The Arrival- Film- SPOILERS

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Spoiler

 

Such linear thinking! 

There was no risk if you know the future and the past

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, First of My Name said:

But if she learned to perceive time like the heptapods just from 1/12th of the knowledge, what was the other 11/12th even for?

And couldn't the heptapods have achieved the same goal easier by just sending the ship that landed in Montana? That way they can bypass the need for a united humanity altogether and just get Louise on their side easier. Seems like a less risky approach. Louise could probably have used her 'powers' to achieve the same end.

As mentioned above, the heptabods already saw the future and how humanity would react. Also, we don't know what help they need in 3000 years, but they must have concluded that they needed all of humanity's help. Also, had they sent only one ship in Montana, it would have been Roswell all over again, because I doubt the U.S. would have shared anything with the rest of the world. And that must not have been what the heptabods intended.

[First of My Name]

15 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Such linear thinking! 

There was no risk if you know the future and the past

 

8 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

As mentioned above, the heptabods already saw the future and how humanity would react. Also, we don't know what help they need in 3000 years, but they must have concluded that they needed all of humanity's help. Also, had they sent only one ship in Montana, it would have been Roswell all over again, because I doubt the U.S. would have shared anything with the rest of the world. And that must not have been what the heptabods intended.

Okay, fair enough  That makes sense, even if it's kind of an easy way to explain every decision the heptapods makeit fits within the context of the story.

[Werthead]

The vibe I got was that there's still cause and effect, action and consequence, but there's also the ability to change things a bit (I haven't read the short story but apparently that is clearer) based on the information you can glean from the future. The aliens could have just landed in Montana but then the future would have likely shifted so America held all twelve pieces of the puzzle and used it to dominate humanity, even if it was "easier". So they needed to get humanity to work together.

The film is fucking amazing. I can't even think of another "thinking SF" movie that did this kind of thing so well. It's far, far better than Interstellar, Contact, A.I. or anything of that ilk. It's better-paced and more human than 2001, it doesn't wreck the tone and atmosphere of the last quarter by dragging in a serial killer for no apparent reason like Sunshine, and it isn't cripplingly reliant on its visuals because the characters suck like Gravity. It's a really incredible achievement. I feel much, much better about the Blade Runner sequel now. This guy has skills.

[David Selig]

On 11/11/2016 at 7:00 PM, Maithanet said:

"The Story of Your Life" is an absolutely beautiful short story.  I would also consider it almost unfilmable, which is why I was surprised it was being made into a movie.  Has anyone who has read the story seen the movie?  If it does it justice (accepting that the two versions will of course be different), I would have to see this movie. 

The previews don't give much away, which is nice.  And it's an original Sci-Fi movie, instead of another retread or sequel, so I'll admit I'm curious.

I adore the story and watched the movie a few hours ago. My feelings are a bit mixed. On the one hand, the movie does an amazing job of depicting the main idea of the story and the emotional core and climax. On the other hand, in order to stretch the material into a feature length movie, they added a lot of stuff (which was inevitable), but the problem is, a lot of it is just mediocre Hollywood cliches used to create drama and tension which often make little sense (all the stuff about the Chinese, the bomb, etc). Still, it is well worth watching IMO.

[Isis]

On 11/11/2016 at 5:00 PM, Maithanet said:

"The Story of Your Life" is an absolutely beautiful short story.  I would also consider it almost unfilmable, which is why I was surprised it was being made into a movie.  Has anyone who has read the story seen the movie?  If it does it justice (accepting that the two versions will of course be different), I would have to see this movie. 

The previews don't give much away, which is nice.  And it's an original Sci-Fi movie, instead of another retread or sequel, so I'll admit I'm curious.

I read the story years ago but also re-read it this weekend and then went to see the film last night. I liked the film but I was disappointed because where the heck was the physics? The physics dude in the film had no role at all.

 

The whole moment of realisation thing she has in the books about how we and they experience the same event differently because we experience time differently just didn't even happen in the film! instead she just had a mystical moment of realisation.

One thing I liked about the film was that you saw that Louise began experiencing time differently from the moment of Arrival, whereas in the story it seemed very much to me (and my linear mind!) that she was recalling the past as she told the story about the arrival and her child's future. Maybe it is just too difficult to perceive in a written story (for me anyway) but I feel that this was conveyed very well in the film. Does anyone have a clue what I am talking about?

ETA: I thought that Enemy was a brilliant film. Extremely thought-provoking.

[Howdyphillip]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

The vibe I got was that there's still cause and effect, action and consequence, but there's also the ability to change things a bit (I haven't read the short story but apparently that is clearer) based on the information you can glean from the future. The aliens could have just landed in Montana but then the future would have likely shifted so America held all twelve pieces of the puzzle and used it to dominate humanity, even if it was "easier". So they needed to get humanity to work together.

The film is fucking amazing. I can't even think of another "thinking SF" movie that did this kind of thing so well. It's far, far better than Interstellar, Contact, A.I. or anything of that ilk. It's better-paced and more human than 2001, it doesn't wreck the tone and atmosphere of the last quarter by dragging in a serial killer for no apparent reason like Sunshine, and it isn't cripplingly reliant on its visuals because the characters suck like Gravity. It's a really incredible achievement. I feel much, much better about the Blade Runner sequel now. This guy has skills.

The director didn't write the movie, and obviously the strong points of this film was the writing and acting. I'm still a little hesitant about the Blade Runner sequel because I am not assured that the wiring will be this kind of quality. Also, I personally liked Contact a bit better because it had far better pacing, even though the story was a bit weaker but these two were very close.

 I almost fell asleep in this movie several times, and I absolutely adored it. I really do think this is a fine film despite the director, and not because of it.

[Werthead]

9 hours ago, Howdyphillip said:

The director didn't write the movie, and obviously the strong points of this film was the writing and acting. I'm still a little hesitant about the Blade Runner sequel because I am not assured that the wiring will be this kind of quality. Also, I personally liked Contact a bit better because it had far better pacing, even though the story was a bit weaker but these two were very close.

 I almost fell asleep in this movie several times, and I absolutely adored it. I really do think this is a fine film despite the director, and not because of it.

One of the writers on Blade Runner 2049 is the guy who co-wrote the original Blade Runner, which is encouraging. The other guy wrote, er, Green Lantern and is a producer on Gotham, which is less so.

But then the guy who wrote Arrival also wrote such masterpieces as Final Destination 5 and mehtastic Thing and Nightmare on Elm Street reboots. He had great source material from the short story, of course, but it still would have been easy to screw up.

[mormont]

Watched this last night... it is indeed very good. The heptapods and, crucially, their language are done very well. Most of the changes to the story work (if you ignore what I assume is the studio-mandated explosion. 'Guys, there has to be one explosion! What are we gonna put in the trailer?'). Some excellent performances and smart writing too.

I did feel stuff like the pacing, the colour palette, and the score were a little heavy-handed in signalling that This Is An Intelligent Film OK, not some dumb sci-fi flick. It could do with a warmer tone and a faster pace to many scenes, maybe trimming five minutes from the first half. But in the end it's a decent attempt to film a smart sci-fi story and we don't get so many of those we can afford to be picky.

[ants]

I'd rate it 10/10. I thought it was a fantastic film, and enjoyed all of it.

On the director, I liked Prisoners and thought Sicario was rubbish. So mixed on him.

[Isis]

I'm completely ambivalent about the explosion / the alteration to the story in that direction, ie the global conflict stuff. 

What I remain bothered by is the total lack of physics/science as a tool for making sense of the heptapods and the implication that Louise makes a breakthrough in understanding through language alone. Or, in fact, just through a mystical mind meld. 

[Werthead]

I think I got that: Louise didn't need to learn the language fully, but just "enough" to alter her perception of time. Then she could look forward to a point in the future when she knew the language and fully understood it. That's how (I think) she went from kind of knowing a few words to suddenly talking fluently to the heptapod when she was in its atmosphere.

The only problem that raises is with causality: if she never learned the language the hard way, how did she know it to send the information back to her past self? The only thing I can think of is that the present is a fixed point and the heptapod language allows both Louise and the heptapods to see potential futures. That's why Louise can't remember what she said to the Chinese ambassador in the part set in the future when she should: that's the present-day Louise projecting forwards, and that scene will now play out differently when she reaches that point.

I can see the situation getting chaotic pretty quickly though, if everyone who learns heptapod experiences the future then does that mean they could all manipulate it?

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I can see the situation getting chaotic pretty quickly though, if everyone who learns heptapod experiences the future then does that mean they could all manipulate it?

Maybe that's why the heptapods refer to it as a 'weapon', it could certainly be dangerous in the wrong hands.

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

I think I got that: Louise didn't need to learn the language fully, but just "enough" to alter her perception of time. Then she could look forward to a point in the future when she knew the language and fully understood it. That's how (I think) she went from kind of knowing a few words to suddenly talking fluently to the heptapod when she was in its atmosphere.

The only problem that raises is with causality: if she never learned the language the hard way, how did she know it to send the information back to her past self? The only thing I can think of is that the present is a fixed point and the heptapod language allows both Louise and the heptapods to see potential futures. That's why Louise can't remember what she said to the Chinese ambassador in the part set in the future when she should: that's the present-day Louise projecting forwards, and that scene will now play out differently when she reaches that point.

I can see the situation getting chaotic pretty quickly though, if everyone who learns heptapod experiences the future then does that mean they could all manipulate it?

It's basically a fancy version of Bill and Ted agreeing that they'd steal the keys later and leave them behind the sign. 

I think I agree, although it's worth noting the Chinese ambassador seemed to be purposefully telling her what she needed to know, not just conveniently making conversation. He knew he would have to say these things, which sort of makes it look like a solid vision of the future from his POV. Then again, I assume she didn't tell the physicist/dad about their daughters illness this time around so we're definitely dealing with multiple futures.

And yea, if everyone starts basically seeing time all at once, that would be a pretty monumental breach of the Prime Directive on the heptapods part.

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, DaveSumm said:

It's basically a fancy version of Bill and Ted agreeing that they'd steal the keys later and leave them behind the sign. 

I think I agree, although it's worth noting the Chinese ambassador seemed to be purposefully telling her what she needed to know, not just conveniently making conversation. He knew he would have to say these things, which sort of makes it look like a solid vision of the future from his POV. Then again, I assume she didn't tell the physicist/dad about their daughters illness this time around so we're definitely dealing with multiple futures.

And yea, if everyone starts basically seeing time all at once, that would be a pretty monumental breach of the Prime Directive on the heptapods part.

I'm guessing the threat the heptapods forsee arising in 3,000 years time is serious enough to warrant it.

[Talleyrand]

Finally got around to seeing it, really enjoyed it.

On what help the aliens could need from humans a friends pointed out to me that when they first arrive at the base one of the scientists tells Ian that the heptapods didn't understand algebra but reacted to calculus which according to him (though I'm just trusting him on this cause maths is definitely not a strong point for me) could be because algebra is linear so it could be that the heptapods have trouble working with it and the problem they face is one that a more advanced united human race can solve because of a similar situation.

[felice]

On 22/11/2016 at 8:58 AM, Werthead said:

I think I got that: Louise didn't need to learn the language fully, but just "enough" to alter her perception of time. Then she could look forward to a point in the future when she knew the language and fully understood it. That's how (I think) she went from kind of knowing a few words to suddenly talking fluently to the heptapod when she was in its atmosphere.

Yes, that was my take on it.

On 22/11/2016 at 8:58 AM, Werthead said:

The only problem that raises is with causality: if she never learned the language the hard way, how did she know it to send the information back to her past self?

She does learn the language the hard way; or at least, she spends years studying it in the future even though she already knows it (due to remembering the studying she's going to do). She literally writes the book on it. If she was the type of person to lose interest in the language once she knew it, she wouldn't have had any future knowledge of it to draw on.

On 22/11/2016 at 8:58 AM, Werthead said:

The only thing I can think of is that the present is a fixed point and the heptapod language allows both Louise and the heptapods to see potential futures. That's why Louise can't remember what she said to the Chinese ambassador in the part set in the future when she should: that's the present-day Louise projecting forwards, and that scene will now play out differently when she reaches that point.

I didn't get the impression that the future is malleable. The remembered future takes into account your foreknowledge, so you'll never remember any future events where you'd have made different decisions if you'd known how things would turn out, because you always did know how things would turn out when you made the decisions. When she meets the ambassador, she's thinking back to when she quoted his wife's words over the phone a couple of years earlier, not forwards to what he's about to tell her. On the phone, she was remembering something she'd memorised a couple of years away; from the future meeting, that memory is twice as distant and she hasn't needed to think about it since then, so she doesn't recall the exact words clearly. The ambassador then reminds her. You probably can't deliberately change the future, because if you intend to act differently from what you remember will happen, you simply won't be able to remember what you're going to do (it is memory, not some kind of perfect knowledge).

On 22/11/2016 at 10:51 AM, DaveSumm said:

I assume she didn't tell the physicist/dad about their daughters illness this time around so we're definitely dealing with multiple futures.

The marriage, divorce, and daughter's death will play out as she remembers them, because she thinks the good times are worth it. She can't not tell him about the illness; he'll find out eventually when she starts showing symptoms, and her being sad about what's coming but refusing to explain why would wreck their relationship anyway.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

As per the above, the way the movie sets out the future and the past and the present is that its almost as if everything has already happened. Its not malleable in the same way the past isn't malleable. If she cannot remember what she said to the Chinese ambassador its probably either because memory isn't always that perfect, and she also doesn't have a 100% grasp of the language she was learning, so is only getting hints of the future rather than seeing everything all at once. 

I recommend reading Slaughterhouse 5 if you haven't already as its a very good book that talks about similar concepts.

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, felice said:

She does learn the language the hard way; or at least, she spends years studying it in the future even though she already knows it (due to remembering the studying she's going to do). She literally writes the book on it. If she was the type of person to lose interest in the language once she knew it, she wouldn't have had any future knowledge of it to draw on.

It's a sort of half-JonnyBeGood paradox, the actual graft of learning the language has been lost somewhere as she clearly would have an easier time writing the book when she had visions of the finished article to help her.

Quote

I didn't get the impression that the future is malleable. The remembered future takes into account your foreknowledge, so you'll never remember any future events where you'd have made different decisions if you'd known how things would turn out, because you always did know how things would turn out when you made the decisions. When she meets the ambassador, she's thinking back to when she quoted his wife's words over the phone a couple of years earlier, not forwards to what he's about to tell her. On the phone, she was remembering something she'd memorised a couple of years away; from the future meeting, that memory is twice as distant and she hasn't needed to think about it since then, so she doesn't recall the exact words clearly. The ambassador then reminds her. You probably can't deliberately change the future, because if you intend to act differently from what you remember will happen, you simply won't be able to remember what you're going to do (it is memory, not some kind of perfect knowledge).

The marriage, divorce, and daughter's death will play out as she remembers them, because she thinks the good times are worth it. She can't not tell him about the illness; he'll find out eventually when she starts showing symptoms, and her being sad about what's coming but refusing to explain why would wreck their relationship anyway.

I'd have to watch again, but I thought "the good times are worth it" was referring to having the child at all, and that there were scenes with the whole family that replaced scenes with just her and the girl before. I presumed the first time round she told the father years before which ruined their relationship way before she was ill, and this time she just waited till she was ill. Maybe he might then get angry that he hadn't told her I guess.

I'm not really a fan of fixed-future time travel, cos it's so easy to poke holes in. What if she did remember the conversation with the ambassador and decided to shout "BUMHOLES" right in the middle of his sentence? How do the laws of physics contort to stop that happening? I don't really like the idea of your memory just coincidentally tailing off at the perfect time for you to stop being able to change anything. 

My favourite example is Red Dwarf, when Lister's trying to convince Rimmer that he saw a vision of the exact conversation but he keeps inadvertently triggering the responses he's already heard. He finally remembers the next sentence and tries to thwart it by telling him; "and then you say 'well it probably is déjà vu'."

"Well.....it probably is déjà vu! It sounds like it!"

[Raja]

I can't fathom labelling 'Sicario' as boring - that film had an *okay* script and paper thin characters, except perhaps Blunt, it's Villeneuve that made that film as good as it is. 

Saw this today in am empty theatre this morning - there's so much to like about this film. It's themes ( particularly post election and referendum in the US & UK), the score, and how beautifully it's shot. Initially, I thought the narration at the start with Amy Adams was a weak point, however, by the time the reveal comes around, I was completely sold that the narration, and the flash forwards with the child had to be there.

I need to get my hands on the short story/ collection of stories by the author.