6

On the movie's ending, Wikipedia points out that the characters act more "natural," as if they are no longer influenced by the game, but on the other hand, similar to the scene in the Chinese Restaurant, no one really seems to be alarmed about the murder.

I know there was much speculation and theorizing about the ending of Inception, with one popular idea claiming that

He was in the real world, as his totem was actually his wedding ring, which he was not wearing at the end.

eXistenZ features a very similar ending to Inception, and I was wondering if there was any consensus (seems unlikely) or theories as to whether the last scene took place in the real world or the game.

|improve this question
  • 6
    I'm afraid there won't be an ultimate answer on this, as raising the doubt what is real and what not was the whole point of this movie. Still, I'm interested in the answers on this one and what theories exist on this (if reasonably backed by the movie, of course). – Napoleon Wilson♦ Aug 28 '14 at 20:44
4

My understanding is that the last scene takes place in the real world. My reasoning is as follows: The story elements of each game session are drawn from the thoughts of the players. The in-game story involves a working gun made from bone that at one point, (possibly more than once, I can't remember), the dog finds and carries to Pikul and Allegra. The plot-point of the dog bringing them the gun is incorporated into the story from Pikul's and Allegra's thoughts because they know that in the real world their sheepdog is carrying guns for them hidden under a shaggy false mane.

When they shoot the game designer, the other players are unsure whether they are still in the game or not. This is consistent with the claims made by supposedly fanatical characters in the movie about the reality-deforming effects of virtual-reality games.

|improve this answer
  • Interesting idea. I suppose it is possible that they're still in a game, and there's an even higher-up cause for all the dog-gun associations, but that is a little needlessly complex. I did read something similar to your last paragraph somewhere else, about how the realists are vindicated by the other game-players' uncertainty of reality. It's a good point. – codebreaker Aug 29 '14 at 3:42
  • The dog connection is quite interesting, yet I think this might as well be a recurring motif in the game, reappearing in different levels throughout. But still interesting theory. – Napoleon Wilson♦ Aug 29 '14 at 8:30
0

The final answer I really could bring in the most logical way is that in the end they were still in the Trancendenz game but above that they were in Existenz. (Trancendenz is the game they are testing simultaniously within the players and Existenz is thr god simulation, the main one, it seems they have lost their senses when they entered Trancendenz). Anyways, how they were still in Trancendenz, because the dog didn't have some simulation helmet equipped and the dog couldn't enter trancendenz without it, though the church didn't look real if so, why didn't they go outside? The main answer to this labirynth is that, the real creator of all simulations, saw that the game would finish having the players confused of what is resl or not. By all this I'm not saying this is the last answer because the movie is interpretational free. Thanks.

|improve this answer
0

I think before Allegra and Ted go back to reality at the end, Allegra says that her bod was infected and that she would bring that infection back with her to reality. When that happens the dog is infected too and reality is corrupted.

|improve this answer
-1

Its not supposed to be open to interpretation. The movie clearly illustrates that events in the game came from the thoughts of the two assassins and at the end its the real world. It is clever but I feel like it was lost on most people, as with Inception, who follow the belief its a cop-out 'is it or isn't it' situation. Watch more carefully.

|improve this answer
  • 3
    Any source on how it's not supposed to be open to interpretation? Otherwise this is just the same answer as above, but less fleshed-out, and with a patronizing tone. – codebreaker Jun 12 '15 at 22:35
  • 2
    as a big fan of this movie and inception, i highly disagree with you. you need more information to substantiate this answer. my general rule is that EVERYTHING is open to interpretation, whether the author/creator intended it to be or not. – DForck42 Jun 13 '15 at 0:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .