1

Why did Robert Fischer take the plane with Cobb's team in Inception (2010), and how did he get sedated on the plane?

2
  • 13
    Isn't this explicitly explained in the film? (Saito bought the airline, and the drug's in the drink.)
    – Walt
    Jan 11, 2016 at 11:01
  • 2
    i think the easiest way to explain this is that Cobb's team took the plane with Robert Fischer. Not the other way around. Saito bought the airline to ensure he would be able to get the team on whatever flight he booked.
    – AidanO
    Jan 11, 2016 at 16:57

1 Answer 1

10

This is actually explained in the film. First they find out that he routinely takes the flight Sidney - Los Angeles. Then they cause trouble with his private jet so he has to fly with public transport. And Saito just buys the whole airline for them to have all the freedom to organize being his co-passengers and have flight attendants they can trust:

Saito: Sidney to Los Angeles, one of the longest flights in the world. He makes it every two weeks.

Cobb: He must be flying privately.

Saito: Not if there were unexpected maintenance with his plane.

Arthur: Would have to be a 747...In a 747 the pilot's up top and the first class cabin's in the nose so noone would walk through. But you'd have to buy out the entire cabin and the first class flight attendant.

Saito: I bought the airline...It seemed neater.

Cobb: Looks like we have our 10 hours.

And how Fischer got sedated is explained, too, though a bit more visually. First Eames steals his passport in order for Cobb to get him into a conversation later. Then Cobb hands him his drink and secretly slips some drug into it. Now if this is the final sedation or just something to knock him out until they get him to the dream machine (that comes with its own sedative) is not clear, but it certainly was to get him sleep away for the next steps of the heist.

enter image description here enter image description here

2
  • 1
    I've taken the liberty of adding in a quote from the screenplay that refers to the scene.
    – Valorum
    Jan 19 at 22:39
  • @Valorum Your good intentions are honestly appreciated. However, I generally prefer not to employ the screenplay when it isn't necessary, as the film is the primary source. I explained how the scene pans out in the film itself and added images showing exactly that. The screenplay really doesn't say anything else than that. And the added dialogue about Fisher's father is relevant to the other linked question (and is already there), but not necessary here.
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Jan 20 at 17:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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