CINEMA

Arrival

POSTED BY: ECGORDON
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 18:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3065
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, November 12, 2016 5:25 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 12, 2016 7:40 PM

MOOSE


Which version of Blade Runner do you prefer?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:19 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


The '92 Director's Cut.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2016 1:50 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I agree with you to a certain extent EC. Yes, this movie needs a couple of viewings, not that it was confusing in any way because I love how patient the director was in unfolding this story. It's just that the reward, or payoff as Ebert would describe, was not up to the hype.

Of course, that's just my initial reaction to this very personal sci-fi almost instant classic. Yes, it's good, but it was a slight let down, but
99% of this movie is so good. The house was full, not an empty seat to be had, and I felt that everyone was into it, the mystery up until the Big Reveal, when I felt this audible gasp (or was that me) that somehow it wasn't enough. As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.

Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter). I definitely had some ideas floating around in my head as I watched film, good movies make you think, and I loved the whole mystery and how it unfolded. Far too many movies spell it out for you, for me that's half the fun, and here I got the notion that the director cautiously built his story and layered it like a mason - brick by brick. Mysterious and rather ominous, almost claustrophobic. I loved that feeling, it was as though the audience was asked to suit up and come along. Again direction, but it never felt forced or contrived, quite the contrary, it felt spontaneous and alive. Organic! That's the word I'm looking for.

I will see it again, only because I want so much to completely surrender to this important film. Yes, important because of it's message. Important because it spells out in rather stark terms just how us humans totally botch things up, and how easy it is to undo. Important especially because of our modern times and recent, very recent, history. Bravo with just one quibble.
After a brilliant set up and build up, there was some let down. Gut reactions for me are always a painful process, because I may have missed something, but I really liked the rest of the film.

Therefore, I'm going to see it again.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2016 12:01 PM

ANONYMOUSE


Hmm. I turn 51 on Tuesday, and I was debating treating myself by seeing this film. Now I think I will. Thanks, troops. Shiny!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 13, 2016 11:03 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2016 4:30 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I must say EC, this is your best review I've ever read. So much so, that it gave me a new perspective on the film. Now I've always prided myself on picking up on the details of a movie, especially one such as this one, making brave choices and resisting the conventional while, at the same time, embracing it. But you've called into question my overall reaction to the ending, and I applaud you for it. Of course, I know this was not your direct intention per se, but you've managed to nudge me to "walk around the painting" as it were.

"Some will likely nit-pick the ending as confusing and inconclusive, but if you pay attention it makes perfect sense."

That sentence meant more to me than anything. It pinpointed my feelings over my "confusion" over the reveal/payoff of the film. But I was looking at it
from a point of view that was out of step with the essence of the movie, which you correctly stated - our relationship to ourselves and others, communication and our concept of time - how we value that precious fleeting element of our lives. It is not the destination, but the journey that elevates and exalts us as humans.

I did get that the passage of time and our relationship to it is key to our development as a race, but I was looking at the impact of the message being lower than our expectation of it. I felt that it did not achieve worthy merit. It is more about taking whatever time you do have, as Louise discovered, and enjoying and appreciating every moment. Sci-fi, especially this kind of film, is supposed to make you think and question human behavior and motivations. Great sci-fi opens minds. It is a commentary on events and social norms, and this film reveals the many possible approaches one could take. Arrival did just that.

I need to take a second look.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My review: http://templetongate.net/arrival.htm




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2016 6:55 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


Thanks, man, but I'd have to disagree about the quality of the review. I struggled with it for hours and I'm still not satisfied. Maybe in a few years, and after several more viewings, I can revise it to better reflect my opinion. Of course, my opinion could change, as it has for other films at times.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2016 1:16 PM

OLDGUY

What Would Mal do ?


saw it last night...not one to go to the theater that often..have a nice setup at the house..but the wife was looking for a movie date...probably shouda talked her into Jack Reacher or something.
anyway.. I like the concept that of course the original story sets up, and that more than one movie or TV show (think 'Q' and Picard in the show's grand finale).
anyway...CG has reached the point where they can do most anything they want and the mind is comfy with the images it sees as being real.
what they haven't done with these bleeding heart liberal drama directors is figured out how to create a music score that doesn't scream "Kira knightly depression scene" or that isn't so loud that you get blasted with parts of the score, but then can't hear Amy's little ASMR voicings.
all in all.. i liked the movie, how it handled the concepts, topic.. i won't post on Rotten Maters as i don't want to sully it's perfect score...but I'm not there with it as an all -time favorite.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 14, 2016 10:44 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


My reviews are just a hobby, I'm far from a professional, and there are many times I know I'm not as good as I would like. One thing I try not to do is spoil a film or book, unlike how Gary Westfahl does in the first paragraph of his review at LocusOnline. I'm sure he figured his audience there would have read the short story, but still, that's sloppy, and without any warning either.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2016 4:40 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I get that too sometimes, especially with a film of this caliber. There's so much to absorb and reflect upon, so much that is going on, plus the fact that, as a film fan we want to sit back and enjoy; but there's that little voice - you know that voice inside your head.

Ultimately, in the end, we are our worst critic.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Thanks, man, but I'd have to disagree about the quality of the review. I struggled with it for hours and I'm still not satisfied. Maybe in a few years, and after several more viewings, I can revise it to better reflect my opinion. Of course, my opinion could change, as it has for other films at times.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 16, 2016 5:16 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


You and I are on the same page when it comes to spoiling a film...I'm not a fan. Also, put my name in the Hobby column. I try as much as possible to express myself in a professional manner, although I'm far from that lofty position. I prefer to point out certain aspects of the film that gives the reader an overall picture. Giving a brief description of the film's story, then filling it in with the cobbling together, or logistics, of the movie - acting, pacing, cinematography, direction, music etc.

Both my son and I despise the modern-day Hollywood trailers. They just give so much away, it's their own version of spoilers that you find yourself anticipating while watching the movie. We had discussed a way in which you could show a piece without giving away/spoiling the film. We thought why not produce a prologue or epilogue that gives the viewer a piece of the story
without actually showing clips of the main piece. Something that gives you a bit of the theme without giving away the main thrust of the film.

A couple of years ago, we both thought that Christopher Nolan, with the Dark Knight, had really captured that idea by using a scene from within the main piece - the bank robbery scene. I thought it was a brilliant move on his part, creating excitement while, at the same time, not spoiling the film.

EC, it is the love of film and storytelling that drives us. Hobby or no, we may be on different roads, but we're on the same path. We both strive and struggle for that love and it ain't ever easy.

Your colleague in suffering (for the art form)


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My reviews are just a hobby, I'm far from a professional, and there are many times I know I'm not as good as I would like. One thing I try not to do is spoil a film or book, unlike how Gary Westfahl does in the first paragraph of his review at LocusOnline. I'm sure he figured his audience there would have read the short story, but still, that's sloppy, and without any warning either.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 20, 2016 4:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I did not read the book.
I am not sure why people are complaining about the ending. Was it because of too much foreshadowing, so the ending was obvious halfway through? What else?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 21, 2016 10:27 AM

ZEEK


Saw the movie this weekend. Not a bad scifi movie. Some of the dialog writing didn't work for me. Took me out of the movie a bit. I really hate when characters don't act like normal people just to serve the plot. Such as not telling people very basic information just so the audience is kept in the dark. Regardless it was a decent movie. I'm not sure if I'll ever watch it again, but it definitely could be interesting a second time through.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 21, 2016 8:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.



As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.


So, what was the worst part? What did you not see coming?
Quote:


Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


did you feel that dialogue was intentionally muddled,

Select to view spoiler:


providing effects for the time-control?

or were you still adjusting to the sound from the previews?
Quote:




SGG


I did think it a bit rude of her to

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:22 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


As far as the ending goes; I liked it. What I was referring to was the build up to the end and how I felt the ending of the story was an anti-climactic letdown. I got the sense that the people in the theater I went to had a similar reaction. The "why" of the movie, the big reveal of the visit.

Despite that letdown, I was impressed with all the rest. And that was the "worst" part. The ending, I didn't see that coming; and that's a good thing.

The sound mixing during the colonel coming for Louise scene was a bit off, so that I couldn't hear the dialogue clearly.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.



As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.


So, what was the worst part? What did you not see coming?
Quote:


Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


did you feel that dialogue was intentionally muddled,

Select to view spoiler:


providing effects for the time-control?

or were you still adjusting to the sound from the previews?
Quote:




SGG


I did think it a bit rude of her to


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 23, 2016 8:01 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.



As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.


So, what was the worst part? What did you not see coming?
Quote:


Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


did you feel that dialogue was intentionally muddled,

Select to view spoiler:


providing effects for the time-control?

or were you still adjusting to the sound from the previews?
Quote:




SGG


I did think it a bit rude of her to


Finishing my line...
I thought it rude of her to tell her hubby about the eventual path of their daughter's life. Did she do it just to hurt him? I have not yet reconciled that, other than her just being mean.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 23, 2016 8:08 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.


As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.


So, what was the worst part? What did you not see coming?
Quote:


Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


did you feel that dialogue was intentionally muddled,

Select to view spoiler:


providing effects for the time-control?

or were you still adjusting to the sound from the previews?
Quote:


SGG


I did think it a bit rude of her to tell her hubby about the eventual path of their daughter's life. Did she do it just to hurt him? I have not yet reconciled that, other than her just being mean.


As far as the ending goes; I liked it. What I was referring to was the build up to the end and how I felt the ending of the story was an anti-climactic letdown. I got the sense that the people in the theater I went to had a similar reaction. The "why" of the movie, the big reveal of the visit.


I still don't understand what letdown. Wasn't it the best possible outcome? Was everybody hoping for more violence? There was so much foreshadowing, did people feel letdown that it was simply what the foreshadowing portended? They wanted it to not be what the foreshadowing indicated?
The puzzle was solved, right? Wasn't that the build up you mentioned? The puzzle, the mystery, the time-critical resolution? I feel like that was somewhat what Apollo 13 was about - a very time-critical race of thought and solutions. But Apollo 13 and Arrival were not paced the same.
Quote:


Despite that letdown, I was impressed with all the rest. And that was the "worst" part. The ending, I didn't see that coming; and that's a good thing.

The sound mixing during the colonel coming for Louise scene was a bit off, so that I couldn't hear the dialogue clearly.


Yes, I already agreed. But my question for you is do you think it was intentional? Did you see Inception? During that film and during FF Episode Out of Gas there were sensory clues to the level, state, or date of the scene.

Select to view spoiler:


Was this a clue for us about her time-warping? Do you think this scene, and some other scenes, had intentionally muddled sound or focus?


Quote:


SGG


I do admit that I am not certain if the guy in the hazmat bubble stretcher was her adversary from, what was it-Berkeley?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2016 3:57 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I felt the Big Question of the movie was "Why did the Aliens arrive?"
This was driven hard by the director from within the script, and also by the characters within the movie.

The effects you speak of happen to Louise, it is her perception, her point of view we see. That is purposeful. The "helicopter" scene that I'm speaking of I do not believe was an intentional "effect." Although there are some that Louise experiences that "we" (the audience) get to experience along with her. Those, I do believe, were intended to elicit or stimulate "our" thoughts in a particular way...namely emotions towards family and significant events.

It was clear to me that this was key, but how it fit into the story was another piece of the puzzle. I enjoyed how that was hinted at and that we were not "spoon-fed" the answers. But the "why" was still not clear - why they came to earth and what did that have to do with Louise and her daughter. This was built up to a climax at the end that did not match in the level of intensity of the build up....strictly my opinion. I felt that the reveal as to why the aliens arrived when they did was not equal to the task...namely a profound reason that matched the build up throughout the movie. Perhaps the book would provide an answer to that question.

The film was saying that the aliens would help humans with some future crisis
but never revealed what that crisis could possibly be. That they switch the focus to the mother and child reunion. For me that wasn't quite enough to have invested nearly 2 hours of mystery solving. Time displacement or chronological disorder just didn't quite quench the thirst for knowledge and answer the Big Why "they" were here now.

Both Inception and Out of Gas - apples and oranges, although each presented their time displacement reveals in a much more clearly defined way. The rules of the game were explained far more clearly so that we understood, once there, how to apply those rules. We could figure out, to some degree, what each character contributed to the climax and ending. We otherwise had more to go on and I, for one, felt that the journey was well worth the ride.

Arrival kept the rules purposely hidden and had us follow "bread crumbs" along the way. This could have been more rewarding had they given a more satisfying reason for the Arrival. Had this happened, I suggest that even the ending would have been enhanced, so that instead of the audience leaving the theater in a subdued fashion, applause would have been the response. That is to say, that I liked the surprise reveal of the family
at the end, but not to the degree I "loved" the endings of Inception and Out of Gas.

The worst part? The reveal of why the aliens arrived - big letdown.

What I didn't see coming? The family reveal or who the father was.

What I think finally sunk this movie was how the director tried to pull the rabbit out of the hat and instead pulled a meek little mouse. The old switcheroo. Look over here at this hand, pay no attention to the hand behind the curtain. He's given us aliens, ominous and mysterious in nature.
Why are they here? Every character is dispatched to uncover the mystery. It's what drives the movie. Yes, they drop hints along the way that somehow our hero is connected to the event, and they are very clever not to give away too much.

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

That's it. Nothing more to be said on that subject. Just my take on it.



SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2016 10:44 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

There was a bigger idea being sold in this movie. It was sincere, and serious, physics:

Einstein once described his friend Michele Besso as “the best sounding board in Europe” for scientific ideas. They attended university together in Zurich; later they were colleagues at the patent office in Bern. When Besso died in the spring of 1955, Einstein—knowing that his own time was also running out—wrote a now-famous letter to Besso’s family. “Now he has departed this strange world a little ahead of me,” Einstein wrote of his friend’s passing. “That signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Einstein’s statement was not merely an attempt at consolation. Many physicists argue that Einstein’s position is implied by the two pillars of modern physics: Einstein’s masterpiece, the general theory of relativity, and the Standard Model of particle physics. The laws that underlie these theories are time-symmetric—that is, the physics they describe is the same, regardless of whether the variable called “time” increases or decreases. Moreover, they say nothing at all about the point we call “now”—a special moment (or so it appears) for us, but seemingly undefined when we talk about the universe at large. The resulting timeless cosmos is sometimes called a “block universe”—a static block of space-time in which any flow of time, or passage through it, must presumably be a mental construct or other illusion.

Many physicists have made peace with the idea of a block universe, arguing that the task of the physicist is to describe how the universe appears from the point of view of individual observers. To understand the distinction between past, present and future, you have to “plunge into this block universe and ask: ‘How is an observer perceiving time?’” said Andreas Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California, Davis, and one of the founders of the theory of cosmic inflation.

www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/07/the-debate-over-times-plac
e-in-the-universe/492464
/

The heptapods knew in detail what would happen 3,000 years into the future and Louisa knew in detail what would happen to her future daughter, Hannah. Both Louisa & heptapods were prepared for the sad inevitabilities.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2016 8:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I know you are going to be shocked at this, but I am going to disagree with you.
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I felt the Big Question of the movie was "Why did the Aliens arrive?"
This was driven hard by the director from within the script, and also by the characters within the movie.

The effects you speak of happen to Louise, it is her perception, her point of view we see. That is purposeful. The "helicopter" scene that I'm speaking of I do not believe was an intentional "effect."


I accept your answer. I also ask that when you see it again, if your belief is altered, please share that with us.
Quote:


It was clear to me that this was key, but how it fit into the story was another piece of the puzzle. I enjoyed how that was hinted at and that we were not "spoon-fed" the answers. But the "why" was still not clear - why they came to earth and what did that have to do with Louise and her daughter. This was built up to a climax at the end that did not match in the level of intensity of the build up....strictly my opinion. I felt that the reveal as to why the aliens arrived when they did was not equal to the task...namely a profound reason that matched the build up throughout the movie. Perhaps the book would provide an answer to that question.


You feel the reveal was not equal to the expectation. Do you foresee that this type of underwhelming apogee could become a fad of future films? A counter or balance to the over-the-top climax present in such as Captain America or other mass-violence epics?
Quote:


The film was saying that the aliens would help humans with some future crisis but never revealed what that crisis could possibly be.


This is where I disagree, but perhaps I misunderstood.

Select to view spoiler:


They said they would need our help, the help of humans, in 3000 years - not the reverse as you stated. They needed us to survive in order to preserve that saving future event. The Chinese leader (think of DPRK's Kims) was railroading towards global war, and this needed to be stopped, by Louise. The intersection of time between Louise increasing her power and control of her weapon and also the asian leadership going batty was why the Arrival occurred now.
That was also the key to why they divided the message into the 12 portions (I don't recall many of them below the equator - is that considered racist?)
I think perhaps my greatest surprise was the revelation of the poor interpretation of their insistence of "use your weapon" - but I should have seen that coming as well.
Do you feel that the paradox of her meeting her husband and creating the daughter which she fawns over and focuses her weapon upon is significant to the timing? That without that origin, she would not have put so much concentration into developing and strengthening her weapon? This would mean that they needed to come now, to bring them together, or else the child would not be created and Louise would not have garnered enough control of her weapon - she was already pushing her limits in terms of increasing power as it was. If the child was the catalyst which encouraged Louise to develop her weapon, then perhaps these 2 diffuse people from different parts of the globe needed help being brought together - or else the continuation of mankind, and 3 millenia hence, the continuation and survival of the visitors, would be lost.
Although perhaps I missed some details about how they view different possibilities of the future.


Quote:


That they switch the focus to the mother and child reunion. For me that wasn't quite enough to have invested nearly 2 hours of mystery solving. Time displacement or chronological disorder just didn't quite quench the thirst for knowledge and answer the Big Why "they" were here now.

Both Inception and Out of Gas - apples and oranges, although each presented their time displacement reveals in a much more clearly defined way. The rules of the game were explained far more clearly so that we understood, once there, how to apply those rules. We could figure out, to some degree, what each character contributed to the climax and ending. We otherwise had more to go on and I, for one, felt that the journey was well worth the ride.

Arrival kept the rules purposely hidden and had us follow "bread crumbs" along the way. This could have been more rewarding had they given a more satisfying reason for the Arrival. Had this happened, I suggest that even the ending would have been enhanced, so that instead of the audience leaving the theater in a subdued fashion, applause would have been the response. That is to say, that I liked the surprise reveal of the family
at the end, but not to the degree I "loved" the endings of Inception and Out of Gas.

The worst part? The reveal of why the aliens arrived - big letdown.

What I didn't see coming? The family reveal or who the father was.

What I think finally sunk this movie was how the director tried to pull the rabbit out of the hat and instead pulled a meek little mouse. The old switcheroo. Look over here at this hand, pay no attention to the hand behind the curtain. He's given us aliens, ominous and mysterious in nature.
Why are they here? Every character is dispatched to uncover the mystery. It's what drives the movie. Yes, they drop hints along the way that somehow our hero is connected to the event, and they are very clever not to give away too much.

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

That's it. Nothing more to be said on that subject. Just my take on it.

SGG


I could also note that Abbott's entering the death cycle affected me more than I would have expected.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:34 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I know you are going to be shocked at this, but I am going to disagree with you.


SGG: You're right, I was "shocked" (Ha, ha!)


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I felt the Big Question of the movie was "Why did the Aliens arrive?"
This was driven hard by the director from within the script, and also by the characters within the movie.

The effects you speak of happen to Louise, it is her perception, her point of view we see. That is purposeful. The "helicopter" scene that I'm speaking of I do not believe was an intentional "effect."


I accept your answer. I also ask that when you see it again, if your belief is altered, please share that with us.


SGG: Why thank you! And I will.


Quote:


It was clear to me that this was key, but how it fit into the story was another piece of the puzzle. I enjoyed how that was hinted at and that we were not "spoon-fed" the answers. But the "why" was still not clear - why they came to earth and what did that have to do with Louise and her daughter. This was built up to a climax at the end that did not match in the level of intensity of the build up....strictly my opinion. I felt that the reveal as to why the aliens arrived when they did was not equal to the task...namely a profound reason that matched the build up throughout the movie. Perhaps the book would provide an answer to that question.


You feel the reveal was not equal to the expectation. Do you foresee that this type of underwhelming apogee could become a fad of future films? A counter or balance to the over-the-top climax present in such as Captain America or other mass-violence epics?


SGG: No, I don't see a trend. I think the producers and director of Arrival saw a good story that would resonate with audiences across the country, it just happened to have that 70s vibe.


Quote:


The film was saying that the aliens would help humans with some future crisis
but never revealed what that crisis could possibly be.


This is where I disagree, but perhaps I misunderstood.

Select to view spoiler:


They said they would need our help, the help of humans, in 3000 years - not the reverse as you stated. They needed us to survive in order to preserve that saving future event. The Chinese leader (think of DPRK's Kims) was railroading towards global war, and this needed to be stopped, by Louise. The intersection of time between Louise increasing her power and control of her weapon and also the asian leadership going batty was why the Arrival occurred now.
That was also the key to why they divided the message into the 12 portions (I don't recall many of them below the equator - is that considered racist?)
I think perhaps my greatest surprise was the revelation of the poor interpretation of their insistence of "use your weapon" - but I should have seen that coming as well.
Do you feel that the paradox of her meeting her husband and creating the daughter which she fawns over and focuses her weapon upon is significant to the timing? That without that origin, she would not have put so much concentration into developing and strengthening her weapon? This would mean that they needed to come now, to bring them together, or else the child would not be created and Louise would not have garnered enough control of her weapon - she was already pushing her limits in terms of increasing power as it was. If the child was the catalyst which encouraged Louise to develop her weapon, then perhaps these 2 diffuse people from different parts of the globe needed help being brought together - or else the continuation of mankind, and 3 millenia hence, the continuation and survival of the visitors, would be lost.
Although perhaps I missed some details about how they view different possibilities of the future.


Quote:


That they switch the focus to the mother and child reunion. For me that wasn't quite enough to have invested nearly 2 hours of mystery solving. Time displacement or chronological disorder just didn't quite quench the thirst for knowledge and answer the Big Why "they" were here now.

Both Inception and Out of Gas - apples and oranges, although each presented their time displacement reveals in a much more clearly defined way. The rules of the game were explained far more clearly so that we understood, once there, how to apply those rules. We could figure out, to some degree, what each character contributed to the climax and ending. We otherwise had more to go on and I, for one, felt that the journey was well worth the ride.

Arrival kept the rules purposely hidden and had us follow "bread crumbs" along the way. This could have been more rewarding had they given a more satisfying reason for the Arrival. Had this happened, I suggest that even the ending would have been enhanced, so that instead of the audience leaving the theater in a subdued fashion, applause would have been the response. That is to say, that I liked the surprise reveal of the family
at the end, but not to the degree I "loved" the endings of Inception and Out of Gas.

The worst part? The reveal of why the aliens arrived - big letdown.

What I didn't see coming? The family reveal or who the father was.

What I think finally sunk this movie was how the director tried to pull the rabbit out of the hat and instead pulled a meek little mouse. The old switcheroo. Look over here at this hand, pay no attention to the hand behind the curtain. He's given us aliens, ominous and mysterious in nature.
Why are they here? Every character is dispatched to uncover the mystery. It's what drives the movie. Yes, they drop hints along the way that somehow our hero is connected to the event, and they are very clever not to give away too much.

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

That's it. Nothing more to be said on that subject. Just my take on it.

SGG


I could also note that Abbott's entering the death cycle affected me more than I would have expected.



SGG: JSF, Here's something that really shocked me. I have to commend you for a lucid and well presented argument (Plus the fact that you are right, I twisted the story of the aliens around). Thanks for not gloating. I refer to your "spoiler" section response, I actually understood your take and found it interesting.

I believe that the displaced time element of the story was used effectively throughout the film, but the transition, or reveal, was poorly set up and executed. In sci-fi you must have a proper set up or it all goes to hell at the crucial point in the movie. The thing that I liked about the producers is that they trusted the audience would bring their sci-fi detective kits. I'm adding to my take on the rules of film engagement; namely that the film sets up the ground rules by which the audience deciphers the story. Here the audience was asked to apply the basics and the film would fill in the rest. You reminded me of that in that section.

Hey JSF, I'm stopping here because, for some reason, I'm finding it hard to concentrate at the moment. Your response deserves a good solid answer.
I'll be back!


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2016 10:29 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


When the short story that became the movie Arrival was written, it did not have explosions or guns or a frantic phone call to China to stop World War. That’s all Hollywood’s ideas. The story didn't even have humans walking inside alien spaceships, since heptapods in the short story are allergic to Earth dirt. But what the story did have is the same as the following story from the same author, a big idea about the true nature of time:

from NATURE|Vol 436|7 July 2005

What's expected of us

by Ted Chiang

This is a warning. Please read carefully.

By now you’ve probably seen a Predictor; millions of them have been sold by the time you’re reading this. For those who haven’t seen one, it’s a small device, like a remote for opening your car door. Its only features are a button and a big green LED. The light flashes if you press the button. Specifically, the light flashes one second before you press the button.

Most people say that when they first try it, it feels like they’re playing a strange game, one where the goal is to press the button after seeing the flash, and it’s easy to play. But when you try to break the rules, you find that you can’t. If you try to press the button without having seen a flash, the flash immediately appears, and no matter how fast you move, you never push the button until a second has elapsed. If you wait for the flash, intending to keep from pressing the button afterwards, the flash never appears. No matter what you do, the light always precedes the button press. There’s no way to fool a Predictor.

The heart of each Predictor is a circuit with a negative time delay — it sends a signal back in time. The full implications of the technology will become apparent later, when negative delays of greater than a second are achieved, but that’s not what this warning is about. The immediate problem is that Predictors demonstrate that there’s no such thing as free will.

There have always been arguments showing that free will is an illusion, some based on hard physics, others based on pure logic. Most people agree these arguments are irrefutable, but no one ever really accepts the conclusion. The experience of having free will is too powerful for an argument to overrule. What it takes is a demonstration, and that’s what a Predictor provides.

Typically, a person plays with a Predictor compulsively for several days, showing it to friends, trying various schemes to outwit the device. The person may appear to lose interest in it, but no one can forget what it means — over the following weeks, the implications of an immutable future sink in. Some people, realizing that their choices don’t matter, refuse to make any choices at all. Like a legion of Bartleby the Scriveners, they no longer engage in spontaneous action. Eventually, a third of those who play with a Predictor must be hospitalized because they won’t feed themselves. The end state is akinetic mutism, a kind of waking coma. They’ll track motion with their eyes, and change position occasionally, but nothing more. The ability to move remains, but the motivation is gone.

Before people started playing with Predictors, akinetic mutism was very rare, a result of damage to the anterior cingulate region of the brain. Now it spreads like a cognitive plague. People used to speculate about a thought that destroys the thinker, some unspeakable lovecraftian horror, or a Godel sentence that crashes the human logical system. It turns out that the disabling thought is one that we’ve all encountered: the idea that free will doesn’t exist. It just wasn’t harmful until you believed it.

Doctors try arguing with the patients while they still respond to conversation. We had all been living happy, active lives before, they reason, and we hadn’t had free will then either. Why should anything change? “No action you took last month was any more freely chosen than one you take today,” a doctor might say. “You can still behave that way now.” The patients invariably respond, “But now I know.” And some of them never say anything again.

Some will argue that the fact the Predictor causes this change in behaviour means that we do have free will. An automaton cannot become discouraged, only a free-thinking entity can. The fact that some individuals descend into akinetic mutism whereas others do not just highlights the importance of making a choice.

Unfortunately, such reasoning is faulty: every form of behaviour is compatible with determinism. One dynamic system might fall into a basin of attraction and wind up at a fixed point, whereas another exhibits chaotic behaviour indefinitely, but both are completely deterministic.

I’m transmitting this warning to you from just over a year in your future: it’s the first lengthy message received when circuits with negative delays in the mega-second range are used to build communication devices. Other messages will follow, addressing other issues. My message to you is this: pretend that you have free will. It’s essential that you behave as if your decisions matter, even though you know that they don’t. The reality isn’t important: what’s important is your belief, and believing the lie is the only way to avoid a waking coma. Civilization now depends on self-deception. Perhaps it always has.

And yet I know that, because free will is an illusion, it’s all predetermined who will descend into akinetic mutism and who won’t. There’s nothing anyone can do about it — you can’t choose the effect the Predictor has on you. Some of you will succumb and some of you won’t, and my sending this warning won’t alter those proportions. So why did I do it?

Because I had no choice.

Ted Chiang is an occasional writer of science fiction. His work can be found in his collection Stories of Your Life and Others, published by Pan Macmillan.

©2005 Nature Publishing Group

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:08 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


FYI, that was really hard to notice without the quote syntax - until I was ready to reply to a point that you had already made, but I didn't notice. So I have added the syntax here.
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I know you are going to be shocked at this, but I am going to disagree with you.


SGG: You're right, I was "shocked" (Ha, ha!)
Quote:


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I felt the Big Question of the movie was "Why did the Aliens arrive?"
This was driven hard by the director from within the script, and also by the characters within the movie.

The effects you speak of happen to Louise, it is her perception, her point of view we see. That is purposeful. The "helicopter" scene that I'm speaking of I do not believe was an intentional "effect."


I accept your answer. I also ask that when you see it again, if your belief is altered, please share that with us.


SGG: Why thank you! And I will.
Quote:


Quote:


It was clear to me that this was key, but how it fit into the story was another piece of the puzzle. I enjoyed how that was hinted at and that we were not "spoon-fed" the answers. But the "why" was still not clear - why they came to earth and what did that have to do with Louise and her daughter. This was built up to a climax at the end that did not match in the level of intensity of the build up....strictly my opinion. I felt that the reveal as to why the aliens arrived when they did was not equal to the task...namely a profound reason that matched the build up throughout the movie. Perhaps the book would provide an answer to that question.


You feel the reveal was not equal to the expectation. Do you foresee that this type of underwhelming apogee could become a fad of future films? A counter or balance to the over-the-top climax present in such as Captain America or other mass-violence epics?


SGG: No, I don't see a trend. I think the producers and director of Arrival saw a good story that would resonate with audiences across the country, it just happened to have that 70s vibe.
Quote:


Quote:


The film was saying that the aliens would help humans with some future crisis but never revealed what that crisis could possibly be.


This is where I disagree, but perhaps I misunderstood.

Select to view spoiler:


They said they would need our help, the help of humans, in 3000 years - not the reverse as you stated. They needed us to survive in order to preserve that saving future event. The Chinese leader (think of DPRK's Kims) was railroading towards global war, and this needed to be stopped, by Louise. The intersection of time between Louise increasing her power and control of her weapon and also the asian leadership going batty was why the Arrival occurred now.
That was also the key to why they divided the message into the 12 portions (I don't recall many of them below the equator - is that considered racist?)
I think perhaps my greatest surprise was the revelation of the poor interpretation of their insistence of "use your weapon" - but I should have seen that coming as well.
Do you feel that the paradox of her meeting her husband and creating the daughter which she fawns over and focuses her weapon upon is significant to the timing? That without that origin, she would not have put so much concentration into developing and strengthening her weapon? This would mean that they needed to come now, to bring them together, or else the child would not be created and Louise would not have garnered enough control of her weapon - she was already pushing her limits in terms of increasing power as it was. If the child was the catalyst which encouraged Louise to develop her weapon, then perhaps these 2 diffuse people from different parts of the globe needed help being brought together - or else the continuation of mankind, and 3 millenia hence, the continuation and survival of the visitors, would be lost.
Although perhaps I missed some details about how they view different possibilities of the future.


Quote:


That they switch the focus to the mother and child reunion. For me that wasn't quite enough to have invested nearly 2 hours of mystery solving. Time displacement or chronological disorder just didn't quite quench the thirst for knowledge and answer the Big Why "they" were here now.

Both Inception and Out of Gas - apples and oranges, although each presented their time displacement reveals in a much more clearly defined way. The rules of the game were explained far more clearly so that we understood, once there, how to apply those rules. We could figure out, to some degree, what each character contributed to the climax and ending. We otherwise had more to go on and I, for one, felt that the journey was well worth the ride.

Arrival kept the rules purposely hidden and had us follow "bread crumbs" along the way. This could have been more rewarding had they given a more satisfying reason for the Arrival. Had this happened, I suggest that even the ending would have been enhanced, so that instead of the audience leaving the theater in a subdued fashion, applause would have been the response. That is to say, that I liked the surprise reveal of the family
at the end, but not to the degree I "loved" the endings of Inception and Out of Gas.

The worst part? The reveal of why the aliens arrived - big letdown.

What I didn't see coming? The family reveal or who the father was.

What I think finally sunk this movie was how the director tried to pull the rabbit out of the hat and instead pulled a meek little mouse. The old switcheroo. Look over here at this hand, pay no attention to the hand behind the curtain. He's given us aliens, ominous and mysterious in nature.
Why are they here? Every character is dispatched to uncover the mystery. It's what drives the movie. Yes, they drop hints along the way that somehow our hero is connected to the event, and they are very clever not to give away too much.

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

That's it. Nothing more to be said on that subject. Just my take on it.

SGG


I could also note that Abbott's entering the death cycle affected me more than I would have expected.


SGG: JSF, Here's something that really shocked me. I have to commend you for a lucid and well presented argument (Plus the fact that you are right, I twisted the story of the aliens around). Thanks for not gloating. I refer to your "spoiler" section response, I actually understood your take and found it interesting.

I believe that the displaced time element of the story was used effectively throughout the film, but the transition, or reveal, was poorly set up and executed. In sci-fi you must have a proper set up or it all goes to hell at the crucial point in the movie. The thing that I liked about the producers is that they trusted the audience would bring their sci-fi detective kits. I'm adding to my take on the rules of film engagement; namely that the film sets up the ground rules by which the audience deciphers the story. Here the audience was asked to apply the basics and the film would fill in the rest. You reminded me of that in that section.

Hey JSF, I'm stopping here because, for some reason, I'm finding it hard to concentrate at the moment. Your response deserves a good solid answer.
I'll be back!


SGG


Sometimes I have enough time to post what I intend, like here.
Other times I don't have the time to elucidate adequately.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2016 8:13 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
When the short story that became the movie Arrival was written, it did not have explosions or guns or a frantic phone call to China to stop World War. That’s all Hollywood’s ideas. The story didn't even have humans walking inside alien spaceships, since heptapods in the short story are allergic to Earth dirt. But what the story did have is the same as the following story from the same author, a big idea about the true nature of time:

from NATURE|Vol 436|7 July 2005

What's expected of us

by Ted Chiang

This is a warning. Please read carefully.

By now you’ve probably seen a Predictor; millions of them have been sold by the time you’re reading this. For those who haven’t seen one, it’s a small device, like a remote for opening your car door. Its only features are a button and a big green LED. The light flashes if you press the button. Specifically, the light flashes one second before you press the button.

Most people say that when they first try it, it feels like they’re playing a strange game, one where the goal is to press the button after seeing the flash, and it’s easy to play. But when you try to break the rules, you find that you can’t. If you try to press the button without having seen a flash, the flash immediately appears, and no matter how fast you move, you never push the button until a second has elapsed. If you wait for the flash, intending to keep from pressing the button afterwards, the flash never appears. No matter what you do, the light always precedes the button press. There’s no way to fool a Predictor.

The heart of each Predictor is a circuit with a negative time delay — it sends a signal back in time. The full implications of the technology will become apparent later, when negative delays of greater than a second are achieved, but that’s not what this warning is about. The immediate problem is that Predictors demonstrate that there’s no such thing as free will.

There have always been arguments showing that free will is an illusion, some based on hard physics, others based on pure logic. Most people agree these arguments are irrefutable, but no one ever really accepts the conclusion. The experience of having free will is too powerful for an argument to overrule. What it takes is a demonstration, and that’s what a Predictor provides.

Typically, a person plays with a Predictor compulsively for several days, showing it to friends, trying various schemes to outwit the device. The person may appear to lose interest in it, but no one can forget what it means — over the following weeks, the implications of an immutable future sink in. Some people, realizing that their choices don’t matter, refuse to make any choices at all. Like a legion of Bartleby the Scriveners, they no longer engage in spontaneous action. Eventually, a third of those who play with a Predictor must be hospitalized because they won’t feed themselves. The end state is akinetic mutism, a kind of waking coma. They’ll track motion with their eyes, and change position occasionally, but nothing more. The ability to move remains, but the motivation is gone.

Before people started playing with Predictors, akinetic mutism was very rare, a result of damage to the anterior cingulate region of the brain. Now it spreads like a cognitive plague. People used to speculate about a thought that destroys the thinker, some unspeakable lovecraftian horror, or a Godel sentence that crashes the human logical system. It turns out that the disabling thought is one that we’ve all encountered: the idea that free will doesn’t exist. It just wasn’t harmful until you believed it.

Doctors try arguing with the patients while they still respond to conversation. We had all been living happy, active lives before, they reason, and we hadn’t had free will then either. Why should anything change? “No action you took last month was any more freely chosen than one you take today,” a doctor might say. “You can still behave that way now.” The patients invariably respond, “But now I know.” And some of them never say anything again.

Some will argue that the fact the Predictor causes this change in behaviour means that we do have free will. An automaton cannot become discouraged, only a free-thinking entity can. The fact that some individuals descend into akinetic mutism whereas others do not just highlights the importance of making a choice.

Unfortunately, such reasoning is faulty: every form of behaviour is compatible with determinism. One dynamic system might fall into a basin of attraction and wind up at a fixed point, whereas another exhibits chaotic behaviour indefinitely, but both are completely deterministic.

I’m transmitting this warning to you from just over a year in your future: it’s the first lengthy message received when circuits with negative delays in the mega-second range are used to build communication devices. Other messages will follow, addressing other issues. My message to you is this: pretend that you have free will. It’s essential that you behave as if your decisions matter, even though you know that they don’t. The reality isn’t important: what’s important is your belief, and believing the lie is the only way to avoid a waking coma. Civilization now depends on self-deception. Perhaps it always has.

And yet I know that, because free will is an illusion, it’s all predetermined who will descend into akinetic mutism and who won’t. There’s nothing anyone can do about it — you can’t choose the effect the Predictor has on you. Some of you will succumb and some of you won’t, and my sending this warning won’t alter those proportions. So why did I do it?

Because I had no choice.

Ted Chiang is an occasional writer of science fiction. His work can be found in his collection Stories of Your Life and Others, published by Pan Macmillan.

©2005 Nature Publishing Group

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Was that the story that Arrival was based upon?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2016 2:32 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Arrival is based on a short story by Ted Chiang "Story of Your Life"


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2016 5:37 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey JSF, I'm basing my response primarily on your comments in the SPOILER SECTION of your response:

Here's the thought I had about the whole "use your weapon" motif within the film: I believe it had to do with the language barrier and how she was able to decipher their language; it was the reason for Louise's presence; although, at first, I did think it had to do with a weapon in the traditional sense. That right there has me more than curious about reading the short story, even more so. The film premise was that she had this gift and that the aliens knew this and went back in time to begin that process.
It is an interesting concept within the film, and I liked how they developed
it within the context of the film.

What I wonder about is, was this something within the short story or was it a
plot devise installed by the director? Reading the story would go a long way in clearing that up. Either way, it is a brilliant piece of the puzzle. The time element is key and a central focus, although we are given little in the way of evidence to allow us to deduce the outcome. Again, I thought it was
an interesting choice by the director and how he trusted the audience to "fill in the blanks." Remember, there are certain ground rules in sci-fi
and, ever since I first saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still" I was made aware
of them. Sci-fi as social commentary as to humankind's current situation and how it is not as it appears on the surface.

One thing I am not clear on, is how the child figured in all of this. I took that part of the film to be about our, silly humans, concept and perception of time. How we spend our time with family, friends, learning, living etc.
I got the feeling that Louise learned a valuable lesson (Louise as us, the audience) about the importance of our loved ones, in addition to, how truly valuable our time is. Arrival is, to me, a commentary about several things, including how silly we humans are when it comes to our suspicion of others that don't exactly look, act, talk and walk like us. But too, how much alike we are when we strip away those "language" barriers we construct.

You may have a point about her development of her "weapon" and that her relationship to her daughter and the time she spent with her was key in
her sharpening her skill as a linguist, thereby allowing her to be open to
the aliens form of communication. I would have to see it again to see if I see it that way as well. That may have gone completely over my head. Regardless, it's a good theory. Her daughter may have been key and the aliens arrival may have triggered that - cause and effect.

The concept of time and how the aliens interpret it was, however, as the film suggests, another element we, as the audience, must consider. They don't see it as linear, like we do, but as happening all at once and they can travel to any point just by simply willing it. A type of concentration that allows them to step into a particular place in time and make "suggestions" to their hosts. Louise perceived it in her dream-like state. Her "weapon," I conclude, is her openness to it. It is that openness as a human and a scientist that allows her to "read" their language. That theme gave me a gentle nudge as I watched this film. Perhaps her love for her daughter did help to sharpen that "openness" and made her a better scientist, a better human. They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.


SGG


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2016 10:02 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.

Don't look at the movie as just fiction about alien time travel. The big idea in Arrival is Eternalism, something that most movie watchers never imagined existed outside of fiction. Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, where all points in time are equally real, as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real.

After movie watchers leave the theater, most of them still can’t imagine Eternalism is reality, unlike, say, Louise, who understands what the hell it is.

Louise Banks has learned the secret of how the Universe works from the heptapods. That secret has a large amount of sadness mixed into her happiness from learning a new language and writing her book “The Universal Language”. But Louisa is philosophical about her loses. The heptapods taught her that, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2016 8:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF, I'm basing my response primarily on your comments in the SPOILER SECTION of your response:

Here's the thought I had about the whole "use your weapon" motif within the film: I believe it had to do with the language barrier and how she was able to decipher their language; it was the reason for Louise's presence; although, at first, I did think it had to do with a weapon in the traditional sense. That right there has me more than curious about reading the short story, even more so. The film premise was that she had this gift and that the aliens knew this and went back in time to begin that process.
It is an interesting concept within the film, and I liked how they developed
it within the context of the film.

What I wonder about is, was this something within the short story or was it a plot devise installed by the director? Reading the story would go a long way in clearing that up. Either way, it is a brilliant piece of the puzzle. The time element is key and a central focus, although we are given little in the way of evidence to allow us to deduce the outcome.

I thought one giveaway was the opening narration by Louise but you needed to keep it in mind during the rest of the film. Another was where her daughter talks about her teaching the language of the aliens (as a child), and also makes playdough aliens as a child.
The part about her dad treating her differently because mom so cruelly told him about her destiny, that didn't fit in place until the time non-linearity became clear.
Quote:


Again, I thought it was an interesting choice by the director and how he trusted the audience to "fill in the blanks." Remember, there are certain ground rules in sci-fi and, ever since I first saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still" I was made aware of them. Sci-fi as social commentary as to humankind's current situation and how it is not as it appears on the surface.

One thing I am not clear on, is how the child figured in all of this.

Although you follow this sentence with others, it is here that I have lost your meaning. What are you trying to say here, or ask?
Quote:


I took that part of the film to be about our, silly humans, concept and perception of time. How we spend our time with family, friends, learning, living etc.
I got the feeling that Louise learned a valuable lesson (Louise as us, the audience) about the importance of our loved ones, in addition to, how truly valuable our time is. Arrival is, to me, a commentary about several things, including how silly we humans are when it comes to our suspicion of others that don't exactly look, act, talk and walk like us. But too, how much alike we are when we strip away those "language" barriers we construct.

You may have a point about her development of her "weapon" and that her relationship to her daughter and the time she spent with her was key in her sharpening her skill as a linguist, thereby allowing her to be open to the aliens form of communication.


here I think we are on different paths.

Select to view spoiler:


the weapon they refer to is her ability to manipulate time. The honing of this time manipulation for her is done while jumping forward to the time when she has a daughter, and practicing this pleasurable pasttime. I wonder at what age did she discover that she had (or will have) a daughter. Imagine one day you awake and learn you have a kid - but you were never pregnant - yet.
anyhow, apparently she didn't bother to expand the use of this talent to other tasks until the aliens spurred her.


Quote:


I would have to see it again to see if I see it that way as well. That may have gone completely over my head. Regardless, it's a good theory. Her daughter may have been key and the aliens arrival may have triggered that - cause and effect.

The concept of time and how the aliens interpret it was, however, as the film suggests, another element we, as the audience, must consider. They don't see it as linear, like we do, but as happening all at once and they can travel to any point just by simply willing it. A type of concentration that allows them to step into a particular place in time and make "suggestions" to their hosts. Louise perceived it in her dream-like state. Her "weapon," I conclude, is her openness to it. It is that openness as a human and a scientist that allows her to "read" their language. That theme gave me a gentle nudge as I watched this film. Perhaps her love for her daughter did help to sharpen that "openness" and made her a better scientist, a better human. They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.


SGG



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 2, 2016 4:01 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I get you Second. Louise's journey was a lot more than just appreciating and understanding time, but appreciating life as we experience it. Taking in those moments in time as precious and rewarding from all points of view, both positive and negative, as we perceive it to be.

That's why I wouldn't just throw this film away as some reviewers have done, stating that it was "silly" in parts. No, it is a different kind of sci-fi, a type we have not seen in quite some time....a thought-provoking intelligent
journey for us, the audience, through our surrogate traveler Louise Banks.
What I especially liked about this film was how it used various themes that we have become accustomed to in the sci-fi realm, but turned it slightly so that we could experience a new side rarely visited by the American audience.

This despite that little letdown I spoke of. But I think that it succeeded in getting people to think, feel and experience regardless. It reminded me of the mindset of films from the 70s. And one in particular from the 80s - Starman.

Far out man!


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.

Don't look at the movie as just fiction about alien time travel. The big idea in Arrival is Eternalism, something that most movie watchers never imagined existed outside of fiction. Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, where all points in time are equally real, as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real.

After movie watchers leave the theater, most of them still can’t imagine Eternalism is reality, unlike, say, Louise, who understands what the hell it is.

Louise Banks has learned the secret of how the Universe works from the heptapods. That secret has a large amount of sadness mixed into her happiness from learning a new language and writing her book “The Universal Language”. But Louisa is philosophical about her loses. The heptapods taught her that, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 2, 2016 4:17 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I can't honestly give you a good response because I need to see it again. From what you say in your spoiler section, I would need to see it again. It was obvious Louise was unaware of her power until further into the film and as she became more aware.

There is so much to this film that I'm beginning to think that it is indeed a masterpiece and needs several viewings for capturing the multiple themes and revelations. Much like Inception and Cloud Atlas, this film needs more time.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF, I'm basing my response primarily on your comments in the SPOILER SECTION of your response:

Here's the thought I had about the whole "use your weapon" motif within the film: I believe it had to do with the language barrier and how she was able to decipher their language; it was the reason for Louise's presence; although, at first, I did think it had to do with a weapon in the traditional sense. That right there has me more than curious about reading the short story, even more so. The film premise was that she had this gift and that the aliens knew this and went back in time to begin that process.
It is an interesting concept within the film, and I liked how they developed
it within the context of the film.

What I wonder about is, was this something within the short story or was it a
plot devise installed by the director? Reading the story would go a long way in clearing that up. Either way, it is a brilliant piece of the puzzle. The time element is key and a central focus, although we are given little in the way of evidence to allow us to deduce the outcome.

I thought one giveaway was the opening narration by Louise but you needed to keep it in mind during the rest of the film. Another was where her daughter talks about her teaching the language of the aliens (as a child), and also makes playdough aliens as a child.
The part about her dad treating her differently because mom so cruelly told him about her destiny, that didn't fit in place until the time non-linearity became clear.
Quote:


Again, I thought it was
an interesting choice by the director and how he trusted the audience to "fill in the blanks." Remember, there are certain ground rules in sci-fi
and, ever since I first saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still" I was made aware
of them. Sci-fi as social commentary as to humankind's current situation and how it is not as it appears on the surface.

One thing I am not clear on, is how the child figured in all of this.

Although you follow this sentence with others, it is here that I have lost your meaning. What are you trying to say here, or ask?
Quote:


I took that part of the film to be about our, silly humans, concept and perception of time. How we spend our time with family, friends, learning, living etc.
I got the feeling that Louise learned a valuable lesson (Louise as us, the audience) about the importance of our loved ones, in addition to, how truly valuable our time is. Arrival is, to me, a commentary about several things, including how silly we humans are when it comes to our suspicion of others that don't exactly look, act, talk and walk like us. But too, how much alike we are when we strip away those "language" barriers we construct.

You may have a point about her development of her "weapon" and that her relationship to her daughter and the time she spent with her was key in
her sharpening her skill as a linguist, thereby allowing her to be open to
the aliens form of communication.


here I think we are on different paths.

Select to view spoiler:


the weapon they refer to is her ability to manipulate time. The honing of this time manipulation for her is done while jumping forward to the time when she has a daughter, and practicing this pleasurable pasttime. I wonder at what age did she discover that she had (or will have) a daughter. Imagine one day you awake and learn you have a kid - but you were never pregnant - yet.
anyhow, apparently she didn't bother to expand the use of this talent to other tasks until the aliens spurred her.


Quote:


I would have to see it again to see if I see it that way as well. That may have gone completely over my head. Regardless, it's a good theory. Her daughter may have been key and the aliens arrival may have triggered that - cause and effect.

The concept of time and how the aliens interpret it was, however, as the film suggests, another element we, as the audience, must consider. They don't see it as linear, like we do, but as happening all at once and they can travel to any point just by simply willing it. A type of concentration that allows them to step into a particular place in time and make "suggestions" to their hosts. Louise perceived it in her dream-like state. Her "weapon," I conclude, is her openness to it. It is that openness as a human and a scientist that allows her to "read" their language. That theme gave me a gentle nudge as I watched this film. Perhaps her love for her daughter did help to sharpen that "openness" and made her a better scientist, a better human. They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.


SGG




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 2, 2016 10:51 AM

ZEEK


Select to view spoiler:


Why do you guys think she had some sort of power? I didn't see any indication of that. She explained that when you immerse yourself in another language you begin to experience things as that culture experiences things. I thought that was that whole point. She immersed herself in the alien language and learned to perceive as they do.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2016 4:24 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:


Why do you guys think she had some sort of power? I didn't see any indication of that. She explained that when you immerse yourself in another language you begin to experience things as that culture experiences things. I thought that was that whole point. She immersed herself in the alien language and learned to perceive as they do.



Thank you for using the spoiler function.
Because I find the subject I will mention to be pivotal and surprising to an unaware audience viewer, I will continue to use the same function when discussing this particular facet of the film.

Select to view spoiler:


They refer to her "weapon" and early in the process she explains the imprecise meanings of weapons, tools, etc. To them, her "weapon" is her ability to manipulate time. Whatever term they are actually using, it is translated as "weapon" and they must not realize that we are interpreting it incorrectly - unless they do actually think of it as a weapon (which I find unlikely based upon their knowledge, and avoidance of aggressive behavior).
This skill/gift of hers is the key to everything, including how to contact (for one) the Chinese General, and how to convince him (for another), as well as how she learns the language - note that she learns the language by remembering into the future (when she is teaching a class on the language).
I think that SGG and many others are assuming that her "weapon" is her "ability" to learn language, or immerse herself into culture, instead of her gift of time manipulation, which engenders all of the other tasks that she can perform with it.
The aliens arrive to help her focus her gift, realize the rest of our world must have her use it to prevent catastrophe instead of just for her own pleasure.
Her "weapon" or power or gift is her ability to manipulate time - which she may not have even fully understood, as somebody with such a gift my have difficulty developing a baseline, or reference timeline (which all of us normal people have) with which to compare her journeys or experiences against.


Does that answer your question adequately? Or was I unclear?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2016 4:44 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I can't honestly give you a good response because I need to see it again. From what you say in your spoiler section, I would need to see it again. It was obvious Louise was unaware of her power until further into the film and as she became more aware.

There is so much to this film that I'm beginning to think that it is indeed a masterpiece and needs several viewings for capturing the multiple themes and revelations. Much like Inception and Cloud Atlas, this film needs more time.


SGG


I am sorry that I was unable to complete my comments.

See also my reply to Zeek.

Select to view spoiler:


I think you feel her "weapon" and the pivotal purpose of her presence was her "ability" with language. But I think it is her ability to manipulate time, which is also what her language talent flows from. Her team is translating the term as "weapon" but I doubt that is the meaning that the visitors are trying to convey. But it is a weapon, which will avert a World War to decimate the human population, which they cannot afford in about 3,000 years.
They are not referring to being able to translate - they are specifically referring to her unique ability to manipulate time. Perhaps the reason for them appearing now is that no human previously had this ability, or at least in a time when cellular devices would allow instant communication via a strictly private number to the General who was about to plunge the World into Nuclear Winter.
Her focus on her daughter is primarily the reason she utilizes this gift of time manipulation, and therefore practices it - she has little or no other practical use of this ability, or else chooses not to utilize it or expose the fact to the world outside of herself.


I do think that this film is more on par with Inception in that it does have much to glean from more viewings. I think that I have gotten more than other viewers, much like I found with Oblivion. But I do expect to view it again because there are other facets of the presentation that I want to check and review. I do think that this is a film which many will revel in once it is on DVD and is viewed multiple times. Both for it's presentation, and clues, and nuances, and also for it's somewhat revolutionary use of the mellow climax which many seem to be disappointed with.
Perhaps we should think of it as a more intelligent conclusion in terms of film experiences.
I would not yet argue with the label of masterpiece.
I do still wonder if this is the first of many, leading the way. If so, how much time will elapse before the next arrives? A "generation" of films is often 2 years - are other similar films starting up now (if at all), or are they already in production - following the script's specific detail of how the visuals and audibles would contribute in what we have seen.

Regarding plot - of course, without her meeting her daughter's father, she would not have had reason to discover this ability of hers - PARADOX!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 5, 2016 6:34 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Select to view spoiler:


I understood that her power, or skill, was in manipulating time. Her skill in immersing herself in language was honed both by her dogged determination to learn and natural abilities. At least that's how I saw it




SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 5, 2016 6:38 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Yes, that was clear to me, and useful.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:


Why do you guys think she had some sort of power? I didn't see any indication of that. She explained that when you immerse yourself in another language you begin to experience things as that culture experiences things. I thought that was that whole point. She immersed herself in the alien language and learned to perceive as they do.



Thank you for using the spoiler function.
Because I find the subject I will mention to be pivotal and surprising to an unaware audience viewer, I will continue to use the same function when discussing this particular facet of the film.

Select to view spoiler:


They refer to her "weapon" and early in the process she explains the imprecise meanings of weapons, tools, etc. To them, her "weapon" is her ability to manipulate time. Whatever term they are actually using, it is translated as "weapon" and they must not realize that we are interpreting it incorrectly - unless they do actually think of it as a weapon (which I find unlikely based upon their knowledge, and avoidance of aggressive behavior).
This skill/gift of hers is the key to everything, including how to contact (for one) the Chinese General, and how to convince him (for another), as well as how she learns the language - note that she learns the language by remembering into the future (when she is teaching a class on the language).
I think that SGG and many others are assuming that her "weapon" is her "ability" to learn language, or immerse herself into culture, instead of her gift of time manipulation, which engenders all of the other tasks that she can perform with it.
The aliens arrive to help her focus her gift, realize the rest of our world must have her use it to prevent catastrophe instead of just for her own pleasure.
Her "weapon" or power or gift is her ability to manipulate time - which she may not have even fully understood, as somebody with such a gift my have difficulty developing a baseline, or reference timeline (which all of us normal people have) with which to compare her journeys or experiences against.


Does that answer your question adequately? Or was I unclear?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 5, 2016 10:59 AM

ZEEK


Select to view spoiler:


I definitely interpret the movie differently. I don't think Louise had any time abilities inherently. I interpreted it as something any human was capable of. If they immersed themselves in the alien language then they could learn to perceive time the way the aliens do.

I guess we have no evidence that anyone else accomplished what Louise did, but considering humans need this ability 3000 years in the future suggests at least some other people will need to learn to do the same thing, right?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 4:20 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Select to view spoiler:


I think that the aliens reached out to Louise because they knew she was open and susceptible to their form of communication and sensitive to time displacement. Which puts me in mind of which came first, her susceptibility to time displacement or her openness to language and communication. Did the aliens infuse her with it or did they draw out what was already there? This just keeps getting deeper, and I love that. The more we dig the more we uncover




SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:


I definitely interpret the movie differently. I don't think Louise had any time abilities inherently. I interpreted it as something any human was capable of. If they immersed themselves in the alien language then they could learn to perceive time the way the aliens do.

I guess we have no evidence that anyone else accomplished what Louise did, but considering humans need this ability 3000 years in the future suggests at least some other people will need to learn to do the same thing, right?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 8:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:


I definitely interpret the movie differently. I don't think Louise had any time abilities inherently. I interpreted it as something any human was capable of. If they immersed themselves in the alien language then they could learn to perceive time the way the aliens do.

I guess we have no evidence that anyone else accomplished what Louise did, but considering humans need this ability 3000 years in the future suggests at least some other people will need to learn to do the same thing, right?



Select to view spoiler:


I think that the aliens reached out to Louise because they knew she was open and susceptible to their form of communication and sensitive to time displacement. Which puts me in mind of which came first, her susceptibility to time displacement or her openness to language and communication. Did the aliens infuse her with it or did they draw out what was already there? This just keeps getting deeper, and I love that. The more we dig the more we uncover



SGG


I do not have great dispute that this ability is inherent to all humans, but it looks like it at least must be taught.


Also, I have realized something. The presumption was that Louise was the first with this ability.

Select to view spoiler:


For those thinking that Louise had practiced time manipulation prior to the Arrival, then she would have known who her husband would be before she met him in linear time. So when she met him, she knew he would be her husband.
I have heard of numerous women who have said this very thing - so maybe Louise is not the first to have this ability.


Also, I just read ECG's review on his site, and I am glad he didn't spoiler it, plus he didn't seem disappointed in the climax.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2016 5:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


As mentioned, I have come to think of Arrival as more of a cerebral entertainment and story.

What others do you feel compare?
I'd say Inception, Oblivion.
Although Edge of Tomorrow has a bunch more action, it also has a lot of thought in it, and requires multiple viewing to revel in the full work.


Although the above films are essentially Sci-Fi, and many Sci-Fi are foundationally built upon cerebral stories, I invite mention of other films which are not of the Sci-Fi genre.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:24 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
As mentioned, I have come to think of Arrival as more of a cerebral entertainment and story.

What others do you feel compare?
I'd say Inception, Oblivion.
Although Edge of Tomorrow has a bunch more action, it also has a lot of thought in it, and requires multiple viewing to revel in the full work.


Although the above films are essentially Sci-Fi, and many Sci-Fi are foundationally built upon cerebral stories, I invite mention of other films which are not of the Sci-Fi genre.


I was thinking Ex-Machina should be included here.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:


I definitely interpret the movie differently. I don't think Louise had any time abilities inherently. I interpreted it as something any human was capable of. If they immersed themselves in the alien language then they could learn to perceive time the way the aliens do.

I guess we have no evidence that anyone else accomplished what Louise did, but considering humans need this ability 3000 years in the future suggests at least some other people will need to learn to do the same thing, right?



Select to view spoiler:


I think that the aliens reached out to Louise because they knew she was open and susceptible to their form of communication and sensitive to time displacement. Which puts me in mind of which came first, her susceptibility to time displacement or her openness to language and communication. Did the aliens infuse her with it or did they draw out what was already there? This just keeps getting deeper, and I love that. The more we dig the more we uncover



SGG


I finally saw Arrival again, fair certain this was my second viewing.

I was greatly struck by the beauty of the film. The pacing reminded me of recent Eastwood works, and the softer parts of Braveheart.

Louise does say that understanding the new language allows humans to manipulate time. I had thought she had seen her daughter Hannah before the Arrival, but now I think I was mistaken. She seems to be the first to gain great ground in learning the language, so she can manipulate time better than others, but then others learn as she teaches them the language. However, this brings up a problem - some of the other 12 sites were making some headway, albeit largely based upon her work - but still, why did none of them become able to use their "weapon" like Louise could?

I noticed that when Louise and Ian arrived at the military compound, they were given a booster - and I thought that this may have been the catalyst for Louise to develop her weapon, if she had not previously experienced it. Then, after she makes great headway after removing her helmet (getting the first word, or "written" symbol, she is checked out and again given another booster shot. These 2 booster shots may have been the catalyst the story depended upon. After this, Louise makes ever faster and faster progress.

We might revisit the discussion regarding this.
Her ability, or weapon, becomes developed entirely during this interaction with the heptapods, not before.
So why did they arrive now? Did they know she would develop this? Was she merely the one who showed the most progress after they arrived, there was not some predictor that she would be the one? It was merely her ability to learn a new language, and then her immersion into it that granted her access to the weapon?
Certainly the Chinese General would not have been so provoked without their presence.

I still feel uncomfortable with the issue of Louise deciding to have the daughter who will knowingly have a terminal illness before procreating. Does this seem like having a dog, picking one out of the shelter to live with, expending it's entire life within the confines of your own life? Is this selfish of her? She is certainly not expunging the pain her daughter endures.

The world map of the sites did indicate northern hemisphere, with the exception of Australia. Even the South American site was Venezuela, still north of the equator. Does this seem racist to anybody? Should we send Obama to investigate and make regulations?

Again, I was struck by the poignancy of

Select to view spoiler:


Abbott is death process


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 4, 2017 5:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I also was a little confused about the assertion by Louise that what they say and what they write are not connected, they are unrelated.

I am not sure I understand this or it's implications. I understand that the written language is devoid of time, they complete a written communication with the beginning and end of the sentence intertwined, because the control of time that they have (paraphrasing what they said). And by definition, sound is restricted to time in linear format (frequency, Hertz, wavelengths are functions of linear time progression), so the manipulation of time would not lend itself to layering sounds atop one another.
I'm just not sure I understand the disassociation of sound communication and written communication.



Also, regarding the sound recording of the meeting in Louise's office when the Colonel first comes in.
This is in her memory, she is telling the story. The intentional sound levels have the blaring of the news broadcast Louise is watching, so she does not hear the entering, and then the following sound levels are greatly subdued - producing a great contrast. The Colonel's volume remains the same level, so I am not convinced it is a bad audio sampling or mixing, but may be meant to force the viewer to focus more. It may not be a signal or cue for a different perception by Louise, as I first thought. But I am still interested what others think of this, like SGG.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 18, 2017 3:38 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF, I'm basing my response primarily on your comments in the SPOILER SECTION of your response:

Here's the thought I had about the whole "use your weapon" motif within the film: I believe it had to do with the language barrier and how she was able to decipher their language; it was the reason for Louise's presence; although, at first, I did think it had to do with a weapon in the traditional sense. That right there has me more than curious about reading the short story, even more so. The film premise was that she had this gift and that the aliens knew this and went back in time to begin that process.
It is an interesting concept within the film, and I liked how they developed
it within the context of the film.

What I wonder about is, was this something within the short story or was it a
plot devise installed by the director? Reading the story would go a long way in clearing that up. Either way, it is a brilliant piece of the puzzle. The time element is key and a central focus, although we are given little in the way of evidence to allow us to deduce the outcome. Again, I thought it was
an interesting choice by the director and how he trusted the audience to "fill in the blanks." Remember, there are certain ground rules in sci-fi
and, ever since I first saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still" I was made aware
of them. Sci-fi as social commentary as to humankind's current situation and how it is not as it appears on the surface.

One thing I am not clear on, is how the child figured in all of this. I took that part of the film to be about our, silly humans, concept and perception of time. How we spend our time with family, friends, learning, living etc.
I got the feeling that Louise learned a valuable lesson (Louise as us, the audience) about the importance of our loved ones, in addition to, how truly valuable our time is. Arrival is, to me, a commentary about several things, including how silly we humans are when it comes to our suspicion of others that don't exactly look, act, talk and walk like us. But too, how much alike we are when we strip away those "language" barriers we construct.

You may have a point about her development of her "weapon" and that her relationship to her daughter and the time she spent with her was key in
her sharpening her skill as a linguist, thereby allowing her to be open to
the aliens form of communication. I would have to see it again to see if I see it that way as well. That may have gone completely over my head. Regardless, it's a good theory. Her daughter may have been key and the aliens arrival may have triggered that - cause and effect.

The concept of time and how the aliens interpret it was, however, as the film suggests, another element we, as the audience, must consider. They don't see it as linear, like we do, but as happening all at once and they can travel to any point just by simply willing it. A type of concentration that allows them to step into a particular place in time and make "suggestions" to their hosts. Louise perceived it in her dream-like state. Her "weapon," I conclude, is her openness to it. It is that openness as a human and a scientist that allows her to "read" their language. That theme gave me a gentle nudge as I watched this film. Perhaps her love for her daughter did help to sharpen that "openness" and made her a better scientist, a better human. They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.

SGG


Have you watched again? It has been at Redbox this week.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:52 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


The genius, game-changing twist of “Arrival” should win it the Oscar for best picture

https://qz.com/915882
Adapted from the novella Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang, about a linguist who decodes an alien language, Eric Heisserer’s script was too intricate, too cerebral to interest studio executives. He shopped his screenplay around Hollywood for years before he found producers to champion the project. And only after another few years of re-working the script did it land on director Denis Villeneuve’s desk, who turned it into the Oscar-nominated film Arrival for Paramount Pictures.

This story contains spoilers and continues at https://qz.com/915882



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 27, 2017 5:56 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG


And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, March 20, 2017 3:40 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Perhaps that scene was intentional.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG


And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 7:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG


And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.


Perhaps that scene was intentional.


SGG


Did you see it again?
I wasn't sure I would enjoy it as much once the "surprise" was known, but I found myself charmed and enchanted with repeat viewings.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 2, 2017 7:01 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I saw it again, and this time I found some different things or I got more from it upon second viewing. More on that later.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG


And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.


Perhaps that scene was intentional.


SGG


Did you see it again?
I wasn't sure I would enjoy it as much once the "surprise" was known, but I found myself charmed and enchanted with repeat viewings.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 3, 2017 7:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).

Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG


And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.


Perhaps that scene was intentional.

SGG


Did you see it again?
I wasn't sure I would enjoy it as much once the "surprise" was known, but I found myself charmed and enchanted with repeat viewings.


I saw it again, and this time I found some different things or I got more from it upon second viewing. More on that later.

SGG


Forget later.
now now now

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
What Are Your Favorite DEEP Films Worth Re-watching?
Sat, May 27, 2017 14:11 - 54 posts
What Is The Best Hour-long Car Ad?
Sat, May 27, 2017 13:40 - 1 posts
Wonder Woman
Thu, May 25, 2017 20:23 - 1 posts
Arrival
Wed, May 24, 2017 18:36 - 90 posts
RIP Roger Moore
Wed, May 24, 2017 17:16 - 4 posts
Han Solo Star Wars Prequel (2018)
Tue, May 23, 2017 18:58 - 7 posts
So Far 2017 Movies - Meh!
Tue, May 23, 2017 04:02 - 3 posts
Alien: Covenant
Mon, May 22, 2017 19:48 - 4 posts
Guardians of The Galaxy Vol 2
Fri, May 19, 2017 10:26 - 25 posts
Going in Style
Sat, May 13, 2017 05:57 - 8 posts
May The Fourth Be With You, 2017
Mon, May 8, 2017 02:38 - 2 posts
Codas
Fri, May 5, 2017 10:28 - 40 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL