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

david75

You didnt get it. It's grand. They can't all be Independence Day resurgence.

RDM_83 again

david75 wrote: »

You didnt get it. It's grand. They can't all be Independence Day resurgence.

kingcurls wrote: »

Really can't understand the reviews this film is getting, and the frustratingly narrow response from people that "you just didn't get it" seems to be reassuring people of their point of view who seemed to have taken some deep personal meaning from the film.

Seriously thinking about the film ruins it, I would guess its better viewed in as an emotional journey rather than an intellectual one

david75

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Seriously thinking about the film ruins it, I would guess its better viewed in as an emotional journey rather than an intellectual one

That's been totally missed in all discourse on this film. Nobody's talked about her knowing what's going to happen. She has to have the daughter so that she can effectively sacrifice her for the greater good. And lose her husband in the process.

I'm glad they didn't make the daughter the central crux of that by having her tell her they key. Better that it was the general from China.

It would have been sickenengly Hollywood syrupy and way ott had it all been on the daughter. They made the wise choice going wth the general.

RDM_83 again

david75 wrote: »

She has to have the daughter so that she can effectively sacrifice her for the greater good. And lose her husband in the process.

Why does she have to have the daughter? the daughter is irrelevant, everything is irrelevant because there is no free will and all is predetermined according to the rules laid down in this film.

Fysh

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Seriously thinking about the film ruins it, I would guess its better viewed in as an emotional journey rather than an intellectual one

How does thinking about the film ruin it? I don't see the fault in the film's logic that you seem to think is self-evident

Mickeroo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why does she have to have the daughter? the daughter is irrelevant, everything is irrelevant because there is no free will and all is predetermined according to the rules laid down in this film.

Don't agree with that, she chose to have the daughter even though she knew she would die young in my eyes rather than having no control over it.

pixelburp

rhino_hunter wrote: »

i totally get why this movie is being so well received by critics , its a movie with an uber liberal message and philosophy

thought it was awful garbage myself

RDM_83 again wrote: »

[...]
Thought the same myself, If your a reader I would recommend Blindsight (AFAIK you can download the ebook for free) or searching out some science fiction from the cold war era, there is much often a lot more cynical and cold hearted (and possibly realistic) viewpoint relating to the "other". Alternatively if you want a film thats way more realistic in a super confusing way about timetravel cos time travel is super confusing if you think for 5 seconds about it watch PRIMER.

Ok, the original guy who said that has been banned, but I don't buy the accusation: liberal in what sense, because to me the film stayed very intentionally apolitical in its approach, focusing on the personal story rather than on the ramifications or events more specifically geopolitical (even the camera itself never got distracted and stayed within the close proximity of Adams and Renner's characters, ensuring we didn't get caught up in the military or political threads).

Ultimately the film leant towards a utopian ideal sure, that humanity might overcome division and war, but why wouldn't that be a possible scenario in any Alien first-contact scenario? Honestly, bar the existence of God (or otherwise), I'm slow to think of any other existential game changer that might legitimately alter humanity as we know it - that we might rise to the occasion shouldn't be discounted or lessened as a narrative - TBH, if anything it says more about the critics' own outlook than the inherent concept.

Sci-Fi has and always will reflect the mood of the time, reflected through the lens of society, technology or environment, and expecting modern-day Sci-Fi to ape that of the Cold War doesn't really make sense, nor is a fair metric for comparison. If those Cold War stories weren't allegories about the nuclear apocalypse, or the struggle of capitalism against communism, they were like The Forever War, leaning heavily on parallels with passing events like the Vietnam War.

I think we've swung back towards that apocalyptic mindset, seen through our obsession with zombies or hopeless self-made catastrophes such as The Road: but like the Cold War, there are still stories that dare to suggest we might actually make it. Star Trek, that pinnacle of popular fictional utopias, sprung from the very worst years of the Cold War: Arrival could be said to be cut from the same cloth.

jones

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I really enjoyed the film but I can't be the only one who expected all 12 ships to return to there proper shape at the end of the film.

I was thinking the exact same thing from the minute we saw the shape of the individual ships and the fact there were 12 of them i turned to my mate and said bet they make a giant ball at the end. Glad i'm not alone haha (pardon the pun)

TerrorFirmer

david75 wrote: »

You didnt get it. It's grand. They can't all be Independence Day resurgence.

Just wanted to say this is a really condescending statement that reflects pretty poorly on you.

I thought this was a weak movie despite huge initial promise, not because it was "too Sci fi for the average Joe".... and most certainly not because it wasn't ID2, which to my mind is a strong contender for worst film of 2016.

Belittling people and insulting their intelligence because they didn't like a movie is incredibly childish.

You know that part where she goes up to the alien ship alone after the brief attack? What did they talk about up there? I saw this film in Holland so the subtitles were in Dutch

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

You know that part where she goes up to the alien ship alone after the brief attack? What did they talk about up there? I saw this film in Holland so the subtitles were in Dutch

They said they would need humanity's help in 3000 years and in the meantime we had to use the "weapon" they had given us so so we'd be ready (basically it was up to her and the people at the other sites to work together and teach everyone the language). He also mentioned that Abbott was in "death sequence"

kingcurls

kingcurls wrote: »

Really can't understand the reviews this film is getting, and the frustratingly narrow response from people that "you just didn't get it" seems to be reassuring people of their point of view who seemed to have taken some deep personal meaning from the film.

Continuing without any great spoiler alert because the thread has it in the title:

For me it was very well shot and acted film which fell down woefully in it's final act. There certainly was great tension and 'realism' (as realistic as you can hope to be with the subject matter of aliens arriving and what they might look like) created in the first two acts. The score, the genuine breath holding first entrance to the communication chamber and Amy Adams overall great performance being particular highlights.

The general theme of the film purports itself to be communication but then with the reveal of the twist tries to add in a personal layer about choice in your life and knowing the outcome of your choices. Having figured out relatively early that the timeline was askew and possibly the daughter didn't exist yet (and Renner being the obvious choice for father) maybe the reveal was spoiled for me but there are some unforgivable blunders in the final act which led me to leave the cinema shaking my head.

- The subtitling of the aliens in a dreadful bit of plot exposition is unforgivable and was genuinely laughable.
- The Deus Ex of the Chinese general handing her the solution in her now non linear perception of time again laughable and lazy.
- The time paradox of the general approaching her in the "future" in order to convince her to call him in the "past" makes no sense unless they are suggesting there are infinite possible futures (in which case how lucky she saw the one that mattered)
- The slow drawn out closing sequence did nothing other than bash the viewer over the head with the reveal in case you hadn't gotten it yet... who's that the daughter is calling Daddy??? Oh its Jeremy Renner! Shock!
- The fact that she would purposely cause great distress and harm to Renner's character by using him to have a child knowing he would abandon her for her deceit when he found out is troubling. She was perfectly happy for her child to live with a broken relationship with her father, lose her partner and suffer the pain of losing a child and having that child also suffer pain for what? So she could enjoy the few short years with her child?

IMHO here is how the film should have concluded (I'm not a screenwriter but a frustrated movie fan) -

The child should have held the key to her solving the world crisis and unifying nations, not the Chinese General. At least then there would have been a genuinely heart wrenching decision for her to make - sacrifice her relationship, have a child whom she know is destined to die young and suffer great personal loss in order to ensure the advancement of the human race.

Would that not have been a better way to wrap up? Keen to hear your opinions.

Thanks for reading if you made it this far!

Lol turns out I needed to be bludgeoned over the head a few more times. I didn't realise this at all. I thought she had a second daughter with Renner at the end. I thought it was just a pointless tacked on love story and it was coincidence that he was a scientist as well as the father. How did that relationship fall apart?

MeatTwoVeg

For me, a good film gets stronger in the days after you see it.

Arrival is the opposite. I initially liked it's visuals and sound design but the more you think about the movie the more ridiculous it seems.

I'm all for ridiculous movies but when a film takes itself as seriously as Arrival does, it grates.

cian68

Deleted User wrote: »

How did that relationship fall apart?

She tells him the daughter is doomed to die young and he can't hack it.

Mark Hamill

Mickeroo wrote: »

Abbott

I still think they should have called them Krodos and Kang instead of Abbott and Costello .

cian68

cian68 wrote: »

She tells him the daughter is doomed to die young and he can't hack it.

Does this literally happen at some point? I know I was hungover at the time but this is a fairly big thing to miss

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

Does this literally happen at some point? I know I was hungover at the time but this is a fairly big thing to miss

The daughter asks her why Daddy left or something at one stage, and she said it's because she told him something or something along those lines.

Fysh

Mickeroo wrote: »

The daughter asks her why Daddy left or something at one stage, and she said it's because she told him something or something along those lines.

There's also mention of Renner telling her "she made the wrong choice", with the question of which choice he meant (having the daughter knowing she'd die young, or telling him that she knew the daughter would die young) being left to the viewer.

Those of you souring on the film in retrospect, can you flesh out what you dislike about it beyond what has already been said?

FunLover18

Fysh wrote:

Those of you souring on the film in retrospect, can you flesh out what you dislike about it beyond what has already been said?

I haven't exactly soured on me but it hasn't stayed with me. The best bit for me was when she was breaking down the question in the white board, I wanted more of that. Amy Adams personal arc I feel was unnecessary as was the time perception. There's enough science fiction in learning to communicate with an alien race without adding some those features which since I've seen it just feel a tad gimmicky.

david75

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Just wanted to say this is a really condescending statement that reflects pretty poorly on you.

I thought this was a weak movie despite huge initial promise, not because it was "too Sci fi for the average Joe".... and most certainly not because it wasn't ID2, which to my mind is a strong contender for worst film of 2016.

Belittling people and insulting their intelligence because they didn't like a movie is incredibly childish.

Didn't belittle or insult anyone actually. Was addressing the fact that people actually seem to be butt hurt cos they didn't like it. Read back through the thread. Few people are almost angry with it or about not liking it.

TerrorFirmer

david75 wrote: »

Didn't belittle or insult anyone actually. Was addressing the fact that people actually seem to be butt hurt cos they didn't like it. Read back through the thread. Few people are almost angry with it or about not liking it.

Two people posted valid opinions as to why they didn't like the movie.

Your response was to suggest they 'didn't get it' and implied that they probably disliked it because there wasn't enough lasers and explosions (unless Independence Day 2 had other standout attributes I'm missing).

On the contrary it seems to be you who is 'butt-hurt' about people not liking it?

I thought it was a very good movie until the final third which on a very simple level I felt relied too heavily on a forced plot twist at the expense of the actual narrative to that point.

That's just my opinion, not a fact, it's not right nor wrong but it's completely valid, as are the other criticisms on the thread.

To suggest that critics are just 'joe punters' who aren't clever enough to understand the movie is very dismissive and blinkered.

david75

I'm not in the business of critiquing posts by anyone. Or taking offence from posts personally on behalf of other people. . That's a waste of time.
Better ways to spend the time.

Jan_de_Bakker

I was told to go see this as it's better than Interstellar - opinions of course but I was quite optimistic.
So I thought it was good, nice ideas in there but the time thing was a bit much for me (just like the ending of Interstellar) also awfull depressing and grey.

Still a decent flick tho.

mikhail

david75 wrote: »

I'm not in the business of critiquing posts by anyone. Or taking offence from posts personally on behalf of other people. . That's a waste of time.
Better ways to spend the time.

You started this by throwing out a childish insult (seriously, who says "butt hurt"?). Don't act all innocent when people call you out for it. It smacks of trolling.

peteeeed

enough please, back to the movie

pixelburp

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

I was told to go see this as it's better than Interstellar - opinions of course but I was quite optimistic.
So I thought it was good, nice ideas in there but the time thing was a bit much for me (just like the ending of Interstellar) also awfull depressing and grey.

Still a decent flick tho.

The palette and composition was weirdly subdued, but I think this worked in favour of the film's mystery. Given the themes of the film revolved around the pitfalls of language and communication, it was a nice touch that the language of cinema itself didn't give hints or be easily interpreted by the audience. Until the final act, it was never clear what the aliens true intentions were (and still aren't 100% tbh), and their ship helped maintain that complete absence of visual clue or identity; the slimy, minimalist interior underpinning a sense of the exotic and alien. Any use of bold colours or those 'heavenly' lights you often see in 'first contact' scenes would lodged too many presumptions in our minds.

kingcurls

Glad to read after my initial post there are some others out there who had the same criticism of the film and it wasn't just me.
I think I'll give it another watch (as I usually like to give a movie a couple of watches particularly when there is such outspoken positive reviews) but I can't see my opinion changing too much even taking it as an emotional journey as one user mentioned.

david75

mikhail wrote: »

You started this by throwing out a childish insult (seriously, who says "butt hurt"?). Don't act all innocent when people call you out for it. It smacks of trolling.

Insulted who exactly?
You took insult?
I didn't name you. Or anyone.
Calm down. You didn't like the film it's cool. Say so and split. Hanging around to insist it's crap and get in the way of discussion is actually trolling. You've already said you didn't like it.

Sad Professor

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

Two people posted valid opinions as to why they didn't like the movie.

Your response was to suggest they 'didn't get it' and implied that they probably disliked it because there wasn't enough lasers and explosions (unless Independence Day 2 had other standout attributes I'm missing).

On the contrary it seems to be you who is 'butt-hurt' about people not liking it?

I thought it was a very good movie until the final third which on a very simple level I felt relied too heavily on a forced plot twist at the expense of the actual narrative to that point.

That's just my opinion, not a fact, it's not right nor wrong but it's completely valid, as are the other criticisms on the thread.

To suggest that critics are just 'joe punters' who aren't clever enough to understand the movie is very dismissive and blinkered.

mikhail wrote: »

You started this by throwing out a childish insult (seriously, who says "butt hurt"?). Don't act all innocent when people call you out for it. It smacks of trolling.

david75 wrote: »

Insulted who exactly?
You took insult?
I didn't name you. Or anyone.
Calm down. You didn't like the film it's cool. Say so and split. Hanging around to insist it's crap and get in the way of discussion is actually trolling. You've already said you didn't like it.

This bickering is very boring and dragging the thread off-topic. Take it to pm guys.

Back on topic please.

phil1nj

Went to see this last night as it's coming to the end of it's run in the cinemas near me. Thought it was very good, heartbreaking at the start with the opening sequence between Adams and her daughter. Liked the non-linear time aspect as well.

My thoughts on other people being able to see their futures if they learned the alien language is that the only reason Adams character was able to do this was because she had "immersed herself" in it while trying to decipher the basics (along with Renner). They actually have a conversation about that in the movie at one point. Maybe without this immersion and direct exposure to the aliens , the rest of the populace can learn the language but it wouldn't have the same effect on them as "rewiring" the brain and allowing them to think as the visitors did. An oversimplification maybe but perhaps..

Overall I thought it was thought provoking and interesting, well acted and I'm glad I got to see it on the big screen (the showing I went to was about 3/4's full too which was great to see).

Sudden Valley

I felt that the husband came across very badly leaving his wife alone while his daughter was dying. Also it seems she had full knowledge of the future which made it seem set in stone. A whole lot of implications for whether we have free will if that was the case.

irishguitarlad

Went to see this yesterday and didn't like it. I felt it went bad around half way through.

quad_red

Well, finally saw it last night in the Light House with a beer (God, I love that cinema!).

I'd read the short story so I knew the gist but funnily I more regretted watching the trailers for giving too much away. I really enjoyed it.

Amy Adams is really a superb actress. On her shoulders it all rested and she really created a hugely believable character. Her pain at the loss of her daughter was utterly visceral. Her transcendent insight into time and her future were portrayed with a level of out-worldliness rather than 'guru-esque' omnipotence.

The spine tingling scene introduction setting up the scene etc. was brilliantly done as well. Not getting a clear look at the ship until the main character did etc. And the show area on the ship was just gorgeous - cold, bright, stark. The refusal to anthropomorphise the heptapods was commendable as well (although I note they remove the eyes they had in the story - might have looked too ridiculous?).

For those of you who haven't read the short story, I'd highly recommend it. The difference between the written and spoken languages and the reasoning behind their view of physics, the fact that their spark of consciousness left them with a profoundly different perception of the physical world than humans have.

Anyway, 5 people in my office have seen it. Myself and another girl loved it. Another found it ok (he loves Amy Adams and that's what carried it) and two other women didn't like it (one going so far as to call it the worst movie she's ever seen). So that's what you face when you make what could be called a 'reasonably hard sci fi' flick.

quad_red

kingcurls wrote: »

- The fact that she would purposely cause great distress and harm to Renner's character by using him to have a child knowing he would abandon her for her deceit when he found out is troubling. She was perfectly happy for her child to live with a broken relationship with her father, lose her partner and suffer the pain of losing a child and having that child also suffer pain for what? So she could enjoy the few short years with her child?

I didn't take it like that at all. She understands the turn of events in her future that will equip her with what she needs to solve this situation. In terms of her child, she is looking at her life and experience *not* as only her death. She is able to look at her child's life through the extra perceptions she has gotten through learning their language and through it a totally new way of viewing reality.

ie. Humans intuitively looked at the universe in terms of single moments whereas the Heptapods found meaning through actions over a period of time.

Yes, her daughter would die before she would. But her life, the enormous love and enrichment she would bring, didn't discount that. Her life was worth living. Knowing she would die did not outweigh the benefits and love she would bring. She knew her daughter would live a rich life. And still deserves to have that. And that the moment and joy they would experience as a family transcended what was to come.

Whereas the husband could only live in that moment once he found out it was coming.

kingcurls wrote: »

IMHO here is how the film should have concluded (I'm not a screenwriter but a frustrated movie fan) -

The child should have held the key to her solving the world crisis and unifying nations, not the Chinese General. At least then there would have been a genuinely heart wrenching decision for her to make - sacrifice her relationship, have a child whom she know is destined to die young and suffer great personal loss in order to ensure the advancement of the human race.

Would have felt hackneyed imho.

Whats the short story called?

Mickeroo

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats the short story called?

I think it's called The Story of Your Life.

donfers

If the heptapods have a non-linear experience of time i.e. they can see into their future then why didn't the one who died remove the bomb before it detonated

mikhail

donfers wrote: »

If the heptapods have a non-linear experience of time i.e. they can see into their future then why didn't the one who died remove the bomb before it detonated

Would they have gotten their desired outcome if it hadn't exploded?

quad_red

donfers wrote: »

If the heptapods have a non-linear experience of time i.e. they can see into their future then why didn't the one who died remove the bomb before it detonated

The bombing isn't actually in the short story. But I believe the thing with the book is that what the heptapods come to earth to learn from humans is how we live without knowing our futures. We have free will to chose futures we cannot yet see.

Whereas the heptapods saw the bombing coming but weren't able to change it.

Three quotes from the short story:

The heptapods are neither free nor bound as we understand those concepts; they don't act according to their will, nor are they helpless automatons.

Freedom isn't an illusion; it's perfectly real in the context of sequential consciousness. Within the context of simultaneous consciousness, freedom is not meaningful, but neither is coercion; it's simply a different context, no more or less valid than the other. It's like that famous optical illusion, the drawing of either an elegant young woman, face turned away from the viewer, or a wart-nosed crone, chin tucked down on her chest. There's no “correct” interpretation; both are equally valid. But you can't see both at the same time.

Similarly, knowledge of the future was incompatible with free will. What made it possible for me to exercise freedom of choice also made it impossible for me to know the future. Conversely, now that I know the future, I would never act contrary to that future, including telling others what I know: those who know the future don't talk about it. Those who've read the Book of Ages never admit to it.

kingcurls

quad_red wrote: »

I didn't take it like that at all. She understands the turn of events in her future that will equip her with what she needs to solve this situation. In terms of her child, she is looking at her life and experience *not* as only her death. She is able to look at her child's life through the extra perceptions she has gotten through learning their language and through it a totally new way of viewing reality.

ie. Humans intuitively looked at the universe in terms of single moments whereas the Heptapods found meaning through actions over a period of time.

Fair points well made - thanks for the rational discussion helping to offer me a new perspective beyond it being too "hard-sci fi" or not enough explosions or simply "just me not getting it" as per other contributors to the thread.

Your point about the non-linear nature of perception has rekindled some interesting issues in my mind:

How does one progress in a linear fashion at all if you perceive everything at once - how would you sit down and read a book for example - you've now already read it and are yet to read it and are reading it all at once.
How can you enjoy the life of a loved one you can see their best and worst moments, their birth and death all at once now (or at least whatever happens in the span of your lifetime) how do you establish meaningful relationships if you can't perceive things in a linear fashion - you are constantly time hopping between moments in life (This is how the movie portrays non-linear perception) therefore you are really only present in moments of your life - are these moments your mind cherry picks - can you exist in a nice quiet moment reading a book one second and transport yourself to that amazing holiday another second, if that was the case wouldn't you end up in a groundhog day scenario reliving your best days over and over?

The movie now seems even more ridiculous to me and highlights even more how the Chinese General being able to alter the past with his time hopping perception makes no sense - we can make infinite amends to infinite moments in our life's meaning some of them never even come to pass - presumably he was able to perceive the war that would happen if he didn't offer her the deus ex and that perception disappeared after his intervention (again time paradox)

Apologies for the brain dump. Don't expect anyone to read.

Slydice

Gave it a watch. Thought it was grand. Could've been more but probably would've lost a lot .. more.. of the audience.

Calibos

Had a feeling this would be another Prometheus and Interstellar and no later than 1/3 of the way through as I wished I could fast forward, I knew that indeed it was. ie. Pseudo intellectual pretentious twaddle. I also knew that you'd have the "haters" told they obviously just didn't understand the movie and maybe they should go back to watching 'splosions in Independence Day. As fate would have it, my Youtube feed had several Contact clips that I watched before seeing this film later in the day. Spooky or what!! Contact was an infinitely better film than this.

Hank Scorpio

Thought it was a good watch, the 2 hours flew. It's let down by the final third.

Agree with most of kingcurls points.

conorhal

It was an interesting film to be sure, but the whole premise fell apart for me with the twisty mcguffin.
I just couldn't accept the nonsensical idea that learning an alien language would allow a human mind to percieve time differently. It was just a suspension of disbelief to far to ask of me I'm afraid.
The entire twist felt like a cleverly disguised version of the stupid Mcguffin at the centre of 'Lucy', you know, that whorey old 'if only you could use 100% of your brain you'd have super powers' nonsense.

Royale with Cheese

This is all I could think of when watching this film, seems I wasn't the only one:

kingcurls

Calibos wrote: »

Had a feeling this would be another Prometheus and Interstellar and no later than 1/3 of the way through as I wished I could fast forward, I knew that indeed it was. ie. Pseudo intellectual pretentious twaddle. I also knew that you'd have the "haters" told they obviously just didn't understand the movie and maybe they should go back to watching 'splosions in Independence Day. As fate would have it, my Youtube feed had several Contact clips that I watched before seeing this film later in the day. Spooky or what!! Contact was an infinitely better film than this.

Strongly agree, I enjoyed Interstellar immensely more than this however, the pseudo intellectualism seemed to work a bit better in it, possibly because of its "not-too-distant" future setting but there was a more satisfying resolve than Arrival.

Contact is a great film and hit perfectly on the type of wonder and excitement that Arrival blew straight past - also don't show us the Aliens and definitely don't subtitle them into being plot expositional devices to help speed up the final act. Explain it to us calmly on a weird beach instead

Rewatched it with the mother and - after taking away the focus on the story - I realized something kinda awesome - the movie is a palindrome. You can watch it in reverse and it is the same story. It struck me when Adams' Louise is explaining the importance of her daughter's name - Hannah, that it is a palindrome.

That is some absolute feat for writing and directing.

david75

I still think this film is fantastic.

But the dust has settled and the consensus seems to be it's trying too obviously to be clever.

So it lacks subtlety at being clever?
I'll take that

Rather that than interstellar which just makes no sense. But tries to apply science. Real science. Then flakes out with a makey uppy fantasy ending.

And Arrival is one of the best looking and best shot films that I can remember.


Handsome AND clever?

Have my knickers now. Sorry they're soaking. But they're yours.

Mark Hamill

david75 wrote: »

Rather that than interstellar which just makes no sense. But tries to apply science. Real science. Then flakes out with a makey uppy fantasy ending.

An alien language that lets you experience time simultaneously is not makey uppy fantasy?

david75

Mark Hamill wrote: »

An alien language that lets you experience time simultaneously is not makey uppy fantasy?

Well it could have basis in fact for all we know.

Ps do you die in episode 8?
Please say no.