When was Hannah born?
-
mason25 — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 05:24 PM)
Did you actually WATCH the movie and understand it or were you just enjoying the colors all over the screen????
It was stated that because she learned the heptapods language, that she learned how to see the past/present/future all as ONE moment (sort of), so she could look into the future and see what was to come for her. Thus she seen her daughter Hannah BEFORE she even had her.
Any moments when she said anything about it, no one else really noticed, because they weren't close to her and thus didn't know that she hadn't already been married and didn't already have a daughter. -
-
-
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 02:04 AM)
Yes, her advanced understanding of language had already begun to reprogram her brain, heptopods just brought it out in her and explained what it was. The reason she was so good at their language was becuase she'd already started to consider time non linear and that's half the battle to learning their language. That was her Rosetta stone
-
Joel_morley5 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 03:24 AM)
That's quite an assumption. She was an expert at languages yes, but why would that reprogram her brain to be able to see things in a non linear time frame? The languages that she is an expert in are all based on linear time.
-
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 03:30 AM)
Well what did then if it wasn't her understanding of language already? I'm not saying she would've mastered a time free existence without the help of heptopods. She probably never would've got beyond dreaming her "future". But one things for certain she starts both te movie and book having these visions in her dreams, even before the she's met the heptopods.
Maybe it is done this way deliberately to show there's no real sequence and the visions she having before meeting the heptopods are shown to us out of sequence and they really happened after meeting them? That's the onky two real possibilities, so no I don't think it "quite an assumption", I think it's a reason able one of onky two reasonable possibilities.
Like I said though it's one I think works, as explains why she's so good at their language, it was her Rosetta stone -
Joel_morley5 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 06:59 AM)
Well if there's no good explanation to why she was having visions of the future before she learned the Heptapod language, it's just further evidence that the writer just throws ideas together to make a cool narrative, without any attempt to ensure it makes sense.
It's the same point I'm arguing elsewhere. I actually really enjoyed the film, but I want to call them out for trying to look clever.
It's a bit like how the TV show Lost had everyone guessing and discussing the clever writer's theories of what was going on and in the end it was a load of beep When there's no general understanding of how things work, it makes the creator appear clever, but at the same time you could show someone a baby's scribble and tell them it was created with every bend and squiggle fully intended, and have experts pouring over the complexity for years. -
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 07:20 AM)
Some people like everything spoon fed to them. Some people like things ambiguous and open to interpretation. some people like different things depending on their mood.
Me personally, I hated lost. Didn't watch past the second episode. I loved this film though and I don't think everything has to be explained fully. I watched the film before I read the book and understood it a certain way. I read the book which goes into more detail, and it pretty much confirmed my understanding of the movie.
By the way, this book is the first book of fiction I've ever read and enjoyed. If you haven't read it, I'd recomend it -
Joel_morley5 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 07:38 AM)
Yeah, I ordered the book straight after watching the film!
I am absolutely the opposite of someone who likes films spoon fed to them, just check my rating history. Donnie Darko, Apocalypse Now, Eternal Sunshine, Inception. These are all films that people bring out the "spoon fed" line against the films' detractors, but are all highly rated for me.
Just because something is left unexplained, it doesn't mean that there is a meaningful answer. Some writers sit down and think, OK i need to make X go to Y or maybe X feel strongly about Y, and they think how can I do that? Some writers have the ability to give plausible reasons, others just don't try and explain it and in this case the audience are applauding the ingenuity of it all. -
doorclosed321 — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 07:46 AM)
After researching chiang stuff the last few days, I get the impression everything he writes is deliberate and precise. I certainly think the reason it's wrote like that is to convey either one of my two possible explanations. In the book lots more is explained. Maybe I just got lucky and guessed the film as chiang intended the book more or less, even though the film doesn't explain everything aswel. I mean out of the millions who saw it, some people had to
-
jchapter — 9 years ago(November 21, 2016 03:29 PM)
And you've never read a book of fiction before?! I appreciate that you're commenting on here but you need to read more fiction before you comment on a sci-fi movie to that depth. Wow. I think you may be telling porkies.