(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

annathepiper
2010-10-06 04:24 pm UTC (link)

2001 has its virtues, although the last bit of it is definitely rather headtrippy.

I used to have a housemate who told me this great story about when the movie came out (he was a young fellow at the time), he'd hang out outside the theater as people were coming out, holding a sign saying "PLOT EXPLAINED: FIVE DOLLARS". He actually made some decent pocket change doing that. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	eevee 2010-10-06 04:53 pm UTC (link)
	XD! Considering there's people who needed to have Inception explained to them, I guess there's still some money to be made in that area. ~~I knew I should've charged, dammit~~ (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	librarianmouse 2010-10-07 03:50 am UTC (link)
	Wanna explain it to me for free? My best friend and I are still arguing about it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

eevee
2010-10-07 09:23 am UTC (link)

Really? I had the feeling the movie even went out of its way to infodump at certain times.
Of course, now your replies make me worried that this thread might punish me for my hybris and I'll find out the story is actually more complex than I gave it credit for. o_O
What parts are you arguing about, specifically? I admit there were a few plotholes that confused me but I tend to chalk those up to suspension of disbelief.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	librarianmouse 2010-10-07 05:17 pm UTC (link)
	We're mainly arguing about the ending, and whether or not he's still in the dream. And may I just say, I'm just glad to have gone to a movie where the attractive young woman's main reason for existing was to be smart rather than eye candy. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	finchbird 2010-10-08 03:16 am UTC (link)
	I think it was Nolan's intention to put enough stuff in the movie to make people argue whether it was all a dream or not. I'm just glad to have gone to a movie where the attractive young woman's main reason for existing was to be smart rather than eye candy. This. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	librarianmouse 2010-10-08 06:12 am UTC (link)
	I approve of your theory. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ichigatsu 2010-10-07 05:33 am UTC (link)
	I second librarianmouse's request. Uh, payment in internet cookies? When Michael Caine explained it I just got more confused. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lissibith 2010-10-06 05:00 pm UTC (link)
	That's sort of brilliant. My hat's off to your roommate :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cmdr_zoom 2010-10-06 06:14 pm UTC (link)
	I've often said that the stargate sequence was intended (1) to give the "squares" an idea of what being on drugs was like; (2) to give the ones on drugs a real trip. As for the stuff in the hotel room, I understood it, but only with the novel for context. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	beccastareyes 2010-10-07 06:27 am UTC (link)
	The novel helped a lot with understanding what was going on. I'm told by friends that they understood it more after the sequel. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	sylvacoer 2010-10-07 11:33 pm UTC (link)
	I understood the movie A LOT more after reading the book... but the last 20 minutes still gives me a headache unless I've had a shot or three. ^^; (Reply to this)(Parent)

	annathepiper 2010-10-08 06:40 am UTC (link)
	Indeed, I only really picked up on a lot of the movie because I'd also read the book. And, yep! about the end as well. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	castellated 2010-10-12 07:29 pm UTC (link)
	I figured, from the perspective of some years, that it was the '60s equivalent of that fucking irritating slow-motion flying-through-the-air "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon" thing: It was a new special effect and they were infatuated with it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	dejla 2010-10-08 06:32 pm UTC (link)
	I was assured, in my high school years, that the two best films to watch while stoned were 2001 and the original Fantasia. Not, of course, that I ever tested this out. cough (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -