third coast.. said:

---

i dont understand how only the bullet could be inverted. And objects in two different time lies could interact with each other wouldnt that change them? this thread is making me more lost.

and in the gun wouldnt there need to be an empty casing? In the movie one just appeared in the gun after he fired the empty gun. i hate this movie and my wife keeps making fun of me for talking about it haha

---

you need to watch it again.

schmendeler said:

---

i would really enjoy another movie in this universe. to me, just more info about the inverted objects would be fascinating.

did i understand correctly that at the shooting range, the bullets are imbedded in the wall and when he pulls the trigger they come out of the wall into the gun?

---

Yes, more or less they are bullets that were carried through the turnstile so they are flowing backwards through time waiting to catch their bullet from the wall from the regular time's perspective. But since causality is happening in reverse while inverted they haven't been shot at the wall yet.

The easy way to understand this is to assign a singular timeline for each object in the universe, if said object goes through the turnstile the objects timeline is reversed vs the rest of the universe. So from the bullets perspective, it was made, it went through the turnstile and was eventually loaded in to the gun and fired into the wall. From outside perspective, the bullet was always in the wall and the protagonist caught the bullet and it's loaded into the gun and then eventually it will go through the turnstile. Instead of time travel it's basically a U-turn in experiencing time.

would love for this to become a trilogy.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

would love for this to become a trilogy.

---

it will only take a total of 28 hours of viewing to full grasp the content of the three movies.

---

I'd take 28 hours of viewing 3 movies to grasp an original concept over 280 hours of 140 Marvel movies.

---

that's efficiency!

third coast.. said:

---

I don't recall there being an empty casing in the pistol prior to firing it. Either way the bullet would have been in the chamber after firing and not the magazine.

---

unless the gun was also inversed?

i wasn't paying THAT close of attention. it could be that they just messed up here, but usually Nolan is meticulous enough that something like this wouldn't get through, but no one's perfect.

Neil tells the protagonist "you have a future in the past". Clearly the protagonist goes years back into the past, and Neil isn't from the future. Neil would have had to spend decades in a shipping crate if he were Max. Doesn't seem plausible.

That would also explain some of the editing choices during the shipping container scene before the final act. The conversations between Protagonist, Neil and Kat felt awkward, forced and almost out of alignment. But instead, maybe, we're seeing more than one?

The timing still doesn't make sense. One of them would have had to age 20 plus years. That would make me assume that the protagonist is pushing 50 to 60 years old. There's no reverse aging in the universe

Fair enough. Regardless if Neil is max or not. It's not as interesting as the spinning totem at the end of inception.

Is there a reference for how long the Protagonist spent living in the wind turbine?

Rick Dalton said:

---

I've also been thinking about this scene:

There's a CIA challenge/response that pops up in the opening scene: "We live in a twilight world" is answered with something about "no friends at dusk." (This is by itself pretty funny considering Pattinson is in the movie).

When the Protagonist is caught by Volkov on the yacht watching Sator receive the inverted gold, he implies to Sator that he's been recruited by the CIA. Sator then issues the challenge but the Protagonist doesn't give the proper response. I'm not sure what his motivation would be for implying he's CIA and then not confirming it which makes me think that's a different Protagonist than the one we saw at the Opera.

---

i noticed that password attempt as well, and also wasn't sure why he didn't reply in kind.

another question came back to me that i had watching it.

the scene with the 747 crashing into the freeport (rolling over cars, etc), how much of that was practical effects vs. CGI? did they really rig up a life size 747 fuselage? was it with miniatures? or was it just really good cgi? IIRC, nolan likes to use that as little as possible.

which also makes me think of the fight scene between the protagonist and the "man in reverse" in the freeport where one was clearly making movies in reverse and the other wasn't. how do you even go about filming that? the bonus materials on the blu-ray might be worth the price of purchase for that alone.

LMAO that basically perfectly addressed my questions. well done.

now, i want a 30-60 minute version of that in the blu-ray that gets really into the nuts and bolts of it (demanding, i know)

schmendeler said:

---

another question came back to me that i had watching it.

the scene with the 747 crashing into the freeport (rolling over cars, etc), how much of that was practical effects vs. CGI? did they really rig up a life size 747 fuselage? was it with miniatures? or was it just really good cgi? IIRC, nolan likes to use that as little as possible.

which also makes me think of the fight scene between the protagonist and the "man in reverse" in the freeport where one was clearly making movies in reverse and the other wasn't. how do you even go about filming that? the bonus materials on the blu-ray might be worth the price of purchase for that alone.

---

He realized it was cheaper to buy a real full-size 747 and crash it than do CGI. So that was all real with probably some minor touch ups.

Just got out. All in all, I didn't care much for it. I may watch it one more time at some point, but this movie just didn't do much for me.

I may have been biased from the beginning against it since I didn't understand a single f****** word of dialogue for the entire opera house scene. Not a ******* word. Caught maybe a sentence or two from the horrible trainyard interrogation scene. Seriously? Nolan wanted the constant clatter of trains during an important scene where the bad guys have muddled Russian accents already? Just a baffling choice. How a studio could allow a MASSIVE movie like this to be released with the worst audio mixing ever is unbelievable.

I don't know......if the pandemic hadn't happened and we had gotten the summer full of movies, I think I would have forgotten this movie days after seeing it amidst all the other summer blockbusters.

GiveEmHellBill said:

---

Also, it wasn't until the debriefing scene for the final assault that I realized that the bearded military leader (Ives) was Quicksilver from Avengers: Age of Ultron.

---

Kick-Ass!

Sudden thought. In the opera battle, why did Sator's men even have inverted bullets? Unless I missed the other signs, the men weren't inverted. Rick?

Rick Dalton said:

---

tysker said:

---

That would also explain some of the editing choices during the shipping container scene before the final act. The conversations between Protagonist, Neil and Kat felt awkward, forced and almost out of alignment. But instead, maybe, we're seeing more than one?

---

I haven't transcribed my notes from that scene yet but you may be right. They've got a week in that container to get back to the Oslo Freeport and Neil starts explaining physics to Kat and the Protagonist.

---

I gave it some more thought and I wonder in the container ship scene(s) are actually the same 'people' but some sequences we're seeing them moving forward in the timeline and in others we're seeing them inverted, moving backwards in time. But because they are isolated from the world around them there's no obvious effects to us. This is also why you probably wouldnt appear to age, and/or you could run into your decades younger self, if you spent enough time inverted.

My wife, God bless her nerdery, likened it to Dr Who and his wife/girlfriend that is also a Time Lord. Upon the two coming into contact, they have to be careful discussing their personal past events because they don't know when the other one is currently and any event may be in the other's future.