Arrival
POSTED BY: ecgordon
UPDATED: Sunday, August 27, 2017 21:42
VIEWED: 13443
PAGE 3 of 10
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 moNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 mNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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,NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 themNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Arrival is based on a short story by Ted Chiang "Story of Your Life"
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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: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?
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.
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. TheyNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME