Jump to content

Talk:Inception/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

incorrect word usage

In the paragraph that introduces the "totems," they are described as being unpredictable. i believe that the reason they are so genuinely relied upon is that because they behave predictably to the owner, propose to change unpredictable to predictable. Rthrockmorton (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea is that they are unpredictable to anyone except the totem's owner. For example, nobody (except Cobb himself) would reasonably predict that Cobb's top would spin forever. I've adjusted the wording to reflect this. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.119.102.156, 29 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There is a small typo in the beginning of the plot section. "Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and along with his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) perform illegal corporate espionage by entering the subconscious minds of their targets, using two-level "dream within a dream" strategies to "extract" valuable information." should read: "Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) along with his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) perform illegal corporate espionage by entering the subconscious minds of their targets, using two-level "dream within a dream" strategies to "extract" valuable information". There is an unnecessary "and" in the sentence.

69.119.102.156 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Already done It looks like another editor chose to delete "along" rather than "and", but that still solves the grammatical problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How is 'Country' defined here?

This is just a curiosity of mine related to establishing facts and I promise nothing to do with nationalism in myself. On that note, the category of the country to which this film (or any film) belongs seems ill-defined and clumsy; previously I've been told that its to to do with where the film was recorded, where the majority of the cast and team is from, where the financiers of the film are located, and so forth, but which of these takes precedence? If it's where it's recorded, well as the article notes filming taken place for Inception on four continents; if it is the cast and production crew's nationality, they are a wide range of talent from across the globe; if it is the financiers, Time Warner are on the stock exchange, so they're from everywhere, and even then, is it really the commissioner of a work which defines its nationality, or the artist which produces it? (I'd suggest the latter, but I'm not going to force my opinion on anyone here.) It seems to me that it is simply traditional for a film set in the United States to have 'United States' stamped in the 'Country' category and that's an end to it. I don't think it's that simple; while perhaps the example of Inception is a little more clear cut in this respect than the Harry Potter films, the Lord of the Rings, or the Da Vinci Code (which are all conundrums in themselves), but to pick any film and describe it in terms on one nationality seems disrespectful and dismissive to the contributions and efforts of the many people involved with the work which are not of that nationality. Gladly many pages of Wikipedia no longer have the category of 'Country' in the sidebar, and I'd be pleased if it was removed from this and many other further film articles too. It serves no purpose, it offers no other information which could not be derived by a scan of the cast and distributors of the film, and seems only to breed nationalism and exclusionism. 05:45, 01 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.181.208 (talk)

Science-Fiction Action

I find it funny that movies that have few action such as The Terminator and Aliens can have "Science-fiction action" in the lede, but a movie like this cannot. Any opinion? LordXVMon (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed this before: Talk:Inception_(film)/Archive_2. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.85.70.116, 7 February, 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Change

"On January 25, 2011, the nominees for the 83rd Academy Awards are announced, and Inception was nominated for eight awards, including Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects."

to

"On January 25, 2011, the nominees for the 83rd Academy Awards were announced, and Inception was nominated for eight awards, including Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects."

in order to keep past tense consistent and avoid mixed tense.

Thanks 74.85.70.116 (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I just removed the actual dates altogether, since they're unimportant and in any case the interested reader can read List of accolades received by Inception. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Significance of names?

Has there been any published discussion of the meaning of the characters' names? For example, Ariadne, the dream weaver, named after a mythological figure who was changed into a spider? Also, the OED lists 11 separate nouns for "cob, cobb", including spider (as in cobweb). I'm sure there are other significant names and was just wondering what had been published on the subject. JKeck (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaking Arachne for Ariadne. Ariadne's association in classical Greek mythology is with mazes. If we are getting into associations with names, one might observe that Dom (i.e. Dominic) could reference to Saint Dominic (the patron saint of falsely accused people), or that Yusuf references the Islamic prophet Yusuf (Islamic view of Joseph)--usually referred to in Jewish and Christian contexts as Joseph_(son_of_Jacob)--who in all relevant theologies interpreted dreams. One-Off Contributor (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Or for that matter, 'Mal' as a reference to the Latin/Romance language word mal as 'bad' or 'evil', which carries into modern French (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal). Notably, the actress who played this character, Marion Cotillard, is French, and the film character 'Mal' speaks English with an apparent French accent. (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYN in Disney plagiarism implications

I've removed the implications of plagiarism from the Scrooge McDuck Disney comics again. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information; we do not publish new material, and we are not a source of original thought. We do not make assertions of our own that material may or may not have been plagiarised, and we also do not make judgements about what questions should be raised by others. It is indeed true that ""Nolan has never commented on the remarkable similarities between the plots of both Inception and a 2002 Scrooge McDuck comic book The Dream of a Lifetime."" It is also true that Nolan has never commented on the hair colour of your uncle Bob, or any number of other things. It is synthesis, which is prohibited, for the article to assert that there is some reason why Nolan should have commented on that particular fact, unless there is a reliable source which says that. cracked.com is not a reliable source for such an assertion, nor is a website illegally hosting copyrighted material. A reference to the comic itself is an acceptable source for the fact that the comic strip exists. In order for any connection to be made to that comic strip in this article, we need a reliable source that there is a connection between the two. And at that point, we don't need the circuitous and obviously-weasling wording above, we can just say "John Smith claimed in Month 2010 that the plot of Inception was copied extensively from a Disney comic strip". If we can't justifiably say that, the material has no place in the article. Happy‑melon 17:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree we cannot imply anything that Nolan plagarized Disney or the like (what the statement was implying). But we are completely fair to mention that some have noticed similarities between said comic and the film's plot, and leave it at that (I've got a few RSs that at least establish this "noticing".) Where to put it, I have to figure that out. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The only RS for the whole issue I could find is [1], which far from supporting the allegation, makes the excellent point that Nolan had been working on the concept for over a decade, starting well before the comic strip was published. Happy‑melon 17:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That's one, I found an E! online one as well, but again, the fact we can state is this: some noticed the McDuck comic had ideas realized in Inception. We cannot state he stole from it or whatever, and as much of these articles imply, there's no legal issue since you can't copyright ideas, only the creative expression of them. So, again, we can carefully added this observation, but can't make any other further claim about it. I just don't know the best place for it. --MASEM (t) 17:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Given that the comic came well before Inception, there's nothing that proves Nolan didn't take from the comic (in whatever measure). --uKER (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
And we can't talk about absence of proof without engaging OR. We would need a RS secondary source that makes the claim Nolan stole the idea - which I am not aware of any that have this. The RSs point to the commonalities and that's all we can say. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request from 217.93.184.81 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please delete the "the" from this sentence (second sentence in 'Plot'), I bolded it for your convenience:

"Each of the "extractors" carries a "totem", a personalized small object whose behavior is unpredictable to anyone except to the its owner, to determine if they are within another person's dream."

And by the way, why is this article protected, sorry, I didn't read the whole talk-page, but are people still vandalizing this article so much?

Thanks, 217.93.184.81 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, that IP. Geoff B (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Tak, and thanks for the work you're doing! 217.93.184.81 (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Becay, 26 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The end of Inception or the 'limits of making a motion picture'

Seeing these letters does not mean you SEE these previous letters, you interpret them. N O W Y O U S E E T H E L E T T E R S
A movie has to stay a movie. There is a limit to a motion picture. The very purpose for a movie is to enter into the story and to follow it. You don't have to see each frame separately of the film roll to understand the story. This movie 'Inception' is trying to go out of these limits, limits that are the frames itself by:

1. start a controversy if in the very last frame of Inception the spinning top is really falling or not. Is he still dreaming or not.

2. the children of Cobb are during the entire movie with the same clothes

During the movie you can notice (IF you are attentive to the details of this movie) that there is an ambiguity at the end of the movie, when Cobb is reunited with his children. These children have indeed the same clothes than the moment when Cobb has left them. This is absolutely not normal in a 'photographic' and 'storyline' point of view. There is no continuum of time and people. Viewers who notice this goes 'outside' the story telling and S E E T H E L E T T E R S or the frames itself! They are going outside the story, outside the reading of a book, outside the dream.

So Inception is a movie that put the viewer in a situation where he follows the movie and at the same time is asking himself if this is all real.

Is a dream real or is a movie reality?

Christopher Nolan (the director and scenarist) tells in Entertainment Weekly about the ending of his movie: “There can’t be anything in the film that tells you one way or another because then the ambiguity at the end of the film would just be a mistake, It would represent a failure of the film to communicate something. But it’s not a mistake. I put that cut there at the end, imposing an ambiguity from outside the film. That always felt the right ending to me." By Nolan words, the movie scenario in itself, does reveal nothing about the end. Indeed, because the end has to be searched elsewhere. Elsewhere, in the interaction of the viewer with the movie he is watching (not necessarily this movie). The simple idea of 'extracting our eyes' from a movie so we can see the white screen with the moving scenes (or what it is described above: seeing the letters of a book) cannot be represented or be told in a movie. You cannot tell the telling of story… "It would represent a failure of the film to communicate something" says Christopher Nolan indicates that it is impossible to put a scene that explains the true message he is trying to give the spectator. You cannot tell the viewer that he is 'actually' viewing his movie.

I think it is important to include an open debate about the ending of Inception. This movie has obtained a good reputation because of the extreme agility of both the scenario and the artistic viewpoint of Christopher Nolan. Nolan has succeeded twice in a row to captivate the viewer:

First in 'Batman - The Dark Knight' with the exceptional and irreplaceable role of Heath Ledger. If you think 'The Dark Knight' you think about the performance of H. Ledger in the Joker. You can see in this movie that H. Ledger has really given us a performance that outperform the other actors. Sadly he past away and one an oscar.
Secondly with 'Inception' where the spectator is twisted by the really 'annoying' end.

It would be a good idea if there is an article about different constructed appreciation of the ending of this movie. The ending of Inception is not like any other movie. It is an annoying end where the viewer will never now the end result except if someone tries with good arguments and with a good research (as you well proposed Masem) to resolve this issue. Becay (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Request rejected - This is original research, straight up. If there was sourced analysis of the film to this end, it might be worth including but you need to provide that. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We already have a section about the movie's ending involving sourced material, but we cannot include original research about it as your suggestion above. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of IMDb claim from lead

Recently User:Ashton 29 removed the IMDb-sourced claim that the film is "widely considered by film audiences as one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time."[2] Before anyone tries to restore it, I'm dropping a note here to say that I agree with Ashton 29's removal. Let's see some secondary sources supporting it before we add it back. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Donald Duck Inspiration

[3] (yes, I know it's a 'humour' site, but it also has a lot of informed articles) has evidence that Inception is eerily similar to an edition of Disney Comics called 'Donald Duck and the Beagle Boys'. The information is also available [4]. Nolan has never confirmed where he got his inspiration from but the evidence is startling. I think it deserves a mention somewhere in the 'Origins' section because it's a theory that has a lot of weight to it and is becoming more and more popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.98.239 (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's an actual confirmed origin - it has no place there. This has come up several times now (check the talk page and archives), was even mentioned in the article at some point (using reliable sources, i.e. not Cracked). The problem is no one really takes the claim of plagiarism or inspiration seriously. Rehevkor ✉ 23:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for that. Maybe at some point Nolan will be asked directly about it and can shed light on whether he knew about it, in which case it would probably be suitable for the article. Until then, it shall remain absent.161.76.98.239 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

the totem

The article states that "Cobb's totem is a spinning top which spins perpetually in the dream state.", however it is stated in the movie that the top is in fact Mal's totem. While I'm not certain as to what his totem actually is, stating that it is without a doubt the top, when there is argument that it might be the top, his ring or his kids is a bit of a stretch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.58.85 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's Cobb's totem. It may have once been Mal's, but that's irrelevant to the plot at that point. Rehevkor ✉ 13:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
that was not the point I was making. The point I was making was that there is considerable evidence pointing to the fact that the totem could be any of the three, yet the article states that it is one of them without a doubt.99.255.58.85 (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That is what the film implies, as will several reliable sources. We can't conclude that it is anything other than the top without some reliable sources saying otherwise - and even then, it's still likely to be speculation only. Rehevkor ✉ 14:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
the are no quotes from the director saying that it was the top. 99.255.58.85 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cobb's top will fall if he is in someone else's dream, or if he thinks he is not dreaming.124.168.138.228 (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

the "too stupid" phenomina

after the release of inception, critics of the movie where often confronted by fans and told they where "too stupid" or didnt pay attention and this was why the critics didnt like the movie. because this often happens in intrapersonal conversations, the phenomina is hard to source. however, southpark did infact expound apon the phenomina in there horder episode. in which, stans mother openly states that just because a movie is complicated, dosnt mean that its a good movie. a likeness of leonardo decaprio who apears in the episode bluntly retorted that she was just to stupid to understand the plot.

this should go under "in popular culture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.91.193 (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC) I hope the irony of your spelling mistakes within the context of a "too-stupid" section doesn't go unappreciated. It would be interpersonal, by the way, intrapersonal would be an internal conflict which you perhaps lack the depth to possess. You may have a point about the "not smart enough to understand it" phenomenon, but that doesn't mean people aren't right about that.124.168.138.228 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title

Article traffic statistics show that thousands of people view this article daily, while the other articles don't break the 1k barrier in a whole month. This is a clear-cut case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so I'm restoring my page move undone by User:Bovineboy2008. If there is a consensus against this move, please discuss it here with references to whatever guideline and policy you feel should supersede PRIMARYTOPIC. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, please follow WP:BRD. In addition, the last request to move showed a lot of discussion with no consensus to move to just "Inception". The proper course of action here is to make a new request to move. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Here was the original request to move and a later discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little baffled by this discussion. Few of the opposes have policy or guideline based rationales. Lots of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
A recent case on Avatar - the Hindu term vs the film name - showed that in cases where there may be temporal value of having the contemporary topic at the non-disamb page, we make exceptions when the core concept is of educational value. Thus, this page (the film page) should stay at the disambiguated title. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
But there is a very clear difference: unlike Avatar, we don't have an article on "Inception". The question is whether the contents of Inception should be the film article or a dab page. Happy‑melon 17:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. If there is to be an article on the concept, then we can discuss making that the primary topic when it exists. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm open to treating the film as the primary topic. It's just that the previous discussion involved a lot of editors, and there should not be a unilateral move. I think the difference here is that there is no educational value among the set of topics, and the so-called definition is not automatically a primary topic. We could link to the wiktionary page and the disambiguation in a hatnote. I recommend for Gamaliel to start a discussion requesting a move. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree first of all that BRD applies; do not simply clog the history and logs with contested move entries, but instead form a consensus here. However, on the subject of said consensus, I would hold the old discussion to be well and truly expired. At that point it was a fresh midsummer Hollywood release which, as pointed out, had WP:RECENTISM plastered all over it. Now it is a top-grossing, multiple-award-winning blockbuster which has made film history in numerous senses. There is no question in my mind that this is the primary topic for the title; and the pageview stats are a complete landslide in that sense. It is now very clear that the popularity of this article is not due to recentism but rather genuine preference. So support the move, but please let's establish a consensus before hitting any more buttons. Happy‑melon 17:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't compare Inception (top-grossing film v. relatively unknown albuns) to Avatar (incomparably important religious term v. anything else)... I agree with happy. A more proper comparison is Friends v. Friendship. Maddox (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per overwhelming consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Inception (film) → Inception — Editor Gamaliel (talk · contribs) wants to move the film article to just Inception, considering the film to be the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is a official request to move to determine if there is a consensus in any fashion after the original request to move in July 2010 that resulted in no consensus. --Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Article traffic statistics:

Support: I agree with the primary topic argument. This article should be moved. --Klltr (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Clearly its the primary topic and should be moved. -- Arfaz (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I was irritated when greeted with a disambiguation page. I would think this subject is the main "Inception" people talk about. Red Card For You (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: The film is likely to be the primary topic for the foreseeable future, despite recentism. –CWenger (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The other options on the DAB page seem pretty obscure by comparison. Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Per naming guidelines. "Inception" is not a term with an encyclopedic definition; this film is its primary referent in an encyclopedia. Grunge6910 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's too soon to distinguish whether WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:RECENTISM applies here. It may well be that two years from now this film will still be the primary reason that users will search for "Inception" - but we don't know that. Current search patterns may simply reflect current interest in the movie, and could be very different six months from now. Running into a disambiguation page isn't a serious problem for a user, and six or twelve months from now we'll have a much better idea of how much continuing interest there is in the movie. EastTN (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    But we do have a good idea now. If readership usage changes in twelve months, a new RM can address it then. I like to let future Wikipedia take care of itself, while we work on present Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    And even so, while it's impossible to know for certain which current topic will be most popular 2 years from now, it seems extremely unlikely that the balance will shift dramatically, considering the topics in question. The improvement to navigation seems to far outweigh the uncertainty in this case. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    My point isn't that we don't know what readership usage is now, but that we can't tell whether the usage we're seeing right now reflect the intrinsic importance of the movie or simply its current notoriety. EastTN (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    Google Scholar would reflect as much of the "intrinsic importance" as is needed for primary topic, and also points to the film. Primary topic in general is not a measure of intrinsic importance, but rather (our best guess at) readership expectation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but I still think it's premature. There's no real harm in hitting a disambiguation page, so it doesn't seem necessary to make this change less than a year after the movie is released. (I'm not going to arm-wrestle anyone over it, though.) EastTN (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

smith#s description of different realty levels...

  • could be mentioned for a better understanding of that film. The spinning little wheal to testify "reality" might be turned vice versa, to change levels! otherwise the changing isn#t clearified, i think. By seeing i've got difficulties to follow this lining.

To times a glimpse started the other dream sequence._ and the other changes are initiated by whom? Therefore it's a game which isn't profiled as a game. A construction "dream within a dream" must#nt mean wake me up by dying, i guess.There are more bridges thinkable, in virtual blue-box, ciad. Otherwise doublemeaning overhelm the action, for example dad#s wife, dead wife... Cobb would be more wizzard like in this variation, so he is the pschychy of the group. Just suggesting something! me line, space and room...--Raskollnika (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Deuteragonist

So, who is the deuteragonist of the story? Arthur or Ariadne? I mean, Arthur is Cobb's partner but Ariadne is the one who helps him deal with Mal's projection. Who is the deuteragonist? Leader Vladimir (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1) I just learned a new word! 2) I would definitely say Ariadne, but I don't think it's worth bothering to mention in the article either way. --Fru1tbat (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect: Nolan did not say ending was real

In his interview with Wired magazine, the interviewer said that he chooses to believe the ending is real, while Nolan refused to indicate the answer: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/pl_inception_nolan/all/1 I don't know how to fix this kind of error, though; that's a pretty substantial paragraph but it's half-wrong. 67.134.207.224 (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the second paragraph of the Ending section, then I agree that it seems to be taking liberties with that interview. I'll remove that passage, which is possibly original research, and retain the quote. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Inception/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GamerPro64 23:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article, I'm afraid that I will have to fail it. In the article, there is a {{Citation Needed}}, a {{Expand section}} template in the Marketing section, as well as reformation required for Top ten lists. Also, I would like to mention that the nominator has not made any recent edits in the article before the nomination. GamerPro64 19:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ooof, might have held it while I made some changes, but I guess that's fair enough. Thanks for reviewing it. I do feel I should ask what you mean by no recent articles pre-nom? For one, why does that strike you as necessary? For two, it's not quite true... in the past week (before nom) I've created 6 articles...? #Scratches head.# I'm probably misunderstanding everything. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Change sentence. GamerPro64 20:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Inception/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I will start my review by the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Cast
Origins
Filming
Ending
Music
Marketing
Box-office performance
Critical response
Home media
Accolades
  • I think the general term stagecraft should be used in the article as a collective for the types of awards won. The WP:LEAD could Say something like "The film received eight Academy Award nominations and nine British Academy Film Award nominations, won no artistic categories, while winning most of the stagecraft awards for which it was nominated. At awards ceremonies focussing on artistic categories such as Golden Globes, the film met with little success."
  • I am flexible on the above point.
  • I also think Social Network should be noted as the film that won most of the artistic categories in which Inception competed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The licensing of File:Emma Thomas & Christopher Nolan at WonderCon 2010 3.JPG is a bit curious. We will need an image review. {{Personality rights}} may be relevant to it. The same tag is definitely relevant to File:InceptionCastPremiereJuly10.jpg and the latter needs a WP:CAPTION correction because phrases that are not complete sentences should not end with a period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
    The former already has said rights template, and I added it to the latter. igordebraga ≠ 20:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    Unless you are in a hurry, we can wait for an image review of the peculiar copyright claim on that image. If you don't want to wait, you can remove it and I will pass the article since that is the only remaining issue. I would expect an image review to happen by the weekend, but can't promise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    So, it was removed then. igordebraga ≠ 04:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am putting this on hold to await responses to the issues noted above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

All concerns addressed. I am now Passing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Foreshadowing at the beginning

I don't understand if the Old Saito and Dom at the very beginning of the film act as a foreshadow of the ending, or if this happened previously in time and then they go into the 2nd level dream, in which they later reunite at the end in limbo. I am not sure as if it was foreshadowing, the same lines etc would be said, but at the end Dom seems to know what Saito will say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.176.96 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's "foreshadowing" as much as a "call-back", which is something, in this case obviously out of sequence, that's meant to get the viewer guessing about what the scene is, what it relates to, and why it is important to the story. The payoff to this particular call-back is when the scene is repeated near the end of the film in proper sequence, everything becomes clear about the real significance of the scene and why it was shown to us at the beginning. "Foreshadowing" refers to a scene, object, bit of dialog, etc., that hints at things to come later in the plot, but is in proper sequence in the narrative. To me, it's all windowdressing and misdirection though, as I believe the entire movie, except the end when Cobb wakes up on the plane, is all taking place inside Cobb's head while he's asleep on the plane, and there is no "inception", or dreams-within-dreams, or plan to get Saito to clear Cobb's name, or anything else. I think that is why the ending was done in such a way as to leave open the possibility that it was all Cobb's dream brought on by the trauma of his wife's suicide for other reasons than those presented in the film. But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Penrose steps

There is an image of Penrose steps in the article but where and how do they come into the film? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUzBIR-dOwg Happy‑melon 18:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dream level summary table

Dream level Setting Dreamer and member generating kick Kick
1 Van chase in a rainy city Yusuf Van plunging off a bridge
2 A corporate hotel Arthur Elevator moving along its shaft
3 A snowy mountain fortress Eames Fortress collapsing
4 (limbo) A city of crumbling buildings - Fall off a building (Ariadne and Fischer), Shooting themselves (Cobb and Saito)[1]

I noted that User:Masem reverted my addition of a table summarising the levels of the dreams of the main plot (right), stating 

Reverted good faith edits by Cmglee (talk): Not necessary, also possible copyvio. (TW)

Whilst I appreciate it being considered "good faith" and agree that it is not absolutely necessary, it helps the viewer understand the movie, which frequently intercuts scenes from multiple levels. Personally, I found the equivalent table on An Illustrated Guide To The 5 Levels Of Inception highly useful in comprehending the story.

As for "possible copyvio", whilst the idea (which is not copyrightable) of a table of levels was inspired by the above page, the text of the table is vastly different (I have intentionally changed the level numbering and table columns). Many phrases were actually taken from the Wikipedia article itself for consistency.

What does Masem and other editors think about the above justification?

Thanks, cmɢʟee☺τaʟκ 23:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Data is uncopyrightable, the format and approach it is presented in can be. I've seen that table or varieties like it before, and for us, we really cannot recreate the format of those tables here. As for why its unnecessary, the plot summary is very clear what the various dream levels are and who the dreamers are. The table is extraneous weight to the plot. Now, if there was a sourced discussion about such levels and the implication of the final scene with the top, then it could be reasonable to include a figure (Freely made) to represent things. But as it is, the plot for the purposes of an encyclopedia is completely clear, and we don't need to dig that deep into that part. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Masem is showing extreme copyright paranoia here. Just because the columns and rows of the table match semantically does not make a copyvio by a long shot. — Besides that, I also think that the table is a much more useful representation of such structured information than a solid block of text. I think the table should be re-inserted, and I think the revert was a bit rash. — Timwi (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
However, we prefer prose to tables or lists (see WP:TABLE), particular with simple data like this. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's really a copyright problem, but it does seem unnecessary. For such a small table, it really does seem more appropriate to describe it in prose. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a copyvio; I also agree that its inclusion will not add anything substantial to the article. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of themes and analysis

Hello,

I felt the article is somewhat lacking a proper of analysis of its themes, and that more critical opinion should be incorporated. I've drafted a first sub-section of that: User:Ktlynch/Sandbox#Reality_and_dreams. Comments are welcome. Best wishes,--Ktlynch (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good source to use. There is also this, but for the life of me, I can't access a copy. Search for "christopher nolan" inception in Google Scholar Search and let me know if there's anything that looks worthwhile for me to try to pull. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Dream of a Lifetime

There has been recent talk in the blogosphere alleging that key story elements of Inception were lifted from a Don Rosa Scrooge McDuck graphic story that has many similarities, The Dream of a Lifetime. Inducks gives a story creation date for Dream of May 2002 and a publication date of that December. If Nolan's treatment can be authoritatively dated to CY 2001, that should squelch any incipient dispute. knoodelhed (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what does this have to do with the article? The issue has been removed at least once from the article because at the time of this writing, any allegations are pure original research on the part of the blogosphere. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not recent in any way shape or form. It has been brought up here and discussed many many times. Check the talk page archives. Яehevkor ✉ 08:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Granted, the suits in both sides of Burbank may well have hashed out this matter before any of the audience would have noticed it, but I can't promise I'll be the last who noticed. Just saying. knoodelhed (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if Nolan had seen the other cartoon, but from your evidence of its production time, it is unlikely he plagiarized. With this said, i think it is absolutely extraordinary that two independently created stories could ever have such a similarity. The level of similarity isn't just superficial, or archetypal at all, they were both completely new things, and almost identical. Strange stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.237 (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the Reception section should be renamed the Reception and Reaction section. Then, within that section, there should be a subsection referring to the Scrooge McDuck similarities. Even if the similarities are purely coincidental, it merits mention due to (a) the high amount of news about it on such venues as CNN and other venues ([5][6][7][8]) and (b) even if similarities are merely coincidental and not plagiarism, there are other merely coincidental patterns that have articles on wikipedia, like Bode's Law.

New York hates this movie?

Not all reviewers, however, gave the film positive reviews. New York magazine's David Edelstein [...] Rex Reed of The New York Observer [...] A. O. Scott of The New York Times [...] David Denby, writing in The New Yorker [...]

Are there any critical reviews of this movie that don't come from New York? 109.154.86.238 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Duckception?

Is it true that the film is influenced, in one way or another, by Carl Barks's "Uncle Scrooge in the Dream of a lifetime"? The similarities between the Disney comic and the film is uncanny. http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/show.php?num=1&loc=D2002-033&s=date Alphapeta (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past, and while there are similarities, there's no evidence it was an influence or linked in any way to this film. The article already mentions that sources have noted the similarities though. Яehevkor ✉ 15:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Plot

Im pretty sure that plot is meant to be inbetween 400-700 words. How long is this and what can be done to chnage it thanks. --JTBX (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the plot is complex enough that the current length is just enough to describe it without getting into too much detail. Exceptions to the word count can be made for especially complicated movies like Memento. --Boycool (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I was able to trim it down a fair bit (837 words now), but I agree that in this case an exception to the standard may be merited. Doniago (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I have come back to it and managed to make it just over 700 words, but I think a lot of things that were missing anyway from the 837 one are missing now and will return later after rewatching the film since two years ago to improve it --JTBX (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ending

I'm quite new to Wikipedia so I will follow your suggestion on this topic and I know probably you already covered the topic, anyway it is true that -from the very beginning to the end- Cobb always wears a ring while he's in a dream, but he does not wear it in "real life" scenes. This cinematic code is used during the whole movie without any exception (take a look to the movie to check). In the final scenes he doesn't wear the ring so it would be natural to infer that the end is in "real life". I know this could be considered a speculation nevertheless it is quite grounded since is maintained during the whole movie and is verifiable by everyone. Shouldn't we at least put a section such as "ending interpretation" and report it? Thanks User:Ahurah (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC).

Here is my proposed edit. If you feel like being super-nice you could maybe not mark the image for delet-- whoops, too late. So you suggested I take my proposal to the talk page, I try to do so, and you respond by marking my image for deletion so quickly that I can't even finish formatting my proposal before you swing into action. Classy. Nalorcs (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I think what you need is a source to either establish that the wedding ring at the end gathered notice from reliable sources, or that the people behind the film took the wedding ring into account at the end. Otherwise it may be a goof that you're applying undue weight to. That's my best guess as to why your information was removed. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Narlorcs, you need a reliable source, or commentary from some sort of writer/director, coming to the same conclusion you have. Otherwise, it's just original research, whether you take photo's of the movie or not. Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, Narlorcs I appreciate your proposal... Ahurah 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very new to this and am not sure how to post or edit. I have a fact that has not been addressed and changes the synopsis of the film. The totem in the film that Cobb uses is not his own. It is, in fact, his wife's. By adopting her totem (his totem is NEVER mentioned in the film) he has lost touch on his own reality. So, with this said, the entire movie is his dream; he's lost in a perpetual dream. I don't know if he's one of the military men (mentioned earlier in the film) dreaming about combative situations, if he is in a bed sedated, if his wife is really dead or if she were ever really his wife, if anybody in the film is real at all, etcetera. Mal tells him that in his dreams he's always got guys chasing him, etc. This is true even in the "real" part of the film. He's got the corporate goons chasing him, remember? According to Cobb, you cannot know the nuances of another dreamer's totem. It is said in the movie that Cobb rarely heeds his own advice about the rules of the dream world and this is simply another instance. We can assume by him adopting the totem, he has lost touch on his reality through the rules of being in the dream state. Therefore, there is not one moment of "real life" in the film at all; it's all a dream. Can someone please consider and edit? Thank you! Another thing: I've been told that the musical "kick" is actually a recording of Marion Cotillard from the film "La Vie en Rose." I haven't seen it, so can someone confirm? Bryan McNulty bryankmcnulty@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.227.2 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what is called original research, your own theory on the film. We can't add that, though if other reliable sources have providing that theory, then we can include it. But without sourcing, it would not be appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing detail

I watched the film yesterday, and now reading the article I see there's a missing detail I don't recall either. Is it ever said whose subconscious they're in during the hotel sequence? I would assume they're always entering Fischer's, as that's what happens in the first and third levels, but it isn't made clear in the second one. --uKER (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC) But of course it is Fischer's subconscious, if not, where did those trained mental projections come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.55.237.241 (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons with the novels of Haruki Murakami

"Before Inception there was Haruki Murakami": http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=6E6C4E55E242FF89621C18262D17FC4D?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=314&clsPage=1&docID=SMH100807ND4T23CDHKJ

Someone might like to add this reference and info to the article. 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental talk page revert

iPhone fat finger error! JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This movie is British not American

Inception was directed, written and produced by british Christopher Nolan. And not that that is not enough, it was also filmed in London studios. I get that the american administrators in here are greedy, just like all americans, but this site is an encyclopedia, it's not a game. And i would have no problem if the movie was american, but it's not. Please explain how a movie directed, written and produced by a british person, is an american movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drake717 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures are American companies and Syncopy Films is a British company, so technically it's a British-American co-production. Make sense? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, certainly not a British film, but if anything it's both. All the batman films are described as such in their articles. Яehevkor ✉ 09:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Nolan is a naturalized US citizen, so he's not British, by definition. The film rights are owned by an American company, so its hardly a big leap to call the film American. Lots of American films are filmed overseas, so thsta not really a very impressive argument.--JOJ Hutton 04:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
A movie is not made american or british by the company. That's not how it works. At a movie, what is important is the person who wrote it, the person who directed it and the producer. Not the company. Maybe the company has a role, but very little, not to mention when that's the only American thing about this movie. And Nolan was born and raised in England, even if he lives in both UK and US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.13 (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunatly international copyright law doesn't agree with that. The intellectual copyright owner is the one who purchases the film rights, not the one who wrote it. Films are intectual property, and screen writers sell their scripts to the companies to make. JOJ Hutton 02:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It's not about owners here. When you see a movie in a TV guide for example, and under it it says if it's British or American, that refers to who MADE the movie, meaning writers, producers and directors. Not the intellectual owner.

broken mirror

  • Repetitivly watched this film in a german synchrozised version; and the definition of a fantasy film as pure sience fiction seems to me weird.

Aiming horror as a production line may be declared in pschychological terms. Imago works as a catalysator in that thriller. And who reigned whose spaces means the possible question of stealing dreams to gain realistic power.That#s a Wizzard in a smart shape. On Planet!--Ai-mu-mu (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This movies is 90% British

This movie is written, produced and directed by a British person. It means it's 90% British. For what reason did you change that? This is a encyclopedia, not a game. When a movie is written, produced and directed by a British person, that movie is by far a mostly British movie. Don't change my editing just because you can, and you like it that way. Give your reasons for that. I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There's already a discussion about this further up on this page, but the short version is that the nationalities of the writer/producer/director don't determine the nationality of a film... Doniago (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Where? On the moon? Maybe, but on earth it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

By this logic, The Incredible Hulk would be French and Independence Day would be German... --Boycool † (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The IP user fails to realize Nolan and Emma Thomas are both American citizens. That's one flaw in his argument. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, the film's production was primarily run out of Legendary Films' and Warner Bros. offices, which are both in Burbank. Plus most of the film (including half the interiors) was shot in Los Angeles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

So what if he is an American citizen? He is a British PERSON,lol, you have no arguments whatsoever. This would make Kylie Minogue British and Brad Pitt French. Besides he is an English citizen just as much. Nolan was born in England, meaning he is British. And The Incredible Hulk is directed by a French person but it's an American story, it was CREATED by an American, also produced by an American. Inception was CREATED by a British person, and also produced and directed. And Inception was shot mostly in studios from London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As discussed above, the nationalities of individuals aren't pertinent to the nationality of the film. Doniago (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Per MOS:FILM#Lead section, I think we should forego mention of nationality in the lead sentence. The guidelines say, "If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." I researched the matter a little bit, and I'm not seeing a distinctive label either as either American or British. In addition, the British Film Institute identifies both countries as production companies for this film. Basically, "British-American" upfront is too much of a nationalist label when a label is not easily or clearly applied here. Hence I've put "English-language" in the lead sentence instead. We can revise the lead section to reflect in detail the Anglo-American background. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
And what exactly is ambiguous about Christopher Nolan? He is British . He was born in LONDON from an English father and an American mother. Meaning he is a British person. Even if the movie is partly American, it's mostly British. There is no research you have to make to find out what nationality this movie is, when when it's as clear as possible who it's writer, producer and director is, as well as it's production companies. The production companies are both British and American, but the movie was wrote by Nolan, produced and directed by him. This makes this movie clearly a mostly British movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Aren't any mature people in here who can be talked with? and can see that this movie is at least 70% British? Look at all the points i and others made . There are probably some Americans in here who abuse their status on Wikipedia and keep changing the movie's origin just because they can and want the movie to be American. What more is there to make the movie British? It's director, writer, producer, production company, filming location, majority of actors are BRITISH. I come up with real arguments and he comes up with nothing at all, but still changes the movie's origin country every time just because he can. That shouldn't be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I think your fellow editors have been very patient and cooperative in their responses above. In your reply, you imply they are immature and unreasonable. It is you who have been unreasonable, simply repeating the same argument, over and over, no matter what anyone says to you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I say the same argument over and over again because that argument proves the origin country of the movie, there is no other argument needed. And every time i say it someone twists it around just so they change the edit but with nothing substantial said, with no proof. So i have to come again and remind that those things i said are the ones that matter in finding a movie's origin. Look it up anywhere, a movie consists in the writer, the director, the producers the production companies and the rest mentioned. And it's as clear as possible who those are. You can twist it anyway you want, this movie is mostly British. If someone decides it's an American movie, why not explain the reason? I do every time, you just changed the edit without saying a single argument. I'm fine with the movie being American, but shouldn't the person editing this say why he thinks so? I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk • contribs) 17:38, February 16, 2013‎
What are you looking to say in the article? As I mentioned above, this film is not being defined in sources as distinctly American or British. Following sources seems to be the best approach per the WP:V policy, and I think the lack of labeling makes it a non-issue. That's why I replaced nationality with language in the lead sentence. If we are to talk about the order of countries in the infobox, there's no guideline for a specific order. It could be countries ranked by prominence or alphabetically, so we should not worry about which comes first. Beyond that, I'm not sure what change needs to be made here. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh...so the order of the countries in the infobox doesn't matter? Then why do you change it everytime and put US first? LOL, ok slick. Whatever, do whatever you want. But if anyone reads this they should think for themselves what nationality this movie is , you don't need to look up in the stars, it's right here every iformation you need. You have the names of the writers, producers , directors, production companies and everything. If the situation was reverse nobody would even think this movie is in any way British. I'll say it for the last time, the writer, the producers, and the director of this movie are all British. The production company is also British. The movie was shot in London based studios. This movie should be mostly British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.92.150 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Specific name of Mal's delusion

Does anyone know the specific name of Mal's delusion where she thought she was dreaming and that killing herself would wake her up? Is this some sort of delusional misidentification syndrome? Is this related to Oneirophrenia or the Oneiroid state? The closest I could find was the Solipsism syndrome, reduplicative paramnesia, or the Cotard delusion (which is about death, not dreaming). - M0rphzone (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Her obsession seems to be a form of intrusive thought. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems rather speculatory.. putting it into the article would be original research without a reliable source to establish it. Яehevkor ✉ 13:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed; in the absence of a source, I've removed the claim. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Was there ever a claim, Orange Suede Sofa? It's not a claim, but rather an attempt to link to a topic. Since there is no specific name/topic for it, then ok we won't wikilink it. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
While not a direct claim, the semantic nature of wikilinking means that linking a phrase to an article creates a de facto claim. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe the term the original poster is looking for is derealization or depersonalization? 93.95.251.162 (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Martin.

Inspiration of Inception

Did you know that the movie's plot (or much of it) was inspired by a Scrooge McDuck comic strip?

http://www.cracked.com/article_19021_5-amazing-things-invented-by-donald-duck-seriously.html
http://www.videogum.com/208132/caught-inception-ripped-off-scrooge-mcduck/remakes-and-spinoffs/

D-Boy Wheeler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.47.214 (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There are similarities, but that's not enough to prove that Scrooge McDuck was an actual inspiration for this film. —Will(B) 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Action film?

Why isn't it listed as part-action? There's action everywhere, right from the start and until close to the finish. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Because you would also have to call it part-drama (the main character's story line), part-heist (the plot of breaking into someone’s mind), and part-thriller (the overall subject matter). Action can occur in anything from a swashbuckler to a war epic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.99.133 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Interpretations

Can we add a section about the various interpretations of the film? One such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ginQNMiRu2w --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There is already a Themes section, though I grant it may not cover the same things. I'm not in a position to view a YT vid right now, but I'd say if we were to add such a thing, we would ensure it's from a notable source, as opposed to, say, some guy on the net. DonIago (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with your statement on notability. I linked to a lecture by Kyle Johnson Ph.D. "Inception and Philosophy". He seems to be highly knowledgeable about the topic and may be used as a credible source. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpunk

Can't we say this is a Cyberpunk movie? Lots of cyberpunk themes, like Megacorps, moral ambiguity, confusion between real and virtual, "high tech, low life" (specially when finding the drug specialist) and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.209.55.54 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing either cyber or punk about this movie. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course there is... It does have many instances of the cyberpunk theme. like his suggestions say 82.4.97.209 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sources please. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph's "Overrated" bit

Per this reversion [9]: I see nothing wrong with including this. The "overrated"-ness of a film is only going to be something that comes in time, just as being considered a best film of all time. The Telegraph is a reliable source, and Tim Robey's cited throughout other film articles as a predominate critic. Given the fact that there is negative reception of the film at the time of its release, having something negative in the long run view against several "top film" mentions is no way UNDUE, and actually needed to keep NPOV. Further, Inception being overrated is not a unique idea, just that this is the best source for it. For example [10] [11] are RS that bring this up, though I wouldn't use them to include that fact. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Also,"We don't add every single opinion, just prominent opinions. If other critics regard it to be one of the most overrated films ever made then that would warrant inclusion." (the edit summary above) is not the right way to write reception sections. Outlying opinions from significant reliable sources should, if not must, be included to highlight what that critic found to be different from the mass of them - whether positive or negative. For reviews that stay in the same "average" range as the other views, then yes, we don't need to spend time on every signal review, but outlyier reviews that are from key sources are key sources. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your response Masem, and I actually agree with most of what you say. This issue has affected some other articles though so I have started a discussion at the Film project where you can read my full explanation.I don't want to get involved in multiple discussions about the same thing but I think you'll find my explanation at the Film project addresses many of the points you raise here. Betty Logan (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
(link for those interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Most_overrated_films_ever_made?) --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced the twice-removed, cited assertion that the movie is overrated with a paragraph cititing five different critics and their opinions that the movie was generally regarded as overrated. Each of these opinions was expressed by prominent reviewers in prominent articles. Hopefully, this is enough to meet User:Betty Logan's vauge bar for inclusion and will not be reverted. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Sammyjankis88 performed a reversion of the "overrated" reviews, this time removing the paragraph that includes four or five references to prominent sources. Remarkably, the edit summary given claims that the references weren't a concensus even though the provided links are more than most of the other opinions brought to the article. The user makes the assertion that "one can, with ease, find articles deeming any film overrated". This is obviously false; the bar of inclusion are opinions from reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines, and this edit has met that bar. As such, I've replaced the text. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"Reviewers have found the film to be overrated." This is at best misleading since most critics praised the film. These are also WP:WEASEL words. TheSmokingJacket.com and whatculture.com are FAR from strong sources. The latter is a site without paid writers producing clickbait articles. Angel Woods has written three articles; "10 Completely Overrated Movies", Valentine’s Day 2013: "20 Greatest Love Songs Of All Time", and "5 Greatest Singers Turned Actors". You call that reputable? TheSmokingJacket (might as well source yourself) also deems films like On the Waterfront, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Pulp Fiction, and Star Wars, among others, overrated. That is reputable? Also deeming something "overrated" is not encyclopedic at all.Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Overrated" is an evaluation just as valid as any other critical reception. "Reviewers have called" is not much different than "Not all reviewers gave". -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You can find the term "overrated" being used to describe ANY film or work of art. In fact anything at all. Someone will always think of something as overrated, not to mention how often sites (like Whatculture!) uses these kind of articles as way to get traffic. With a quick google search I can find more reputable magazines and sources calling films like The Godfather and Annie Hall overrated. It means nothing and definitely has no place in an academic or encyclopedic text. The way you presented this information was also very misleading since the big minority of critics liked the film. Examples of WHY prominent critics find a film weak can certainly very interesting, just don't present a minority as consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.240.72 (talk • contribs)
(ec) If it's a notable critic, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. The Angel Woods piece, though, appears to just be a snarky rant, and The Smoking Jacket's piece even says "humor" in the URL. Why isn't the current version, without those two, a good compromise for now? I would argue that the LA Times "informal poll" shouldn't be included either, actually, but at least the Telegraph piece, which is reasonably well-written, represents the same viewpoint. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

references to "production notes"

There are many references in this article to "production notes". What is the specific reference meant to be? (Are these verifiable?) -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the "production notes" references might refer to the Inception: The Shooting Script book in the "further reading" section, but checking a few makes it quite clear that they don't. How can these references be converted into something verifiable? As they stand, they fail verification and should be converted to {{fact}} tags. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I've tagged these references with {{failed verification}}. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about this particular case (I didn't put in those cites) but in general, for most feature films, the film promotion people will put together a set of "notes" for release to the media before the film comes out which gives the official inside scoop on how the film was made. Sometimes they are made available directly from the film's own official Web site, sometimes they appear on the studio's Web site, and sometimes they are distributed directly to media outlets by email and then some media outlets post them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't sound like they're readily available, then. And even if they are, they're a primary source. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Running time

I've got Inception on DVD and the back of it says that it is '142 Mins. Approx'. Is it worth changing the running time to say 142 minutes or should it stay as 148 minutes. Boushenheiser (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick search. Google lists the running time as 148 minutes, IMDB lists it as 148 minutes, and IMDB trivia lists the running time as 8888 seconds (148m21s). I think the article should exhibit a 148 minute running time. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've read at several place the duration was 2 hours 28 minutes (which is 148 minutes) as a reference to the first recording of Non,_je_ne_regrette_rien (the song they play to warn people in the dream), 2 minutes and 28 seconds. Also, this is the duration of the movie I have.--199.243.65.6 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If you are in a country that uses PAL television then the reduced running-time is probably due to PAL speed up. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"The film became the first of Postlethwaite's final three film roles before his death in early 2011."

Yes, and the film before that "became the first of Postlethwaite's final four film roles before his death". The one after Inception "became the first of Postlethwaite's final two film roles before his death". And so on. Why does the article contain such a trifle?91.10.63.156 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Because nobody caught it, I guess. I've removed it - it does sound rather pointless. I think there is a tendency to go around updating an actor's articles when they pass away to include things like "the late", or lines like the above. Oh well. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Inception looked like a disaster film to me

In this film, it looked like it is a disaster film because the city is (collapsing, bend-into-half) and that's it. Throughout Christopher Nolan's two-and-a-half hour 2010 film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.65.119 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ An Illustrated Guide To The 5 Levels Of Inception
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inception/Archive_3&oldid=1147945893"