|
Arrival staring amy adams and hawkeye is an ok movie. the squid aliens were cool and their language was cool. the thing w/ the soldiers trying to blow up the squid aliens was stupid and felt like filler cause they couldn't just have more boring scifi crap about language and aliens that only NERDS would enjoy also the last 10 minutes of the movie is a summary of the movie you just watched so if you watch the full movie skip the last 10 minutes after the aliens leave or if you don't want to watch the whole movie watch the last 10 minutes.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
I think Alex Jones idiots trying to blow up the aliens because they could be a danger is actually cool and good, much like the movie as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Nobody asked for a less visually impressive Interstellar, Villeneuve. Better cast, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:I think Alex Jones idiots trying to blow up the aliens because they could be a danger is actually cool and good, much like the movie as a whole. it didn't make any sense in the context of the movie where the premise is what regular ol' humans would do in the situation. irl the soldiers there would be boring but competent same as everyone else in the movie and their primary job would be keeping actual crazies away. They attack the aliens so they can have at least one explosion in the movie and to make stupid people enjoy the lazy trope of the dumb, racist soldier. it sticks out as very bad writing in an otherwise pretty good film. the summary for stupid people at the end of the movie is there for a similar reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:it didn't make any sense in the context of the movie where the premise is what regular ol' humans would do in the situation. irl the soldiers there would be boring but competent same as everyone else in the movie and their primary job would be keeping actual crazies away. Yeah, Contact handled a bombing on the alien machine better by having it be a a plausible psycho like religious nut Jake Busey. Hard to think anything this movie does that hasn't been done better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
a better option would be to have the soldiers gunning down civilian crazies attacking the ship/camp creating tension between the scientists who want to keep studying the aliens and the government officials who want to maybe shut it all down to prevent more civilian unrest. this would also allow you to remove the china/Russia attack as a source of tension and maybe give them more of a role in the movie which would help sell the movie to Chinese audiences.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
This movie was dumb as hell. You have the power to see the future and all you can do with that is not shut up about your dead kid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:This movie was dumb as hell. You have the power to see the future and all you can do with that is not shut up about your dead kid. Yeah that was super depressing, you can see the future but probably can't change poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:This movie was dumb as hell. You have the power to see the future and all you can do with that is not shut up about your dead kid. What is wrong with you...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nobody asked for a less visually impressive Interstellar, Villeneuve. Better cast, though. This is wrong. I sent out many many letters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Amy Adams' character in that movie is a coldhearted bitch. So, she knows with full certainty that the kid she'll have with Hunky Guy is going to die painfully of cancer or whatever, and she still chooses to have it? She is condemning another human being to die because "she wouldn't want to change a thing". Great movie otherwise, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
The fly-in scene on the helicopter was absolutely stunning. The awe surrounding the aliens was my favorite part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
My main curiosity about this is that knowing the language appears to give you the ability to see the future. Is this permanent? It seems to be. If so, why doesn't Amy Adams just make some different decisions and keep looking forward until she gets the Golden Ending? No sad dead kids, no marrying Hawkeye and then divorcing him later, etc. But I guess it's more like, she has no regrets because good things came from that grief and loss or something? I don't know. I would use future seeing powers to cheat at gambling. Do not give me super powers, I am an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Jenner posted:If so, why doesn't Amy Adams just make some different decisions and keep looking forward until she gets the Golden Ending? Because the movie is about a woman coming to accept the loss of a child. It's not, say, Next, which is literally about a dude who sees the future. Prophecy is just an analogy in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Jenner posted:My main curiosity about this is that knowing the language appears to give you the ability to see the future. Is this permanent? It seems to be. If so, why doesn't Amy Adams just make some different decisions and keep looking forward until she gets the Golden Ending? No sad dead kids, no marrying Hawkeye and then divorcing him later, etc. The book makes it easier to understand. Basically her mind is trapped between fate and free will, the tragedy being that she can't ever again perceive wholly through either lens. The heptapods don't experience linear time, and coming to an understanding of their symbolic language grants the main character perception of cyclical time, where every choice is pre-ordained. In the book they use literary tenses, mathematical theorems and a few scientific principles to give the reader some clarity. The movie sort of skipped that part, and as murkier for it. I'd give it a solid B. The book is fantastic tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nobody asked for a less visually impressive Interstellar, Villeneuve. Better cast, though. I liked both Arrival and Interstellar quite a bit even if their cold hard science fiction exteriors were betrayed by the Actually It's About Feelings bits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:The book makes it easier to understand. Basically her mind is trapped between fate and free will, the tragedy being that she can't ever again perceive wholly through either lens. The heptapods don't experience linear time, and coming to an understanding of their symbolic language grants the main character perception of cyclical time, where every choice is pre-ordained. Oh. Thanks for explaining it! I liked the movie. The whole learning the language and communication thing was fascinating. It was very good about explaining that it's not as simple as back and forth translation and instant understanding of context and intent. As an ASL interpreter, I appreciated that. Very realistic and very true.(I have always been miffed at the existence of Universal Translators but endured it for its necessity to tell the story and such. But language really is much too complicated and situational for simple universal translation.) I don't like this whole everything is pre ordained thing you're mentioning though. Destiny existing sucks because it means no choices matter and things are mostly pointless (the experience and lessons still have value though.) But it's cool, it's just a story exploring concepts and I don't have to like or approve of every part of it. It's cool to consider things I don't like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Oh. Thanks for explaining it! I liked the movie. The whole learning the language and communication thing was fascinating. It was very good about explaining that it's not as simple as back and forth translation and instant understanding of context and intent. As an ASL interpreter, I appreciated that. Very realistic and very true.(I have always been miffed at the existence of Universal Translators but endured it for its necessity to tell the story and such. But language really is much too complicated and situational for simple universal translation.) Maybe it's less that choices are pre-ordained, maybe that's a bad way for me to phrase it, more like there is no choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nobody asked for a less visually impressive Interstellar, Villeneuve. Better cast, though. jump in a woodshredder, dipshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:Maybe it's less that choices are pre-ordained, maybe that's a bad way for me to phrase it, more like there is no choice. Hehe. You're trying and thank you but that is actually worse. But it's okay, it really is. Like I said, free will vs destiny or whatever has been a theme explored a whole lot and my preference for free will and discomfort and dislike of fate doesn't mean I can't entertain the concept. (I just find it very depressing!) I like that they kept it vague in the movie and weren't so obvious about how those events were set in stone. To me it came off more as she choose to follow the path because it was worth it to her and it was valuable to her. Not that she just had to accept the path because gently caress her and coped well with that because she's just solid. (Both are fine but to me one is better than the other.) To me the message of, you can see that bad things are going to happen but they come with good things so eat up is great. The message of, you can see bad things are going to happen and you can't change them no matter what so deal with it is less great. (This is really simplifying it, I know it's more complicated than that.) I got enough from the fairly realistic depiction of interaction with a foreign language and the challenges of communication and understanding to make me happy. Everything else was just gravy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Jenner posted:Hehe. You're trying and thank you but that is actually worse. But it's okay, it really is. Like I said, free will vs destiny or whatever has been a theme explored a whole lot and my preference for free will and discomfort and dislike of fate doesn't mean I can't entertain the concept. (I just find it very depressing!)  Well, the cyclical time (fate) idea isn't as much that she saw the different outcomes and made the choice anyways but rather she has always/will always make the same choice (now just with added understanding).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
I thought it was pretty clear that it's largely about learning to cope with a fatal diagnosis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:
I mean I thought that was how it worked in the book, and that asking a heptapod why they didn't change the future would be like them asking one of us why don't we change what we did three weeks ago- i.e. a total non sequitur because that's not how things work. And the emotional core of the movie with her daughter absolutely worked with that in mind. But I don't think that really caries over to rest of the film, because the entire plot hinges on Louise acting in the present based on extremely detailed information that she would likely only ever be in a position to acquire in the future if she took extremely specific actions predicated on having that information now. Calling General Chang is not a choice she would always make, because she would not have the information to make the same choice. In other words it's a closed causal loop where extremely valuable information arises from nothing, which means that either things are actually preordained, or that something like alternate timelines exists and it's possible to act upon causality to do things like create loops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
In Training posted:I thought it was pretty clear that it's largely about learning to cope with a fatal diagnosis. That's not the point of the movie or the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Anyone going to point out how the book this is based on is a ripoff of Childhood's End by Arthur C Clarke?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
a bone to pick posted:Anyone going to point out how the book this is based on is a ripoff of Childhood's End by Arthur C Clarke? Wasn't planning on it since such assertions are retarded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:The book makes it easier to understand. The book and the movie are different stories. That the movie includes something the book doesn't - Louise explicitly acting on knowledge of the future in the present to guide her behavior - makes it clear that vision of the future works differently between the two. BeanpolePeckerwood posted:That's not the point of the movie or the book. It's the point of both, despite the differences. sector_corrector posted:jump in a woodshredder, dipshit Sorry the truth hurts 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's the point of both, despite the differences. I'd say you have a pretty narrow understanding natch Sir Kodiak posted:Sorry the truth hurts
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
BeanpolePeckerwood posted:I'd say you have a pretty narrow understanding natch Less a fatal diagnosis than the death arising from it, I suppose. Fair point. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
LGD posted:In other words it's a closed causal loop where extremely valuable information arises from nothing, which means that either things are actually preordained, or that something like alternate timelines exists and it's possible to act upon causality to do things like create loops. Oh my gosh I can finally invoke my gimmick and talk about Chrono Cross! I'm so excited! Obviously they just need to clone Louise so they can use her time powers to create an ideal timeline. Also they need to add about 12 more characters that are really only distinguished by a speech mannerism or accent. And somehow they wind up in Japan? It's good, trust me. BeanpolePeckerwood posted:
Are you trying to explain it to me or convince me it's good or something? Am I displaying a lack of understanding? I think I get it, she's seen how things are gonna be and she's gonna make the decision every time because that's how it works. But... you're calling it a choice. And if this is the case than it's not really a choice it's more of... I can't really think of a good word. I guess mandate suffices but it doesn't really convey what I'm trying to say here. If it's something she must do and will always choose to do than I'm not sure it's a choice. I mean... she's doing it but you're saying there is no other choice. She's choosing but it's not a choice. Do you understand what I'm saying? Am I making sense? I don't like that it's not a choice. It's more valiant, heroic and meaningful if she knows what's going to happen but chooses to go through with it anyway. Establishing that it's, for lack of a better word, destiny kind of takes away her agency. She still nobly accepts it and that makes her real good but... not as good. I don't like it, but it doesn't ruin the movie or make it bad. It's definitely something to talk about/discuss. The nature of choice and free will. But this probably is too serious for the casual poo poo posting forum so excuse me. Jenner fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The book and the movie are different stories. That the movie includes something the book doesn't - Louise explicitly acting on knowledge of the future in the present to guide her behavior - makes it clear that vision of the future works differently between the two. You're dumb as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Jenner posted:
Yeah, sorry, wasn't trying to condescend. You've got it in the bolded section. That's how it is in the short story, and the language and concepts that the book uses make it easier to comprehend the significance of her being caught in limbo between the two. The short story is very interesting, and the movie mostly gets it...but not quite. The movie is more caught up in conveying the tone of its environs and revelations rather than a sense of comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
/\/\ Right. I'm glad I got it and I didn't think you were being condescending. I was just seeking clarity to make sure we were understanding each other/communicating well. (Arrival.txt) And, while I'm not trying to get you to agree with me, can you see why it bothers me/rubs me the wrong way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Well, I think it's supposed to be affecting. Though individual responses may vary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
It affected me. I definitely think I appreciated it more because I read the short story first. It's not like translating a story about language and communication to the screen and making it interesting is easy. Maybe this has been mentioned already, but in the original short story, the aliens made sounds instead. I wonder what creative decisions led to the design of the visuals that indicated alien language.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
RainTree posted:You're dumb as gently caress. Perhaps, but still right about the movie (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
I loved Arrival, but I have some questions about it. If the Heptapods have non-linear memories, wouldn't they already know the renegade soldiers would plant bomb on their ship? Wouldn't Abbott know he was going to die? Why didn't they stop it? Also, I presume non-linear memories only account for the lifetime of the individual that has them, yet the the Heptapods have foresight into events that won't happen for 3000 years. Do they just live that long?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Mywhatacleanturtle posted:I loved Arrival, but I have some questions about it. a. Dunno. But in non-linear time the future/past/present are typically conflated. b. They're a collective entity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Mywhatacleanturtle posted:I loved Arrival, but I have some questions about it. Well since there are no such thing as real choices because everything is set in stone and you're going to make the same decisions every time no matter what but just with the knowledge that you're gonna do it now It's not like they can do anything about it since it's inevitable? They're just going through the motions. At least it works out for them in the end since humans save them 3000 years later. Or you can ascribe to my interpretation of the movie and see that the Heptapods see that one of them is going to die but that their whole society is going to be saved for it far down the line. They are willing to still make the choice that kills one of them because it ultimately saves all of them. Scarificing one to save many. It also explains why they are so chill and just shrugs about being bombed and don't go on the war path/defensive like most intelligent societies that are attacked do. Because they know it's coming and have already accepted it. Super heroic and very good. 
Jenner fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
PianolasonMars posted:I wonder what creative decisions led to the design of the visuals that indicated alien language. film is a visual medium. characters just talking at each other is boring. I liked the idea that the aliens' sounds were unrelated to the messages in the symbols. like a person knowing sign language carrying on two separate conversations at the same time, one vocally and one with signs. speculating: when humans learn the aliens' language, the language shapes the brain so the humans can experience non-linear time (cf. Sapir-Whorf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity). If so, what amazing ability would the aliens gain in return from learning the human language? The power of ....?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:52
|
|
