My problems with this movie
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Arrival
patrickconnors2000 — 9 years ago(November 14, 2016 07:45 AM)
Science fiction, good science fiction, is a special kind of genre that is about answering questions with our current understanding of Physics, and making predictions about where science is headed. This movie had a very strong build up, and then a dissapointing ending.
The language portion was excellent. I liked the theory they discussed about language programming how people think. It kind of lined up with 1984's New Speak in that regard. The idea that time could be percieved differently is an extremely interesting one as well, and not one that is completely rediculous. We know that time is our 4th dimension, but unlike the other three, we can only percieve it in one direction.
That being said, the movie introduced a lot of puzzles that it never solved. Some of these, like how the aliens got to earth, or how their ships float, are clearly added on just for the "ooh" affect, but others are key points of the story that the writers don't answer, and it comes across that they don't know how to answer them. Here are the big ones I can think of:- Signifigance of the Landing Zone: They talk at length about what the 12 sights mean, but never come back to this idea. I've heard some people say they were scattered to unify us, but then why would Russia need two, and some other countries none?
- The Aliens purpose: They say they will need our help 3000 years from now, and we need their language for that. But then.. nothing. The aliens have magic floating starships that break laws of physics we don't think can be broken. But they need our help. Not answering the why of this is sidestepping the entire point of the movie.
- Why do you need all 12 ships: They say again and again that you need data from each ship, but they don't say for what. Evidently they are just trying to teach us their language, but the female linguist seems to pick this up from one ship, so who cares about the other 11?
THis movie raises a bunch of interesting questions, and then pretends it didn't raise them by shoving an emotional cancer story in the audiences face.
-
nightfall73 — 9 years ago(November 18, 2016 01:26 PM)
For goodness sake I've argued about this on other threads: these creatures can travel faster than light to reach us; at such speeds a frozen pea hits with the force of multiple nuclear bombs. These guys would have protective shielding beyond anything we know, against radiation, gamma rays, rocks, even small stones floating in space. And dynamite kills them?
beep -
jarthurs-46779 — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 03:28 PM)
I thought this movie was crap even before my wife explained the time thing (which I hadn't got) but that did nothing to improve the movie one bit, just explaining why the thing was so absurd. I thought it was just more of the back and forth cuts between present, past, alternate worlds, etc that ruined the fifth season of Once Upon A Time with terminal confusion, upon which we will not waste space in our Netflix queue for season six. Arrival puts in lots of spectacular visuals, deafening sound and scads of plot red herrings for no purpose other than to divert your attention from the absurd premise with which they conclude the movie. Just train your mind and you too can time travel. Same way Douglas Trumbull in Close Encounters thought alien presence and effective special effects can be achieved with nothing more than lots of high power spotlights. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was equally bad. Go to the mysterious orient and through mysterious mental training in the oriental martial arts you too can fly; ridiculous. Why not just go full fantasy genre (a la Marvel comics, Dr. Strange) instead and use magic to pull off all the time travel; at least then there is no need to make reference to the real world as though this could actually happen. I will not slam Somewhere In Time for using the mental trick of hypnosis and time travel as the whole movie was pure fantasy anyway, plus it had a fantastic musical score, something Arrival was sorely lacking. I got 2001 no problem; Arrival is just pretentious big budget garbage, using confusion and absurdity to substitute for substantive premise and plot. All the questions raised in the movie were simply left unanswered which, by the end of the movie, I no longer cared about, being only too happy it was over so I could leave the theater. So many good SF stories available and they waste $47mill on sh*t like this. Sad. But that's Hollywood morons for you.
-
soerenpedersen-97257 — 9 years ago(November 16, 2016 04:38 PM)
Think you missed one of the main questions asked in this movie.
If you could see the future, would you change it?
Personally I loved it (and I am a huge SF fan). Did not feel the time pass at all and just fully enjoyed what I thought was a great SF movie asking big philosophical questions. It was something new and that cant be a bad thing. Best movie of 2016 imo.
quod ali cibus est aliis fuat acre venenum -
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."