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

.ak

peteeeed wrote: »

Yes he's scoring the sequel

Oh my....

rhino_hunter

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

Agent Coulson

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.

mikhail

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.

On that, their shape was quite interesting: it's a rattleback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmEf7aIhpF8

RDM_83 again

My one line description of this film would be "magic realism with Aliens not Sci-Fi"

Fysh wrote: »

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.

All I could think of when watching this was that I would rather be reading Blindsight.

Left the cinema very disappointed, I would recommend this film to people who aren't really fans of print sci-fi and that really like films like the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind where a sci-fi concept plays a very secondary role to the emotional journey of the characters.
Perception of time does not imply time travel, this is an easily tested hypothesis go out and eat far too many magic mushrooms. no you haven't been stuck in a time warp but you may have annoyed everybody else by repeating the same questions for 5 hours

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 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.

Fysh wrote: »

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.

- There is a massive and highly flawed assumption here, it implies she is the only one who ever learns the language until she prints the book, its clear from the film that others have some grasp of the writen language and all this information is available to others, leaving aside that its stupid to expect that the most important problem in the word would only be tackled by one american women

Fysh wrote: »

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

Its not just a fascinating question it basically sort of ruins things if you think about it at all and its never engaged with once in the film, it says "your father thought I made the wrong choice", internal logic to the film is, she could make no other choice.

Fysh wrote: »

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.

Major fan of Le Guin but this can't be called "most definitely science fiction", maybe she would have done something like this but it would have been under her "fantasy/ indeterminate" bracket.

To quote the Lady herself "There have been really few science fiction movies. They have mostly been fantasies, with spaceships."

Havent read the source material maybe its better.

Film does look well and the 'feel' of it works, just wish they had gone a different direction with things and not done the standard, time travel saves the day ****. Havent read the source material maybe its better.

david75

Caught between a rock and a hard place this film. Joe punter doesn't like it cos it's sci fi and going over their heads. Sci fi fans don't like it cos it's not sci fi (enough. Or at all).

strandroad

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

I think it kind of happened though, she submitted to the version of events she knew so that things could play out as she saw them - so in a way going through with having and losing her daughter did save the world.

alchemist33

This may end up being one of my favourite science fiction films ever. A fantastic film

Dempsey

This film suffered badly from lazy writing in the 3rd act to the point where I wouldnt recommend this film to anyone unless you really want to waste time and money.

Hrududu

Person One: I've just thought of a cool plot twist that would be great in a movie

Person Two: Great. Do you have a solid plot with fully fleshed out characters to put it in to?

Person One: ...

Coming this December, Arrival!

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

Brenna Sticky Boar 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

Brenna Sticky Boar 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

Brenna Sticky Boar 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.