My problems with this movie
-
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. -
svalinanikola — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 12:48 PM)
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
Just because the movie doesn't answer that doesn't make it lazy writing. -
nicholasmonks — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 12:07 AM)
if the aliens knew the bomb was coming, then why not just raise the ship?
If you think about the main concept behind the movie, I think you answered your own question. You're thinking, linguistically speaking, in human terms. Verbs in past and future tense. Look at it this way:
if the aliens
knew
the bomb was
coming
, then why not just raise the ship?
They don't see time like that. They didn't "know" it was "coming". It's a foregone conclusion. It happens. It's part of the timestream. They don't react because they don't perceive cause and effect the way we do. They respond to the flow of time as if it were a map, already drawn. They are just navigating their course across it. Why? Beats meI'd have to think like an heptapod to know why.
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
He taps on the glass to get Louise to communicate using their ink rings, not to warn them of the bomb. They don't acknowledge the bomb until the very last moment, because that's what happens. That's what's on "the map", as it were. -
svalinanikola — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 11:10 AM)
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.
OK, I decided to go to Wikipedia to refresh my memory and I think this answers the 12 ships thing, maybe: "Ian decodes that the complex sentence relates to the concept of time, and that what they received was only one twelfth of the intended whole." -
nicholasmonks — 9 years ago(December 11, 2016 12:00 AM)
OK, but come on
- Why do the heptapods have seven limbs?
- Why are their ships shaped like shells?
- What is that hazy atmosphere they're breathing in, and
HOW DOES SHE SURVIVE WHEN SHE'S IN IT? - How do they manipulate gravity?
- What powers and propels their ships?
- How did they turn their ships into vapor?
I mean, they are dozens of questions that are hinted at but not explainedbut it is a film, and a form of storytelling, and so long as they don't contradict themselves (and they do, mildly, a few times), I find it more important that form and style and shape inform the story rather than giving me hours of exposition explaining every detail.
Your analogy is excellent because whereas I think you find the answer upsetting and lacking in detail, I find it intriguing and it makes me want to think, discuss and find out more
-
anaghra — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 08:12 AM)
You're being too generous.
These aren't just puzzles. They're plot holes!
A cool idea doesn't make a good script, if you can't explain anything.
Like you said. The whole point of the movie - literally written out on the whiteboard - was "why are they here?"
And they never f!@#$ing tell you -
CinematicThylacine — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 09:01 AM)
No mention of the sheer amount of logical and time paradoxes?
- 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?
- Her future-self is surprised to hear the words the Chinese General told her that her past-self said. Wait, what? My past self ate McDonald's last Monday?!
- 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?!
-
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.