INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gwai Lo
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Total Lifetime Grosses</B>
    Domestic: $197,603,131 53.5%+ Foreign: $171,500,000 46.5%= Worldwide: $369,103,131

    No matter what your opinion of the film is these are encouraging numbers. This movie is now officially profitable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juno Styles
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Originally posted by Why One View Post
    What some may think doesn't work in a movie may work for others. Hence the subjective nature of movies.

    Anybody analyzing a movie with enough cynicism can pick out flaws. Even with the masterpieces. And anybody protecting a movie with enough love can find defensive points.

    this
    can't be stressed enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • lordmanji
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    ^ more vague than inception. sorry couldnt resist

    Leave a comment:


  • Tochirta
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Your spiderman example doesn't apply AT ALL. Within the internal logic of Spiderman's world, him getting bit by a spider to turn into a superhero makes perfect sense. Yes, you could hate that idea from the outset but that means you were never going to like the movie, regardless of what happened. Your inherent bias would prevent you from even participating in the movie to begin with.

    Inception is totally different. I think most of us walked in accepting the fundamental premise and waited for it to be explored properly. The problem is that the internal logic of Inception is highly flawed and is extremely vague. I have no problem buying that people can 'plug into others' dreams'. Not exactly unique territory. I have a problem with the stakes/repercussions/etc not being clear, and Nolan's rules being established arbitrarily, rather than built up with a solid foundation. So the world Nolan constructed was sloppy and vague.

    This has nothing to do with being over-cynical. It's really just basic storytelling.

    You're right that the audience decides at the end of the day. Which is great. But that doesn't mean we can't honestly critique a film and spot major areas for improvement.

    Originally posted by Why One View Post
    What some may think doesn't work in a movie may work for others. Hence the subjective nature of movies.

    Anybody analyzing a movie with enough cynicism can pick out flaws. Even with the masterpieces. And anybody protecting a movie with enough love can find defensive points. To me, the problem is that some people seem to be declaring themselves as arbiters of what doesn't work in movies by explanations of logic in craft vernacular. To me, it's all guru BS which, imo, isn't the true art of storytelling.

    Some people would never buy the idea of a kid turning into a hero after being bitten by a spider. Doesn't mean the rest of the world won't. Marty Mcfly disappearing on the stage in Back to the Future didn't make any sense and is logically flawed. But it works. You can have Superman turning back time by flying around the planet really fast -- if the audience buys it. You can have a totally redundant character that is purely written for exposition purposes and act as a moral compass for the protagonist -- if it works. You can have drums of explosive liquids planted on a boat by the Joker that people should've noticed but didn't -- if it serves the dramatic throughline of the main story. And if the audience buys it -- it works.

    And, imo, that's the true art of storytelling. It's realizing the delicate balancing act -- that a flaw can be a byproduct of an outweighing strength. No movie is truely without flaws -- if you look hard enough. It's just that when someone sees a movie as being great, the strengths hide the flaws.

    Star Wars is laden with flaws. Leering flaws that gets spoofed on time and time again. But that doesn't mean it isn't great. The movie works!

    I believe that Chris Nolan is well aware of the critical points made in this thread (although I can't say for certain). He did spend years on the project. But he made the choices he made because he knew what he was trying to achieve. And it connected with audiences and critics alike and is making a killing with repeat viewings. In other words, it works.

    The audience always decides.

    Leave a comment:


  • hscope
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Nice post, Why One.

    Leave a comment:


  • Why One
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    What some may think doesn't work in a movie may work for others. Hence the subjective nature of movies.

    Anybody analyzing a movie with enough cynicism can pick out flaws. Even with the masterpieces. And anybody protecting a movie with enough love can find defensive points. To me, the problem is that some people seem to be declaring themselves as arbiters of what doesn't work in movies by explanations of logic in craft vernacular. To me, it's all guru BS which, imo, isn't the true art of storytelling.

    Some people would never buy the idea of a kid turning into a hero after being bitten by a spider. Doesn't mean the rest of the world won't. Marty Mcfly disappearing on the stage in Back to the Future didn't make any sense and is logically flawed. But it works. You can have Superman turning back time by flying around the planet really fast -- if the audience buys it. You can have a totally redundant character that is purely written for exposition purposes and act as a moral compass for the protagonist -- if it works. You can have drums of explosive liquids planted on a boat by the Joker that people should've noticed but didn't -- if it serves the dramatic throughline of the main story. And if the audience buys it -- it works.

    And, imo, that's the true art of storytelling. It's realizing the delicate balancing act -- that a flaw can be a byproduct of an outweighing strength. No movie is truely without flaws -- if you look hard enough. It's just that when someone sees a movie as being great, the strengths hide the flaws.

    Star Wars is laden with flaws. Leering flaws that gets spoofed on time and time again. But that doesn't mean it isn't great. The movie works!

    I believe that Chris Nolan is well aware of the critical points made in this thread (although I can't say for certain). He did spend years on the project. But he made the choices he made because he knew what he was trying to achieve. And it connected with audiences and critics alike and is making a killing with repeat viewings. In other words, it works.

    The audience always decides.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gwai Lo
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    THE MATRIX isn't original. But I resist the term "rip off". MAC AND ME is a rip off of E.T. THE MATRIX is just a bit derivative.

    From Wikipedia:

    Japanese director Mamoru Oshii's Ghost in the Shell was a strong influence. Producer Joel Silver has stated that the Wachowski brothers first described their intentions for The Matrix by showing him that anime and saying, "We wanna do that for real".[32][33] Mitsuhisa Ishikawa of Production I.G, which produced Ghost in the Shell, noted that the anime's high-quality visuals were a strong source of inspiration for the Wachowski brothers. He also commented, "... cyberpunk films are very difficult to describe to a third person. I'd imagine that The Matrix is the kind of film that was very difficult to draw up a written proposal for to take to film studios". He stated that since Ghost in the Shell had gained recognition in America, the Wachowski brothers used it as a "promotional tool".[34] Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was another science fiction film that helped inspire the visual style of The Matrix.[35]

    Leave a comment:


  • slayeroflight
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Originally posted by Tochirta View Post
    Having watched both GITS and Matrix, I fail to see how the Matrix is a CLONE of it.

    Why some people always claim "The Matrix is a direct rip-off of __________[insert film]" never makes sense to me.

    It's like the Matrix CAN'T be an extremely original film in its own way. It HAS TO BE a rip-off of something.
    It's not an original movie at all. Before this turns into a massive argument I'll just say that aesthetically, the Matrix is just like GITS and the action scenes as well..

    Leave a comment:


  • Southern_land
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Saw it, frankly I was underwelmed.

    The good and the bad lumped together

    ~the dream state was too physical. Remember the scene from ESoaSM where the memories were being erazed and at the edges of the screen (Joel's perception) things were fading. Even the attackers could have been blander Thats a dream
    ~liked the idea of the split time ratios, except for the characters to synchonize their actions between the three made it more improbable than a Jame Bond movie.
    ~Liked the end with the spinning top... spinning faltering spining dream? Not dream?
    ~Hated the fortress of solitude, that took me right out of the movie as I expected it to go to FPS mode with a BFG
    ~Liked the imagary of the decaying city, but disliked the regimentedness of it. They were there for "decades", playing and experimenting and the best they could do was a sea, faxed building copies and shaky memories of a few places they'd lived.
    ~Because they were in a "dream" I felt less involved with the threat to their safety, oh I know if they're killed in the dream they fall into Limbo blah blah blah. Sorry seen and heard it before.

    I'll probably get it out on DVD in a few months for a rewatch but that's it.
    ________
    Pissing Hardcore
    Last edited by Southern_land; 05-13-2011, 07:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tochirta
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Having watched both GITS and Matrix, I fail to see how the Matrix is a CLONE of it.

    Why some people always claim "The Matrix is a direct rip-off of __________[insert film]" never makes sense to me.

    It's like the Matrix CAN'T be an extremely original film in its own way. It HAS TO BE a rip-off of something.

    Leave a comment:


  • slayeroflight
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    To be perfectly honest here, it was an uninspired Matrix clone (The Matrix itself is a clone of Ghost in the Shell so go figure) with a plot so convoluted that it makes the Matrix's sequels seem simple.

    In short, an overhyped POS that will probably impress 12 year olds because of its OMGWOW special effects, in other words a typical summer blockbuster.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mycroftbrett
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Originally posted by Mycroftbrett View Post
    I think Nolan may have over-estimated (some of the audiences) ability to coalesce the paradigms within their own dream experience and the film.
    Usually you're way off but I think you nailed it this time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Why One
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    Like Star Wars?

    Or Matrix skits?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tochirta
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    ^lmao. thanks for that.

    I don't know how anyone can watch that skit and not think that Inception is gibberish for the most part. It's funny because it's true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pipe
    replied
    Re: INCEPTION - Nolan's masterpiece!

    That was really funny.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X