Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My review: http://templetongate.net/arrival.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Thanks, man, but I'd have to disagree about the quality of the review. I struggled with it for hours and I'm still not satisfied. Maybe in a few years, and after several more viewings, I can revise it to better reflect my opinion. Of course, my opinion could change, as it has for other films at times.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
My reviews are just a hobby, I'm far from a professional, and there are many times I know I'm not as good as I would like. One thing I try not to do is spoil a film or book, unlike how Gary Westfahl does in the first paragraph of his review at LocusOnline. I'm sure he figured his audience there would have read the short story, but still, that's sloppy, and without any warning either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.

---

As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.

---

Quote:

---

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.

---

As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.

---

So, what was the worst part? What did you not see coming?

Quote:

---

Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).

---

did you feel that dialogue was intentionally muddled,

Select to view spoiler:

---

providing effects for the time-control?

---

or were you still adjusting to the sound from the previews?

Quote:

---

SGG

---

I did think it a bit rude of her to

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.

---

As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.

---

So, what was the worst part? What did you not see coming?

Quote:

---

Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).

---

did you feel that dialogue was intentionally muddled,

Select to view spoiler:

---

providing effects for the time-control?

---

or were you still adjusting to the sound from the previews?

Quote:

---

SGG

---

I did think it a bit rude of her to

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Definitely has made it into at least my Top 10 SF films, maybe the Top 5, but it will take a few more viewings to be sure. Not as good as the story it's based on, but if it was, there would be no question it would be at least #2. I'm gonna go re-read Ted Chiang's "Story of Your Life" before I start on my review. I also have a book to review, so no telling when I can finish either.

For comparison, my Top 3 SF films are:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Blade Runner
Serenity

I've seen each of those close to 20 times each, so you'll forgive me for not being able to determine exactly where Arrival will end up on the list just yet.

---

As though they were saying we've come this far for this? It felt real, both Renner and Adams were excellent.....but the best and worst part (if you can call it worst in this gem of a movie) was at the end, I did not see that coming.

---

So, what was the worst part? What did you not see coming?

Quote:

---

Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).

---

did you feel that dialogue was intentionally muddled,

Select to view spoiler:

---

providing effects for the time-control?

---

or were you still adjusting to the sound from the previews?

Quote:

---

SGG

---

I did think it a bit rude of her to tell her hubby about the eventual path of their daughter's life. Did she do it just to hurt him? I have not yet reconciled that, other than her just being mean.

---

As far as the ending goes; I liked it. What I was referring to was the build up to the end and how I felt the ending of the story was an anti-climactic letdown. I got the sense that the people in the theater I went to had a similar reaction. The "why" of the movie, the big reveal of the visit.

---

Quote:

---

Despite that letdown, I was impressed with all the rest. And that was the "worst" part. The ending, I didn't see that coming; and that's a good thing.

The sound mixing during the colonel coming for Louise scene was a bit off, so that I couldn't hear the dialogue clearly.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I felt the Big Question of the movie was "Why did the Aliens arrive?"
This was driven hard by the director from within the script, and also by the characters within the movie.

The effects you speak of happen to Louise, it is her perception, her point of view we see. That is purposeful. The "helicopter" scene that I'm speaking of I do not believe was an intentional "effect."

---

Quote:

---

That they switch the focus to the mother and child reunion. For me that wasn't quite enough to have invested nearly 2 hours of mystery solving. Time displacement or chronological disorder just didn't quite quench the thirst for knowledge and answer the Big Why "they" were here now.

Both Inception and Out of Gas - apples and oranges, although each presented their time displacement reveals in a much more clearly defined way. The rules of the game were explained far more clearly so that we understood, once there, how to apply those rules. We could figure out, to some degree, what each character contributed to the climax and ending. We otherwise had more to go on and I, for one, felt that the journey was well worth the ride.

Arrival kept the rules purposely hidden and had us follow "bread crumbs" along the way. This could have been more rewarding had they given a more satisfying reason for the Arrival. Had this happened, I suggest that even the ending would have been enhanced, so that instead of the audience leaving the theater in a subdued fashion, applause would have been the response. That is to say, that I liked the surprise reveal of the family
at the end, but not to the degree I "loved" the endings of Inception and Out of Gas.

The worst part? The reveal of why the aliens arrived - big letdown.

What I didn't see coming? The family reveal or who the father was.

What I think finally sunk this movie was how the director tried to pull the rabbit out of the hat and instead pulled a meek little mouse. The old switcheroo. Look over here at this hand, pay no attention to the hand behind the curtain. He's given us aliens, ominous and mysterious in nature.
Why are they here? Every character is dispatched to uncover the mystery. It's what drives the movie. Yes, they drop hints along the way that somehow our hero is connected to the event, and they are very clever not to give away too much.

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

That's it. Nothing more to be said on that subject. Just my take on it.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I know you are going to be shocked at this, but I am going to disagree with you.


SGG: You're right, I was "shocked" (Ha, ha!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I felt the Big Question of the movie was "Why did the Aliens arrive?"
This was driven hard by the director from within the script, and also by the characters within the movie.

The effects you speak of happen to Louise, it is her perception, her point of view we see. That is purposeful. The "helicopter" scene that I'm speaking of I do not believe was an intentional "effect."

---

I accept your answer. I also ask that when you see it again, if your belief is altered, please share that with us.


SGG: Why thank you! And I will.

Quote:

---

It was clear to me that this was key, but how it fit into the story was another piece of the puzzle. I enjoyed how that was hinted at and that we were not "spoon-fed" the answers. But the "why" was still not clear - why they came to earth and what did that have to do with Louise and her daughter. This was built up to a climax at the end that did not match in the level of intensity of the build up....strictly my opinion. I felt that the reveal as to why the aliens arrived when they did was not equal to the task...namely a profound reason that matched the build up throughout the movie. Perhaps the book would provide an answer to that question.

---

You feel the reveal was not equal to the expectation. Do you foresee that this type of underwhelming apogee could become a fad of future films? A counter or balance to the over-the-top climax present in such as Captain America or other mass-violence epics?


SGG: No, I don't see a trend. I think the producers and director of Arrival saw a good story that would resonate with audiences across the country, it just happened to have that 70s vibe.

Quote:

---

The film was saying that the aliens would help humans with some future crisis
but never revealed what that crisis could possibly be.

---

This is where I disagree, but perhaps I misunderstood.

Select to view spoiler:

---

They said they would need our help, the help of humans, in 3000 years - not the reverse as you stated. They needed us to survive in order to preserve that saving future event. The Chinese leader (think of DPRK's Kims) was railroading towards global war, and this needed to be stopped, by Louise. The intersection of time between Louise increasing her power and control of her weapon and also the asian leadership going batty was why the Arrival occurred now.
That was also the key to why they divided the message into the 12 portions (I don't recall many of them below the equator - is that considered racist?)
I think perhaps my greatest surprise was the revelation of the poor interpretation of their insistence of "use your weapon" - but I should have seen that coming as well.
Do you feel that the paradox of her meeting her husband and creating the daughter which she fawns over and focuses her weapon upon is significant to the timing? That without that origin, she would not have put so much concentration into developing and strengthening her weapon? This would mean that they needed to come now, to bring them together, or else the child would not be created and Louise would not have garnered enough control of her weapon - she was already pushing her limits in terms of increasing power as it was. If the child was the catalyst which encouraged Louise to develop her weapon, then perhaps these 2 diffuse people from different parts of the globe needed help being brought together - or else the continuation of mankind, and 3 millenia hence, the continuation and survival of the visitors, would be lost.
Although perhaps I missed some details about how they view different possibilities of the future.

---

Quote:

---

That they switch the focus to the mother and child reunion. For me that wasn't quite enough to have invested nearly 2 hours of mystery solving. Time displacement or chronological disorder just didn't quite quench the thirst for knowledge and answer the Big Why "they" were here now.

Both Inception and Out of Gas - apples and oranges, although each presented their time displacement reveals in a much more clearly defined way. The rules of the game were explained far more clearly so that we understood, once there, how to apply those rules. We could figure out, to some degree, what each character contributed to the climax and ending. We otherwise had more to go on and I, for one, felt that the journey was well worth the ride.

Arrival kept the rules purposely hidden and had us follow "bread crumbs" along the way. This could have been more rewarding had they given a more satisfying reason for the Arrival. Had this happened, I suggest that even the ending would have been enhanced, so that instead of the audience leaving the theater in a subdued fashion, applause would have been the response. That is to say, that I liked the surprise reveal of the family
at the end, but not to the degree I "loved" the endings of Inception and Out of Gas.

The worst part? The reveal of why the aliens arrived - big letdown.

What I didn't see coming? The family reveal or who the father was.

What I think finally sunk this movie was how the director tried to pull the rabbit out of the hat and instead pulled a meek little mouse. The old switcheroo. Look over here at this hand, pay no attention to the hand behind the curtain. He's given us aliens, ominous and mysterious in nature.
Why are they here? Every character is dispatched to uncover the mystery. It's what drives the movie. Yes, they drop hints along the way that somehow our hero is connected to the event, and they are very clever not to give away too much.

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

That's it. Nothing more to be said on that subject. Just my take on it.

SGG

---

I could also note that Abbott's entering the death cycle affected me more than I would have expected.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I know you are going to be shocked at this, but I am going to disagree with you.

---

SGG: You're right, I was "shocked" (Ha, ha!)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I felt the Big Question of the movie was "Why did the Aliens arrive?"
This was driven hard by the director from within the script, and also by the characters within the movie.

The effects you speak of happen to Louise, it is her perception, her point of view we see. That is purposeful. The "helicopter" scene that I'm speaking of I do not believe was an intentional "effect."

---

I accept your answer. I also ask that when you see it again, if your belief is altered, please share that with us.

---

SGG: Why thank you! And I will.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It was clear to me that this was key, but how it fit into the story was another piece of the puzzle. I enjoyed how that was hinted at and that we were not "spoon-fed" the answers. But the "why" was still not clear - why they came to earth and what did that have to do with Louise and her daughter. This was built up to a climax at the end that did not match in the level of intensity of the build up....strictly my opinion. I felt that the reveal as to why the aliens arrived when they did was not equal to the task...namely a profound reason that matched the build up throughout the movie. Perhaps the book would provide an answer to that question.

---

You feel the reveal was not equal to the expectation. Do you foresee that this type of underwhelming apogee could become a fad of future films? A counter or balance to the over-the-top climax present in such as Captain America or other mass-violence epics?

---

SGG: No, I don't see a trend. I think the producers and director of Arrival saw a good story that would resonate with audiences across the country, it just happened to have that 70s vibe.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The film was saying that the aliens would help humans with some future crisis but never revealed what that crisis could possibly be.

---

This is where I disagree, but perhaps I misunderstood.

Select to view spoiler:

---

They said they would need our help, the help of humans, in 3000 years - not the reverse as you stated. They needed us to survive in order to preserve that saving future event. The Chinese leader (think of DPRK's Kims) was railroading towards global war, and this needed to be stopped, by Louise. The intersection of time between Louise increasing her power and control of her weapon and also the asian leadership going batty was why the Arrival occurred now.
That was also the key to why they divided the message into the 12 portions (I don't recall many of them below the equator - is that considered racist?)
I think perhaps my greatest surprise was the revelation of the poor interpretation of their insistence of "use your weapon" - but I should have seen that coming as well.
Do you feel that the paradox of her meeting her husband and creating the daughter which she fawns over and focuses her weapon upon is significant to the timing? That without that origin, she would not have put so much concentration into developing and strengthening her weapon? This would mean that they needed to come now, to bring them together, or else the child would not be created and Louise would not have garnered enough control of her weapon - she was already pushing her limits in terms of increasing power as it was. If the child was the catalyst which encouraged Louise to develop her weapon, then perhaps these 2 diffuse people from different parts of the globe needed help being brought together - or else the continuation of mankind, and 3 millenia hence, the continuation and survival of the visitors, would be lost.
Although perhaps I missed some details about how they view different possibilities of the future.

---

Quote:

---

That they switch the focus to the mother and child reunion. For me that wasn't quite enough to have invested nearly 2 hours of mystery solving. Time displacement or chronological disorder just didn't quite quench the thirst for knowledge and answer the Big Why "they" were here now.

Both Inception and Out of Gas - apples and oranges, although each presented their time displacement reveals in a much more clearly defined way. The rules of the game were explained far more clearly so that we understood, once there, how to apply those rules. We could figure out, to some degree, what each character contributed to the climax and ending. We otherwise had more to go on and I, for one, felt that the journey was well worth the ride.

Arrival kept the rules purposely hidden and had us follow "bread crumbs" along the way. This could have been more rewarding had they given a more satisfying reason for the Arrival. Had this happened, I suggest that even the ending would have been enhanced, so that instead of the audience leaving the theater in a subdued fashion, applause would have been the response. That is to say, that I liked the surprise reveal of the family
at the end, but not to the degree I "loved" the endings of Inception and Out of Gas.

The worst part? The reveal of why the aliens arrived - big letdown.

What I didn't see coming? The family reveal or who the father was.

What I think finally sunk this movie was how the director tried to pull the rabbit out of the hat and instead pulled a meek little mouse. The old switcheroo. Look over here at this hand, pay no attention to the hand behind the curtain. He's given us aliens, ominous and mysterious in nature.
Why are they here? Every character is dispatched to uncover the mystery. It's what drives the movie. Yes, they drop hints along the way that somehow our hero is connected to the event, and they are very clever not to give away too much.

But then we are offered a switch and reveal that left me scratching my head, although beautifully presented, that the movie had this underlying message about how we humans must learn to embrace life no matter what is thrown at us...but most especially, how we must cherish our time together.
I think, with a few tweaks, that message could have been delivered in a more powerful way. For me, it makes me appreciate Inception and Out of Gas that much more.

That's it. Nothing more to be said on that subject. Just my take on it.

SGG

---

I could also note that Abbott's entering the death cycle affected me more than I would have expected.

---

SGG: JSF, Here's something that really shocked me. I have to commend you for a lucid and well presented argument (Plus the fact that you are right, I twisted the story of the aliens around). Thanks for not gloating. I refer to your "spoiler" section response, I actually understood your take and found it interesting.

I believe that the displaced time element of the story was used effectively throughout the film, but the transition, or reveal, was poorly set up and executed. In sci-fi you must have a proper set up or it all goes to hell at the crucial point in the movie. The thing that I liked about the producers is that they trusted the audience would bring their sci-fi detective kits. I'm adding to my take on the rules of film engagement; namely that the film sets up the ground rules by which the audience deciphers the story. Here the audience was asked to apply the basics and the film would fill in the rest. You reminded me of that in that section.

Hey JSF, I'm stopping here because, for some reason, I'm finding it hard to concentrate at the moment. Your response deserves a good solid answer.
I'll be back!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
When the short story that became the movie Arrival was written, it did not have explosions or guns or a frantic phone call to China to stop World War. That’s all Hollywood’s ideas. The story didn't even have humans walking inside alien spaceships, since heptapods in the short story are allergic to Earth dirt. But what the story did have is the same as the following story from the same author, a big idea about the true nature of time:

from NATURE|Vol 436|7 July 2005

What's expected of us

by Ted Chiang

This is a warning. Please read carefully.

By now you’ve probably seen a Predictor; millions of them have been sold by the time you’re reading this. For those who haven’t seen one, it’s a small device, like a remote for opening your car door. Its only features are a button and a big green LED. The light flashes if you press the button. Specifically, the light flashes one second before you press the button.

Most people say that when they first try it, it feels like they’re playing a strange game, one where the goal is to press the button after seeing the flash, and it’s easy to play. But when you try to break the rules, you find that you can’t. If you try to press the button without having seen a flash, the flash immediately appears, and no matter how fast you move, you never push the button until a second has elapsed. If you wait for the flash, intending to keep from pressing the button afterwards, the flash never appears. No matter what you do, the light always precedes the button press. There’s no way to fool a Predictor.

The heart of each Predictor is a circuit with a negative time delay — it sends a signal back in time. The full implications of the technology will become apparent later, when negative delays of greater than a second are achieved, but that’s not what this warning is about. The immediate problem is that Predictors demonstrate that there’s no such thing as free will.

There have always been arguments showing that free will is an illusion, some based on hard physics, others based on pure logic. Most people agree these arguments are irrefutable, but no one ever really accepts the conclusion. The experience of having free will is too powerful for an argument to overrule. What it takes is a demonstration, and that’s what a Predictor provides.

Typically, a person plays with a Predictor compulsively for several days, showing it to friends, trying various schemes to outwit the device. The person may appear to lose interest in it, but no one can forget what it means — over the following weeks, the implications of an immutable future sink in. Some people, realizing that their choices don’t matter, refuse to make any choices at all. Like a legion of Bartleby the Scriveners, they no longer engage in spontaneous action. Eventually, a third of those who play with a Predictor must be hospitalized because they won’t feed themselves. The end state is akinetic mutism, a kind of waking coma. They’ll track motion with their eyes, and change position occasionally, but nothing more. The ability to move remains, but the motivation is gone.

Before people started playing with Predictors, akinetic mutism was very rare, a result of damage to the anterior cingulate region of the brain. Now it spreads like a cognitive plague. People used to speculate about a thought that destroys the thinker, some unspeakable lovecraftian horror, or a Godel sentence that crashes the human logical system. It turns out that the disabling thought is one that we’ve all encountered: the idea that free will doesn’t exist. It just wasn’t harmful until you believed it.

Doctors try arguing with the patients while they still respond to conversation. We had all been living happy, active lives before, they reason, and we hadn’t had free will then either. Why should anything change? “No action you took last month was any more freely chosen than one you take today,” a doctor might say. “You can still behave that way now.” The patients invariably respond, “But now I know.” And some of them never say anything again.

Some will argue that the fact the Predictor causes this change in behaviour means that we do have free will. An automaton cannot become discouraged, only a free-thinking entity can. The fact that some individuals descend into akinetic mutism whereas others do not just highlights the importance of making a choice.

Unfortunately, such reasoning is faulty: every form of behaviour is compatible with determinism. One dynamic system might fall into a basin of attraction and wind up at a fixed point, whereas another exhibits chaotic behaviour indefinitely, but both are completely deterministic.

I’m transmitting this warning to you from just over a year in your future: it’s the first lengthy message received when circuits with negative delays in the mega-second range are used to build communication devices. Other messages will follow, addressing other issues. My message to you is this: pretend that you have free will. It’s essential that you behave as if your decisions matter, even though you know that they don’t. The reality isn’t important: what’s important is your belief, and believing the lie is the only way to avoid a waking coma. Civilization now depends on self-deception. Perhaps it always has.

And yet I know that, because free will is an illusion, it’s all predetermined who will descend into akinetic mutism and who won’t. There’s nothing anyone can do about it — you can’t choose the effect the Predictor has on you. Some of you will succumb and some of you won’t, and my sending this warning won’t alter those proportions. So why did I do it?

Because I had no choice.

Ted Chiang is an occasional writer of science fiction. His work can be found in his collection Stories of Your Life and Others, published by Pan Macmillan.

©2005 Nature Publishing Group

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF, I'm basing my response primarily on your comments in the SPOILER SECTION of your response:

Here's the thought I had about the whole "use your weapon" motif within the film: I believe it had to do with the language barrier and how she was able to decipher their language; it was the reason for Louise's presence; although, at first, I did think it had to do with a weapon in the traditional sense. That right there has me more than curious about reading the short story, even more so. The film premise was that she had this gift and that the aliens knew this and went back in time to begin that process.
It is an interesting concept within the film, and I liked how they developed
it within the context of the film.

What I wonder about is, was this something within the short story or was it a plot devise installed by the director? Reading the story would go a long way in clearing that up. Either way, it is a brilliant piece of the puzzle. The time element is key and a central focus, although we are given little in the way of evidence to allow us to deduce the outcome.

---

Quote:

---

I would have to see it again to see if I see it that way as well. That may have gone completely over my head. Regardless, it's a good theory. Her daughter may have been key and the aliens arrival may have triggered that - cause and effect.

The concept of time and how the aliens interpret it was, however, as the film suggests, another element we, as the audience, must consider. They don't see it as linear, like we do, but as happening all at once and they can travel to any point just by simply willing it. A type of concentration that allows them to step into a particular place in time and make "suggestions" to their hosts. Louise perceived it in her dream-like state. Her "weapon," I conclude, is her openness to it. It is that openness as a human and a scientist that allows her to "read" their language. That theme gave me a gentle nudge as I watched this film. Perhaps her love for her daughter did help to sharpen that "openness" and made her a better scientist, a better human. They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.

---

Don't look at the movie as just fiction about alien time travel. The big idea in Arrival is Eternalism, something that most movie watchers never imagined existed outside of fiction. Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, where all points in time are equally real, as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real.

After movie watchers leave the theater, most of them still can’t imagine Eternalism is reality, unlike, say, Louise, who understands what the hell it is.

Louise Banks has learned the secret of how the Universe works from the heptapods. That secret has a large amount of sadness mixed into her happiness from learning a new language and writing her book “The Universal Language”. But Louisa is philosophical about her loses. The heptapods taught her that, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF, I'm basing my response primarily on your comments in the SPOILER SECTION of your response:

Here's the thought I had about the whole "use your weapon" motif within the film: I believe it had to do with the language barrier and how she was able to decipher their language; it was the reason for Louise's presence; although, at first, I did think it had to do with a weapon in the traditional sense. That right there has me more than curious about reading the short story, even more so. The film premise was that she had this gift and that the aliens knew this and went back in time to begin that process.
It is an interesting concept within the film, and I liked how they developed
it within the context of the film.

What I wonder about is, was this something within the short story or was it a
plot devise installed by the director? Reading the story would go a long way in clearing that up. Either way, it is a brilliant piece of the puzzle. The time element is key and a central focus, although we are given little in the way of evidence to allow us to deduce the outcome.

---

I thought one giveaway was the opening narration by Louise but you needed to keep it in mind during the rest of the film. Another was where her daughter talks about her teaching the language of the aliens (as a child), and also makes playdough aliens as a child.
The part about her dad treating her differently because mom so cruelly told him about her destiny, that didn't fit in place until the time non-linearity became clear.

Quote:

---

Again, I thought it was
an interesting choice by the director and how he trusted the audience to "fill in the blanks." Remember, there are certain ground rules in sci-fi
and, ever since I first saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still" I was made aware
of them. Sci-fi as social commentary as to humankind's current situation and how it is not as it appears on the surface.

One thing I am not clear on, is how the child figured in all of this.

---

Although you follow this sentence with others, it is here that I have lost your meaning. What are you trying to say here, or ask?

Quote:

---

I took that part of the film to be about our, silly humans, concept and perception of time. How we spend our time with family, friends, learning, living etc.
I got the feeling that Louise learned a valuable lesson (Louise as us, the audience) about the importance of our loved ones, in addition to, how truly valuable our time is. Arrival is, to me, a commentary about several things, including how silly we humans are when it comes to our suspicion of others that don't exactly look, act, talk and walk like us. But too, how much alike we are when we strip away those "language" barriers we construct.

You may have a point about her development of her "weapon" and that her relationship to her daughter and the time she spent with her was key in
her sharpening her skill as a linguist, thereby allowing her to be open to
the aliens form of communication.

---

here I think we are on different paths.

Select to view spoiler:

---

the weapon they refer to is her ability to manipulate time. The honing of this time manipulation for her is done while jumping forward to the time when she has a daughter, and practicing this pleasurable pasttime. I wonder at what age did she discover that she had (or will have) a daughter. Imagine one day you awake and learn you have a kid - but you were never pregnant - yet.
anyhow, apparently she didn't bother to expand the use of this talent to other tasks until the aliens spurred her.

---

Quote:

---

I would have to see it again to see if I see it that way as well. That may have gone completely over my head. Regardless, it's a good theory. Her daughter may have been key and the aliens arrival may have triggered that - cause and effect.

The concept of time and how the aliens interpret it was, however, as the film suggests, another element we, as the audience, must consider. They don't see it as linear, like we do, but as happening all at once and they can travel to any point just by simply willing it. A type of concentration that allows them to step into a particular place in time and make "suggestions" to their hosts. Louise perceived it in her dream-like state. Her "weapon," I conclude, is her openness to it. It is that openness as a human and a scientist that allows her to "read" their language. That theme gave me a gentle nudge as I watched this film. Perhaps her love for her daughter did help to sharpen that "openness" and made her a better scientist, a better human. They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.


SGG

---

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:

---

Why do you guys think she had some sort of power? I didn't see any indication of that. She explained that when you immerse yourself in another language you begin to experience things as that culture experiences things. I thought that was that whole point. She immersed herself in the alien language and learned to perceive as they do.

---

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I can't honestly give you a good response because I need to see it again. From what you say in your spoiler section, I would need to see it again. It was obvious Louise was unaware of her power until further into the film and as she became more aware.

There is so much to this film that I'm beginning to think that it is indeed a masterpiece and needs several viewings for capturing the multiple themes and revelations. Much like Inception and Cloud Atlas, this film needs more time.


SGG

---

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:

---

Why do you guys think she had some sort of power? I didn't see any indication of that. She explained that when you immerse yourself in another language you begin to experience things as that culture experiences things. I thought that was that whole point. She immersed herself in the alien language and learned to perceive as they do.

---

---

Thank you for using the spoiler function.
Because I find the subject I will mention to be pivotal and surprising to an unaware audience viewer, I will continue to use the same function when discussing this particular facet of the film.

Select to view spoiler:

---

They refer to her "weapon" and early in the process she explains the imprecise meanings of weapons, tools, etc. To them, her "weapon" is her ability to manipulate time. Whatever term they are actually using, it is translated as "weapon" and they must not realize that we are interpreting it incorrectly - unless they do actually think of it as a weapon (which I find unlikely based upon their knowledge, and avoidance of aggressive behavior).
This skill/gift of hers is the key to everything, including how to contact (for one) the Chinese General, and how to convince him (for another), as well as how she learns the language - note that she learns the language by remembering into the future (when she is teaching a class on the language).
I think that SGG and many others are assuming that her "weapon" is her "ability" to learn language, or immerse herself into culture, instead of her gift of time manipulation, which engenders all of the other tasks that she can perform with it.
The aliens arrive to help her focus her gift, realize the rest of our world must have her use it to prevent catastrophe instead of just for her own pleasure.
Her "weapon" or power or gift is her ability to manipulate time - which she may not have even fully understood, as somebody with such a gift my have difficulty developing a baseline, or reference timeline (which all of us normal people have) with which to compare her journeys or experiences against.

---

Does that answer your question adequately? Or was I unclear?

---

Select to view spoiler:

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:

---

I definitely interpret the movie differently. I don't think Louise had any time abilities inherently. I interpreted it as something any human was capable of. If they immersed themselves in the alien language then they could learn to perceive time the way the aliens do.

I guess we have no evidence that anyone else accomplished what Louise did, but considering humans need this ability 3000 years in the future suggests at least some other people will need to learn to do the same thing, right?

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:

---

I definitely interpret the movie differently. I don't think Louise had any time abilities inherently. I interpreted it as something any human was capable of. If they immersed themselves in the alien language then they could learn to perceive time the way the aliens do.

I guess we have no evidence that anyone else accomplished what Louise did, but considering humans need this ability 3000 years in the future suggests at least some other people will need to learn to do the same thing, right?

---

---

Select to view spoiler:

---

I think that the aliens reached out to Louise because they knew she was open and susceptible to their form of communication and sensitive to time displacement. Which puts me in mind of which came first, her susceptibility to time displacement or her openness to language and communication. Did the aliens infuse her with it or did they draw out what was already there? This just keeps getting deeper, and I love that. The more we dig the more we uncover

---

SGG

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
As mentioned, I have come to think of Arrival as more of a cerebral entertainment and story.

What others do you feel compare?
I'd say Inception, Oblivion.
Although Edge of Tomorrow has a bunch more action, it also has a lot of thought in it, and requires multiple viewing to revel in the full work.


Although the above films are essentially Sci-Fi, and many Sci-Fi are foundationally built upon cerebral stories, I invite mention of other films which are not of the Sci-Fi genre.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeek:

Select to view spoiler:

---

I definitely interpret the movie differently. I don't think Louise had any time abilities inherently. I interpreted it as something any human was capable of. If they immersed themselves in the alien language then they could learn to perceive time the way the aliens do.

I guess we have no evidence that anyone else accomplished what Louise did, but considering humans need this ability 3000 years in the future suggests at least some other people will need to learn to do the same thing, right?

---

---

Select to view spoiler:

---

I think that the aliens reached out to Louise because they knew she was open and susceptible to their form of communication and sensitive to time displacement. Which puts me in mind of which came first, her susceptibility to time displacement or her openness to language and communication. Did the aliens infuse her with it or did they draw out what was already there? This just keeps getting deeper, and I love that. The more we dig the more we uncover

---

SGG

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF, I'm basing my response primarily on your comments in the SPOILER SECTION of your response:

Here's the thought I had about the whole "use your weapon" motif within the film: I believe it had to do with the language barrier and how she was able to decipher their language; it was the reason for Louise's presence; although, at first, I did think it had to do with a weapon in the traditional sense. That right there has me more than curious about reading the short story, even more so. The film premise was that she had this gift and that the aliens knew this and went back in time to begin that process.
It is an interesting concept within the film, and I liked how they developed
it within the context of the film.

What I wonder about is, was this something within the short story or was it a
plot devise installed by the director? Reading the story would go a long way in clearing that up. Either way, it is a brilliant piece of the puzzle. The time element is key and a central focus, although we are given little in the way of evidence to allow us to deduce the outcome. Again, I thought it was
an interesting choice by the director and how he trusted the audience to "fill in the blanks." Remember, there are certain ground rules in sci-fi
and, ever since I first saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still" I was made aware
of them. Sci-fi as social commentary as to humankind's current situation and how it is not as it appears on the surface.

One thing I am not clear on, is how the child figured in all of this. I took that part of the film to be about our, silly humans, concept and perception of time. How we spend our time with family, friends, learning, living etc.
I got the feeling that Louise learned a valuable lesson (Louise as us, the audience) about the importance of our loved ones, in addition to, how truly valuable our time is. Arrival is, to me, a commentary about several things, including how silly we humans are when it comes to our suspicion of others that don't exactly look, act, talk and walk like us. But too, how much alike we are when we strip away those "language" barriers we construct.

You may have a point about her development of her "weapon" and that her relationship to her daughter and the time she spent with her was key in
her sharpening her skill as a linguist, thereby allowing her to be open to
the aliens form of communication. I would have to see it again to see if I see it that way as well. That may have gone completely over my head. Regardless, it's a good theory. Her daughter may have been key and the aliens arrival may have triggered that - cause and effect.

The concept of time and how the aliens interpret it was, however, as the film suggests, another element we, as the audience, must consider. They don't see it as linear, like we do, but as happening all at once and they can travel to any point just by simply willing it. A type of concentration that allows them to step into a particular place in time and make "suggestions" to their hosts. Louise perceived it in her dream-like state. Her "weapon," I conclude, is her openness to it. It is that openness as a human and a scientist that allows her to "read" their language. That theme gave me a gentle nudge as I watched this film. Perhaps her love for her daughter did help to sharpen that "openness" and made her a better scientist, a better human. They, Abbott & Costello, knew this and traveled to that point in time and space to begin the conversation with Louise, but also stimulated her future husband - who is of the same mind as Louise.

That is definitely a possibility. I will keep open to that next time I watch this film.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG

---

And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG

---

And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.

---

Perhaps that scene was intentional.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).


Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG

---

And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.

---

Perhaps that scene was intentional.


SGG

---

Did you see it again?
I wasn't sure I would enjoy it as much once the "surprise" was known, but I found myself charmed and enchanted with repeat viewings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Confused!? Well, that's why it needs to be seen more than once (I did miss some of the dialogue - especially when the colonel came to get Dr. Banks at her home in the helicopter).

Therefore, I'm going to see it again.

SGG

---

And it just won an Oscar for SOUND EDITING!
That scene had the loudness of the news show on her laptop, and the subdued tones of her voice, and the Colonel's. Clashing levels of sounds.
The Academy seemed to think it was genius, beating out the likes of Hacksaw Ridge, Sully, and the night's darling La La Land.

---

Perhaps that scene was intentional.

SGG

---

Did you see it again?
I wasn't sure I would enjoy it as much once the "surprise" was known, but I found myself charmed and enchanted with repeat viewings.

---

I saw it again, and this time I found some different things or I got more from it upon second viewing. More on that later.

SGG

---