CINEMA

Arrival

POSTED BY: ECGORDON
UPDATED: Sunday, August 27, 2017 11:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10077
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, April 5, 2017 5:12 AM

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:
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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 5, 2017 8:42 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 7, 2017 4:44 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


"Language is the foundation of civilization, it is the glue that holds the people together. It is the first weapon drawn in a conflict."

-Louise Banks

I was right, this movie needs to be seen 3 or 4 times to appreciate the layers that Denis Villeneuve brilliantly laid out for us. This is how you write sci-fi (note to the producers/writers of Ghost in the Shell; and shame on the director). This film is a masterpiece, move over Kubrick, and enthralls us from the opening sequence. The first five minutes alone could be a movie all on it's own, but it prepares us and gently guides us to a
front row seat, a recliner - here are your slippers and popcorn, sit back and enjoy (more on that later).

"Language is the foundation of civilization....it is the first weapon drawn in a conflict." Important words that I completely glossed over the first time around. It is a key to understanding the film's thesis, it's core value, one of the theme's that drives the emotional aspect of the film's message. We must communicate to survive.

Sci-fi, as I have said in the past, is social commentary of the sign of the times. We have become so polarized in this country that we fail to hear each other. We all want pretty much the same things, and this film promotes the simple truth - we must listen to each other and take our time to establish contact; otherwise we are doomed. At first, I thought too that the "weapon" the aliens spoke of was Louise's sensitivity towards time manipulation. But it's really her ability to use language and openness to communicate; to hear out the "aliens" among us. And I'm not talking about aliens from another planet, or the so-called "illegal" kind. I'm talking about us - humans.

"Weapon" was misunderstood by the government officials in the film, and by us - the audience. And it took a second viewing for me to catch that. Thanks for pushing me to do this because I was not interested in watching the film again, and now it's all I think of. I've discovered a gem I didn't now I had. Now, I better understand the ending. Something that escaped me the first two times around. Are you ready? Here it goes: Time is precious, but, more importantly, it is the connections that we make with one another.

The emotion of those first five minutes, how Louise describes what is important to her and how she understood her purpose; and the significance
of her memories in relation to the precious time she spent with her daughter. That is how you set up a story that pays off at the end - that is, of course, if you understand it. Brilliant film. You may very well have a different take on it, and I don't blame you at all, it is so layered. Go back and watch it again, especially those first five minutes; and you will see that I am right!

;-)


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


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 9, 2017 4:54 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 10, 2017 1:53 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


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:
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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 10, 2017 8:16 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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


In the thread about best films of 2016, would you agree Arrival is the best Sci-Fi film of the year?


"Use your weapon"
I am not sure if you read my question accurately, or understood.
You seem to be saying that the actual term they intended to use was "language", but either they misunderstood it's meaning or we misunderstood which term they were trying to convey.
They didn't understand the term or concept of language, a form of communication?

Perhaps you meant that they intended to use a term which conveyed "ability/talent of communicating" which was then too similar to their term for weapon.
However, they seemed able to respond to verbal language from Louise and Ian, and when Louise translated their message as "weapon" they didn't seem to correct her, or change the term in their repeated message.
What I am asking is what is the specific term that you think Abbott/Costello intended to convey when they used a term that Louise translated as "weapon" in their message?
I think the term "language" would have had a more clear translation between them and Louise. If you really think that is the exact term that was translated as "weapon" then maybe you could elaborate for me better?

"Use your language" - as in English, or Earthly languages, or Human languages?
"Use your translation skills" - but they needed her to use the time manipulation to save earth.
"Use your ability to immerse your mind in our language (or our communication, or our mental telepathy)" - which she would then understand the time manipulation - is this what you think their term was supposed to mean, which Louise mis-translated to "weapon" in their message?



I am now trying to recall a sequence - did they direct (plead?) her to use her weapon during the time (1) she was with them alone, after they brought her far up in their pod, which was after the xenophobes detonated the explosion which sent Abbott to death process (Abbott sacrificed himself to save Ian and Louise), or was it during the time (2) that Abbott was trying to get her attention as the detonation timer was counting down - this would be before any weapons had been deployed against them, and none of them had perished yet from human action.

As an aside, I recall now another point - none of the visitors had perished at human hands/actions, all around the world they were fully capable of defending themselves against humans, yet Abbott willingly and purposefully saved Ian and Louise from the explosion, making him the first casualty of interaction between our species - yet Abbott was fully capable of saving and protecting himself, if not for his higher priority of saving Louise, who would make Earthlings come together in order for future humans being able to help Costello & friends in the future.

Back to topic - was "use your weapon" a scene before the explosion, or was it after? I don't want to process what this might mean or imply until I know the sequence.



Anyhow, my question from yesterday was: what specific term did Abbott/Costello intend to convey when Louise translated it as "weapon" - and then when she spoke aloud this translation, they did not correct her, nor change the term in their repeats of this message?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 10, 2017 8:42 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4:03 AM

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.

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:
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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:20 PM

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 12, 2017 4:02 AM

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,

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?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:08 PM

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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 12, 2017 7:21 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2017 1:51 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Work when I'm dead.............Ha!


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?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:25 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


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:

I got the feeling that Louise, as she exposed herself more and more to our friends Abbott & Costello, that she was becoming more aware of her ability
to absorb time displacement. It's probably why the visitors "landed" in the 12 areas around the world. The aliens knew that in each area they would find a kindred spirit open to the manipulation of time, or better put, the perception of time from their point of view.

I noticed that each time Louise would come upon a problem that needed solving, her daughter, whom she had an incredible bond with, would appear in her "memory" and guide her mom through the "looking glass." I don't think that she was able to understand the audio portion of their communication, but as we neared the end of the film, you could see that she was fluent in
conveying her thoughts through the written medium. The fact that they could understand our spoken, or audio, language shows, as you correctly stated, that they have been exposed to humans at some point.

As the story unfolded, it became clear that they have been here on Earth before and knew that Louise was a communication vessel, or better still, a "weapon" by which they could help humans. Same goes for the Chinese General, who was open to the possibilities.

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


SGG


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 13, 2017 7:27 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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:

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


I got the feeling that Louise, as she exposed herself more and more to our friends Abbott & Costello, that she was becoming more aware of her ability
to absorb time displacement. It's probably why the visitors "landed" in the 12 areas around the world. The aliens knew that in each area they would find a kindred spirit open to the manipulation of time, or better put, the perception of time from their point of view.

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:



I noticed that each time Louise would come upon a problem that needed solving, her daughter, whom she had an incredible bond with, would appear in her "memory" and guide her mom through the "looking glass." I don't think that she was able to understand the audio portion of their communication,

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:


but as we neared the end of the film, you could see that she was fluent in
conveying her thoughts through the written medium. The fact that they could understand our spoken, or audio, language shows, as you correctly stated, that they have been exposed to humans at some point.

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:


As the story unfolded, it became clear that they have been here on Earth before and knew that Louise was a communication vessel, or better still, a "weapon" by which they could help humans. Same goes for the Chinese General, who was open to the possibilities.

I did not see evidence that the General was open to anything, other than the strong convincing of Louise. Only at the party, something like a year later, did the General seem mellowed out, after his year-ago response to Louise turned out to save the world.
Quote:


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

SGG


Anyhow, the primary question I still have for you remains this: What specific term do you think was the term they intended to use, but was translated as "weapon" by Louise?
Now I have forgotten the scene sequence - was Louise the only person present when they used the term "Weapon" - or were others present?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 17, 2017 2:03 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

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


I saw it once in the theater and twice at home, and each time I felt that I understood it better. It's truly a well-crafted film, it almost felt like a good book where the author takes you on a journey without giving everything away.

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!


Well, in this instance I broke my own rules when it comes to film storytelling; which is: only use what is on the screen and don't make things up to fit the story.
I just assumed that since there were 12 ships; and each ship had a message, that
there were more than one. But I tend to think that you're right, especially since Louise is the language expert, plus I believe she was "gifted" with the special
ability of communicating with the aliens. There is also the fact that the heptapods experience time differently than we do. I do not remember about Louise not being the first choice. This movie has so many layers, it's fantastic.

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?


Yes, I agree she was totally immersed in her ability to communicate with them. I meant at first she could not understand, but I felt that her connection to them opened up her ability further each time she would meet with them and they reached her telepathically. In essence, she absorbed their abilities and concept of time. They reached her on a molecular level (there's no evidence of that, just a thought that popped into my head).

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.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 17, 2017 8:08 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

I was referring to Whitaker's first visit to Louise in her office, where she failed to impress him or deflect to him adequately, then the Colonel picked the guy from Berkley (who claimed to speak a language, but could not provide a translation/definition for their word for "war"), and then that guy apparently was evacuated in the bio-med chamber as Louise arrived, as she was the second attempt at a translator. Unless I have misunderstood all of that.
Quote:

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?
Yes, I agree she was totally immersed in her ability to communicate with them. I meant at first she could not understand, but I felt that her connection to them opened up her ability further each time she would meet with them and they reached her telepathically. In essence, she absorbed their abilities and concept of time. They reached her on a molecular level (there's no evidence of that, just a thought that popped into my head).

I'm thinking telepathy would be a chemical level, the human brain functioning on electrical signals sourced by the brain chemistry.
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.

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).

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 22, 2017 12:37 AM

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:

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 22, 2017 9:27 AM

THGRRI


Wish ECGORDON were still here posting. I liked seeing what he was up to.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 22, 2017 4:23 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

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:

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


OK, now I get it. When they said "Use YOUR weapon," I was looking right at the weapon word, not realizing the importance of YOUR when directed at Louise. Good catch.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 22, 2017 5:19 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


You and me both T.


SGG


Quote:

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







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 22, 2017 5:39 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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

Can't you find out at templetongate.net?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 22, 2017 5:41 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


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?


Well, I'm thinking like a human so I may be wrong, but these are aliens and they don't think like us. Plus they already know what's going to happen with their time-bending abilities.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 1, 2017 6:57 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I watched parts of it again, now on DVD for my first time, the other viewings were in cinema. I certainly hope the DVD version is the same as the theatrical version - some bits seem different or new to me.

THIS POST IS HIGHLY SPOILERISH!! If you have not seen the film yet, I suggest you not read this post.


I did notice some more things, and found some answers to some of my questions. Louise seems to be in 2 times at once, in the future and in "current" time, as portrayed by the film. When she suddenly finds herself in a future time, she seems taken aback, disoriented. But then she is able to participate in the future situation as if is part of her memory, with all of the related things happening then.
It seems that something jarring is needed for her to return to "present" time, like somebody calling her name. I should check on this more, to confirm.

Regarding paradox. Sometimes understanding a paradox or a cause-and-effect sequence needs to have the building blocks identified, to see where the foundation is which produces the result. It has been indicated that Louise gets help from her future daughter, and let us go with that concept. Louise does not know who this little girl is. This girl helps mostly by reminding Louise of something that Louise did which is history for this future girl, but has not yet happened in the time of the Shell's Arrival. This girl is helping Louise make progress in understanding and translating the heptapods. This girl would not eventually be created if Ian and Louise had never met. Ian and Louise meet because of the Arrival of the Shell in Montana. Without the help from the girl, they would not have had a successful outcome, and perhaps would not conceive the daughter, who is the pivotal key in solving this puzzle.

Now I am forgetting the other part of this sequence, sorry.

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


You keep losing me when you insist that they picked Louise Banks, their only pick.

If they picked her, why did they not land/park in her backyard, instead of in Montana? By highest priority military helo they left her house at zero dark thirty and arrived at The Shell in full daylight. Col Weber's first choice was apparently Danvers in Berkley, but he went to Louise first because her SSDI security clearance was still valid for 2 more years, from when she helped them translate Farsi. When he left her office, he said it would be the end of her chance to do the work, which he insisted must be done remotely, not in person.

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.


In the last session that the whole crew, with Ian and Louise, visit the Shell, Weber has directed that Louise ask the big question. What is the purpose of the heptapods visiting Earth? They respond "offer weapon"
The session is interrupted, and other nations have translated "use weapon" as broadcast by news media. This is not only Louise getting this message, but all 12 sites - hardly meaning that Louise is their first and only choice as translator.
In the last session that both Ian and Louise visit the Shell, Abbott has Louise touch the wall/window with her hands, to make the language they use. Here Louise sees the newborn scenes of her future daughter Hannah. Then Abbott & Costello start displaying the 1/12 of the equations. Then the bomb goes off, putting Abbott into death process.

In the tent, Louise points out that there is no evidence that the aliens are spurring war and that is a bad conclusion to make, and the CIA Idjit reply of proof is HUMAN history of HUMANS stirring war. How insipid.

The Russian translator is shot after she reports the translations "there is no time" and "many become one" which are interpreted by the head-up-their-bung politicians as 'your time has expired with us' while a more tempered version may mean "time does not exist, except in your perspective - learn to comprehend without the crutch of 'time' dimension."
They need to find a way to get the other 12 sites to play along again, to share their data (the other 11 parts of the set of 12).

When Louise goes back up alone, she asks Costello to send a message to the other sites, and the reply is "Louise has weapon" and then "use weapon."
Then Louise asks "what is the purpose of heptapods coming to Earth" and the replies "we help humanity" and the 3,000 years in the future story, then she sees her daughter Hannah again and asks "who is this child?" This is a line that I do not recall hearing before, and I wonder if it is different on DVD than in cinema. It doesn't even tickle my memory, so unless I completely forgot it, I may have just not noticed it. Anyhow, she does not know who the girl is.
Costello continues with "Louise sees future" and "weapon opens time"

Louise sees her and Hannah on the beach, and asks Hannah what day it is, seeming to try to determine how far into the future it is, or if it is a parallel timeline. Hannah answers "Sunday," defeating Louise's inquiry. Then Hannah asks why her dad looks at her different, and Louise has the whole story ready, and explains to Hannah. Then Louise is back and blurts to Ian that now she knows why her husband left, and Ian says "you have a husband?"

I post these to help suss out the discussion and the details of the story. I'm sorry if I made assumptions based upon incorrect recollection.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 2, 2017 8:55 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Continuation of yesterday.

This post is very SPOILERISH!!!


I have been struggling to find a word which encompasses my sense of the heptapods. I finally arrived at Majestic. I think this is also a term that Ian and Louise would agree with. Perhaps this is also why I found the selfless death of Abbott to be profound.


The 12 sites were: Montana, Venezuela, Greenland, UK, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Russia BLack Sea, Russia Siberia, Pakistan, China, Japan, Indian Ocean near Australia.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2017 3:43 AM

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...




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 3, 2017 3:04 PM

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 - edit: logograms). 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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2017 2:01 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


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?).

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:
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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2017 8:12 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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?).

I don't agree here. There is no indication that they return in a few years when Hannah is around 10. (aside, the credits do not list an actress playing Hannah aged 18, nothing over 12 years old) For Hannah, this is known history involving her mom. This scene with the play-doh heptapods is played twice, the one near the end is the second time. Several times is also the drawing of Mommy and Daddy Talk to the Animals, her TV show - which initially shows mommy and daddy, and later also shows the canary in the cage in the drawing as well. All of these are just known history to Hannah, involving her mom.
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

Also, Louise was the 3rd person that Col Weber wanted, after Danvers at Berkley, and the first team leader Dr. Walker, who was being medevacced as Ian and Louise arrived. More on this when I have time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 4, 2017 8:24 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Further continuation from a few days ago.

This post is very SPOILERISH!!!!




The crew arrive in the helo the first time at around 0740. After a few minutes of medical and meeting their teams, it is 0745, and they enter the Shell for the 0800 session.
They approach the Montana site in the helo from the SSW - the light is from the right, shadows to the left. Because the reports were that the Shell was just off Interstate 94 (an East-West Interstate) I had assumed the road Louise viewed during approach was I-94, but now I'm not sure which highway this north-south road is.

I had previously thought, but likely haven't posted, is that sound as defined by us requires a component of time. The concept of Hertz, sinusoidal waves, and wavelengths are functions of time. So a language which joins beginning and end seems to miss a component or time. So their sounds may just be their words, but we are not hearing them in the way they are emitted. If time is the 4th dimension, then consider if somebody in 3 dimensions shows a 3-D object to something in only 2 dimensions - there will not be the 3rd Dimension for reference to comprehend how the 2D slices of the 3D item go together.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 8, 2017 10:46 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Continuation of posts from last week.


This post contains SPOILERS!!!




The first clear future viewing comes after Louise gets her second booster shot (because she took off her Hazmat suit) - prior to this she only had distracting sounds from the future scenes, not clear visual.


Col Weber directs Louise it is time to ask the big question.
Louise asks what is purpose, heptapods on Earth? Abbott is not present for question, only Costello. Ian asks about this, then Abbott appears as Costello is giving answer to question.
Answer from Costello is Offer weapon.
Abrupt transition to tent, talking with the CIA idjit.
This is apparently the first time a session ended early, so security team has opportunity to plant bomb without anybody seeing them.

When bomb is set for 10 minutes, both Abbott and Costello are at the glass.
Louise and Ian return, arriving with about 4:30 on the bomb timer. This is 270 seconds before detonation. The run time of the film elapses about 274 seconds during this sequence, so the playback time is almost aligned with the countdown time of the scene. Other glimpses of the bomb display will be at 2:40, and 50 seconds and around 10 seconds.

Louise asks Offer weapon question mark.
reply translation displays as:
visitors/friends/heptapods
offer/give/donate/award
technology/apparatus/method

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, after Costello left.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:32 AM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


So why is Louise Banks the savior of humanity?

She was Col Weber's third choice, behind Danvers of Berkley and Dr. Walker, the original team leader, who seemed to get medevacced out as she arrived.

She likely was the first human of the 12 sites to remove her BioHazMat suit, showing eagerness and courage to interact better with the heptapods. Not much info if any other human besides Ian did so during their month of visits.

I did notice that the sessions last less than 2 hours, and the shell opens once every 18 hours. For 12 sites, this means that Abbott & Costello are not the only visitor pair on Earth (with their time manipulation, if it were 2 hours of 24 sites, they could have.) It is still possible that Abbott and Costello are doing 3 sites, one after another, while Bam Bam and Deano are a pair doing 3 other sites, and then Abbott and Bam Bam do a few sites together while Costello and Deano rest, and so on.

Anyhow, Louise along with Ian are given a second set of booster shots after they remove their BioHazMat suits, and then Louise makes great progress and advances in her translations, and immersion. Side effects of the boosters are supposed to be "hallucinations" IIRC.

Louise might be the first human to ask our friends what is their purpose on Earth.
Louise does seem to be the first person to ask what is meant by Offer weapon, and more importantly, the first (only?) human to state "Give technology now" after which she is immediately beckoned and gets the weapon transferred to her.


Also, despite Louise knowing that Hannah will die before full adulthood, she chooses to proceed with the birth of her daughter, so that Hannah will save humanity. Thus the entire film seems to be the redemption of Hannah Donnelly. To some degree, Hannah and Abbott are the casualties of First Contact between Humans and Xenospecies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 14, 2017 2:41 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


Regarding the tapping/thumping of Abbott on the barrier. The first few times I saw this, I fell for the red herring of interspersing cuts of the bomb countdown with Abbott tapping, and Louise and Ian befuddled or perplexed. I had thought Abbott was trying to warn them about the bomb, in the classic sense of Lassie trying to explain to the dumb humans that Tommy is in trouble. I suspect this was an intentional ruse by the filmmaker.
I now believe this was Abbott's direct response to Louise's message "Give technology now" and even though Abbott likely knew it would mean his death, his sacrifice was of utmost importance in getting to Louise the "weapon" immediately after she was the first human to ask for it, and this was the sole/primary purpose of their Arrival on Earth in this time.

This is one reason that I am trying to lay out in some detail what the sequence of the scenes and lines are, because the cause-and-effect sequence seems so important.


Back to the opening of the film. The narration seemed somewhat puzzling the first few times, merely a hint of things to come.
Louise says" Memory is a strange thing, doesn't work like I think it did, we are bound by time, by it's order."
"I used to think this was the beginning of your story"


OK, I think I got all of that down now, sorry for stretching it all out. I had time restrictions. I do hope this clarifies things for discussion.
Any further comments?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 16, 2017 9:56 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 5:09 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Okay, I could accept your new found meaning within the film, but I took from it something a little different.

Louise was grateful, both for her time on Earth with Hannah and Abbott. Hannah because she came to appreciate whatever contribution she made in her life as a mom, and Abbott for learning how to communicate with her fellow man. Yes, it sounds corny and altruistic, but that's the extent of her contribution, her part of the life cycle.

It is a metaphor for how to live, grateful for the time we have here on Earth with our loved ones. 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 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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:14 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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


I know you have said this, I have refrained from comment.

However, in the example of this film, Arrival is a very endearing case for your statement.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:38 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2017 4:48 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


You're on the right track, but here's how I see it now....it's starting to make sense now. The beginning of Hannah's story is when the shell arrives and the Colonel comes to get her. That's the number 1 reason why she meets Hannah's father.
That's the beginning of Louise's ability to open time and see the future.

So it does make sense. It is the beginning of Hannah's story for the two main reasons above - Louise meets her husband and she gains the "sight" to see the future, where she first meets Hannah. At first, the flashes of memory are all about Hannah and Louise's relationship with her daughter. When she first starts to talk about Hannah, she is referring to something she already saw and she's describing
how she felt as she experiences everything all over again. Remember she's experiencing time like the Heptapods......it is non-linear, a kind of loop that allows her to experience time all at once.

She both sees it happening simultaneously and in linear fashion, like most humans experience time. For Louise, words trigger these experiences in time. She uses all her senses to feel the experience. When she hugs Ian and she sees Hannah, she closes her eyes and she can see her as though it were happening at that moment. Louise is recounting the story of her Hannah, because she can "open" time and she has already experienced it.

It is a fascinating concept (one that was explored in Fringe with the Observers).


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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2017 7:29 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


One part I had missed until just my most recent viewing: after the bomb, in the tent, when Louise wonders why is she forced to talk to this CIA Idjit, she sees the future right there. She sees the pod coming down from the shell, and also her hands amidst the ink from Costello, but the pod has not come out of the shell yet, until she exits the tent and goes toward the shell. This seems to be the first incident of Louise interactively working with her gift, in current real time.
I had never recognized this as a future vision, I just comingled the scenes and sequence by mistake.


Another scene, with Ian asking her about immersion in language changing the way a person thinks. Now I wonder if this was a real world scene, of if it is a dream scene of Louise's - with Abbott in her trailer with her. I had seen the heptapod as a dream portion, but had not recognized that the whole scene with Ian and the included discussion as being dream as well.


I had also not specifically noted that the Heptapods also have 7 points to their extremities, in addition to 7 "legs" that we see.


I'm not sure of the significance of Costello leaving during the 3rd session with Louise, after Abbott and Costello give their names. The first session she wondered if she was fired. The second session Louise writes Human and gets the first sign that any human has gotten in response. The third session Louise removes her suit, puts her hand to the barrier in the nave, gets a reply, and Ian also removes his BioHazMat suit and writes his name. I wonder if Costello leaves to report on the progress with these humans. The third session seems to be the first session that Col Weber watches from the tent, via remote monitor.


Ian is apparently coming from Los Alamos, so Louise seems to be somewhere in between there and Montana.


I also am not sure of any significance of the ceiling shots for transition. Ceilings are shown at Louise' house, the archway at her college, in the antechamber of the Shell. The lines in the ceilings seem similar.


I also looked for triggers of what brought Louise back to present, or what launched her to future visions. I did not find any visual or audio connections.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 24, 2017 6:36 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 27, 2017 11:42 AM

SECOND

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


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.

On Aug 10, 2017 Ted Chiang explained how his “Story of Your Life” became “Arrival”, the movie. See the website The Meaning of Life

http://meaningoflife.tv/videos/38665

Ted explained a few other ideas more or less related to “Arrival”:

Experiential and theoretical grounds for determinism

If the future is set… Why bother?

The Predictor—an imagined device that will freak you out

Wormholes and time travel

Are free will and determinism compatible?



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
"Did a black person write this? There's no way!"
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:53 - 22 posts
Science Fiction Films Which Do Not Cause Siezures.
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:19 - 30 posts
**** Cabrini
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:49 - 4 posts
The Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Failure Thread
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:06 - 31 posts
The Roadhouse Remake was good
Tue, March 26, 2024 12:11 - 5 posts
Civil War. Probably not the best movie to release in current year, but it does look pretty entertaining...
Mon, March 25, 2024 02:07 - 1 posts
The Madame Web Failure Thread (And the Success of Dune: Part 2 Thread)
Mon, March 25, 2024 01:56 - 100 posts
Disney finally realizes that it was making movies for nobody
Sat, March 16, 2024 14:41 - 4 posts
Hollywood's Abysmal 2023 in Numbers
Sat, March 16, 2024 12:35 - 243 posts
Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
Thu, March 14, 2024 09:44 - 1 posts
Borderlands
Fri, March 8, 2024 20:40 - 1 posts
Dune remake! it was a series of Books then a movie then a show by Skiffy Syfy channel, big Official blockbuster Trailer
Fri, March 8, 2024 08:58 - 11 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL