot. My format follows the chronological order of the film in terms of beginning-to-end. I think if you saw the film and understood it, then you'd probably understand the plot summary already posted here. But if you either haven't seen the film or were confused, I don't think the current article is all that helpful. No offense is meant to the author of that article. Again, since this is my first time editing anything on wikipedia I just wanted to take a shot at it. Should I post my new 700 word article for you (or anyone) to review? Or is there somewhere else I should provide it first and then if it gets "O.K'd" then post it? KeithLD (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps post it here (i.e. in the Talk section) and let some more experienced editors review it and establish consensus as to whether it would be an improvement over the existing summary. It may be prudent to review Template:Collapse and apply that to your summary as well so that people not interested in the conversation can skip past it. I look forward to reading your version! Doniago (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. The term "vague" may have been a poor choice for describing the article. Excuse me. I just found that a chronological summary helped me and a few others that I emailed understand the narrative a little better. I think I managed to restructure the existing article and cite all the important plot points and how they relate to the narrative without rambling on too long. Again, it's just my offer for a contribution and for better or for worse I just consider it "editing practice." If the following post is deemed unnecessary or unhelpful then I'll accept that decision. The plot summary below is about 800 words but can easily be edited down to 700 if what I came up with is still considered too long. I'm just trying to get the hang of online editing. I'll wait for a reply. Here is my revised plot summary:

I agree that the chronological explanation is easier to understand for this one. Where do others stand on that point? In particular I think it helps place Mal's role in the story which I don't find to be very clear in our current plot summary. I do see a few spots in your version where a little grammar polish might cut a few words here and there but overall I don't find the length too problematic (when I've got some more time, if you don't mind, I'll touch the spots I think could use it here on the talk page). I tend to agree with what the consensus here has been regarding the very last sentence. I would take:

The film ends with Cobb spinning the totem on a table but cuts away before the reveal of whether it topples or remains perpetually spinning, leaving the audience to decide if the reunion takes place in reality or in a dream.

and cut it down to something similar to what we have now in that spot:

Cobb uses his totem to test reality but is distracted by reunion with his children before he can see if it continues to spin.

In general, I advise staying away from "the film does this" type of language because it usually adds unneeded length and makes for awkward sentences. I've personally made exceptions in the case of films that use unusual cuts to help with storytelling (abrupt cuts in The Uninvited (2009 film) were hard to describe in any other way and lead into the film's climax). In this particular case I don't think it's necessary to note that the film cuts to black before the audience sees if the top falls as long as we note that Cobb doesn't see it. Millahnna (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

od
 * Point taken. The opening three sentences and the last four sentences of my plot summary could be merged into a three-sentence explanation of Cobb's rescue of Saito. Also, there are probably at least half a dozen other sentences that could be shortened or merged (which is what I meant about this 800 word version being chopped down to 700). If anyone else feels this version is adequate (after the mentioned minor edits) then I'd like to post it. Again I'll just wait for more feedback.71.231.182.218 (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you undid it, I wanted to drop you a quick note as to why I made the suggestion for the last sentence. Since the function of the totem has already been explained elsewhere in the plot summary, there's no reason to be so specific: "...before he sees if it topples indicating he's awake or remains perpetually spinning to prove he's dreaming." "...before he sees the results" would be sufficient and less redundant. Overall though, I think the work you've done on this page is much better than what we have in the plot section now. While I'm sure many of us would make small tweaks to it, I would fully support this version going into the article. Millahnna (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In reference to your note about the final sentence, I agree it is somewhat superfluous to add the extra information about what specifically are the results of the spinning top. But since there is no mention in the summary for the spinning top's specific purpose, in terms of what "toppling" or "perpetually spinning" indicates to him, I decided to include a brief definition. The phrase "to test reality" is a little vague in my opinion, but I can see how the current version could be considered redundant. How about I'll leave it as it is and if others agree it's unnecessary they're free to edit it? KeithLD (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point; somehow I thought I'd read those specifics earlier in the summary (I've read many versions of summary for this film so I'll blame that). Is there an easy way to get the explanation of how a totem works into the plot earlier?  I was originally thinking it would work near the introduction of Ariadne but you have that section fairly concise as it is and dropping the totem in there would be awkward.  Millahnna (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree about getting the explanation of the totem in earlier (which is why my original draft opened with "Cobb washes ashore on the desolate beach... and Saito recognizes the spinning top as a totem...") In fact the only reason I started that way was to include the totem's significance. I'm sure it could be included elsewhere in the article, perhaps where Ariadne gets to know Cobb's problems. If you like, you could try and give it go to include it somewhere earlier and see what you come up with. In truth, I'm just eager to get an "official wikipedia contribution." KeithLD (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Making an attempt now. I think it's a little wordier than necessary but my first draft of the sentence implied that all totems were tops so the bulk came from an attempt to fix that.  Still kind of awkward though; I'm fairly certain I made a major grammar error somewhere but I can't seem to spot it.  Millahnna (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's tricky. I tend to write my summaries with "3 paragraphs worth of information into 1" and hence I produce a lot of run-on sentences. But I prefer reading summaries that are loaded with detail in sacrifice of "proper grammar in the strictest sense." There's also something to be said for relevant points being included. The reason I felt the existing plot summary was "vague" was because it makes little mention of Mal's role in the film, yet she's a pivotal character. Inception is about Cobb's journey to catharsis. His struggle with his guilt is the driving force of the plot. That's why my version includes the bits about "Cobb's projection of Mal sabotages the plan..." and "Ariadne learns of Cobb's tremendous guilt..." and "Cobb attains catharsis by confessing his role in Mal's suicide..." etc. I think you have to mention those points because they're vital to the story. The story isn't about stopping a powerful corporation from establishing a monopoly. That's Saito's story, not Cobb's. Hans Zimmer's theme "Time" plays at the end because Cobb has freed himself from his personal guilt, and not because he "saved the world from being subjected to an evil corporations global dominance." But I digress...

There's also a flow to the summary in which each sentence should lead into the next, in terms of the way information is presented. I found it difficult to include the explanation of the totem anywhere else except in the final sentence because that's when it's necessary for the reader to know its function: that Cobb is using it to test reality. When I included the explanation in the beginning I decided to go with the introduction of the opening scene first, in which Saito recognizes Cobb's totem. I don't mind collaborating, feel free to reorganize the summary in any way you wish to (restructuring and/or deleting sentences). Perhaps you can find a place where the totem explanation fits if you scramble a few sentences around or something. I considered removing the explanation of Michael Caine's character and inserting the totem explanation there.

Instead of: "Cobb's father-in-law Stephen Miles introduces him to Ariadne..."

it was something like: ''Cobb tasks student-architect Ariadne with designing the labyrinth of the dream landscapes and she is advised on the significance of a totem; a personal object unique enough to an individual to determine if one is dreaming or awake. She constructs a weighted queen chess piece in accordance with Cobb's spinning top and Arthur's loaded dice... ''

But I felt that was a little too elaborate and chopped it. Good luck. KeithLD (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume that's you Keith? I haven't had a chance to drop a line on the WP:FILM talk page and ask for my eyes to form a consensus.  I'm on a computer that makes my wiki activities really really difficult fora  few days.  I, for one, fully support this version that you've worked on on the talk page.  I feel it's much more clear than the version we currently have.  Anyone else have thoughts on this?  Because I'm seriously tempted to just drop it in.  Millahnna (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feeling either way except for the usual "before he sees if it topples indicating.." etc etc speculation that has no place. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree for slightly different reasons (i don't feel it's speculation so much as overly wordy). If I'm remembering the conversation correctly between Keith and I, he only included that in this instance because there was not an explanation earlier on what the totems were and how they worked.  I added a couple of relevant sentences to his draft to explain the totems much sooner in the plot.  With one more sentence to further explain how the top specifically works, i think e can go back to the more condensed final sentence.  Millahnna (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the feedback. I don't mean to press, it's just that every time I see an advertisement on t.v. for the upcoming DVD/BluRay release for Inception I'm reminded of this plot summary. I hadn't read through the arguments posted in a previous subsection on this talk page about the "interpretive" ending when I wrote the version I posted here. I'm in full agreement that plot summaries should be free from speculative wording, but honestly I don't feel that- "Cobb uses his spinning top to test reality but is distracted by his children before he sees if it topples indicating he's awake or remains perpetually spinning to prove he's dreaming." -is speculation. Cobb did use his top to test reality and he was distracted by his children before the reveal of whether or not it toppled. The reason he spun the top was to test reality. If he was sure he was back in the real world, there would be no need to spin the top. I suppose there's the growth of his character to consider, i.e. that once he purged himself of his guilt he no longer needed to question reality anymore, and so perhaps he intentionally decided to not wait and watch whether the top kept spinning and instead decided that his children are what's important. Perhaps he was demonstrating that he was trying to break the habit of constantly being unsure of reality? But, again, that's all just subjective to the viewer. I do, however, think it's fair to say that he did spin the top to test reality and didn't see the conclusion. Perhaps there's a better way of phrasing it? KeithLD (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I like this version better than the one posted. It flows a little neater as opposed to the way the current article jumps around to explain things.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.190.221 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Expert dream thief Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) along with his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) attempt corporate espionage by stealing confidential information from the mind of wealthy businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) during a dream. Cobb encounters a projection of his deceased wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) who sabotages the heist. Saito is impressed by the two-level "dream within a dream" strategy and offers Cobb a chance to be cleared of the charges of his wife's murder if he can perform "inception"; the act of implanting an idea in a person's subconscious mind which they genuinely believe to be their own. Saito hires Cobb to inspire Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), the heir to a vast energy conglomerate, to break up his father's business empire.

Cobb assembles his team: Ariadne (Ellen Page) the architect tasked with designing the labyrinth of the dream landscapes, Eames (Tom Hardy) an identity forger, and Yusuf (Dileep Rao) a chemist who concocts the powerful sedative needed to stabilize the layers of the shared dream. Ariadne learns of the tremendous guilt Cobb struggles with when she shares a dream with him in which he relives a collection of painful memories of Mal's suicide and the moment he fled from his children as a fugitive. She is also advised on the significance of a totem, a unique object used to determine if one is dreaming or awake, and constructs a specifically weighted queen chess piece in accordance with Cobb's spinning top and Arthur's loaded dice.

The job is set into motion when Maurice Fischer (Pete Postlethwaite) dies and Robert accompanies his father's body from Sydney to Los Angeles. During the flight, Cobb sedates Robert and the team uses a device carried in a briefcase to bring him into the three-level shared dream. The plan consists of keeping a point man on each level while the remaining team members fall asleep within the dream to travel further down into Robert's subconscious to plant the idea. The team will then ride a synchronized system of "kicks" back up the levels to wake up to reality. Trouble arises in the first-level down, a rainy metropolitan area, when the team successfully abducts Robert but come under attack by his militarized subconscious projections trained to hunt and kill extractors. Saito is mortally wounded during the shootout but due to the strength of Yusuf's sedative, dying in the dream will not return them to reality, but instead will send them into limbo; a deep subconscious level in which they could be trapped indefinitely and eventually lose their grip on reality. Eames takes the appearance of Robert's godfather Peter Browning (Tom Berenger) to suggest Robert reconsider his opinion of his father's will.

On the second-level down, a corporate hotel, Cobb persuades Robert to join the team as Arthur runs point, fighting in a zero gravity environment to ward off the relentless projections. The team descend to the third dream level, a snowy mountain fortress, where Saito succumbs to his wounds and Cobb's projection of Mal sabotages the plan by shooting Robert dead. Cobb and Ariadne elect to risk entering limbo and there Cobb confesses he was responsible for Mal's suicide although it was unintentional. To help her escape from limbo during a shared dream experience, he inspired in her the idea that her world wasn't real. Once she returned to reality she became convinced she was still dreaming and needed to die in order to wake up. Cobb attains catharsis and remains in limbo to search for Saito while Eames defibrillates Robert to bring him back to the third-level mountain fortress where he enters a safe room and discovers and accepts the idea to split up his father's business empire. Leaving Cobb behind, the team members escape by riding the kicks back up the levels of the dream.

Cobb eventually finds an elderly Saito who has been stuck waiting in limbo for decades. The two help each other to remember their arrangement and Cobb suddenly wakes up back on the flight to find his team waiting for him. Saito arranges for Cobb to get through U.S. customs and he goes home to reunite with his children. Cobb uses his spinning top to test reality but is distracted by his children before he sees the results. KeithLD (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ariande's role
Though she is known as the Architect, shouldn't there be a little bit of info of how she helps Cobb let go of Mal? Several analysists suggest Ariande acts as a form of mentor or therapist to Cobb, shouldn't there be something in her description about that? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 12:53 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are these reliably sourced analysts, or are we talking about original research? In any case, it would seem this information could perhaps be put in the Plot section, and the Cast section should really talk more about the actors than the characters. I'm not saying it would be inappropriate, but if we're going to give Ariadne a role it shouldn't be coming from us, but from an external source. Doniago (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * . <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> (talk) 13:27 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs are generally not considered reliable. Another source would be preferable, though if another editor chimes in, I'm willing to be overruled. Doniago (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake
In the last paragraph in the Plot section, there is the word "layer". I'm assuming this is meant to be "lair" and have corrected it. <font style="background: #CBE6FF" face="Ariel" color="#FFFFFF"> RND  <font style="background:#FFFFFF" face="Ariel" color="#CBE6FF"> T <font style="background:#FFFFFF" face="Ariel" color="#CBE6FF"> C   18:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually meant to be "layer" as in the layers of the dreams (as established earlier). --M ASEM  (t) 18:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.184.159.85, 20 December 2010
Please change the name "Dominic" into "Dominick" - you'll see the reason in the discuss-page.

77.184.159.85 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sources referenced in the article, including a Salon article and Warner Bros.' production notes, do abbreviate the name to simply "Dom", although the full name does appear in the article also. Based on this request with the film itself as a source taken into account, plus the 2 confirmations above, I've made the correction. Thank you for the request. Whitehorse1 01:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cobbs First Name is "Dominick"
In the scene when Cobb takes his boarding pass out of the envelope to escape, you see his full Name is "COBB, DOMINICK" with "K". The article writes "Dominic Cobb". I think this is wrong. --88.75.227.165 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct, it's "Dominick Cobb." The plot summary should be updated. KeithLD (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously unnecessary detail. If you're going to expand his name to Dominick (even though the name is never uttered in the movie), then you ought to go into the plot summary and fully detail every punch, gunshot, and camera shot of the movie. To say the character's name isn't "Dom" because of such a minute detail is foolish and does not accurately represent the film in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.2.111 (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Chess piece
The chess piece that Ariadne constructs is a bishop, not a queen. Hate to be a pedant, but... --Ryanalbert (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're correct. Excuse me, I was trying to remember which piece it was. I've updated the article. 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithLD (talk • contribs)

Ending
I've added that the top does wobble at the end. As controversial as this may be here, it is, I think, adequately referenced. I stopped short of saying that this proves it is reality because, in my opinion, it reads fine but people are welcome to make that change if they like.  raseaC talk to me 17:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that another user reverted my change. I re-added the ascertion that the top wobbles and the reference to confirm this. The user that reverted the change seems to be confused between reality and fiction in that they debukned the source on the grounds that Micahel Caine was in France and therefore claimed the reference unverifiable. While he may have been in France in the film and playing a fictional character, when he gave the interview in the reference he was in a BBC studio in his capacity as an actual, real person explaining a project with which he was invovled. Any concerns please raise them here, don't remove referenced material.  raseaC talk to me 20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like his own interpretation of the ending, rather than fact. Personally the only source I'd consider reliable for the ending would be Nolan himself. But hey ho. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'd rather go back to the consensus text for the plot but perhaps find a way to work in the actor's interpretation in the cast or another section. Millahnna (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the films project has been far too tolerant of additions to plot sections in general. Can someone tell me what the interpretation of the top wobbling as to do with plot? Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you mean that response for me (because I think we basically agree that the wobble business has no place in the plot )? In any case I'll answer from my own perspective. People are trying to say that the wobble indicates whether he was still in the dream or not.  But since no one can seem to agree on whether or not it does wobble, the consensus on this page has been to simply leave it at "spins the top and is distracted by the reunion," which, as I indicated above, I feel is preferable to the current text.  My only exception would be if, as Rehevkor suggested, Nolan were to say something one way or the other about it; then I would be comfortable mentioning the wobble in the plot.  But like I said, I don't see a problem with mentioning Caine's interpretation in the cast section or something.  Millahnna (talk) 07:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be added to an interpretations or theme section, not the plot. The question of whether the top is wobbling or not, or whether he is still in a dream or not may have an answer, but since that answer lies with us and not the plot, it doesn't belong there.  As I've said previously, it is possible to describe the top spinning at the end without interpreting its meaning. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And thank you for switching back to the consensus text. Millahnna (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The ending indicate to me, and anyone else who can follow logic, that Dom has been dreaming all along. When he see's his children in the final scene they appear exactly as they have in his sub-conscious perceptions, unless we are supposed to believe Dom has powers to see the future; predicting what they will look like when he meets them, why would they appear unchanged from those same sub-conscious memory/projections of his kids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.86.149 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the daughter's outfit at the end is slightly different to the projections that Dom saw throughout the movie (she's wearing a T-shirt under her dress - a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless). Also, note that in every single dream sequence, he is wearing a wedding ring (even in both of the opening "dream within a dream" sequences), yet whenever the scene is set in real life, he wears no ring (and he only sees his wife in dreams, when he's wearing the wedding ring). 58.105.137.186 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum, discussions and analysis such as this as nothing to do with the development of the article. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 17:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is forum as do can explain by why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.106.9 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ? Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 18:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the ending was pretty clear in how it was intended to be interpreted (and how much is left for the viewer to decide). I don't necessarily object to including Caine's quote in this article, but it's somewhat vague and given out of context (in this article as well as the Gizmodo source). I think an explanation should be added, or it should be paraphrased (probably easier/less wordy). As it stands, I don't think it adds much to the article, other than needless confusion. OzW (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article currently mentions "If you listen carefully, the top falls, just as the words inception come onto the screen." This is nonsense, all that can be heard is ambient music. A source is listed, but even if it does mention that you can hear the top falling, the definitive source is the movie itself and the sound just isn't there. I'm removing that line unless someone has an argument to the contrary. 82.95.254.30 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed it for several reasons. Firstly, there's no guarantee that what was in the shooting script was actually shot and edited into the film itself. Secondly, the quoted text doesn't support what it written. Thirdly, as "Interpretation of the ending" it's tantamount to original research. And many more. This section needs reliable independent sources clearly stating an "interpretation", not primary sources. It badly needs more than the single source there is now, otherwise it should be moved out of it's own section per WP:UNDUE. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 15:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussions About the Ending
Wikipedia may not be a suitable place to collect the many "ending theories" for this movie. Even comments on it by Damon Lindelof, Michael Caine and other famous people may not belong in this article. However, I do think it should mention that the film's ending has been up for debate. Simply that. What all these "critics" and "reviewers" think of the film, how much out of 10 and what % the film scores, that's nice and all... but what about the general public, their reaction to the film? There have been and are many intense debates about the films ending. Someone who doesn't know the movie and reads this article, can tell by the Plot section that it was an open ending ("Cobb spins his totem top to test reality, but is distracted by the reunion."). But then they still don't know about the audiences' response to this. One of the most discussed endings ever. Or not. If you read this article, you have no idea. Sure, looking for inception+ending via Google give you some idea, but I think we could mention something about this in the article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If we can find enough sources to use that talk about this, a sub-section under reception might be informative. Perhaps we could pull a fair amount from reviewer interpretations?  I haven't read many of the film's reviews though, so I don't know if reviewers were being super "spoiler free" about the end.  Millahnna (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea and it may stop the constant interpretation at the end of the plot. Shaunthered (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:FILMS: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." This does not belong in a plot subsection, and the claims are suspect and open to interpretation.  My understanding is that the ending is not discussed in the production notes book, but I'm open to correction on this.  If true, this means that the ending is subject to interpretation by the reviewers, and belongs in a section about themes and interpretations, not plot. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel it's worth covering, although the plot section is not the place for it. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved below for further discussion. There are a lot of problems with this content, and most of the claims are not supported. If anything, we need good sources with specific claims attributed to authors/reviewers. The claim that "the ambiguous ending was designed to leave the audience with open questions and spark discussion" does not seem to be supported. Anything remotely resembling this content belongs in a well sourced interpretation section. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"The ambiguous ending was designed to leave the audience with open questions and spark discussion over what really happened. Did the top stop spinning at the end, or will it keep going to infinity? Right before the film cuts to the end credits the totem wobbles, however it keeps spinning. This keeps both possibilities open that it will either stop spinning soon, or never stop spinning. However, Michael Caine has since revealed the 'true' ending of the film, stating that, '[The spinning top] drops at the end, that's when I come back on. If I'm there it's real, because I'm never in the dream. I'm the guy who invented the dream.'"

I don't have access to the original BBC interview, but I'm going to add some of this back into a new interpretation section. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Added verifiable, neutral content back in (minus the opinion) with the Caine quote, into a new interpretation section. However, the only source coverage on this is from blogs. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its ambiguous at all. if a top's spin falters at all, it WILL fall. that's physics, folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.182.208 (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but on the film the top is seen wobbling, even starting to circle on the table, then Cobb goes out and when you look at it again it's rock steady and spinning even faster than before, which seems to suggest that it was artificially made to wobble, arguably by Caine's character. --uKER (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I cut this out of the section, not because it's necessarily inappropriate (it's certainly a useful resource to have in the article somewhere) but more because there wasn't anywhere obvious for it to fit into the prose. Putting it here so it doesn't get lost. "In an interview on The Chris Moyles Show, Michael Caine interpreted it as 'it drops at the end... If I'm there it's real, because I'm never in the dream.'" <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 00:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with merging the interpretation into the plot summary. The interpretation is just that; an interpretation and not a plot point. Everything after:Cobb uses his spinning top to test reality but is distracted by his children before he sees the result is speculation. Nolan's thoughts certainly aren't plot points. I think the last few sentences should just be an "interpretation" sub-section. The part about the zero gravity sequence being "one of the film's most iconic sequences" is probably not a plot point and could be added in the "Filming section" around reference 28. Also, I believe it was Arthur that advised Ariadne about what a totem is, not Cobb. Cobb only tested her to try and hold her weighted bishop chess piece and she refused.KeithLD (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keith, I agree with you, but if you look at this from an "outside the box" perspective, Happy-melon has virtually solved the persistent edit/vandalism/spinning top problem that has been plaguing the plot section for months now. Perhaps we could somehow implement both solutions? Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you're right re Arthur/Cobb, although it's now a little jarring; maybe we dont' need "by X" at all, it's not particularly important. Neither is the nature of the totem she chooses (nor is Arthur's dice, for that matter); only Cobb's totem needs to be explained for the rest of the plot.  <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 12:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, be that as it may, I think the interpretation of Inception's ending deserves its own section for that very reason. People are divided on their opinions and it appears that Nolan intended his film to be that way (as evidenced by the Nolan quote). I think a sub-section saying something along the lines of: Some people feel Cobb is awake (then state the reasons) but other people feel Cobb was asleep (then state the reasons) would depict the debate sufficiently. Then include the Nolan quote about purposely leaving the ending ambiguous... but thats just my opinion. I submitted the current plot summary (which is hidden in an extended content marker in the "vague plot summary" section below) and left out the speculation about the ending. I understand the problems with the edit wars and vandalism due in part to the films popularity and of course the ambiguous ending. I congratulate Happy-melon's contribution, I just think it deserves its own subsection. But kudos, if this version will prevent anymore repetitive editing. KeithLD (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My focus was indeed on attempting to deter further insertion of commentary by applying zero one infinity. The key difference between a comment from Nolan and a comment from anyone else is that it's Nolan's script: it is whatever Nolan says it is.  If Nolan says it's ambiguous, then it's ambiguous.  One, two or twenty notable and interesting people interpreting it one way or another is interpretation, which as I said before is certainly interesting and should be included somewhere, but it's not an espousal of the plot.  The Nolan quote is explaining what the plot actually is, not what it might be interpreted as, and there is no one else who can weigh in on that subject; and an explanation of the plot is exactly what the "synopsis" section is all about: just because 99% of plot summaries are written entirely in-universe, doesn't mean that managing to get briefly out-of-universe is a bad thing.  So I hope that by armouring the bottom of the summary with that "this-is-definitely-ambiguous-you'd-be-a-fool-to-argue-otherwise" quote, we can deter people from trying to interpret it.  A section on the interpretation could (probably should) be added elsewhere, but should focus on the fact that there is disagreement (a real-world phenomenon), not the ambiguity itself (which is an artefact of the film).  "The ambiguity in the film's ending prompted debate between critics...", not "Critics have interpreted the film's ending in different ways"; a subtle but important difference. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 12:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The only comment about Happy-melon's change is that it creates a rather different feel to the plot section that is typically used - yes, we're out of universe, but that seems too far removed (the comment about the corridor fight, for example, is out of place as well, but that likely can be relocated without the same problem). Having the "voice of authority" step into the middle of a narrative is disjointed within the same para, but can work if there's a specific separate paragraph, giving time for the reader to grasp the change. But, and most importantly, the ending interpretation should be immediately right there after "fade to black" in the plot sum; whether it is a separate paragraph in Plot directly, or a H3 header under Plot, it should work.
 * unless there is a lot of sourced discussion and interpretation from v. reliable sources that provide other theories. I had a similar problem with the video game Limbo (video game) where the ending and heck, the overall work, was a big "you figure it out". In that case there was enough critical analysis discussion that I could make a whole section about the reception of the vague plot and not have to force it into the Plot section of the game itself.  Now here, we're just talking about a single quantum - did it fall or not - so there might not be as much about this aspect out there in considered that isn't fanwanking. So this might not be a problem here, and thus encourages us to keep the mentions within the plot section or immediately neighboring it. --M ASEM  (t) 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice job with the edits. I think the changes, overall, are an improvement. I see a few areas where some minor restructuring could shorten sentences and remove some redundant mentions. A few being:

The 'extractors' carry "totems" – small objects which behave in unpredictable ways – to distinguish reality from a dream environment...

I think the dialogue from the film was something along the lines that the totem was a small object, unique so that it can be distinguishable only to its user. That's why I briefly described Arthur's loaded die, Ariadne's weighted bishop chess piece, Cobb's spinning top. But I agree, only Cobb's spinning top is essential to the plot. I don't think it's accurate to say the totems "behave in unpredictable ways." On the contrary, I think Cobb and Arthur use their totems specifically because they know how the totems will behave depending on the environment they're in. I understand what you meant though, in that the totems behave in the dream world unlike they would in reality and thus are "unpredictable", but the wording can be a little confusing.

You may consider restoring the wiki link to Psychological projection since the term "projection" is used a lot in the film and is, in fact, a major issue in the plot. Mal, who is arguably the film's antagonist, is merely a projection, as are all the people the team encounters during the job. Perhaps describing her as such would reduce the use of the word "manifest" in describing events happening in the dream world?

The reason I had used Robert's first name to describe him is because it felt a little confusing calling him "Fischer" when there was another mention of a "Maurice Fischer" earlier in the article (even though Maurice Fischer died). Mal died and was manifested as a projection by Cobb, and it sort of read like "Fischer" could possibly be a manifestation of Maurice. I think someone used the term "Fischer Jr" to address that issue, but I just figured 'Why not use Robert and be clear?'

There are a couple other things that could probably be restructured, but I'd come off as "nit-picky" if I mentioned them all. I've sort of given up discussing this film because each new revision only invites someone to come along and change it to suit their opinion (as I did a few weeks ago). Good job, though. Your contributions are definitely an improvement to the article. KeithLD (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A recent edit put another sourced statement about the ending ("I put that cut there at the end, imposing an ambiguity from outside the film.." from the Nov EW article), in the last para about the plot, which was removed. If we are going to put the other statements about the ending and meaning of the spinning top in the plot section, this statement is just as important there - it explains that Nolan likes has no intent to answer the question or even have an answer, which is right in line with the rest of the ending intepretation. If this is not the right place, then the whole last paragraph needs to drop into Development, possibly a subsection "Film's ending". --M ASEM (t) 22:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like it in the plot section, it is not plot, it is discussion of the plot, writing/development of the plot which should be in it's own section.  X  eworlebi (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'd say that the difference is that the first part of the quote (let's not forget that it's not another quote, it's more of the same quote) is explaining the plot, while the second is justifying it.  The original quote is confirming that the ending is ambiguous; the new one is commenting on why it was made ambiguous.  That is unquestionably production, not synopsis; and as I've said above, the first is useful in the synopsis as a shield against people trying to interpret the ending in the synopsis. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction between these statements is so minor that splitting them up, at least to me, makes no sense - it's about Nolan's approach to the ending - purposely ambiguous and to show Cobb leaving behind the top to focus on his children. Splicing these by having one part in the plot and one in dev reads really really funny.  I know we're trying to avoid drive-by IP edits that add speculation by addressing the point immediately, but for article structure, I really think all this discussion on the ending from a writing/production point should be in development, right in that first section.  If anything, we can repeat the line that ending does not show the fate of the top, a point purposely left ambiguious by Nolan, and then say nothing, letting the rest be talked about in the dev section. --M ASEM  (t) 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research in the lede
"The film also taps into psychological phenomena like false memories and the introspection illusion." - this seems an original interpretation: "introspection illusion" does not seem to be mentioned in the body of the article. Unless a source can be found linking the film to these phenomena, the sentence needs to go. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Box office figures
"Inception grossed $292,576,195 in the United States and Canada and $531,000,000 overseas. In total, the film has grossed $823,576,195 worldwide" This is clearly nonsense: there are so many zeroes in the second figure obviously because it's an estimate, not because of some million-to-one coincidence. Hence to sum the two numbers is absurd. Why not a final figure of "more than $823 million"? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the numbers are from a reliable source (?). Beyond that I have no opinion on how to present the data. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's still self-refuting, unless you think the second figure is the real, precise figure. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Rehevkor <FONT COLOR="black">✉</FONT> 22:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's equally absurd to think that anyone can know to the nearest dollar how much it took. One ticket sold at a discount by one cashier who's run out of $1 bills, or one ticket double-sold, and that number starts to slip; that applies doubly to international sales, which are also going to be affected by exchange rate fluctuations.  3sf is ample for these figures; round them both to the nearest million and be done with it? <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 22:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Point Man"?
Are the capitalized role names in the cast section (like "the Point Man" or "the Forger") actually verified by any source? The roles are accurate, but Eames is a forger, not "the Forger." Unless there's a source (perhaps the script?), it sounds like original research. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just watched the film, I've gone ahead and removed those titles as there's no point at which they're explicitly stated and no source is provided for them. I've also taken out the bit about the original architect being killed, as that isn't shown either. Doniago (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can add them back in, it isn't original research as the studio Movie Posters for the film can verify them as verified content, I think this also can be used as anecdotal evidence for the characters without movie trailers. Source: http://inception.movie-trailer.com/2010/05/inception-character-posters.html Petrodon (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * More usefully, they're referenced in the Warner Bros press pack here. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. In my mind, these titles are still not in the movie itself so using marketing material to influence the cast description feels unencyclopedic. I think they would make a great addition to the Marketing section, however. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I agree...it is somewhat akin to using a copy of the shooting script or other pre-release materials, in that the final product does not necessarily incorporate the earlier information. Doniago (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that they're drawn from secondary sources makes them more encyclopedic, not less. But the titles are also in one of the official trailers (go to the official site and navigate to "menu" &rarr; "video" &rarr; "The Characters").  The fact that these sections which can so easily become giant blobs of in-universe information might instead include material which does not derive directly from the films is a strength, not a weakness. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 20:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it works that way...trailers often show material that doesn't appear in the final film (such as cut footage) and consequently I don't believe they can be considered reliable. I'll abide by consensus on this though. I'd be much more comfortable if this was based on material explicitly in the film or an interview with Nolan or such. Doniago (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The trailers aren't necessary in order to add the characterizations back in since they appear in official film release information. Perhaps it would be better to add a section describing the roles as they pertain to the film, then linking each role to a character. Petrodon (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)