1. In the dream of a person who knew the secret of the totem top it would never fall down or even wobble. So what’s-his-face was not in his OWN dream, but…
2. In the dream of another person who did not know the secret, it would behave like a normal top. The whole point of the totem is not to tell the difference between reality and dreams but to tell whose dream you are in. Thus, while we can conclude he was not in his own dream he might have been in one of someone else.
Yeah, I was ranting not really against the comic but the movie, which I feel is highly overrated due to poor logic in the writing. As a parody of the movie the comic does an excellent job.
Considering you completely misunderstood the totem, this “poor logic in the writing” is probably just your lack of comprehension of the rest of the movie.
Do explain the totem then, according to your view of it?
Even assuming that the totem indicates whether you are awake or dreaming, the top doesn’t wobble in dreams. Thus the ‘cliff hanger’ fails.
To be a bit more pedantic, there is some ambiguity as to how the totems worked. When Ariadne is constructing her totem, it is emphasized that she cannot let anyone else know the secret of it. If they knew it, then they could use that to construct a dream in which her totem had the secret, and she would not know she was in a dream that they were designing.
However, if the totem is drawn from the dreamer’s own subconscious, then the secret will be present, and the dreamer will not know that they are dreaming. The problem is that architects apparently cannot access such information.
All the above is based on the explanations to Ariadne about totems, and it is on this theory that I made my original remarks. However, the behaviour of Mal’s totem does give a somewhat different view of the matter. Somehow this totem is suggested to _always_ keep spinning in dreams. This would be like if Ariadne’s chess piece never had a hollow spot in dreams or if her boyfriend’s loaded die was never loaded in dreams. Such behaviour, however, would imply that even if the totem is drawn from one’s own subconscious, it would not include the ‘secret’ even in dreams.
In addition, ‘unending spinning’ is not a ‘secret’ of the sort that all other totems have. All the other totems have some hidden characteristic in the real world, not some physics-defying property in all dreams.
If you take the idea of the totem which seems to be implied by Mal’s top, then there’s no inherent illogic in the film. However, such a theory disagrees with the theory taught to Ariadne and the audience and nullifies any need for your totem to have a secret in real life. Furthermore, it disagrees with the basic logic that your subconscious knows your totem’s secret.
Oh, sorry, based on your first post I thought you got the entire concept of totems wrong. But it was backwards regarding the top – the top falls in real life and in Cobb/Moll’s dreams, but spins indefinitely in the dreams of anyone else. That’s why he spins it in real life a few times. It’s probably weighted/loaded to fall after a very short amount of time in real life, and only someone who’s seen it spin in real life would know the secret.
I guess what I’m saying is, if you take the fact that it falls quickly in real life to be the ‘odd thing out’ (equivalent to the hollowness of the chess piece) rather than the fact that it spins forever in dreams, then the top follows the rules of the other totems.
So why does it spin forever in dreams? Short answer, symbolism and ease of concept for the audience. Long answer, it’s one of the many things in the movie that needs to have been better explained, but it’s not strictly against logic simply because we don’t have the slightest clue how the magic dream-maker machine works – the physics discrepancy likely comes from the fact that the dream-invaders bring their totems in the same way they bring themselves in, rather than being projected or created by an architect. It’s weak, but it kinda works.
Bob's House of Video Games - Video Game LOLs 
1. In the dream of a person who knew the secret of the totem top it would never fall down or even wobble. So what’s-his-face was not in his OWN dream, but…
2. In the dream of another person who did not know the secret, it would behave like a normal top. The whole point of the totem is not to tell the difference between reality and dreams but to tell whose dream you are in. Thus, while we can conclude he was not in his own dream he might have been in one of someone else.
ok ok let’s not ruin this joke….. something funny… i have to say something funny!!! awwww BOOBS!!!! phew…. that was close…
Fucking Die Blake! this little comic was hilarious…
So many memories T___T
Yeah, I was ranting not really against the comic but the movie, which I feel is highly overrated due to poor logic in the writing. As a parody of the movie the comic does an excellent job.
Considering you completely misunderstood the totem, this “poor logic in the writing” is probably just your lack of comprehension of the rest of the movie.
Do explain the totem then, according to your view of it?
Even assuming that the totem indicates whether you are awake or dreaming, the top doesn’t wobble in dreams. Thus the ‘cliff hanger’ fails.
To be a bit more pedantic, there is some ambiguity as to how the totems worked. When Ariadne is constructing her totem, it is emphasized that she cannot let anyone else know the secret of it. If they knew it, then they could use that to construct a dream in which her totem had the secret, and she would not know she was in a dream that they were designing.
However, if the totem is drawn from the dreamer’s own subconscious, then the secret will be present, and the dreamer will not know that they are dreaming. The problem is that architects apparently cannot access such information.
All the above is based on the explanations to Ariadne about totems, and it is on this theory that I made my original remarks. However, the behaviour of Mal’s totem does give a somewhat different view of the matter. Somehow this totem is suggested to _always_ keep spinning in dreams. This would be like if Ariadne’s chess piece never had a hollow spot in dreams or if her boyfriend’s loaded die was never loaded in dreams. Such behaviour, however, would imply that even if the totem is drawn from one’s own subconscious, it would not include the ‘secret’ even in dreams.
In addition, ‘unending spinning’ is not a ‘secret’ of the sort that all other totems have. All the other totems have some hidden characteristic in the real world, not some physics-defying property in all dreams.
If you take the idea of the totem which seems to be implied by Mal’s top, then there’s no inherent illogic in the film. However, such a theory disagrees with the theory taught to Ariadne and the audience and nullifies any need for your totem to have a secret in real life. Furthermore, it disagrees with the basic logic that your subconscious knows your totem’s secret.
[probably far too late but SPOILERS INCOMING]
Oh, sorry, based on your first post I thought you got the entire concept of totems wrong. But it was backwards regarding the top – the top falls in real life and in Cobb/Moll’s dreams, but spins indefinitely in the dreams of anyone else. That’s why he spins it in real life a few times. It’s probably weighted/loaded to fall after a very short amount of time in real life, and only someone who’s seen it spin in real life would know the secret.
I guess what I’m saying is, if you take the fact that it falls quickly in real life to be the ‘odd thing out’ (equivalent to the hollowness of the chess piece) rather than the fact that it spins forever in dreams, then the top follows the rules of the other totems.
So why does it spin forever in dreams? Short answer, symbolism and ease of concept for the audience. Long answer, it’s one of the many things in the movie that needs to have been better explained, but it’s not strictly against logic simply because we don’t have the slightest clue how the magic dream-maker machine works – the physics discrepancy likely comes from the fact that the dream-invaders bring their totems in the same way they bring themselves in, rather than being projected or created by an architect. It’s weak, but it kinda works.
TLDNR much?
SPOILERS
Holy cow, this is win! XD
Spoilers!
…As seen on halolz…
i don’t get it
Pffft. Way to steal a comic from H. Caldwell Tanner.
Oh radish, radish, radish,
I grew you from some seeds,
and when you’re washed, I’ll add you
to my favorite recipes!
i think radishes are bulbs, therefore do not have seeds…
A few more jokes like this and we won’t even need to watch the actual movie…
im so lost 0_o
i dont get it….
Was I the only one who was thinking about leekspin while reading this?
(Until I realised it was a radish, that is.)
For those who don’t get it: Go watch Inception. It’s a great movie, and totally worth it.