|
Totally loved this, was surprised to see it in a completely sold out theater and everyone seemed pretty satisfied on the way out. The really quick flash of the Heptapod in a room during one of Louise's dreams/visions kind of felt like a callback to the spider in the room scene from Enemy.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:I was really pessimistic about how they'd do this one because I liked the story a lot (even assigned it in class a few years ago). You guys have reassured me and I'm now really looking forward to it! I can easily see this being one of those rare movies that gets carted in for a movie day in a non-film college class in that it's pretty and interesting while also expanding your mind. There's probably a better fun movie out there for pure linguistics, but it'd fit right in to a philosophy class. If you teach the short story in a class the film's probably a fine companion to that too, whether you assign it for outside of class viewing or during class itself. My brief overview of the short story made it seem really technical, and I felt the film did a good job of explaining what's going on. Probably too dense a subject matter for high school, but you never know, ultimately what movie is shown for what reason at any level is up to the teacher. Chime in after you see it please, I'm interested in the opinion of someone who was a fan of the story beforehand. For my part I can't remotely imagine that it's a bad adaptation considering people have only pointed out minor differences from the story, it's super pretty and well acted, and it's at 93% critic score / 82% audience score on rotten tomatoes right now. MisterBibs posted:So Adams was having LOST style flashforwards when she was 'remembering' stuff about her child, and never acted surprised that she was talking to a child she hadn't had, yet? So the point of Adams's mom calling to do the standard Ask If She's Alright call was just random? Going back a bit, but I have simple answers to the two questions here. First question: I interpreted the beginning of the film and the opening narration as attempting to show the mindset and perspective of someone who understands Hectapod and begins to perceive their entire lifespan (though we don't know that at the time). It's not that Adams' character is seeing things this way at the start of the movie, it represents her perspective at the end. And once she attains that state when something begins and when it ends matters less than it does to a normal person, since she's able to know the entire "film" of her life and hop from dvd chapter to chapter, rather than just progressing forward at the pace of time. The beginning of the movie is what I'm most interested in seeing again, because they may have been extra clever in a way I can't quite pin down right now. Just like Momento messed around with time a lot, when you're dealing with perception of time in a film you can do some trippy narrative things. Second question: This may have been my foreknowledge coming in to play, since based on the short story synopsis I read I knew she hadn't had her daughter yet, but I interpreted her behavior and conversation with her mother as just everyone being freaking out that aliens are an actual thing and 12 spaceships are on our doorstep suddenly. Even if the dialogue is a bit tricky in that it encourages you to think she's already lost her daughter, alien arrival is plenty of reason for family members and friends to call up one another and check that they're okay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
This film should have been made in the 60's. We're introduced to our hero at a bland college and then the Army shows up and literally says "Hey 'member you did that thing for the Army because you are so good? Guess what..." That was pretty bizarre to get us jump started in. I really wonder why Jeremy Renner seems to be a non-character in just about every film he's in. Here he feels like he will be the Ian Malcolm for a few moments and then he's just there in the background just being the Igor to Amy Adams' experiments. Really get the impression he was in more scenes that were cut out. Does anyone else feel like this was a longer movie at some point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I can see how more characters could have gotten more screen time and focus, this really is Amy Adams' movie throughout. There's basically no end to the amount of detail you can get in to with an alien contact story though, you could always get in to the various tests done on the ships, how separate countries and religions are responding, etc. Thinking about it, if I had to choose one area to get more detail on it would be how other countries interacted with the aliens. It's certainly there, but I only got a few bites when I wanted a full meal of it, so to speak. I mean, at the same time I felt like even the linguistics stuff wasn't as detailed as I'd like, so there's that. I'll have to check out the short story properly soon, I'm sure there's some nice tidbits there that didn't make it to the screen. Every movie has scenes that get cut, and I didn't get the impression that Arrival cut out any more than others do. I felt like the characters got their due, just wanted more of the science and nitty gritty details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Howling Man posted:This film should have been made in the 60's. We're introduced to our hero at a bland college and then the Army shows up and literally says "Hey 'member you did that thing for the Army because you are so good? Guess what..." That was pretty bizarre to get us jump started in. I really wonder why Jeremy Renner seems to be a non-character in just about every film he's in. Here he feels like he will be the Ian Malcolm for a few moments and then he's just there in the background just being the Igor to Amy Adams' experiments. Really get the impression he was in more scenes that were cut out. Does anyone else feel like this was a longer movie at some point? Yes, my last post dealt with this. He has a somewhat larger role in the story that was hinted at but not really played out in the movie. I'd much rather they had avoided the dumb self-radicalizing soldiers subplot and let Ian do his thing instead. It would have made the explanation of the seeing the future thing a lot more nuanced. Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Saw it and totally loved it. I have to say her own journey had a definate impact on me because I'm going to be a dad in a month. Question though- What did she say to the general? I know she learned it from her flashforward conversation with him about his deceased wife but I'm curious as to what exactly she said. Not that it's actually important I just figure someone must have translated it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
I thought the soldiers being self-destructive to their own interests because of 1) what some pundit says is happening vs. what is actually happening, and 2) their fear and their family's fear of the current climate, was kinda appropriate. However I am not sure how realistic it is to how loyal/trusting soldiers would be in an entirely new type of crisis like this, and how realistic it was for them to get explosives out there, etc. I'm thinking not very, so I can appreciate that it might be seen as silly too. Jeremy Renner's role reminded me of what the female character is treated like in movies like this when the shoe is on the other foot. He ends up just being there to bone with ayyyy. e: The one thing with the soldier plot is did Abbott know he was going to die and try to change the outcome by pointing at the bomb behind them, then when that failed he went ahead with his original mission to give them the "1 of 12" puzzle? Or was them knowing he was pointing at the bomb (after the fact) somehow important to deciphering that puzzle and it was all part of the teaching effort? turtlecrunch fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
I understood the twist like a minute before they the movie started spelling it out and I think that made it hit even harder. drat... It probably lends itself for a second viewing once you've got the complete picture. It was also nice to see Michael Stuhlbarg in a decent role after being wasted in Dr. Strange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
One of the titles on the soundtrack is "Principle of Least Time" which would tend to confirm that Ian's role was substantially cut late in production. edit for explanation: The bit in the short story that made everything start to click for me was when Ian Donnelly made a breakthrough trying to communicate math the aliens. You got the first bit of it in the movie, one line about how they don't understand algebra but they have no trouble whatsoever with calculus and Ian goes "that doesn't make any sense!!!" and they just leave it at that with no further development. In the short story, Ian is the one who realizes that they're trying to convey Fermat's Principle of Least Time, which goes a long way toward explaining how they view time or, put another way, why they're incapable of comprehending linear time the way humans do. Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Isn't part of the point that she CAN'T decide not to have the child? The Heptapod's language implies a deterministic universe where free will is an illusion. That's how it is in the short story, but there's no indication that's how it is in the movie. The movie distinguishes itself from the story by having Louise act on her foreknowledge, with the phone call to the Chinese general, as part of a stable time loop. Louise being willing to accept and recreate the future she sees is a character choice. There's no indication that becoming just a passenger through your own life is inherent to learning the language, as there is in the story. It's a nice improvement. The movie clearly loses something if you know what's going on from the start, while also handling "what's going on" better, so should definitely be seen blind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie. I think the Alex Jones thing could as easily have not shown up at all and that Renner's character should've been a little more immediately useful, but all in all I'm glad to have seen it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
The soundtrack was very good and important to this film
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Howling Man posted:This film should have been made in the 60's. We're introduced to our hero at a bland college and then the Army shows up and literally says "Hey 'member you did that thing for the Army because you are so good? Guess what..." That was pretty bizarre to get us jump started in. I really wonder why Jeremy Renner seems to be a non-character in just about every film he's in. Here he feels like he will be the Ian Malcolm for a few moments and then he's just there in the background just being the Igor to Amy Adams' experiments. Really get the impression he was in more scenes that were cut out. Does anyone else feel like this was a longer movie at some point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
As much as I'd like to see the three hour cut, I really appreciated the brevity of the current version. There's no dawdling, you get the emotional impact, everything is very clearly explained, and your bladder doesn't pop. It'll be fun to see some extra activity on the blu-ray but sometimes less is more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Loved the short story, and while I'm less than crazy about some of the changes they made I get why they added all of the global conflict/military stuff but it was definitely the least interesting part of the film I loved this too. Has anyone translated what Louise was saying to the chinese general near the end? EDIT: Question about a line about halfway through the movie: The guy who looks like Joaqin Phoenix mentioned that humanity has a history of dividing up conquered lands and making the natives fight each other, and that the Hungarians even have a term for it. Does anyone know specifically what he was referencing? fadam fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
quote:EDIT: Question about a line about halfway through the movie: The guy who looks like Joaqin Phoenix mentioned that humanity has a history of dividing up conquered lands and making the natives fight each other, and that the Hungarians even have a term for it. Does anyone know specifically what he was referencing? Presumably szalámitaktika / salami tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics Really enjoyed this film. If you like sci fi with a strong emotional core it's a must-see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
I, as a grog, enjoyed the attention to detail to military hardware from many nations around the world
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:Ah, I didn't know all that. Well that's very good and the type of situation I was hoping for, so good for him. I was hoping this was a passion project for him that could act as his breakout script, and it sounds like that's the case. I definitely hopes he gets the Oscar then! I've known Eric for years and years, this is beyond a passion project for him; it's pretty much dominated his life since he first started reading Chiang. A lot of his horror films have come with heavy studio interference and mandates - Nightmare on Elm Street l had something like 40% of it changed out from under him - and he's tolerated them as stepping stones and networking opportunities to start working on his own babies with a little more clout available to him. Even on those projects he was basically doing to get money and make connections, dude is still really obsessive about making it as "right" as possible. When he was doing The Thing prequel he would go through the original frame by frame and make sure he had the exact dimensions and layout of the original Norwegian camp, even though the director ended up shrugging it off and going "eh no one is going to notice that stuff, also we need more CGI it's the year 2011 baby!" He actually recently walked off of the Sandman adaptation after saying he could not make it work as a movie and still have any semblance to the comics with everything the studio wanted him to tweak. I kind of wish he'd waited a little longer and let this film come out as such a critical darling, it might have given him enough weight to throw around and make something work. I know he sat down with Neil Gaiman several times and hammered out some ways to compress the story into a trilogy, but even then he was having to rip huge chunks of the plot out. I'm really looking forward to the inevitable 3-hour cut but I thought it worked fantastic for the length of the theatrical release, honestly. Part of what made it work was the lack of padding and moving along at a good pace without rushing you or lingering on anything for too long. My one complaint was, echoing some others here, Jeremy Renner was just kind of... there, poorly channeling 90s Jeff Goldblum. I get that they needed another scientist to back-and-forth with Amy Adams so it wasn't just two hours of her dumbing things down for the soldier characters. I don't dislike him as an actor, I just feel like he managed to phone it in here even worse than he did in the Marvel films.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Mandragora posted:He actually recently walked off of the Sandman adaptation after saying he could not make it work as a movie and still have any semblance to the comics with everything the studio wanted him to tweak. I kind of wish he'd waited a little longer and let this film come out as such a critical darling, I've been saying Sandman should be a tv series ever since they first announced the movie a million years ago, so he's my loving hero. Please let the movie die from this once and for all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
It's kind of interesting to note that Renner's role is just a gender inversion of the standard scientific sidekick who ends up being a love interest style character, and that his relative lack of characterisation is being highlighted more than such a character usually would (across all people criticising the film, not just these forums).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
I saw his today and loved it. I missed what the other linguist said the Sanskrit for war meant, and why that was significant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
"A desire for more cows" Edit: sorry, I misunderstood. I didn't catch that part either. Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:"A desire for more cows" Thanks. I heard her say that. Did the other linguist say it meant something else? I assumed she was testing him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Ah, well pass along my good vibes to Eric then Mandragora. I'm glad there's a longer cut, put the deleted scenes on the blu-ray/dvd or just offer a proper extended cut LOTR style. Theatrical cut is plenty good though, if they'd kept piling on the science details and whatnot it would be hard to keep a general audience entertained and happy. The other linguist definitely said something else, but I can't recall what it was.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
This movie was very good. I'll reiterate what others said and recommend you go see it without being spoiled on it. I haven't read the story or anything, but I would imagine watching the film before reading the story makes for a better experience. The ending gives you a lot to chew on philosophically and is probably the most meaningful gift this film can give.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
This movie is very good, but there's something inherently uninteresting about non-linear time/lack of free will. Characters making choices are pretty much the entirety of why fiction is compelling. Worth it just for the incredible art direction on the aliens though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Just Offscreen posted:Saw it and totally loved it. I have to say her own journey had a definate impact on me because I'm going to be a dad in a month. Speaking of which, I have an 11 year old son and I do my best to help him to see the world on his own without my showing it to him through my own filter of biases, and one of the big truths I am trying to teach him is that 95% of humanity operates on a daily basis from a position of fear. Fear of other people, fear of failure, fear of the unknown, fear of fear. I felt like this movie really supported my theory... The soldier's wife's fear of the unknown motivated his actions, then the fear of death motivated his planting the bomb. The Chinese fear of the unknown almost caused them to attack. The US government's fear of the backlash from China attacking them caused them to take their own steps. Congrats on being a new Dad... let's try to help the next generation thrive on optimism, joy, and wonder instead of fear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
A True Jar Jar Fan posted:Totally loved this, was surprised to see it in a completely sold out theater and everyone seemed pretty satisfied on the way out. The really quick flash of the Heptapod in a room during one of Louise's dreams/visions kind of felt like a callback to the spider in the room scene from Enemy. I can't imagine that's a coincidence, it was so perfect that I was giggling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:This movie is very good, but there's something inherently uninteresting about non-linear time/lack of free will. Characters making choices are pretty much the entirety of why fiction is compelling. Worth it just for the incredible art direction on the aliens though. I'm curious about this. Is there an actual lack of free will? Louise is seeing into the future that she would have chosen anyways. Theoretically she could decide not to have the daughter but then she wouldn't have had the daughter and as a result of that she wouldn't have had the vision in the first place, right? It seems like in this universe when you see into the future, you see the repercussions of all the free will choices you make in the present. Yes/no? Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I'm curious about this. Is there an actual lack of free will? Louise is seeing into the future that she would have chosen anyways. Theoretically she could decide not to have the daughter but then she wouldn't have had the daughter and as a result of that she wouldn't have had the vision in the first place, right? It seems like in this universe when you see into the future, you see the repercussions of all the free will choices you make in the present. Yes/no? I don't think there's enough evidence one way or another to say it's pre-determined or not, though I believe it's clearer in the story from other posts I've read. To me it leaves it open to how you want to view it. NowonSA fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
smallmouth posted:I saw his today and loved it. I missed what the other linguist said the Sanskrit for war meant, and why that was significant. I think the other linguist said "an argument".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I think the other linguist said "an argument". Interesting, thank you. That makes sense with the themes and her approach to communicating. Also the fact she wears a wedding band in the beginning sequence and later speaks to the physicist about being single didn't dawn on me until I read someone mention it in comments. I really love how the circular view of time was handled in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I'm curious about this. Is there an actual lack of free will? Louise is seeing into the future that she would have chosen anyways. Theoretically she could decide not to have the daughter but then she wouldn't have had the daughter and as a result of that she wouldn't have had the vision in the first place, right? It seems like in this universe when you see into the future, you see the repercussions of all the free will choices you make in the present. Yes/no? I agree that its up for interpretation, but for me the movie never even raises the possibility of choice. Louise says "I just figured out why my husband left me" years before it happens. Most movies with time travel/knowledge of the future present it as just more information available to the character, and they can accept that future or try for something different. This movie truly presented it as time not mattering at all ("there is no time") and when there's no time, there's no causality and therefore no choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
I just came back from this and loved it. It stayed true to the short story (for the most part) and the added Hollywood bits were fine. Did anyone else pick up on shots that looked like they were supposed to be symmetrical, but ended up asymmetrical? Was this supposed to mean something or do I have OCD because it seemed deliberate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I'm curious about this. Is there an actual lack of free will? Louise is seeing into the future that she would have chosen anyways. Theoretically she could decide not to have the daughter but then she wouldn't have had the daughter and as a result of that she wouldn't have had the vision in the first place, right? It seems like in this universe when you see into the future, you see the repercussions of all the free will choices you make in the present. Yes/no? We aren't talking about "visions." The way it's described in the movie, and Ted Chiang's story, is "memories." Nothing she sees in the future are caused by her 'past' actions, any more than actions you remember from your childhood are a result of typing this post. Arguments about free will miss the point. Everything just fits together simultaneously like those logograms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:I agree that its up for interpretation, but for me the movie never even raises the possibility of choice. Louise says "I just figured out why my husband left me" years before it happens. Most movies with time travel/knowledge of the future present it as just more information available to the character, and they can accept that future or try for something different. This movie truly presented it as time not mattering at all ("there is no time") and when there's no time, there's no causality and therefore no choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
at the date posted:We aren't talking about "visions." The way it's described in the movie, and Ted Chiang's story, is "memories." Nothing she sees in the future are caused by her 'past' actions, any more than actions you remember from your childhood are a result of typing this post. Arguments about free will miss the point. Everything just fits together simultaneously like those logograms. That's what Terrible Horse (poster who the poster you replied to replied to) was getting at by calling that detail uninteresting; if everything just fits together simultaneously, then all of existence is deterministic and solved, which suddenly annihilates all your characters' motivation and purpose, rendering them sort of bleh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
I really don't see how being able to see the results of things you haven't done yet means you didn't choose to do them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I really don't see how being able to see the results of things you haven't done yet means you didn't choose to do them. Because the movie doesn't present it as "something she hasn't done yet" but rather "something that is". It's already done, she's just watching it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Saw this with my mother, who is a linguistic anthropologist, and my dad, who is a mathematician. Was a little weird. Also, a few of my mom's coworkers came too and one of them has a daughter named Hannah which was disconcerting for everyone involved. The linguistic science is apparently 'basically fine but it's Hollywood' and they agreed that starting with stuff like individual letters or phonemes would drag the whole thing out, but my Mom's primary objection to the whole movie was that 'Louise' is a really stupid name to use as a demonstration because it has all sorts of extraneous letters that have no function. I just thought that was funny. NmareBfly fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 04:53
|
|
