Arrival [**SPOILERS FROM POST 45 ONWARD**]

MfMan

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I thought it great up until a certain point and then they took the easy way out leaving a wortless ending.

From that point I couldn't believe how convenient everything was.

This movie is well over hyped.

*Oh, someone that can see the future and knows exactly what to do. well isn't that convenient and handy for the writers.

Agree with this. Competent, intelligent and visually excellent, but very good rather than great I'd say. The denouement is just a bit too convenient I think.

Mitch Connor

Its not just her that could see the future though - the implication of what she says re. the language is that anyone who learns it and understands it, will see the world and time in the same way. The language would change humanity, forever.

david75

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Its not just her that could see the future though - the implication of what she says re. the language is that anyone who learns it and understands it, will see the world and time in the same way. The language would change humanity, forever.

Exactly this.

MeatTwoVeg

I saw it in Screen 1 of a multiplex on a Saturday night, couldn't have been more than a dozen people in there.
Wonder will it be a financial flop.

I suspect a lot of people won't like it at all.

FunLover18

MeatTwoVeg wrote:

I saw it in Screen 1 of a multiplex on a Saturday night, couldn't have been more than a dozen people in there. Wonder will it be a financial flop.

The screening I was at on Friday was completely full, but I feel it will be quite divisive. The people sitting beside me weren't fans at all.

5starpool

I really didn't like it. It was pretentious in the same way that Interstellar was, although this film didn't make me as angry as Interstellar did. There were so many stupid things about the last 30 mins or so of this film that left me shaking my head though. I was looking forward to seeing it, but came away thoroughly disappointed with the plot and indeed the big twist.

Goodshape

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Its not just her that could see the future though - the implication of what she says re. the language is that anyone who learns it and understands it, will see the world and time in the same way. The language would change humanity, forever.

It was never really hinted at that this was happening though, was it?

Louise gets this ability but according to 'memories' from at least 15 years in the future, not much else seems to have changed. I had the impression she was keeping this stuff to herself. Which seemed mostly odd.

I'd have preferred, at the end, to see some indication of the larger consequences of what occurred in the film, rather than the strictly personal day-dreamy life of the protagonist.. but I guess it is the story that it is.

It's not really a *SciFi* film in the usual sense. The aliens are just a backdrop and enabler for an emotional and personal story.

I liked it a lot.

Ipso

david75 wrote: »

Exactly this.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

They gave a gift, but to her it was also a curse in a way. It kind of ties to when she asked the military to ask someone else what the translation of the Sanskrit for war was or that weapon could have a double meaning.
She had this knowledge and then went ahead with having a child that she knew would end in tragedy and then Renner left her most likely as he was angry she knew what would happen.

Outkast_IRE

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I saw it in Screen 1 of a multiplex on a Saturday night, couldn't have been more than a dozen people in there.
Wonder will it be a financial flop.

I suspect a lot of people won't like it at all.

I think it will perform respectably. IMDB says 50 mil budget and it opened to approx 25mil domestically in the US for its first weekend.

I went to the late show at 11pm last saturday, and normally it is empty, but it was half full for this which is quite good for a late night show in Cork

Fysh

Goodshape wrote: »

It was never really hinted at that this was happening though, was it?

Louise gets this ability but according to 'memories' from at least 15 years in the future, not much else seems to have changed. I had the impression she was keeping this stuff to herself. Which seemed mostly odd.

I'd have preferred, at the end, to see some indication of the larger consequences of what occurred in the film, rather than the strictly personal day-dreamy life of the protagonist.. but I guess it is the story that it is.

It's not really a *SciFi* film in the usual sense. The aliens are just a backdrop and enabler for an emotional and personal story.

I liked it a lot.

You, er, missed the bit about

her publishing a book called The Universal Language in the future, with one of the heptapod words on the cover

The problem is that it raises a similar question to

Dr Manhattan in Watchmen - if you are aware of how future events will happen, what are the implications of that for our conceptions of autonomy and free will? Which is a fascinating question, but very tricky to allude to in brief fragments, especially if it's happening as part of a wider cultural conversation rather than between a select group of individuals

It most definitely is science fiction, in that it's a comparatively grounded look at how a first-contact scenario with benevolent aliens might play out. For example, if Ursula Le Guin wrote an Earth-set first contact story I could imagine it turning out something like this.

MayoForSam

Went to see it at lunchtime yesterday with my son, we had the entire cinema to ourselves. Cinematography and sound were excellent. I enjoyed it, definitely thought provoking about the entire nature of language. Still, I preferred Interstellar. Won't be so popular amongst the teenagers, my young fella wasn't too bothered (the antithesis of ID2 basically). I wonder how President Trump would handle alien visitors?

Fysh

5starpool wrote: »

I really didn't like it. It was pretentious in the same way that Interstellar was, although this film didn't make me as angry as Interstellar did. There were so many stupid things about the last 30 mins or so of this film that left me shaking my head though. I was looking forward to seeing it, but came away thoroughly disappointed with the plot and indeed the big twist.

What aspects of the plot disappointed you, and what were you expecting/would you have preferred?

pearcider

I didn't like. I really can't understand the hype at all. It was just so terribly boring. Adams looks spaced out of it on anti depressants for the whole thing and Renner never really gets involved. Maybe it was just the ponderous acting music etc that made the whole thing feel incredibly laboured. For me it just never achieves the "buy in" that is a necessity in a genre like this. My disbelief just never got suspended. I think the movie has absolutely no zip and therefore you just really don't care. Too arty and pretentious for my tastes perhaps. I saw it on a huge isense screen and it just never absorbed me. The twist at the end felt cheap.

Also the heptapods were just ridiculous. They really ruined it for me. I mean they were octopuses really weren't they right down to their feckin ink 😂 A ridiculous sci-fi movie by any standard. By the way Interstellar is far superior to this even if they do both have the time travel "issue" which always leaves one with a bad taste in the mouth come the end credits.

johnny_ultimate

Ever since Denis Villeneuve broke Hollywood, I've found all his films to be varying degrees of fascinating, but also varying degrees of not quite there. Arrival carries on this trend - but it's particularly fascinating and only a little short of being all there.

Like Sicario, it is hard to fault the stylistic accomplishments of the film. It maintains a truly individual tone throughout, emphasised by its assured cinematography and deeply integrated soundtrack. It's the sort of film that can make an establishing shot stand out - the arrival at base camp, for example, manages to articulate genuine scale, mystery, atmosphere and strange beauty. The scene immediately prior to that stood out too, where the characters attempt to hold a conversation on a helicopter. It was a curiously delivered scene in the moment (thanks in large part to the sound design) but looking back it's even more noteworthy for subtly establishing some of the key themes of challenging communication in what could have been just a fairly rote exposition sequence.

It is an ideas-rich film - weighed down by procedural stuff and exposition from time to time, but mostly confident in discussing and exploring many of the theories, themes and scientific ponderings it puts forward. What I found a bit of a shame was that it felt like the form and narrative weren't operating in total harmony at times (although the score does a great job throughout). Sometimes they were, and it was magnificent: the opening shots and

its later repetition

was a really effective visual of communicating what was happening without having to be explicitly told it. Would have loved to see more of that ala the sort of thing Shane Carruth does in his films. There are clearly a few concessions to commercial interests here though, not least a few more setpiece like sequences and

the grander, 'saviour'-like arc given to Louise

that work well enough but perhaps distract from the really interesting things. While there's definitely some fetching effects work here and some confident production design, the CG doesn't always keep up with what's meant to be happening (

Adams entering the fog stands out, as unfortunately do the heptapods themselves

). It may seem strange to say about a very unusually sombre and restrained mainstream sci-fi movie, but I reckon this could have been even stronger if operating on a smaller scale again.

I went out and bought a copy of Story of Your Life the day after watching this, and that beautiful little short story really helped both reinforce both the strengths and weaknesses of the film. It goes far further with its ideas than the film - the consequences of Dr Banks' discovery are explored in much more theoretical depth; the science is considerably harder; the aliens and their language are more potently described; the narrative far less reliant on contrived tension. Particularly impressed at how much more deeply the revelations and

time-defying 'time'line

are woven into the story -

story developments are played as much less explicit 'twists' and instead introduced earlier to allow them to grow and complicate

.

At the same time, it also highlighted how Arrival is a confident and interesting take on Chiang's story that is accessible in a very positive way. It is diluted in many respects, but it also retains many of the ideas and even performs its own riffs on them. It very much 'adapts' the story - sometimes for worse, but regularly for better too. It's not perfect - he's getting closer though! - but Arrival absolutely again suggests that Villeneuve is doing some really interesting and accomplished things within the limited remit of mid to high budget American cinema.

Sad Professor

**SPOILERS FROM THIS POST ONWARDS**

FunLover18

Goodshape wrote: »

It was never really hinted at that this was happening though, was it?

Louise gets this ability but according to 'memories' from at least 15 years in the future, not much else seems to have changed. I had the impression she was keeping this stuff to herself. Which seemed mostly odd.

I'd have preferred, at the end, to see some indication of the larger consequences of what occurred in the film, rather than the strictly personal day-dreamy life of the protagonist.. but I guess it is the story that it is.

It's not really a *SciFi* film in the usual sense. The aliens are just a backdrop and enabler for an emotional and personal story.

I liked it a lot.

I felt the aliens were the main story and I was really interested in why they were here as well as all the 'Earth has no leader, they all have to work together' aspect. My favourite scene was Louise breaking down the question 'What is your purpose on Earth'. It wasn't until the last half hour that I felt that was flipped and, as you said, the aliens became the backdrop. We never get to know what it is Earth helps the aliens with in 3,000 years. I was much more interested in the 'how do we communicate with the aliens' angle, Louise's personal arc didn't really do anything for me (at the time, I was impressed with the reveal and how that was done but a couple of days later I'm a bit indifferent towards it) and the whole time thing just left me very unsatisfied with no conclusive answers.

FunLover18

Number 1 at the UK box office this week

MeatTwoVeg

Obviously a suspension of disbelief is required for SF films, but the idea that an alien civilization would be advanced enough to master interstellar travel but not have figured out a suitable means of communicating with the species they're travelling to, beyond farting out some ink, is quite frankly, beyond preposterous.

david75

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Obviously a suspension of disbelief is required for SF films, but the idea that an alien civilization would be advanced enough to master interstellar travel but not have figured out a suitable means of communicating with the species they're travelling to, beyond farting out some ink, is quite frankly, beyond preposterous.

Think you missed the point. Entirely.

MeatTwoVeg

david75 wrote:

Think you missed the point. Entirely.

My post isn't about "the point", merely an observation on the ridiculousness of the central plot driver.

FunLover18

MeatTwoVeg wrote:

My post isn't about "the point", merely an observation on the ridiculousness of the central plot driver.

I think "the point" being referred to is that the aliens have a non-linear view of time and therefore they know that in order for the humans to help them in 3000 years they need to teach the humans their language, and seeing as they can already see how that happens/happened they know that their is no need for them to learn how to communicate with humans. One of my main problems with the whole non-linear time perception: causality goes out the window.

tunguska

Went to see this saturday, ended up in liffey valley as rathmines was sold out. Funnily enough liffey valley was only half full? Go figure. Anyway Im still digesting this film. Reckon its a grower, will get better and better upon subsequent viewings. I liked it though, its intelligent, kind of like the antithesis of Independence day Resurgence. Amy Adams is good, although not Oscar worthy. I mean its a solid performance but not award winning. Jeremy Renner is good aswell. Its beautifully shot and the script is tight. Its the kind of film critics will love but I reckon the average movie goer wont be into or have the patience for.

MeatTwoVeg

FunLover18 wrote:

I th in order for the humans to help them in 3000 years they need to teach the humans their language, and seeing as they can already see how that happens/happened they know that their is no need for them to learn how to communicate with humans.

They communicate incredibly inefficiently and nearly cause the Chinese to attack them.
Any civilisation possessing the technology to embark on an interstellar journey to Earth will have already worked out a fool proof plan to communicate.
"Hi we're aliens and we're here to teach you our language, please send your linguistics experts to the designated landing sites.
They're not going to rock up and start waving tentacles.

Mitch Connor

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

They communicate incredibly inefficiently and nearly cause the Chinese to attack them.
Any civilisation possessing the technology to embark on an interstellar journey to Earth will have already worked out a fool proof plan to communicate.
"Hi we're aliens and we're here to teach you our language, please send your linguistics experts to the designated landing sites.
They're not going to rock up and start waving tentacles.

Was it not pointed out in The movie that getting humanity to work together (required for learning the language, the knowledge was split into 12 pieces). It wasn't about just teaching one person the language - it was imparting the language and forging a new path for humanity at the sane time, as part of the ultimately same goal.

FunLover18

MeatTwoVeg wrote:

They communicate incredibly inefficiently and nearly cause the Chinese to attack them. Any civilisation possessing the technology to embark on an interstellar journey to Earth will have already worked out a fool proof plan to communicate. "Hi we're aliens and we're here to teach you our language, please send your linguistics experts to the designated landing sites. They're not going to rock up and start waving tentacles.

I agree but the nature of their perception of time means that they don't need to learn a way to communicate because they can already perceive that their mission will be/is/has been a success without a way of communicating. In the same way that Louise doesn't need a way to change Shang's mind because she "remembers" how she will/did change his mind in a flashforward.

david75

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Was it not pointed out in The movie that getting humanity to work together (required for learning the language, the knowledge was split into 12 pieces). It wasn't about just teaching one person the language - it was imparting the language and forging a new path for humanity at the sane time, as part of the ultimately same goal.

There's the point. Thank you. Get us to work together as a species and enlighten us an get us to come to that enlightenment rather than spoon feed us.

johnny_ultimate

The practicalities of communicating with an alien species are among the most interesting things about this story, and what separates it in the pack. The whole 'you need this to help us in the future' angle is one of the major concessions towards more familiar genre tropes in the film, and tbh it doesn't need it.

There's no such complications in the source material - the reasons behind the 'arrival' are much more ambiguous, and perhaps just boil down to the primal fascination of two alien species encountering each and learning from each other. The 'realistic' - well, relatively so for a written language that allows users to perceive time 'simultaneously' - linguistic and practical dilemmas are IMO much more intriguing and help completely separate this from the pack of other sci-fi movies. There is no reason to believe teaching each other languages would be something that could be achieved easily if 'we' and 'they' perceive the universe in an entirely different manner.

Pertinent passage from the book:

The physical universe was a language with a perfectly ambiguous grammar. Every physical event was an utterance that could be parsed in two entirely different ways, one casual and the other teleological, both valid, neither one disqualifiable no matter how much context was available.

When the ancestors of humans and heptapods first acquired the spark of consciousness, they both perceived the same physical world, but they parsed their perceptions differently; the world-views that ultimately arose were the end result of that divergence. Humans had developed a sequential mode of awareness, while heptapods had developed a simultaneous mode of awareness. We experienced events in an order, and perceived their relationship as cause and effect. They experienced all events at once, and perceived a purpose underlying them all. A minimizing, maximizing purpose.

doubledown

Just out. See Arrival.

It's thought-provoking, mesmerising, haunting, hypnotic, life-affirming and heartbreaking. One of the best films I have seen all year. As a parent of two very young children I found it particularly upsetting.

Not necessarily for everyone but highly recommended.

Fysh

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The practicalities of communicating with an alien species are among the most interesting things about this story, and what separates it in the pack. The whole 'you need this to help us in the future' angle is one of the major concessions towards more familiar genre tropes in the film, and tbh it doesn't need it.

There's no such complications in the source material - the reasons behind the 'arrival' are much more ambiguous, and perhaps just boil down to the primal fascination of two alien species encountering each and learning from each other. The 'realistic' - well, relatively so for a written language that allows users to perceive time 'simultaneously' - linguistic and practical dilemmas are IMO much more intriguing and help completely separate this from the pack of other sci-fi movies. There is no reason to believe teaching each other languages would be something that could be achieved easily if 'we' and 'they' perceive the universe in an entirely different manner.

Pertinent passage from the book:

I understand why it couldn't be a bigger aspect of the film, but the question of theories of mind underpinning languages is an important one. See for example Peter Watts' excellent Blindsight for a novel-length piece of hard sci-fi dealing with first contact.

eviltimeban

Saw it last night, thought it was fantastic. Beyond the visuals, the acting, the directing, and music, the core IDEA of the movie is what makes it essential viewing. The revelation about the daughter was brilliantly handled, and I genuinely didn't see it coming. Felt very emotional by the end as I could relate to her "some time is better than no time" rationale regarding her daughter.

And, of course, the visuals, acting, directing, and music were all fantastic. Amy Adams deserves an Oscar, maybe not for this movie, but in the immediate future - she's building up a seriously impressive body of work.

This rates very highly on the "cerebral sci-fi movie" scale; sthe likes of the aforementioned Contact and Interstellar, but also Moon, AI, The Abyss, and Solaris.