My problems with this movie
-
svalinanikola — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 09:03 AM)
- She decodes the final message of the alien language by reading a book her future-self wrote. So how did her future-self get that knowledge? Her future-self who taught her past-self who taught her future-self?
There is no original timeline. - So if she knows telling her husband that she sees the future and knew their daughter would die at a young age will cause him to leave her and her daughter, why did she do it?!
Some people believe that time is linear, what will happen will happen.
- She decodes the final message of the alien language by reading a book her future-self wrote. So how did her future-self get that knowledge? Her future-self who taught her past-self who taught her future-self?
-
Filmlover-43 — 9 years ago(November 15, 2016 12:41 PM)
My biggest problem with this film and why it's a 7 at best for me is just this point of NO explanation of her ability to tell the 'future' and operate in future time. Very unclear to me what happened with the Chinese General.
-
hexawiz — 9 years ago(November 15, 2016 01:13 PM)
To be fair the film did explain how she gained the ability; whether you find the explanation satisfactory or not is a different thing but they made it clear that learning the alien language allowed Louise's mind to operate differently, essentially rewiring it to allow her to experience time non-sequentially.
Regarding Chinese general, she telephoned him on his personal line and repeated something to him that she could not possibly have known (his dying wife's words) and by doing so was able to impress him sufficiently that she was able to persuade him to call off the attack.
She only obtained these key pieces of information after the fact (from the General at the party a year or more later) and it was only because of her time bending mental powers that she was able to use them in her past. -
Filmlover-43 — 9 years ago(November 15, 2016 07:51 PM)
Thanks, I appreciate the explanation as I didn't find this clear from the film so much. It was probably there. I like solid plots and this movie was more fill in understandings of some of the less obvious developments.
-
highway_robbery — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 08:22 AM)
12 different sites to ensure that mankind worked globally together to understand the language, to unify us as a species to ensure we survived the 3000 years necessary to still be around and in a position to help them when the time comes? Louise didn't have all the answers from that 1 ship, she needed to work with the other 11 countries to flesh it out.
I don't think the "why" of exactly what the aliens expected of us in 3000 years needed explaining, that's subjective though and down to personal taste.
I liked that that there was no explanation as to why exactly those 12 sites were "chosen". Maybe they were just 12 random spots across the globe, maybe they were selected for specific reasons. For me the takeaway there was in the line about "some say they are areas with low instances of lightning strikes, but we don't know for sure" (paraphrasing!)- that was relevant to show that one act can have multiple interpretations, the same way that language/communication can have multiple nuanced meanings. which was significant in all of Louise's attempts to understand and communicate with them. The nuances/context/interpretations of language were essential to her argument against the negative reactions when the word "weapon" cropped up. -
charzhino — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 08:43 AM)
You're enforcing your own checklist that this film has to complete before seeing it. Instead how about not outright claiming this is a sci fi film, rather it's a human drama with some sci fi stuff in the background.
-
-
nicholasmonks — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 12:17 AM)
Most good Science Fiction storytelling is human drama surrounded by speculation or science as a device for telling the story. Rarely is the science itself the main theme of a sci-fi story, and when it is, Larry Niven writes stilted characters no-one can empathize with. Even Arthur C. Clark had the wisdom to know that the psychology and humor of Bowman's absurd situation at Iapetus was more engaging and better storytelling than the faux computer printouts earlier in the novel.
That said, LINGUISTICS IS A SCIENCE. Geez, people. Maybe we didn't get a complete lecture on it, and I would have enjoyed that, but would the mass audience have watched it? -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 09:40 AM)
I liked this movie a lot, but it's mainly due to the "big" reveal at the end. If I had to judge the movie while ignoring this particular aspect, I would felt as if there were few scene missing that would've made the movie more dense and complete. This movie is only 149 minutes long without the end credits, which I think is way too short for a movie with this kind of concept. I think the subplot about the world's perception of the aliens should've been more prevalent in the movie. And I've kinda felt that the relationship between Adams and Renner wasn't enough developed. I didn't saw the spark between the two.
-
mounirrmaged — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 10:36 AM)
maybe this will help?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwieselman/how-arrival-pulled-off-that-phenomenal-twist-ending?utm_term=.ouebvYQNr#.xoVozpEjd