I don't get it.
I don't get it
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Try asking around in one of the Arrival threads
They took a short story that depends on the ambiguity and presentation of the text (itself being one of the themes the story explores) and turned it into a big Hollywood movie with dumb political shit shoved in so that the plebs feel better about knowing where China and Sudan are on a map.
This will explain it!!
youtube.com
>with dumb political shit shoved in
shut up retard
stupid needless DLC tbqh
lair of the shadowbroker was vidya kino though
Keep shilling and you'll get your money.
"shut up retard," he says, as he quotes the wrong post...
aliens = immigrants
That's District 9 breh
youtube.com
there was nothing to get really. It takes an interesting first contact story and then bait-n-switches to some shitty college student's screenplay about how he loves slaughterhouse 5
>some shitty college student's screenplay
Cute! So smarmy.
it's true though. It's like memento or interstellar's twist but 100x worse
You do know this is based on an existing story, right?
Space bananas
they clearly flew in on an orange segment.
>said the dude with 0 achievements under his size 64 belt
>100x worse
Damn, no hyperbole?
The book it's based on won multiple awards including the Nebula Prize. You're just a simpleton who can't recognise good art.
OH WOW IT WAS BASED ON A BOOK, THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING! It's just as dumb either way if it's the same thing note for note. usually the book is better so maybe it is, but this movie was not good.
Spoil me please.
I just googled and got a summary, my god that's fucking awful.
I don't even want to see this anymore now.
Seriously? I was pretty good.
>if it's the same thing note for note
You haven't even read the short story. It's more subtle and ambiguous than "So it goes" and touches on more than just determinism (which itself is open to interpretation).
>look at me quoting out of context
I said it's dumb if it's the same thing, and apparently it is. Subtlety and ambiguity are not what this story had, nor would that necessarily make it better than "so it goes." It was an awful twist.
So, who's arriving?
>I said it's dumb if it's the same thing
Vonnegut didn't invent the notion of determinism you know.
>It was an awful twist.
It's not a twist in the story because it's left open ended as to whether she actually sees the future or is just experiencing the memories of her daughter and what led to her conception in a non-linear non-sequential way.
you are still misreading me, I'm not saying vonnegut did it first and this is a rip off, I just thought this movie was retarded.
IDC if it's not a twist in the story because I saw the movie, not the book. It's a dumb concept in general which is why I don't like it.
>OH WOW IT WAS BASED ON A BOOK, THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING!
it does. that book takes 12 years to read.
The Psychlos obviously. Better start gold mining man-animal.
>It's a dumb concept in general which is why I don't like it.
So basically your gripe is with the concept of determinism itself?
And I thought the movie was pretty bad compared to the short story (which I felt was at its core best suited as literature) so at least we can agree on one thing.
>actually get a decent attempt at a hard science fiction story with interesting themes and concepts
>gets shit on by plebs who would rather watch star wars
fml
yes, but the movie was also dumb when the twist happened. short story was probably better as the book usually is
There really wasn't a big tweest reveal though, there were massive hints being dropped throughout the film. Though I can't really say how big they were to an audience that went in blind considering I had already read the story before watching the movie.
Who are you quoting dumbass
well as the guy who made the video and WENT IN BLIND it wasn't that obvious. So now you know.
>well as the guy who made the video
What video?
did that alien die from the bomb or from natural causes?
Your video is dumb and you are dumb. You are the reason we can't have nice things and everything now is designed assuming the audience is retarded.
I thought it was pretty obvious it was from the bomb, but I guess they could've made that clearer.
apparently not everything is designed retarded to you if you like this movie.
Reality is you are dumb and this movie was designed perfectly for your retarded ass.
>nuh uh you are: the post
Go watch the attack of the clones again dipshit
cause i assumed that the barrier between the aliens and humans was for their protection and if they are that advanced im guessing the bomb wouldnt have done much to the barrier
Just came back from the movie theatre.
So in the end can some one tell me why did they come? What was their purpose?
Please don't say to unite man kind and world peace bull shit.
they came so that the humans can save their asses 3000 years later, and giving them the time bending alien language shit was part of this plan
unite man kind and world PAYCE niqqa
The ayys gibe hoomanity da gift of de succ
>they came so that the humans can save their asses 3000 years later
Ok well they could of made that clear
>contrarians on Sup Forums will defend this piece of shit movie
Yeah they literally spell it out right on the screen. Did you not read the subtitles?
Costello writes it out.
>it's another Villeneuve film where nonsensical unexplained shit is put in to appear more deep and/or mysterious
If you can't understand this movie there is something seriously wrong with you. It's about as basic as you can get.
I actually can't think of a single instance of that occurring in other Villeneuve movies.
In fact, they're actually all really straight forward and great because of their unpretentious simplicity. They have a respectable level of depth without being up its own ass.
Except maybe Enemy, which once you watch it twice is actually also really straight forward.
But i guess Sup Forums is below the average intelligence.
I understood it just fine. There was no need to include "see ya in 3000 years" or "dead wife's untranslated last words" to add unnecessary mystery.
>I actually can't think of a single instance of that occurring in other Villeneuve movies.
Prisoners was full of this kind of garbage, mystery for mystery's sake. Never mind that none of it made any sense.
>worse than Interstellar
haha ok dude nice bait, Interstellar was blockbuster trash compared to this
Don't talk bad about memento
I didn't you dip. Memento was good, arrival was a glib facsimile