I hear great things about this movie...

I hear great things about this movie, but seeing shit like this makes me feel like its going to be stupid as fuck and only lauded by idiots as "whoa smrt"

>trying to communicate to an alien by writing a word in english on a whiteboard
IT AINT FUCKING TARZAN

Beyond just english or language or assuming the thing has eyes in the same way we do, theres next to nothing you can assume an alien would recognize including the very idea of attemption communication or if its being confined etc. The levels they'd have to go to to make it like a real encounter would be above the level of masss audiences. Movies dont always need to be realistic, but when the gimmick of your movie is a realistic what-if scenario then it does need to be more serious.

>tfw too smart for film

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/entries/24bbc4b8-58f9-373d-a896-274ae453ef2a
twitter.com/AnonBabble

shit movie

I feel like the praise must be coming from people who normally watch stuff like Taken 3 and thought that the relative restraint must make it kino

very underwhelmed and disappointed

overrated

Youre both unintelligent plebs and should kys asap

>i'm proud to be awkward

cuck

It's like interstellar or inception
If you stupid - you will love it

...

>McFuck Off
Seriously, this is literally one of the greatest films of the year and the only criticisms I ever see are from idiots who didn't get it complaining about non-existent plotholes

Arrival is practically capeshit. The film was made so middlebrow viewers like you can tip your film buff hats and be tricked into feeling like you're a somehow more discerning viewer, appreciating the medium on a level beyond the plebes, but it's normiecore schlock all the same. This film was Nolan level spoonfeeding trash, Villeneuve just hasn't gotten to the point where his name has become unfashionable yet.

They're teaching it English you fucking idiot

Nobody claimed that the movie was intricate or difficult to understand

It's interesting cinematically the way it deals with time and emotion's attached to it

The only lame part was how drawn out that twist with the Chinese guy was at the end. The rest was definitely good.

You're taking a random ass fucking screenshot posted by some nu-male and then going on to call it stupid. Literally one frame of the film, in which in the film it is obviously explained why they do this, and you decide to try and put yourself on a fucking pedestal of genius for it.

Fuck off.

She's associating the pattern of "HUMAN" with herself. You have to start somewhere. It's a decent introduction for the aliens to recognize that somehow "HUMAN" translates to whatever these things are. There's a lot of information packed in there, especially when you add other words.

Like, if you know "HUMAN" roughly means a person, or a living being or something, and "HAND" or "APPLE" means something completely different, you can start to recognize that different symbols like "A" or "N" can combine to form complex ideas.

I guess you could argue you shouldn't assume the alien can see things in the same way, but why not? If you assume that, act on it, and it doesn't react - sure, fine, move on to something else. But if you show it a whiteboard with a word on it, and it also responds in a visual way, it seems reasonable that there's a basis for communication there.

Communication would have to exist if they made it this far in an artificial vessel.

Wow, you're retarded.

OP, the movie is good because of how it deals with loss.

Nobody cares about the muh aliens part, that's just meant to carry it.

The aliens can see into the future and because of that they already know English. The movie is about them trying to get the humans to learn their language because doing so will change the structure of your brain and allow you to see the future too.

This post has nothing on why you dislike the film or how it's similar to capeshit or justifications for any of your statements.

This. Everyone else in this thread is retarded for not actually reading OP.

But yeah, if they're advanced enough to construct a vessel to reach Earth, then I think it's pretty safe to assume they're advanced enough to know WHY they're traveling to Earth and are willing to attempt to communicate.

This was a serious case of:

>Sup Forums says movie is good
>it's actually fucking horrible

Never regretet going to the cinema before this

I sure as shit hope you are kidding.

the movie is all about learning to exchange language you twat. If you bothered to watch the movie you'd understand that written language is exchanged as part of the process,

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever read.

The alien design was shit, the CGI was shit, the rest was just cringe-core

Literally made for the Capeshit audience including Jeremy Renner

That's such a painfully-bad explanation of the story
It's like saying that The Revenant is about a Cowboy who trusts in God to guide him across Canada and tries to preserve the memory of his dead wife

yeah they talk about this shit in the movie you dick

>le advanced aliens can't speak english but dumb humans are expected to learn their convoluted ''language'' flick

Trash.

It's not as dumb as he lays it out
It's about an an advanced species which doesn't think or perceive the world linearly, and their language reflects that. It's an evolution of consciousness. Them bringing their language to humans triggers this evolution.

Sure it's kid of science magic but most sci fi is. It's literally no dumber than interplanetary travel in Star trek, because that's scientifically impossible too

But that's a perfectly good description of the revenant, because it's a shallow as fuck Hollywood bullshit piece of trash
>Le ebin revenge is unfulfilling
There is saved you 3 hours

The Revenant is the most important Hollywood film of recent years. It is quite simply the best proof that Hollywood is not completely devoid of artistic merit.

Oscar-Winner Iñárritu again teams up with Lubezki to create a visually stunning throwback to colonial America. But this is not a celebratory piece, exaggerating the romance of the old world, Iñárritu here shows a gritty, bloody and hopeless landscape.
And to do this, he brings on Leonardo DiCaprio in his subtlest performance yet. For his first film in 2 years, DiCaprio doesn't channel his loud energetic performance that left the imprint of Jordan Belfort permanently on all of our minds from the Wolf of Wall Street.
No, in fact he says very little at all. DiCaprio's showmanship is almost 100% a physical feat, battling freezing waters and icy terrains. And he does it perfectly.

What this results in is a film that shies away from Hollywood's typical Oscar-bait movies. There is no grand political message here shoved down your throat. It's true that it's based on a true story, but that serves only as the inspiration; we're not talking about some biopic about the first man to fight a bear or whatever nonsense. What we get is a deeply intimate film about one man fighting to survive the harsh conditions of an era we've only briefly read about in the history books. We get a film that is more focused on showing us the beauty of this violence and this barren than trying to guilt the public.

In short, we get the first big-budget Hollywood film that exists for the sake of art in the longest time.

Sorry folks but Arrival was pure shiite


Poorly paced, terrible generic characters, joke of a premise

>Subtlest performance yet
Lost it

>t. capeshit fan

To bad it's a load of shit. Especially since the source material may as well been thrown out the window. I hate claiming "art" while basing it on a true story. Then pretty much changing everything that happened. Along with his characters making idiotic choices.

Nah man, those two movies are better, at least they weren't boring.

>Poorly paced, terrible generic characters, joke of a premise

????

I haven't watched a superhero movie since the Dark Knight trilogy fäm

Nothing happens in the movie that's worth anything. Amy Adams meets the aliens and from that point she pretty seamlessly learns their language and saves humanity. It's boring, predictable (other than the "twist" which has no impact on the plot, as it solely depends on how much we care about her character which at that point is not at all) and pretentious

t. capeshitter that just left capeshit and is now entering imdb dronehood

The source material is genuinely awesome too
>Slow, steady trip down river
>Getting help from natives
>No dead son or wife, just revenge on his heart
>Gets to base
>Man is gone
>Follows man to Texas
>Confronts him, doesn't kill him
>They just talk for an hour
>End of story

Would have actually been amazing. Instead we got 12 years a tree nigger and ebin waterfalls and violence

Arrival is Villeneuve's latest yearly-attempt to convince pseudo-cinemphiles that he's an artist. In it, he has a vague non-sensical sci-fi plot about time travel. Where smart films, such as the original Iron Man or Christopher Nolan's Inception, construct a believable world and then weave sci-fi themes around it, Arrival goes full idiocy. We get telepathic aliens that look like hands and can see the future who teach Amy Adams to time travel so that she can save the world so that the world can save the aliens in the future. Sounds stupid? That's because it is. And don't be confused by the trailers, there are no big set-pieces, no explosions or shoot-outs. Just 2 hours of Amy Adams acting confused before she realises that Jeremy Renner is the father of her dead baby from the future. Yeah.
Arrival is an attempt to copy Nolan's contemporary classic, Interstellar, but without the interesting space-travel and without the emotional impact that leaves you in tears. I'd say Villeneuve needs to take a break from filmmaking to figure out his strengths, but BladeRunner 2 is coming soon so we know there's no hope of that happening.

I hated Arrival but let's not argue that Interstellar is a sci-fi classic


The "love surpasses dimensions" is some of the most ridiculous uncut bullshit in any sci-fi story

>smart films, such as the original Iron Man or Christopher Nolan's Inception
>there are no big set-pieces, no explosions or shoot-outs. Just 2 hours of Amy Adams acting confused before she realises that Jeremy Renner is the father of her dead baby from the future

Mathematics

fuck you

i liked it

>without the emotional impact that leaves you in tears
>Interstellar
>leaves you in tears
el oh el

>assuming the thing has eyes in the same way we do

The only way to know would be to try things, retard.

>Hurr, we don't know what senses it has and on what spectrum so let's just sit around and do nothing!

>"I hear great things, but I'm scared people on the internet might think i'm a pleb for liking it"

Fixed that for you, you weak person.

So if she was to learn an African language, she would develop a larger appetite for chicken and watermelon and would be more inclined to commit crimes, correct?

It's a decent, overrated movie. There's nothing incredibly innovative or worth of praise, certainly not some sort of revolutionary work. It is, though, still fun, consistent and interesting. Most of its flaws derive from the usual science fiction issues and shallow characters.

The most remarkable thing about it is not being pretentious and trying to convey messages far beyond its scope, unlike other movies of the genre.

Best sci-fi film in recent years. The Arrival makes Interstellar look like Lost in Space.

The point of the movie is that language has a lot (everything) to do with how we perceive the world and the passage of time. Humans perceive the passage of time linearly, and our language reflects that because we read from one side to another, no matter which culture: left to right, right to left, top to bottom. It expands in a classic science-fiction way the theory that language can affect how we perceive colour: bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/entries/24bbc4b8-58f9-373d-a896-274ae453ef2a

Aliens, by teaching us their language, help us perceive time as they do -- not linearly at all, but all of it at once. This gives one an ability to see into the future the same way as they would look into the past. It is not time travel, but remembering the future.

Not once while watching the movie did I think they were trying to pass it off as an 'intellectual film for intellectuals'. Our media is so saturated with dumb movies and dumb comedies that something even a bit smarter than your average "DUDE what if black holes are portals into the fifth dimension!!" sci-fi people discard it as a movie that is trying to be more clever than it is.

Sci-Fi has always been the least liked genre in literature (and film). Critics and readers would often look down upon sci-fi as "not real literature" and there aren't that many good sci-fi films that don't include some silly premise like the sun shutting down and humans restarting it with nuclear weapons.

You can count good sci-fi films in the last 20 years on your hands and The Arrival is definitely one of them.

Arrival is the most important Hollywood film of recent years. It is quite simply the best proof that Hollywood is not completely devoid of artistic merit.

Oscar-Winner Villeneuve again teams up with Bradford Young to create a visually stunning journey to a spaceship. But this is not a celebratory piece, exaggerating the romance of the alien technology, Villeneuve here shows a gritty, bloody and hopeless landscape.

And to do this, he brings on Amy Adams in her subtlest performance yet. For her first film in a year, Adams doesn't channel her loud energetic performance that left the imprint of Lois Lane permanently on all of our minds from Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice.

No, in fact she says very little at all. Adams's showmanship is almost 100% a physical feat, communicating with aliens and her government leaders. And she does it perfectly.

What this results in is a film that shies away from Hollywood's typical Oscar-bait movies. There is no grand political message here shoved down your throat. It's true that it's based on a true story, but that serves only as the inspiration; we're not talking about some biopic about the first human to speak to space octopi or whatever nonsense. What we get is a deeply intimate film about one woman fighting to survive the harsh conditions of a difficult attempt at communication we've only briefly read about in the sci-fi books. We get a film that is more focused on showing us the beauty of this violence and this barren world than trying to guilt the public.

In short, we get the first big-budget Hollywood film that exists for the sake of art in the longest time.

It is innovative though, just not some kind of masterpiece.

>It's true that it's based on a true story, but that serves only as the inspiration; we're not talking about some biopic about the first human to speak to space octopi or whatever nonsense. What we get is a deeply intimate film about one woman fighting to survive the harsh conditions of a difficult attempt at communication we've only briefly read about in the sci-fi books. We get a film that is more focused on showing us the beauty of this violence and this barren world than trying to guilt the public.

The only thing you can really do is post mathematical or scientific formulas i might recognize to show Humans being intelligent. Obviously aliens wouldn't understand our numbers or symbols but they'd recognize right triangles, Pi, and similar ones that could be shown through drawings.

ITT: pleboids only capable of discussing the narrative

Film is a visual medium you basic ass casual tourist crossposters.

i enjoyed the movie alot but it was not complex or hard to understand in any way.

It's visual but more importantly it's spacial

It deals with time and space in a cinematic fashion, which is why it's a good movie

Arrival has one of the best executed first contact scenes in cinema history.

Villeneuve is truly a tension master, the way he jump cuts to the decontamination chamber without even showing the aliens was brilliant.
Every filmmaking element on point.

Also props to him for building the whole interior set.

What would you do when meeting an alien and attempting to establish communication?

What better than writing a basic word and saying it while pointing to things? It tests sight, hearing, vocal capability, the ability to link concepts with things (that noise = that thing), and also gives indication of limb usage (it can/cam't understand the point gesture, it also has limbs that point).

Lets hear what the smartest man on the internet (on Sup Forums no less) would do when making first contact with something completely alien.

Nobody claims that it is
People criticizing it are saying that it's being praised as such, though

see

The book explains that they have to factor in the possibility the aliens might have inherrited/found their technology, and that they arent actually that smart. Also that the aliens, much like the human military, dont want to actually give them anything beyond 'hello, I am a human, what are you'.

We have to be able to understand each others mental capacity for communication before we start offering them mathematics, which could be something they don't even have as a species. They could have just found the ships and now just trundle from planet to planet on auto pilot, saying hello then flying away.

lmao yeah that user got it right, he knows better than the whole team of experts that were working with Villeneuve just for that, including Stephen fucking Wolfram

no, but there's a meme-image that says that maths is the best to talk with aliens so this film's stupid

This is entirely dumb. Human brains are limited by mental capacity. Do you know why we have to read linearly? Because our brains can't comprehend more complex writing systems


There is no drama in the movie. There is nothing the characters have to overcome and there is nothing they accomplish. It's a shit, by the numbers lame "what if" scenario with 0 scientific merit

this

If you judge a movie just by it's literal plot points then you are a first class supreme pleb

>Where smart films, such as the original Iron Man
>who teach Amy Adams to time travel
> there are no big set-pieces, no explosions
>is an attempt to copy Nolan's contemporary classic, Interstellar

Jesus Christ Sup Forums.
Jesus fucking Christ.

Well, you have to like sci-fi to like this movie. It doesn't have a lot of mass appeal like other blockbuster sci-fi movies. Interstellar, Passengers and Sunshine come to mind.

I was surprised to hear that the only scene in the whole movie that included a green screen was that one scene where she is alone with the alien.

Even practical effects can't save the dullest film in the history of dull sci-fi movies. The film follows the female linguist and her pal the mathematician as they talk to weird hand-aliens that are indistinguishable from each other. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the film’s only tonal consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make science seem like magic, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Villeneuve was chosen to direct the film; he made sure the film would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for him as a brand-director. Arrival might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-Memento in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the book was good though r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character mentioned "extraterrestrials", the author wrote instead "aliens."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that word was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Villeneuve's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that he has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Arrival by the same IGN. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these guys are watching Arrival now, then when they get older they will go on to play videogames." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you watch "Arrival" you are, in fact, trained to play videogames.

I love sci-fi, but the premise of a sci-fi movie has to at least be grounded in the outer realm or reality


Humans in our current state cannot process time non-linearly. Learning a language does not change that

It's about the evolution of the human brain though, so it's not implying that humans are capable of that at all, and using the tool of language as a way with which to explore the relationship between time, logic, and emotion

Also this movie seemingly completely dodges any paradoxes related to seeing into the future. If Amy Adams saw she'll have a kid who who does with Renner, could she consciously choose a new path? And wouldn't that mean what she saw wasn't really the future? Then what the fuck

>yet another autistic pleboid thinking that the narrative and literal plot points are the only thing that matter in a film

What about the soundtrack by Johannson? What about the framing and composition by Bradford Young? What about the editing? What about the set design? What about the sound design? What about the blocking?

I don't know why I am even replying to you when you make ridiculous points like "Anti-Christian/Memento" or "weird hand aliens that are indistinguishable from each other" like it's an actual argument.

>babies first temporal paradox acknowledgement

I would show it my wiener.

There are no paradoxes. She can see the future, but that future is the result of her conscious decisions.