Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

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

---

Forget later.
now now now

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I promise, I hope to get to it today. I enjoyed it more upon the second viewing.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I promise, I hope to get to it today. I enjoyed it more upon the second viewing.


SGG

---

now now now now now

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In her first explanation to the Whitaker character delved into the essential nature of understanding the words, such as tool, weapon, etc.

SPOILER ALERT if you have not seen the film yet!!




After spelling it out for us there, later they are translating the term weapon, and I didn't understand why Louise thought her translation was correct.
Which do you think is the correct translation of the term they intended to communicate?

Her tool?
Her ability?
Her gift?
Her curse?
Her capability?
Her advantage?
Her insight?
Her attack?
Her sensitivity?

They wanted her to use it, they needed her to use it, for their future survival.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
In her first explanation to the Whitaker character delved into the essential nature of understanding the words, such as tool, weapon, etc.

SPOILER ALERT if you have not seen the film yet!!




After spelling it out for us there, later they are translating the term weapon, and I didn't understand why Louise thought her translation was correct.
Which do you think is the correct translation of the term they intended to communicate?

Her tool?
Her ability?
Her gift?
Her curse?
Her capability?
Her advantage?
Her insight?
Her attack?
Her sensitivity?

They wanted her to use it, they needed her to use it, for their future survival.

---

Hey JSF,

None of the above.
The weapon they spoke of was language, like the statement she made in her book (during the helicopter ride to the Montana site). At first I thought it was her ability to see time as the aliens did, but it turned out to be the language - her ability to communicate.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

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

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.

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?

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 JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This was posted November 28:

Quote:

---

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

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.

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?

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.

---

And this is the question I wanted to repeat:
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?

Now that you have viewed it again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF,

I appreciate your question, but now I have a whole new "feeling" and understanding of this film. I have come to believe, after several viewings, that Arrival, and not Moonlight, should have been Best Picture of 2017 (at the Oscars).

My initial review was my gut reaction to a film I didn't fully grasp. It is a brilliant piece of filmmaking on several levels, but most especially in direction, writing and acting (Amy Adams performance is subtle, layered and nuanced. Like the film, she was not flashy or overpowering).

And so, to answer your question, no it was not equal to the expectation...it surpassed it by a country mile. Villeneuve wove an intricate pattern that needed to be experienced and not just merely viewed. I've watched it 3 times now and I've fallen in love with this masterpiece. It is not flawed as I originally thought. It was my perception that was flawed. I am not sure that Hollywood will create a new genre of film of "underwhelming apogee," but it reminded me of the film Cloud Atlas, in which a story unfolds in several layers and the viewer must invest their energy, time and imagination.

---

Quote:

---

Personally I think that this type of film and filmmaking would be the exception rather than the rule. The rare gem of a film created by that rare gifted individual - the director. Villeneuve, who's directed films of note: Sicario, Prisoners and the new Blade Runner 2049 (now I'm definitely putting it on my must-see list, due out in October) is a film director that creates intense, and thought-provoking films.

(I'll have more tomorrow).

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF,

I appreciate your question, but now I have a whole new "feeling" and understanding of this film. I have come to believe, after several viewings, that Arrival, and not Moonlight, should have been Best Picture of 2017 (at the Oscars).

My initial review was my gut reaction to a film I didn't fully grasp. It is a brilliant piece of filmmaking on several levels, but most especially in direction, writing and acting (Amy Adams performance is subtle, layered and nuanced. Like the film, she was not flashy or overpowering).

And so, to answer your question, no it was not equal to the expectation...it surpassed it by a country mile. Villeneuve wove an intricate pattern that needed to be experienced and not just merely viewed. I've watched it 3 times now and I've fallen in love with this masterpiece. It is not flawed as I originally thought. It was my perception that was flawed. I am not sure that Hollywood will create a new genre of film of "underwhelming apogee," but it reminded me of the film Cloud Atlas, in which a story unfolds in several layers and the viewer must invest their energy, time and imagination.

---

For some reason, this post of yours made me recall City of Lost Children, and then Twelve Monkeys. Have you seen both? Do they compare, in your view?

Quote:

---

Personally I think that this type of film and filmmaking would be the exception rather than the rule. The rare gem of a film created by that rare gifted individual - the director. Villeneuve, who's directed films of note: Sicario, Prisoners and the new Blade Runner 2049 (now I'm definitely putting it on my must-see list, due out in October) is a film director that creates intense, and thought-provoking films.

(I'll have more tomorrow).

SGG

---

I apologize if it seemed I was bringing up an old post in regards to your comments - I was resurrecting that question of mine about the underwhelming apogee.


Now that you are enamored of it, what is your current view of that sound editing/mixing when Whitaker first enters Louise's office? Was it intentional? Sound error? poorly mixed? Masterful?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF,

There's no need to apologize. I always refer back to my previous postings, especially when it comes to film, to refresh my memory as to my point of view or argument. Plus you actually posed a perfectly good question.

I will ask for a bit of patience though, as I am at work and it's been kind of busy. I will return soon (within a day or two) to finish my thought(s) regarding Arrival and to answer your question.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey JSF,

There's no need to apologize. I always refer back to my previous postings, especially when it comes to film, to refresh my memory as to my point of view or argument. Plus you actually posed a perfectly good question.

I will ask for a bit of patience though, as I am at work and it's been kind of busy. I will return soon (within a day or two) to finish my thought(s) regarding Arrival and to answer your question.


SGG

---

now now now now
You can work when you're dead, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Another item to ponder, and you might marinate in.
The heptopods use a written language which Louise learns to read and write. She also states that their audio communication does not seem to have a relation to the written messages from them. I didn't get the impression that she was able to communicate with them in their audio mode, but I am not certain of this.
The heptopods demonstrate that they can understand our written language and also our audio language, and we might assume this is this the case around the world, in each region where they have arrived.
I was wondering if there was some sort of disconnect involved for them here, which contributed to the mistranslation of "weapon" - but now I also consider that they have had much more time to comprehend our language, having met us in the future (unless our holocaust from world combat has depleted our supply of Earth-based languages before they meet us.)

Now I haven't decided where I'm going with this, but these are points which may prove pertinent to our (my) understanding of this storyline.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Another item to ponder, and you might marinate in.
The heptopods use a written language which Louise learns to read and write. She also states that their audio communication does not seem to have a relation to the written messages from them. I didn't get the impression that she was able to communicate with them in their audio mode, but I am not certain of this.
The heptopods demonstrate that they can understand our written language and also our audio language, and we might assume this is this the case around the world, in each region where they have arrived.
I was wondering if there was some sort of disconnect involved for them here, which contributed to the mistranslation of "weapon" - but now I also consider that they have had much more time to comprehend our language, having met us in the future (unless our holocaust from world combat has depleted our supply of Earth-based languages before they meet us.)

Now I haven't decided where I'm going with this, but these are points which may prove pertinent to our (my) understanding of this storyline.

---

I'm going to attempt to answer your question and comment on what I think may have been communicated in this film.

I'm assuming you have seen the film more than once, so here it goes:

---

Quote:

---

There's more, but I'm just too tired.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Alas, I have ony seen it a few times, and do not own it yet - hopefully next month.

---

Quote:

---

I don't recall any evidence that there was anybody other than Louise who had this ability, this weapon. Certainly nobody else intervened with the General in order to save the world. It sounded like other sites had Chess Masters and Game Masters to interact with the heptapods, maybe only a few of them engaged a person of Louise's field - and remember, Louise (the single most right person to solve this issue) WAS NOT THE FIRST CHOICE!

---

Quote:

---

In her final conversation with them, when they conveyed her alone up to their higher perch, did she not achieve total immersion and understand them without complete reliance upon their writing? There was no glass wall between them at that point, was there?

---

Quote:

---

They also understood our written form, apparently, and yet did not communicate with us that way, instead forcing Louise to adapt to their written form.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

I don't recall any evidence that there was anybody other than Louise who had this ability, this weapon. Certainly nobody else intervened with the General in order to save the world. It sounded like other sites had Chess Masters and Game Masters to interact with the heptapods, maybe only a few of them engaged a person of Louise's field - and remember, Louise (the single most right person to solve this issue) WAS NOT THE FIRST CHOICE!

---

I do not remember about Louise not being the first choice. This movie has so many layers, it's fantastic.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They also understood our written form, apparently, and yet did not communicate with us that way, instead forcing Louise to adapt to their written form.

---

That was the only thing that felt like a plot hole to me, but they are intelligent aliens and their intellects superior to our own. What was needed was a natural resource.

---

Quote:

---

You don't think them forcing Louise to learn their form of communication/language was a devious plot development? (not devious in a bad way).

---

Quote:

---

Anyhow: What term did Abbott or Costello intend to use which Louise mistranslated as "weapon" - what specific term?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

You don't think them forcing Louise to learn their form of communication/language was a devious plot development? (not devious in a bad way).

---

Well, it could be considered "devious", but I tend to think it is the aliens only way of communicating; but too, they are far more advanced than humans; that and their ability to travel to any point in time, gives them the advantage. I don't believe that they are dangerous, mainly because - it is implied - they are advanced creatures. Intellectually and emotionally superior and advanced over us humans. So they feel their form of communication is best.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Anyhow: What term did Abbott or Costello intend to use which Louise mistranslated as "weapon" - what specific term?

---

It is at the very beginning of the film that Ian reads from Louise's book and quotes her: that language is the first weapon drawn in a conflict. At first she doesn't "see" it, but by movie's end she becomes aware. I misunderstood it until I saw the film a second and third time. Then I understood it.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Wish ECGORDON were still here posting. I liked seeing what he was up to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Wish ECGORDON were still here posting. I liked seeing what he was up to.

---

You and me both T.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

When you encounter a person not equal to your intellectual abilities, do you find the best way to communicate is to lower your language or vocabulary to their level, or to talk over their heads and expect them to pick up on your meaning?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
All in all, they picked the one person on earth that could absorb their language and communicate with them. But you're probably right.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

At the film opening, Louise narrates "I thought this was the beginning of your story" while displaying the newborn daughter. But this may imply that the beginning of the daughter's story was her helping Louise solve the translation of the Arrivals, which then joined Ian and Louise, producing the daughter Hannah, who then helps mom in the future solve the problem now. Hannah's helping mom Louise is needed for this history to work out.

---

Quote:

---

When Louise's daughter questions the reason for her name, Hannah, Louise explains that her name is a palindrome, that is to say that her name is spelled the same backwards as it is forward as it is backwards. This reflects the theme of the film in that the story starts as it finishes, due to the story's events existing in a non-linear timeline. The opening few scenes of the film are simultaneously the beginning and the end...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Something just came to mind as I was reading your response. It's about Hannah.
Now bear with me on this, I have to go back to the film to see if my thought, or theory, is correct.


SGG

Okay, I re-watched the ending.

Quote:

---

At the film opening, Louise narrates "I thought this was the beginning of your story" while displaying the newborn daughter. But this may imply that the beginning of the daughter's story was her helping Louise solve the translation of the Arrivals, which then joined Ian and Louise, producing the daughter Hannah, who then helps mom in the future solve the problem now. Hannah's helping mom Louise is needed for this history to work out.

---

You are onto something here as far as the films intent is concerned. The perception of time and what we, as humans, do with it. I'm going to let you in on a secret, as I watched the film on my laptop (I have what is called "X-Ray" on my copy of the movie - from Amazon - that allows me to tap into movie trivia, scenes, cast, characters and music.

This is what it says under General Trivia:

Quote:

---

When Louise's daughter questions the reason for her name, Hannah, Louise explains that her name is a palindrome, that is to say that her name is spelled the same backwards as it is forward as it is backwards. This reflects the theme of the film in that the story starts as it finishes, due to the story's events existing in a non-linear timeline. The opening few scenes of the film are simultaneously the beginning and the end...

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Something just came to mind as I was reading your response. It's about Hannah.
Now bear with me on this, I have to go back to the film to see if my thought, or theory, is correct.


SGG

Okay, I re-watched the ending.

Quote:

---

At the film opening, Louise narrates "I thought this was the beginning of your story" while displaying the newborn daughter. But this may imply that the beginning of the daughter's story was her helping Louise solve the translation of the Arrivals, which then joined Ian and Louise, producing the daughter Hannah, who then helps mom in the future solve the problem now. Hannah's helping mom Louise is needed for this history to work out.

---

You are onto something here as far as the films intent is concerned. The perception of time and what we, as humans, do with it. I'm going to let you in on a secret, as I watched the film on my laptop (I have what is called "X-Ray" on my copy of the movie - from Amazon - that allows me to tap into movie trivia, scenes, cast, characters and music.

This is what it says under General Trivia:

Quote:

---

When Louise's daughter questions the reason for her name, Hannah, Louise explains that her name is a palindrome, that is to say that her name is spelled the same backwards as it is forward as it is backwards. This reflects the theme of the film in that the story starts as it finishes, due to the story's events existing in a non-linear timeline. The opening few scenes of the film are simultaneously the beginning and the end...

---

---

I didn't think that was really a secret - remember how they spelled her name forward and backward a few times? I thought they were spoonfeeding us the foreshadowing there, or the explanation.
I am still not fully fleshed out on the Pakistan connection. One Shell site is Pakistan, and it was said that their language has no beginning or end (or the name they give the characters of their language). So why didn't the Pakis figure out things before Louise? The disconnect between written and audio. And I have not delved into how the Paki's speak a language that is written without beginning or end.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Something just came to mind as I was reading your response. It's about Hannah.
Now bear with me on this, I have to go back to the film to see if my thought, or theory, is correct.

SGG

Okay, I re-watched the ending.

Quote:

---

At the film opening, Louise narrates "I thought this was the beginning of your story" while displaying the newborn daughter. But this may imply that the beginning of the daughter's story was her helping Louise solve the translation of the Arrivals, which then joined Ian and Louise, producing the daughter Hannah, who then helps mom in the future solve the problem now. Hannah's helping mom Louise is needed for this history to work out.

---

You are onto something here as far as the films intent is concerned. The perception of time and what we, as humans, do with it. I'm going to let you in on a secret, as I watched the film on my laptop (I have what is called "X-Ray" on my copy of the movie - from Amazon - that allows me to tap into movie trivia, scenes, cast, characters and music.

This is what it says under General Trivia:

Quote:

---

When Louise's daughter questions the reason for her name, Hannah, Louise explains that her name is a palindrome, that is to say that her name is spelled the same backwards as it is forward as it is backwards. This reflects the theme of the film in that the story starts as it finishes, due to the story's events existing in a non-linear timeline. The opening few scenes of the film are simultaneously the beginning and the end...

---

---

I didn't think that was really a secret - remember how they spelled her name forward and backward a few times? I thought they were spoonfeeding us the foreshadowing there, or the explanation.
I am still not fully fleshed out on the Pakistan connection. One Shell site is Pakistan, and it was said that their language has no beginning or end (or the name they give the characters of their language). So why didn't the Pakis figure out things before Louise? The disconnect between written and audio. And I have not delved into how the Paki's speak a language that is written without beginning or end.

---

There was also, in that scene toward the end with Louise and her daughter, as she was coloring, a play-doh Heptapod was on the table. Although I remembered seeing this each time I viewed the film, I never put it to mind that maybe, just maybe Hannah was also sensitive to the Heptapods (perhaps Abbott?).

---

Quote:

---

As far as Louise is concerned, I always thought that the Heptapods, with their time bending non linear travel, always knew that Louise was an empath and subject to their abilities - hence giving her the "weapon" or their language. They arrived, as they did, because they knew that they had to make contact with her. They had to give her the weapon for her to use and that it would be instrumental in them helping mankind 3000 years hence.

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Continuation of posts from last week.


This post contains SPOILERS!!!



Louise: give technology now. Abbott starts thumping/tapping on the barrier, beconning Louise to the barrier. Bomb time is 2:40. Louise puts her hands on barrier, then one hand while Abbott has the tip of his touching also, and Louise gets her clear vision of her baby in the crib. Then Louise uses one hand to create half of the response while Abbott shares creation with other half of sign - this takes from about 1:30 down to 1:20 on bomb countdown. Costello leaves the barrier at 50 seconds. Abbott starts producing the 1 of 12 display.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I still feel uncomfortable with the issue of Louise deciding to have the daughter who will knowingly have a terminal illness before procreating. Does this seem like having a dog, picking one out of the shelter to live with, expending it's entire life within the confines of your own life? Is this selfish of her? She is certainly not expunging the pain her daughter endures.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I still feel uncomfortable with the issue of Louise deciding to have the daughter who will knowingly have a terminal illness before procreating. Does this seem like having a dog, picking one out of the shelter to live with, expending it's entire life within the confines of your own life? Is this selfish of her? She is certainly not expunging the pain her daughter endures.

---

After watching again, I feel I should retract this comment.

Louise understood that Hannah was critical to the success of the Arrival translation, and that Abbott had given his life because it was so important, and the least Louise could do was let Hannah exist so she could also help.

A comment was made about Hannah and Abbott having a connection. But I think it was Louise and Abbott - they both knew they were sacrificing something, his life and Hannah's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Sci-fi, as I have stated many times before, is a commentary on our existence here on this planet. It is a parable of sorts. A story of the human condition.


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Something just came to mind as I was reading your response. It's about Hannah.
Now bear with me on this, I have to go back to the film to see if my thought, or theory, is correct.

SGG

Okay, I re-watched the ending.

Quote:

---

At the film opening, Louise narrates "I thought this was the beginning of your story" while displaying the newborn daughter. But this may imply that the beginning of the daughter's story was her helping Louise solve the translation of the Arrivals, which then joined Ian and Louise, producing the daughter Hannah, who then helps mom in the future solve the problem now. Hannah's helping mom Louise is needed for this history to work out.

---

---

I didn't think that was really a secret - remember how they spelled her name forward and backward a few times? I thought they were spoonfeeding us the foreshadowing there, or the explanation.

---

---

Quote:

---

There was also, in that scene toward the end with Louise and her daughter, as she was coloring, a play-doh Heptapod was on the table. Although I remembered seeing this each time I viewed the film, I never put it to mind that maybe, just maybe Hannah was also sensitive to the Heptapods (perhaps Abbott?).

SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
More comments from watching again.

THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS!!



I am going to discuss the confusion I had from the first viewing, and those following. Louise states at the beginning that she thought that the beginning of Hannah's story was at Hannah's birth, but then she realized Hannah's story started on the day the Shell left. By the time she sees Hannah's birth in the future, she has already experienced the Arrival of The Shell, and meeting the Friendly heptapods.

So when she says she used to think the birth of Hannah was the beginning of Hannah's story, it does not make logical sense. Having already experienced The Arrival, she already knows that is not true because of all the scenes we see in the film.

So Louise's statement that she used to think that Hannah's story began at Hannah's birth make me assume that Louise already had the ability to manipulate or "open" time. Her prior visions of Hannah's birth would make her assume these scenes were the beginning of Hannah's Life Story, because The Arrival had not yet happened. But now we can see from the film that Louise really did not previously see the future. So her statement really makes no logical sense that I can now see.
Anyhow, early in this thread I argued that Louise already had the ability to manipulate time, and this was the reason I thought such evidence had been presented in the film.
I think this is the only plot or story hole I have found in Arrival.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Something just came to mind as I was reading your response. It's about Hannah.
Now bear with me on this, I have to go back to the film to see if my thought, or theory, is correct.

SGG

Okay, I re-watched the ending.

Quote:

---

At the film opening, Louise narrates "I thought this was the beginning of your story" while displaying the newborn daughter. But this may imply that the beginning of the daughter's story was her helping Louise solve the translation of the Arrivals, which then joined Ian and Louise, producing the daughter Hannah, who then helps mom in the future solve the problem now. Hannah's helping mom Louise is needed for this history to work out.

---

---

I didn't think that was really a secret - remember how they spelled her name forward and backward a few times? I thought they were spoonfeeding us the foreshadowing there, or the explanation.

---

---

Ooops. This was at the end, the finishing montage - so foreshadowing does not apply for a single viewing.

Quote:

---

There was also, in that scene toward the end with Louise and her daughter, as she was coloring, a play-doh Heptapod was on the table. Although I remembered seeing this each time I viewed the film, I never put it to mind that maybe, just maybe Hannah was also sensitive to the Heptapods (perhaps Abbott?).

SGG

---

Hannah's drawings: TV Show Mommy and Daddy Talk to Animals at 59:40, again with Play-Do at 1:31:15, and 1:49:42, and again with Play-Do at 1:50:04.



Also, Louise does get a concussion from the bomb blast, so this may also effect her ability to "open time" with Costello.


The bomb goes off in he 36th session. if Louise's first session was 0800 on Friday, then the 36th would be 1400-1600 on Saturday, 30 days later.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
More comments from watching again.

THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS!!



Also, Louise does get a concussion from the bomb blast, so this may also effect her ability to "open time" with Costello.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I'm hoping I have not posted too much spoilery stuff. I'll need to watch Arrival a few more times at least, to get my fix.

---