You are taking all of my points to the extreme. Like I said, he did a piss poor job explaining the science behind Inception, which is pivotal for any real science movie to be credible.
You could be right only if it was a "real science movie". However, for your information it is not. It is just a "science-fiction" and it is not "real". If you have any desire to get some "real science", movies are not reliable sources. I also found this method of yours (quoting a large chunk of reply) very childish.
I totally agree. 2012... what a waste of time Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'll give Inception a go though Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I liked UP, actually I like everything Pixar does.
I meant Science Fiction genius. Let me define childish for you. Someone who gets overly-emotional and reactionary due to someone posting a diametrical opinion about a summer blockbuster.
Can't wait to see this movie--but I'm not paying 10 bucks. Jodie Foster still owes me a Hamilton-- GOD I hate that fucking woman. The most brilliant conception ever to exist on the planet-- other than vodka and Dio-- is the dollar theater. Any of you pukes have a dollar theater downtown? Brilliant. Movie's exactly the same, nothing is edited, sound's the same, and it circulates to the dollar theater a mere handful of weeks after opening. Paying 1/10 the price is well worth the stains and smell of rank vomit. Discrict 9 was The Shit. The lead also plays a brilliant Murdock in the A-Team, which I saw today. Let me define it much simpler for you: women.
What you are doing is not nice either; go back and read my first reply to you: I questioned your perspective towards a science fiction movie and asked you why you expect scientific or technological solution from a what you call "a summer blockbuster". Now you are accusing me for being over excited about this "summer blockbuster" just to divert my main objection. What's next? Are you going to brand me as an "Inception fan"? Good luck...
I never said I wanted a scientific solution, so please stop presenting your delusions as something I actually said. For the last time, he did a piss-poor job explaining the science that made dream-sharing possible. Something that extraordinary wouldn't be impossible without completely reverse engineering the human-brain, even the most optimistic neurologists predict that won't be possible until 2075-2100. If the movie was set in the distant future I would give him a pass, however, it was clear it was based somewhere close to this present time, since all the vehicles were identical to what we utilize today. That's why Chris Nolan decided to skip it all together because it was to far fetched to be remotely possible with the current technology. Also, networking of the minds in that capacity will mostly likely be the result of nano-bots operating in our neural pathways, not some brief case that injects you with some un-explained magical serum. Nope, overly-emotional and reactionary will suffice.
well.. there are 2 different movies cant really compare the 2 one is an original movie that messes with your mind the other is about what might be out there both are great
You are in one "twisting the words" business, aren't you? Can you explain what is the main difference between what you claim "never said" and this sentence of yours: So according to your logic, when you take the "solution" word from "science" you made an incredible change, don't you? Which neurologist will predict what is possible until 2075-2100? Let me tell you which; none of the "real neuroscientists", only the one you fantasize, otherwise you could back up this claim of yours with some evidence. But simply you cannot. You are blaming someone with not being scientific enough, yet you come up with unsubstantiated fortune telling missions for neuroscientists. Where are these most optimistic neurologists who talks about "completely reverse engineering" with an exact quarter of 21st century? Any name, any paper? No, you are just making them up to support your nonsense. You know too well don't you? If you read my reply above before your childish block quoting, you might have realised that I asked you how do you perfectly accept the Matrix which construct its battle ground on 1990s (with all the details of 90s) while the actual world of the fantasy (AI harvesting people's mind and bodies) is in future, yet you don't consider the possibility of the whole Inception plot could be a dream set in today? What tells you exactly that whole thing was not a dream and actual technology was from future? So you find the Matrix's cables inside the spine very technological and not magical? Is that so? However, you take the sedative from the Inception, ignore the box that starts constructed dream environment. I think you are doing selective watching as much as selective reading just to support your pointless claim. More branding without supporting any claim you made up until now. So I will take these as a result of same childish attitude...
You said Scientific Solution, I said explanation, so please stop intentionally mis-representing that I said, it only illuminates your blatant dishonesty and distortion of the facts. I can't believe I'm even entertaining such lunacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/anissimov20080319/ http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.01/dreams.html The movie never entertained the possibility you're conjecturing. Yes, I find the scenarios presented in the Matrix to be far more believable than Inceptions. Chris Nolan did a piss-poor job explaining the Science that made Inception possible.
Inception Pretty good film. [spoilers] Avoids being too distant by falling into the Hard sci-fi category, and thus leaves some plot holes but still good and thought bending. I also loved the Blade runner esque ending.. Anyone else seen it ? If not, I highly recommend it. It clearly stands out of all the summer (winter) blockbusters I've seen. Esp. Karate Kid, and others.. oh and THE SOUNDTRACK WAS TOTALLY AWESOME. VIOLINS FTW!.
I really enjoyed this movie. One of the best scifi (i guess its considered sci fi) movies i have seen in a really long time. ****Spoilers in white below. The end of the movie. I think at the end he is in lala land for a couple reasons. 1. He is so attached to his topspin thing and at the end he walks away as if it is no longer wants to know what is real and what is a dream. 2. His children never aged even though he hadn't seen them in a long time. 3. He found the old man on the island and the old man had aged 20 or 30 years and he hadn't aged at all. the dream within a dream within a dream thing wouldn't have allowed one to age and the other to not age in a short spanse of time to wake up on the airplane still.
i thought inception sucked. i was hoping it would wrap up and end long before it did. the last 2 movies i've seen dicaprio in have been disappointments. i thought shutter island was lame too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I also enjoyed shutter island, but shutter island didn't have much replay value for me when i watched it a second time. Inception is one of those movies that people will watch twice or three times. In that, they made a great movie with good replay value. I'd say that was pretty smart of them. I really don't have a lot if any complaints. It was really a great sci fi movie.
