My problems with this movie
-
nyjack — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 08:08 AM)
The movie does not have to spell it all out for you. The idea about language versus consciousness is an old one, that Orwell borrowed, and as far away from Newspeak as possible. Twelve seems a magical/scientific(?) number in Earth culture, 12 months, twelve signs of the different zodiacs, 12 apostles, etc. The aliens clearly set out to distribute their 12 over the Earth's surface without necessary regard to the powers of individual countries, or why would little Sierra Leone get a ship?
They'll need our help in 3000 years; no problem there. If they "see" the future, they must know they encounter some sort of crisis they will outside help with. Imagine what Earth science could be like, especially that of a united Earth that hasn't blown itself up. As for breaking laws of physics, we see that in practically every sci-fi film out there: hyperspace; warp speed, strings, so forth, finding ways to do FTL is almost fundamental to space sci-fi. I'm not sure that the aliens' manipulation of local gravity could be counted as physically impossible though.
The other ships and Earth stations were communicating along different lines. Plus, you have to have a universal reckoning here. If it was just Louis in Montana, the rest of the world might not believe her or consider it an American plot for hegemony. -
anaghra — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 08:18 AM)
thats such a copout though.
that like me writing a story about how aliens come to earth to teach us how to fly.
"they tell us we simply have to truly understand gravity, and once we imagine it we can fly."
"ok, so how does it work?"- insert montage that doesn't really explain anything -
"so, why did the aliens want to teach us how to fly?" - you'll find out soon - maybe - never!!!! -
HORSE$H!T
- insert montage that doesn't really explain anything -
-
anaghra — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 12:29 PM)
Let me guess. You hated Mad Max: Fury Road too.
Nope. So, there goes that theory
I understood the movie just fine (It's not as complex as you or the rest of the sheep want to believe).
the problem is that it's incomplete and has many inconsistencies. and just plain lazy writing -
cbkaufman — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 10:31 PM)
A thought provoking movie intends to provoke thought, and therefore discussion. The movie's entire idea is about how we (in our time and paradigm) would go about establishing first contact. The movie sets out on a realistic scientific reality and chooses a different path than all other alien movies, which have all skipped the language/communication barrier and go straight for the purpose for the plot. This movie takes an entirely different approach that presents scientific/linguistic ideas, concepts, possibilities and builds the plot around that. So, yes, getting things right is important. They aren't always as important for to enjoy a movie, though.
Forget about the plot loops and resolutions. No one calls out Amy Adams's Louise, as being a horrible human being by knowingly looping a guy into having a child for which he'll have to mourn at an early age, and doesn't give him the option to choose if it is something that he wants or not. She had the option and made her decision. She can't morally make it for someone else. -
borchers34 — 9 years ago(November 15, 2016 09:29 AM)
No one calls out Amy Adams's Louise, as being a horrible human being by knowingly looping a guy into having a child for which he'll have to mourn at an early age, and doesn't give him the option to choose if it is something that he wants or not. She had the option and made her decision.
Are you talking about viewers or the characters because her relationship (besides the flash forward clips) all happens after the movie ends.
She can't morally make it for someone else.
that is why he divorced her.
No f@cking sh`t lady does it sound like I'm ordering a pizza! -
patrickconnors2000 — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 08:51 AM)
On some level, what seperates science fiction from just fantasy is that it does offer explanations.
Your explanations of the 12 ships kind of highlight my problem with it. They don't have a good reason for having 12. WHy not 13? or 11? It's clearly put forward as somethign to think about with some reason behind it, but there wasn't anything.
As for the 3000 years thing, that doesn't answer anything. Seeing what the aliens can do themselves, I can't think of something they would need humans for in 3000 years. I don't think the writers could either, or they would have put it in the movie.
To use an analogy, I fealt like I asked the question, "Why did America fight in the Second World War?" and the answer I got was, "Springfield Rifle." -
anaghra — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 09:30 AM)
yeah, but the difference is that from the beginning of Solaris they tell you they don't know what the planet is or how it works.
I mean, thats the whole point of the mission right? So, it's a story where you accept those facts since you're learning with the crew and don't see any devices that could reveal the truth.
In Arrival. the question and whole point of the mission is literally written on the board - why are they here?
the difference is that there are plenty of opportunities to answer all our questions. yet, they're avoided simply because the writer doesn't know or is too lazy to come up with an explanation or worse, he wrote himself into a corner.
Such as if the aliens knew the bomb was coming, then why not just raise the ship?
If your argument is that you can't change anything that has already happened, then why bother tapping on the glass to try to tip adams and renner off that there's a bomb in the room they already know its gonna blow.
There are tons of examples where the rules are just inconsistent and bent for the sake of shoehorning a storyline -
svalinanikola — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 09:40 AM)
yeah, but the difference is that from the beginning of Solaris they tell you they don't know what the planet is or how it works.
I mean, thats the whole point of the mission right? So, it's a story where you accept those facts since you're learning with the crew and don't see any devices that could reveal the truth.
But the first part of the movie also raises those questions about what that planet is and why it does what it does. The characters wonder about that but the movie is more of a psychological drama. The planet is put in a background. Different from the story it was based on.
In Arrival. the question and whole point of the mission is literally written on the board - why are they here?
the difference is that there are plenty of opportunities to answer all our questions. yet, they're avoided simply because the writer doesn't know or is too lazy to come up with an explanation or worse, he wrote himself into a corner.
That's the question asked by the humans, that doesn't mean the story is about answering that question.
Solaris has similar questions asked, "Why does the planet do this and that?", "Why doesn't it stop?" etc. Those questions aren't answered.
Such as if the aliens knew the bomb was coming, then why not just raise the ship?
If your argument is that you can't change anything that has already happened, then why bother tapping on the glass to try to tip adams and renner off that there's a bomb in the room they already know its gonna blow.
Because they knew that will happen? -
anaghra — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 09:48 AM)
I already addressed all your points. You didn't really address mine.
In Solaris there was a question. YES I already acknowledged that. But it's not like there was anyone on the ship with answers.
The scientists didn't have any new data to go on.
In Arrival, the characters had the answers, but refused to tell the audience because the writer didn't know the answers. He was too lazy to come up with something."Because they knew that will happen?"
Because they knew WHAT will happen? I already posed a followup question. If they knew the bomb was gonna blow then why bother tapping on the glass were they hoping adams and renner were gonna change the timeline if thats possible then raising the ship is possible too.
You can't have it both ways -
svalinanikola — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 10:02 AM)
But it's not like there was anyone on the ship with answers.
The scientists didn't have any new data to go on.
In Arrival, the characters had the answers, but refused to tell the audience because the writer didn't know the answers. He was too lazy to come up with something.
Actually, you can say that Solaris had the answers too, but didn't offer them.
In Arrival, the characters that had the answers were mysterious aliens who know what will happen in 3000 years and are here to make all that happen (humans helping them in some way). They did what they had to do and had no reason to do anything else. They know everything will make sense as years go by.
If they knew the bomb was gonna blow then why bother tapping on the glass were they hoping adams and renner were gonna change the timeline if thats possible then raising the ship is possible too.
They knew they'll prevent those two from being injured, they knew exactly what's going to happen, that's why they tapped on the glass. -
anaghra — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 10:40 AM)
Actually, you can say that Solaris had the answers too, but didn't offer them.
Really? name some examples
Besides, Solaris has nothing to do with this movie.
You can't make a crappy movie better by comparing it to a good one and say "see!!! that one did it too"
At the end of the day I left Solaris feeling satisfied, and thought it was a well made film.
Arrival did not leave me with those feelings. Great acting, but the script had too many inconsistencies.
They knew they'll prevent those two from being injured, they knew exactly what's going to happen, that's why they tapped on the glass.
This statement contradicts itself. If you already know something is going to happen, then why bother interfering?
Either you're not understanding the inconsistency I'm referencing or English is perhaps not your first language. -
svalinanikola — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 10:48 AM)
Really? name some examples
Well, if Solaris can look into the people's minds and create people then it should realize how humans don't want those visitors. Yet, humans try to come up with certain solutions to communicate with it. But it's all futile. The story this is based on is about the difficulties in communication with such an entity, but the movie ignores that stuff.
So, the things the planet does are more mysterious.
This statement contradicts itself. If you already know something is going to happen, then why bother interfering?
Because you know you'll interfere. You might as well ask then why do they interfere when they know humanity will help them in 3000 years.
The movie even gives you examples of these things happening. -
anaghra — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 12:02 PM)
it should realize how humans don't want those visitors
That's YOUR interpretation though. That's not necessarily what was happening. There is no evidence that Solaris knew what it was doing, or that it was doing something wrong.
humans don't want those visitors.
Again, I think that's YOUR interpretation. In reality Clooney ends up choosing the visitors. So, Solaris knew what you really wanted all along.
But it's all futile. The story this is based on is about the difficulties in communication with such an entity, but the movie ignores that stuff.
It doesn't ignore it though. You just answered your own question. It was futile!
Because you know you'll interfere
knowing and doing are 2 different things. there is no evidence in this movie that free will doesn't exist
You might as well ask then why do they interfere when they know humanity will help them in 3000 years.
and I do ask that. that's exactly my point. there is no point to this movie. it just gets wrapped up in its own paradoxes and uses predeterminism as excuses for inconsistency flaws. -
svalinanikola — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 12:30 PM)
Again, I think that's YOUR interpretation. In reality Clooney ends up choosing the visitors. So, Solaris knew what you really wanted all along.
I was talking about the original, I haven't seen the remake.
It doesn't ignore it though. You just answered your own question. It was futile!
The movie isn't about them trying to communicate with it, it's more about psychological drama.
knowing and doing are 2 different things. there is no evidence in this movie that free will doesn't exist
There's no evidence that it exists either.
and I do ask that. that's exactly my point. there is no point to this movie. it just gets wrapped up in its own paradoxes and uses predeterminism as excuses for inconsistency flaws.
There's a point to the movie.
You only think that because you ignore possible reasons. -
anaghra — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 12:37 PM)
There's no evidence that it exists either.
and thats a problem with this movie. the writer can't just ride the fence on this, and just pick and choose whatever is convenient for the circumstance. that's lazy writing
you ignore possible reasons
I'm not ignoring them. I just think they're stupid
Don't feel like others not liking this movie takes away from your experience.
Some, like myself, just have different standards for sci-fi.