What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Film/Inception

 

johnnye
topic
11:20:05 AM Jun 19th 2012
edited by johnnye
Recursive Reality:
  • The various levels of dreams. Just so we're clear, the conversation where Cobb offers to help guard Saito against idea theft is a flashback, within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream (possibly within a dream), to a dream within a dream, possibly within a dream.
    • Actually, that scene is just a dream within a dream. Cobb wasn't recalling the Saito job while undertaking the Fischer job, they both took place on screen one after the other.

Removed the second part because Conversation in the Main Page. But I can't work out whether or not it's an accurate correction (at least not without rewatching) so maybe someone else can fix the original entry if it's inaccurate.
LostInAMaze
topic
11:20:11 AM Apr 8th 2012
On the main page, at least, it is stated a few times that Christopher Nolan only did the Dark Knight trilogy to get funds and resources to make Inception. Does anyone have a link to where he says this? Thanks!
Archereon
topic
03:06:57 PM Jun 27th 2011
You know, I think it's about time Inception got its own Grand Unifying Guess page. There's already dozens of series that "take place" in Limbo, and many of those include series that are traditionally part of a GUG such as Haruhi and Evangelion. I've also seen a large number of WM Gs that hypothesized that various dream sequences/trippy sequences were actually caused by extractors infiltrating the character's dreams, ect.
thedarkfreak
topic
06:17:19 PM Jun 1st 2011
How would this be included?

I found a story on Cracked, and a linking video, showing that much of the Inception soundtrack is actually je ne regrette nien slowed down.

I found it amazing.

Article: (last item) http://www.cracked.com/article_19210_7-insane-easter-eggs-hidden-in-movies-tv-shows_p2.html

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkQ0C4qDvM
neoYTPism
topic
08:47:29 PM May 13th 2011
edited by neoYTPism
I recently added Mal as a Complete Monster, and her Wounded Gazelle Gambit as a Moral Event Horizon.

More recently than that, however, I scrapped the "Complete Monster" part in light of the excuses the movie gives her.

However, I'm still convinced that Moral Event Horizon is a perfectly fitting label for her indefensible Wounded Gazelle Gambit. What say you, TV Tropes?

  • Moral Event Horizon: Mal's Wounded Gazelle Gambit. She planned to kill herself (though only to "wake up"; she thinks she's dreaming) and convince her husband to go with her. This alone wouldn't be a Moral Event Horizon if not for her method of going about the latter; she told her lawyer that she was fearing for her life, and then trashed the room Cobb was in, just so that if she died and he didn't go with her, everyone would think he killed her. Mal literally framed her own husband for murder, and she doesn't seem to voice the slightest shred of remorse for it.
Jordan
09:00:18 PM May 13th 2011
edited by Jordan
I think the Moral Event Horizon classification is pretty reasonable. She does kind of come across as basically the closest thing the movie has to a Big Bad (granted, that Mal exists in Cobb's head, but still...)
KingZeal
09:25:12 PM May 13th 2011
edited by KingZeal
She can't exactly be considered evil, because she wasn't in sound mental health, based solely on factors beyond her control. It would be like calling a schizophrenic Evil for a crime they committed because they had no medication to deal with their condition.
neoYTPism
08:51:42 AM May 14th 2011
"She can't exactly be considered evil, because she wasn't in sound mental health" - King Zeal

The Joker wasn't exactly in sound mental health, does that mean he's not evil?

The question is whether or not her insanity is an excuse for threatening to frame her own husband for murder, and then following through on that threat. I don't think it is.
neoYTPism
08:52:38 AM May 14th 2011
Oh, and Jordan, while Mal does exist exclusively in Cobb's head for MOST of the movie, the Moral Event Horizon I'm referring to comes from the "actual" Mal.
KingZeal
08:26:41 AM May 15th 2011
The Joker wasn't exactly in sound mental health, does that mean he's not evil?

Apples and oranges. For one thing, aside from socioopathy (which he wasn't born with, as far as we know), the Joker has never demonstrated any real psychological problems. He doesn't hear voices, he doesn't see the ghost of J Edgar Hoover, he doesn't think he's a butterfly, he isn't afraid of showers, etc. In fact, part of the appeal of the character is that you can't tell if he's crazy or making it all up.

Second of all, "evil" is not the same as Complete Monster. To be a Complete Monster, you have to be beyond remorse, redemption, or any sort of redeeming qualities. Mal was not; she genuinely loved Cobb and her children, but she thought that her world wasn't real (again, not by her own fault). As the trope is defined, Mal does NOT qualify as a Complete Monster.
nvtroper88
08:55:19 AM Aug 17th 2011
edited by nwtroper88
Mal and Joker seem to have different kinds of mental issues. The real human and previously-alive Mal wasn't a sociopath. Her problem was that she lost her grip on reality. Framing Cobb to be an abusive husband and father didn't seem like a big deal to her because she thinks that they're in a dream; so what's the harm in framing him then?

I'm NOT saying what she did was right, but I don't think she planned that wounded gazelle gambit for malicious reasons. She thought she was doing a sensible thing, but had lost her touch with reality and became really twisted.
neoYTPism
topic
09:48:21 PM May 12th 2011
Removed this entry on Determinator:

  • Determinator: Deconstructed. Quite literally, Cobb is his own worst enemy. The mental projection of his wife that hounds the protagonists is merely his dogged determination to keep his wife "alive" in some shape or form, to ease his own guilt over her death. Furthermore, Inception itself is revealed to be a brutal deconstruction of this. Once an idea is incepted, it defines the victim, making that single idea the one thing that they will never give up on, no matter what.

As I mentioned in the edit reason, the movie comes across as having a PRO-determination message more than anything, given the group's persistence despite the obstacles they face. I'm leaving this blank for now, but I'm hoping to see if this can start a discussion on how to interpret Inception's implied approach to perseverence.
KingZeal
10:36:24 PM May 12th 2011
As the person who added that trope, I just wanted to say: deconstructions don't always display a trope negatively. The value of persistence is shown in both positive AND negative light throughout the movie, but it's ultimately shown to be something not to be taken lightly.
neoYTPism
08:50:39 PM May 13th 2011
I don't think the trope Determinator implies that it's to be taken lightly at all, so I don't see how saying it isn't to be taken lightly is a deconstruction...
KingZeal
09:22:12 PM May 13th 2011
Let me rephrase. When I say "not to be taken lightly", I mean in the sense that it's usually portrayed as something awesome, inspiring or heroic in the context of the story. In this case, the idea of never giving up and fighting until the end are treated as something volatile. It's treated as something much like a radioactive substance: incredibly powerful if applied correctly, but it'll decay everything it touches if not.

Also, rethinking what you said about the group's "persistence": that was all Cobb (and to an extent Ariadne). The perfect examples of that are the scene when they all meet inside the warehouse and everyone except Cobb wants to abort and then the scene in which Fischer dies and Cobb is ready to quit. Eames didn't care one whit; it's only because Ariadne was invested in Cobb's goals that they pressed on.

So yeah, I'm thoroughly convinced that this is a deconstruction.
Camacan
moderator
topic
06:07:16 PM Mar 11th 2011
I think this Actor Allusion sub-example is a bit of a stretch, and rather covoluted.

Crossing over with Wrestler in All of Us and Fridge Brilliance. At one point, Arthur locks a hostile projection in a hold known as the Cobra Clutch. The move was used (and named after) Sgt. Slaughter, a wrestler who was also a character in G.I. Joe. Levitt portrayed Cobra Commander in the G.I. Joe movie.
Ju
topic
02:07:52 PM Jan 30th 2011
Am I the only person who saw that scene where the one guy was in the zero gravity second level dream, pushing everyone down the hall, and thought it was funny? I mean, c'mon, that was serious narm!
Jordan
02:10:54 PM Jan 30th 2011
When I saw the film, myself and many in the theatre thought it was funny. I think it was deliberately humorous though, so it wouldn't be narm, more like Narm Charm if anything.
Pratham005
topic
10:54:53 AM Dec 18th 2010
Where can I add fridge entry? It's like this. So Arthur is fighting mooks in rotating hallway and zero gravity...but what about projections/customers in hotel?
KingZeal
03:53:20 PM Dec 18th 2010
Just bugs me.
case
topic
04:43:09 PM Dec 16th 2010
"A caper from Christopher Nolan. Unlike your average heist, it's not about taking something, but about leaving something behind."

@ everyone who contributed the first line: fantastic job. I'd swear C. Nolan himself wrote it.
Camacan
moderator
topic
07:40:37 PM Dec 14th 2010
edited by Camacan
When replacing on the main page please provide details. We don't cite tropes without giving a short explanation of how they apply to the work.
Camacan
moderator
topic
07:40:06 PM Dec 14th 2010
edited by Camacan
Examples should provide details rather than depending on a link. See the Tips Worksheet.
daveydaveson
topic
04:09:23 AM Dec 6th 2010
Ambiguously Gay: Eames

Given that the film deals with solely ONE romantic relationship, and the other characters' sexualities are not relevant, is this really a justified addition? They're all ambiguously gay in that they could be - but we'll never know as their orientations aren't important... Also, I see no evidence of Eames being ambiguously gay, but I'm willing to be persuaded by a troper's evidence...
KingZeal
04:46:51 AM Dec 6th 2010
Ambiguously Gay is one of those tropes that doesn't need to be absolutely proven. So long as the character shows "signs" (such as crossdressing, flirting with men, or acting effeminate), they count. And Eames did all three. (Pretended to be a woman, flirted with Saito afterward, and called Arthur "darling".)
daveydaveson
05:39:13 AM Dec 8th 2010
edited by loracarol
Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but that seems more a trademark of his sarcastic and prankster sensibilities...calling Arthur "darling" comes off more as him being condescending, the "crossdressing" is necessary to the plot, and the flirting with Saito just seemed like a bit of a joke, which then set up the semi-"oh crap" moment when Saito confused Dream-Peter Browning with Eames-Peter Browning. They all seemed perfunctory to the story rather then elements of a character...

Then again, this could just be a massive Your Mileage May Vary, and me just being too pedantic.
SylviaSybil
01:45:53 PM Dec 8th 2010
Eh, Eames' gayness is ambiguous but hints are there. More than the other characters, certainly. The three things King Zeal mentioned are present for him and IIRC not there for any of the others.

(And actually there are two romantic relationships: Cobb & Mal and Arthur & Ariadne.)
KingZeal
02:01:01 PM Dec 8th 2010
Arthur and Ariadne share one kiss that is essentially a one-off gag. That does not constitute "relationship".
SylviaSybil
07:01:57 PM Dec 8th 2010
No, but it does provide evidence as to their sexuality. Arthur is at least bisexual and possibly heterosexual, and based on Ariadne's facial expression afterward, she's the same. It's only relevant to the claim that none of the other characters exhibit sexual behavior. They do.
KingZeal
07:34:30 PM Dec 8th 2010
The only expression I saw on Ariadne's face was bewilderment. That doesn't speak anything about her personal sexuality.
SylviaSybil
11:53:39 AM Dec 9th 2010
edited by loracarol
We saw different things in her face, then, because I saw a range of emotions. Doesn't really matter. I was just pointing out that it's not fair to say none of the other main characters show sexual behavior and everyone in the film "could be" gay. I count three (Cobb, Mal and Arthur) who show romantic interest in the opposite sex and a disputed fourth (Ariadne) who I interpreted as the same. Plus Michael Caine's character is married to a woman.

I think this is getting off topic from Eames' Ambiguously Gayness.
daveydaveson
04:34:00 AM Dec 10th 2010
Let me clarify — the "everyone could be gay" was a blase notion that I didn't think any of the characters (beyond Cobb and Mal) showed a romantic preference. I wasn't saying "maybe they're all gay" just that it doesn't affect any of the characters (beyond Cobb and Mal) to even have a preference.

As for the Arthur/Ariadne moment - I admit it slipped my mind at the time of posting, though (to me) it also seems pretty clear that Arthur was a) seeing how the projections would react and b) trying to divert their attention. The practicality he shows in the rest of the film doesn't suggest he would just randomly pick a moment to steal a kiss whilst in the middle of a very intense job.

But as for Eames, I still believe he's just a sarcastic prankster. I think if he were an American character, people would see his supposed ambiguous sexuality as just being an overgrown frat boy, but the British accent adds a certain je ne sais quoi to it that makes people go "oh he must mean that 'darling' genuinely." I think having him listed as Ambiguosuly Gay is unfairly pigeon-holing a fleshed out character.
KingZeal
04:56:45 AM Dec 10th 2010
Again, Ambiguously Gay is not a character trait. It does not make him gay.

It only acknowledges that he did a few things which can be construed as gay under loose context. That is all.
daveydaveson
01:49:38 AM Dec 13th 2010
Okay. Persuaded. :-)
Kalaong
topic
08:44:32 AM Nov 26th 2010
OldManHoOh
09:00:28 AM Nov 26th 2010
Wow. Directly insulting a troper. This'll end Well.
beeftony
10:15:19 AM Nov 26th 2010
edited by beeftony
The reason for the deletion, which I already provided, is because the film itself is not an Affectionate Parody, so that trope doesn't go on this page. Also, this is not the place for speculation. We have forums for that, so please put it there.

That said, I do think that the Inception game would work well as a series of dream worlds in the same vein as Psychonauts. Since dream building is an established part of the universe, it would be a lot of fun if the game let you plan for a job by constructing the levels yourself, or at least included a mapbuilding feature in multiplayer. But like I said, the main page is not the place for such speculation.
johnnye
11:48:37 AM Nov 26th 2010
I don't see the problem with listing a (natter-free) reference to this on the Inception page - where else is it going to go? It's possible there's a more appropriate trope to list int under though. Fan Vid?
beeftony
09:50:46 PM Nov 26th 2010
Fan Vid isn't really a trope, though. It's inherently tied to audience reaction, not storytelling devices that occur within the work itself. That's what's wrong with the original example, too. We have forums for that kind of thing.
johnnye
topic
08:17:42 AM Nov 13th 2010
  • Jossed: If Sir Michael Caine is to be believed, any fan theory which assumes that everything wasn't real. Caine states that any scene which he's in is the real world.

Edit War going on here. This seems like a legitimate comment to me, but beeftony seems to think it's Natter. It's not, of course - Natter is Conversation in the Main Page - and at any rate Jossed is a trope about "stuff people have said", so assuming he did make the comment it's unquestionably an example.
beeftony
04:39:05 PM Nov 13th 2010
It also falls under Repair, Don't Respond. Contradicting an example by adding another one under it is considered bad form, which is where the Natter part comes in. If you feel the example in question is incorrect, then edit or delete the example itself. Don't add a contradictory one underneath it.
KingZeal
06:11:35 PM Nov 13th 2010
But this isn't that type of response. This isn't about an answer being "wrong", but there being an alternate explanation.

Also, that doesn't justify getting rid of "Jossed" wholesale.
beeftony
09:41:08 PM Nov 13th 2010
edited by beeftony
The problem is that, instead of working it into the original example, you're putting a counterpoint below it and making it look like the article is arguing with itself. That should not happen, as both of the pages I linked to clearly state.

I also don't think Michael Caine qualifies as a reputable source on what happened given that he's only in two scenes and had zero creative control over the film. He just has an unfortunate habit of running his mouth on things like this and people ascribe far too much weight to his opinions. Because of these factors, Jossed doesn't apply. Even if Nolan himself were to come out and say it, it still wouldn't. Why? Because we already have a trope for that: Word of God. Jossed only describes situations in which the actual events of a work's canon contradict fan theory. That isn't the case here, so you shouldn't be throwing it around like this.

That clear enough?
KingZeal
10:04:51 PM Nov 13th 2010
No. Jossed clearly says that Word of God is one of the factors that constitutes its use as a trope. Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive, as you are implying.

Also, Caine's word on the ending has not been discredited by Nolan, or any member of the creative staff. He obviously had more interaction with the creative team than any of us here on the wiki had, so unless his word is broken by a more credible source, that doesn't erase what he said.
beeftony
10:45:55 AM Nov 14th 2010
edited by beeftony
Just because it hasn't been contradicted doesn't mean it's right. And like you said, it's only one of the factors. Jossed requires the actual canon to contradict the theory, otherwise it's just Word of God. Jossed was originally called Disproven By Canon, in fact.

Look, I don't care if you want to add this back in. But at least make it part of the original example and quit making it look like the wiki's arguing with itself.
johnnye
11:01:39 AM Nov 14th 2010
edited by johnnye
The point of this discussion is to STOP the Edit War until there's a consensus about what to do.

What "original example"? You seem convinced this is a response to another example, whereas it's actually a response to a commonly-held Epileptic Tree. In fact, your latest edit suggests you think it's a response to It's the Journey That Counts, which doesn't make any sense to me at all...

Finally, the unambiguous first sentence of Jossed: "A fan gets Jossed when the elaborate Epileptic Trees or Fanfic that they've lovingly built upon canonical elements is abruptly disproved by further canon or by the Word Of God."
beeftony
11:09:57 AM Nov 14th 2010
...That's my mistake. I totally thought it was, which is why it made no sense to me either.Still, it makes even less sense not to specify what exactly is being Jossed. Which of the fan theories is being disproven? It sounded enough like a response to something that I mistook it for one, so maybe we need to rewrite the example again.

And I still don't think Michael Caine qualifies as Word of God. He's too far removed from the creative process to really be a reputable source, as this business with The Dark Knight Rises proves (he said the villain would be the Riddler, Nolan says it won't). Word of God is usually reserved for the creator themselves, which Caine is not. I have great respect for the man, but people need to stop giving his opinions on things like this so much weight.
KingZeal
11:44:09 AM Nov 14th 2010
That's a logical fallacy. Because Caine has been wrong in the past does not make him wrong now. It's not up to me to prove what he said to be wrong; it's up to you to disprove what he said. Furthermore, his comment was largely about his own character "anywhere my character appears is the real world", not the entire story at large. Actors are often used as credible creative sources when it comes to information about their OWN characters. It just so happens in this case that his character has a narrative purpose.

I'd love to get a third opinion on the subject, though, so that this Edit War doesn't have to go back and forth.
johnnye
12:50:39 PM Nov 14th 2010
edited by johnnye
@beeftony: "Which of the fan theories is being disproven?" - As the example says, "any fan theory which assumes that everything wasn't real" - i.e. that the supposed in-universe "real world" is just another level of dreaming. This is why it's better to discuss these things, rather than have endless repeated reversions over a misunderstanding.

@King Zeal, you have a third opinion, I've already agreed that Michael Caine counts as Word of God, at least regarding his own characterisation - he's only commenting on "scene's he appears in".
IuraCivium
topic
05:14:22 PM Nov 4th 2010
The Tear Jerker page shot me a content warning indicating that said page had been reported, even though (at least insofar as a look-see at the Edit History reveals) I just created it from scratch, and it did not exist previously. Was there a previous page that got taken down, or is this a database error, or something else?
beeftony
05:18:16 PM Nov 4th 2010
The "page has been reported" thing has been popping up on new pages, but it goes away on its own after a while.
Beckett
topic
10:01:13 AM Oct 7th 2010
Can Saito's fate be described as a case of Fridge Horror? I mean. Assuming that everything happening in the end is real (i.e. Cobb's totem falls), Saito would still have been rescued by using the exact same words which led Mal Cobb to suicide. It would be, therefore, implied that Saito will sooner or later question his -own- sanity and kill himself. We might add that to the Driven to Suicide entry, currently featuring only Mal.
DraconicDak
12:06:22 AM Dec 27th 2010
Nah. The thing that did Mal in was Cobb breaking into her most secret place, where she kept her totem top (implying that she chose to believe Limbo was the real reality) and setting it to spin infinitely inside the safe. He changed the secret from "this is real" to "this is not real," which lingered after they woke up and was the cause of her insanity and thoughts of suicide.
back to Film/Inception

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy