How Do you Make a Sequel to "Inception"?

"Inception" just topped the US box office for the third week straight, and is on track to cross the $200 million threshold in just a few days. It's a surprise hit, and what was initially seen as a risky investment for Warner Brothers – an expensive film based on original material – is looking like a shrewd investment. There has been some speculation in the press about a possible sequel, being vehemently protested, of course, by most critics and fans. Part of the draw of the film is the ambiguous nature of the narrative, and any attempt to expand on it would only diminish the original film. Or would it?

I'll add a caveat here that I don't think that an "Inception" sequel should be made, but given how much money the film has taken in so far, I'm sure Warner Brothers would love to exploit any franchise potential, and they may not have as much restraint as Disney has shown with "Alice in Wonderland," another surprise hit from earlier this year. If we do get follow-up films to "Inception," I'd like to see them done well. And I can think of a few ways that you could have sequels that make full use of the rich, dazzling "Inception" universe without impacting the mystery at the heart of the first one. As I will be discussing plot and character details, this is the point where you should stop reading if you don't want any spoilers.

First, and most importantly, an "Inception" sequel should have absolutely nothing to do with the character of Dominic Cobb. A prequel would be another matter, but for any story that takes place after the events of the first film, Cobb should not be involved at all. His story is complete, his emotional wounds healed, and the riddle of his ultimate fate should not be answered, or even hinted at too broadly. The only way to achieve this is to completely remove his presence. If the rest of the characters get back together for a new job, the writers should exclude Cobb and refrain from explaining why. Maybe he's retired to take care of his children. Maybe he's still trapped in dreams somewhere. Maybe he never existed at all. That should be left for the audience to decide.

Leonardo DiCaprio may be the biggest star in the film and the studio may be reluctant to part ways with him, but there are several characters who could easily fill his shoes for a second installment. There's been a lot of buzz around Joseph Gordon-Levitt's performance as the point man, Arthur, and the critically acclaimed young actor may be transmogrifying into a bona-fide action star before our eyes. Or there's Ellen Page, as the film's novice dream architect, Ariadne. Page has already proven more than once that she can carry a picture. Or there's Tom Hardy's shape-shifting Eames, though I think he works better as a secondary character, along with Ken Watanabe's Saito. Or if Nolan really wants to throw us for a loop, maybe he could build a film around Mal, the character we only saw as an illusion or a memory (or did we?) in the first film.

Secondly, a sequel should not involve another "inception" mission. They'll need another way for the characters to utilize the ability to manipulate dreams. Similar films like "Dreamscape" and "Paprika" have had protagonists cure nightmares, and "Nightmare on Elm Street" famously used dream-walking for slasher schlock, but in the world of "Inception" the skill has been monetized and corporatized to the extent that powerful executives are regularly trained to withstand dream attacks. How would dream manipulation be used in other arenas? Education? Recreation? Self-help? And once word of the successful inception gets out, would someone try to militarize it? Politicize it? Build a religion around it? There's a lot of potential in this premise that has yet to be explored.

Thirdly, it's important to remember that for follow-up films, certain elements are absolutely necessary to retain from the original. In the case of "Inception" these are not specific things from the story itself, but rather the entire approach to the project. Important developments are left unexplained or half-explained, set up for the viewer to puzzle out. The biggest danger I can see with a sequel or prequel is the urge to start explaining things that do not need to be explained. We don't need to know how the technology to invade people's dreams was developed, just what people are doing with it. We don't need to know how Cobb met Mal or how Cobb met Arthur, though it might be nice to learn what they were up to in their younger days. A sense of ambiguity about almost every element of "Inception," where reality is constantly called into question, has been absolutely necessary for the proliferation of theories and interpretations of the film that have been spawning online these last few weeks.

And finally, don't be afraid to dream a little bigger, Darling. "Inception" has gained a reputation for being a film that provokes viewers to think and theorize, and they'll be ready for the same tricks in any second installment. A follow-up film should only be made if it can rise to the challenge to give audiences a mental workout on par with or even more difficult than the first. For instance, Christopher Nolan loves using unconventional nested and parallel narratives, but I don't want to see the same devices next time, if there is a next time, because viewers will be expecting it. "Inception" was hailed for being original, one of the hardest qualities to maintain in a franchise, because by definition a franchise film is based on pre-existing concepts. The worst-case scenario would be "Inception" sequels turning out like the "Matrix" sequels, a couple of beautiful, ambitious, and utterly derivative films that failed to adequately expand on the first one because that's all they did – expand on concepts introduced in the first "Matrix" without introducing anything novel that could stand on its own.