Arrival

POSTED BY: ecgordon
UPDATED: Sunday, August 27, 2017 21:42
VIEWED: 13443
PAGE 6 of 10

I promise, I hope to get to it today. I enjoyed it more upon the second viewing.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 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  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I promise, I hope to get to it today. I enjoyed it more upon the second viewing.


SGG

---

now now now now now

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

"Language is the foundation of civilization, it is the glue that holds the people together. It is the first weapon drawn in a conflict."

-Louise Banks

I was right, this movie needs to be seen 3 or 4 times to appreciate the layers that Denis Villeneuve brilliantly laid out for us. This is how you write sci-fi (note to the producers/writers of Ghost in the Shell; and shame on the director). This film is a masterpiece, move over Kubrick, and enthralls us from the opening sequence. The first five minutes alone could be a movie all on it's own, but it prepares us and gently guides us to a
front row seat, a recliner - here are your slippers and popcorn, sit back and enjoy (more on that later).

"Language is the foundation of civilization....it is the first weapon drawn in a conflict." Important words that I completely glossed over the first time around. It is a key to understanding the film's thesis, it's core value, one of the theme's that drives the emotional aspect of the film's message. We must communicate to survive.

Sci-fi, as I have said in the past, is social commentary of the sign of the times. We have become so polarized in this country that we fail to hear each other. We all want pretty much the same things, and this film promotes the simple truth - we must listen to each other and take our time to establish contact; otherwise we are doomed. At first, I thought too that the "weapon" the aliens spoke of was Louise's sensitivity towards time manipulation. But it's really her ability to use language and openness to communicate; to hear out the "aliens" among us. And I'm not talking about aliens from another planet, or the so-called "illegal" kind. I'm talking about us - humans.

"Weapon" was misunderstood by the government officials in the film, and by us - the audience. And it took a second viewing for me to catch that. Thanks for pushing me to do this because I was not interested in watching the film again, and now it's all I think of. I've discovered a gem I didn't now I had. Now, I better understand the ending. Something that escaped me the first two times around. Are you ready? Here it goes: Time is precious, but, more importantly, it is the connections that we make with one another.

The emotion of those first five minutes, how Louise describes what is important to her and how she understood her purpose; and the significance
of her memories in relation to the precious time she spent with her daughter. That is how you set up a story that pays off at the end - that is, of course, if you understand it. Brilliant film. You may very well have a different take on it, and I don't blame you at all, it is so layered. Go back and watch it again, especially those first five minutes; and you will see that I am right!

;-)


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I promise, I hope to get to it today. I enjoyed it more upon the second viewing.


SGG

---

now now now now now

---

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

In her first explanation to the Whitaker character delved into the essential nature of understanding the words, such as tool, weapon, etc.

SPOILER ALERT if you have not seen the film yet!!




After spelling it out for us there, later they are translating the term weapon, and I didn't understand why Louise thought her translation was correct.
Which do you think is the correct translation of the term they intended to communicate?

Her tool?
Her ability?
Her gift?
Her curse?
Her capability?
Her advantage?
Her insight?
Her attack?
Her sensitivity?

They wanted her to use it, they needed her to use it, for their future survival.

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

Hey JSF,

None of the above.
The weapon they spoke of was language, like the statement she made in her book (during the helicopter ride to the Montana site). At first I thought it was her ability to see time as the aliens did, but it turned out to be the language - her ability to communicate.


SGG

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In her first explanation to the Whitaker character delved into the essential nature of understanding the words, such as tool, weapon, etc.

SPOILER ALERT if you have not seen the film yet!!




After spelling it out for us there, later they are translating the term weapon, and I didn't understand why Louise thought her translation was correct.
Which do you think is the correct translation of the term they intended to communicate?

Her tool?
Her ability?
Her gift?
Her curse?
Her capability?
Her advantage?
Her insight?
Her attack?
Her sensitivity?

They wanted her to use it, they needed her to use it, for their future survival.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In her first explanation to the Whitaker character delved into the essential nature of understanding the words, such as tool, weapon, etc.

SPOILER ALERT if you have not seen the film yet!!




After spelling it out for us there, later they are translating the term weapon, and I didn't understand why Louise thought her translation was correct.
Which do you think is the correct translation of the term they intended to communicate?

Her tool?
Her ability?
Her gift?
Her curse?
Her capability?
Her advantage?
Her insight?
Her attack?
Her sensitivity?

They wanted her to use it, they needed her to use it, for their future survival.

---

Hey JSF,

None of the above.
The weapon they spoke of was language, like the statement she made in her book (during the helicopter ride to the Montana site). At first I thought it was her ability to see time as the aliens did, but it turned out to be the language - her ability to communicate.

SGG

---

In the thread about best films of 2016, would you agree Arrival is the best Sci-Fi film of the year?


"Use your weapon"
I am not sure if you read my question accurately, or understood.
You seem to be saying that the actual term they intended to use was "language", but either they misunderstood it's meaning or we misunderstood which term they were trying to convey.
They didn't understand the term or concept of language, a form of communication?

Perhaps you meant that they intended to use a term which conveyed "ability/talent of communicating" which was then too similar to their term for weapon.
However, they seemed able to respond to verbal language from Louise and Ian, and when Louise translated their message as "weapon" they didn't seem to correct her, or change the term in their repeated message.
What I am asking is what is the specific term that you think Abbott/Costello intended to convey when they used a term that Louise translated as "weapon" in their message?
I think the term "language" would have had a more clear translation between them and Louise. If you really think that is the exact term that was translated as "weapon" then maybe you could elaborate for me better?

"Use your language" - as in English, or Earthly languages, or Human languages?
"Use your translation skills" - but they needed her to use the time manipulation to save earth.
"Use your ability to immerse your mind in our language (or our communication, or our mental telepathy)" - which she would then understand the time manipulation - is this what you think their term was supposed to mean, which Louise mis-translated to "weapon" in their message?



I am now trying to recall a sequence - did they direct (plead?) her to use her weapon during the time (1) she was with them alone, after they brought her far up in their pod, which was after the xenophobes detonated the explosion which sent Abbott to death process (Abbott sacrificed himself to save Ian and Louise), or was it during the time (2) that Abbott was trying to get her attention as the detonation timer was counting down - this would be before any weapons had been deployed against them, and none of them had perished yet from human action.

As an aside, I recall now another point - none of the visitors had perished at human hands/actions, all around the world they were fully capable of defending themselves against humans, yet Abbott willingly and purposefully saved Ian and Louise from the explosion, making him the first casualty of interaction between our species - yet Abbott was fully capable of saving and protecting himself, if not for his higher priority of saving Louise, who would make Earthlings come together in order for future humans being able to help Costello & friends in the future.

Back to topic - was "use your weapon" a scene before the explosion, or was it af

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

This was posted November 28:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 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 defi

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