The Arrival

Just watched this. A little feely for me but nice, if predictable, twist and Amy Adams was subtle and awesome as usual.

What'd you guys think?

Did the writers not see the implications in their created reality where everyone who can translate the alien language can now see into the future?

>implying this wasn't literally the entire point of the gift

I'm not saying it wasn't the point, but imagine an entire planet where anyone who reads a book can now see into the future. It would be absolute chaos.

Yeah, that was my problem. Once you understand the alien language, you can see into the future... but seeing as how the protagonist writes a book and completely masters the language for the world, are we to assume that now the whole fucking world can predict the future? And, if so, why do the aliens need our help in 3000 years? Couldn't they do the shit themselves? And what about Jeremy Renner's character? Ehhhh!!!

It was a movie about inside trading. You all get it wrong.

No Amy Adams sideboob the entire movie. Shit.

why would that be chaos?

?

avantgarde. blade runner gonna be great.

the movie would have been more interesting if they had shown the russians playing tetris with the ayys

Anyone who asks these questions doesn't get that the movie was about fatalism

Also they aren't seeing the future, they're experiencing it in real time.

>And, if so, why do the aliens need our help in 3000 years? Couldn't they do the shit themselves? And what about Jeremy Renner's character? Ehhhh!!!

Doesn't matter, but the time seeing shit is too much. I'm imagining a scenario where states use this to their advantage. Let's say the US government has a department of future seers who can analyze and predict future conflicts and sees that a nuclear-armed state is going to launch an ICBM at them. So by the logic of the movie, the state would have the information but wouldn't physically be allowed to launch a first strike due to obvious ethical reason and the fact the future didn't show them activating said first strike.

Too many paradoxes to the point it shouldn't have even been in the movie.

In more ways than the one I described above. Shit would turn into Minority Report with police now arresting people for future crimes. People would use it to their advantage and nefarious purposes.

One of the best adaptations of a hard science fiction story in a very long time. Can't wait to see him tackle Dune.

>fatalism

I get that.

>Also they aren't seeing the future, they're experiencing it in real time.

In other words, they're seeing the future.

If the whole world is actively seeking the circumvent fate, it's pretty likely that shit is going to be pretty dire.

Most people are passive about things because the ambiguity of what may or may not come to be tempers their behavior. Once shit is cemented and you know how things are going to turn out if life follows a certain course - you're going to try to fix that shit if it's not in your favor. Imagine the whole world playing with those kind of stakes. Pandemonium.

>Shit would turn into Minority Report with police now arresting people for future crimes. People would use it to their advantage and nefarious purposes.
The film implies determinism. So no, this wouldn't happen

>I'm imagining a scenario where states use this to their advantage.
Of course they would and the movie makes it clear that world governments would absolutely try to weaponize whatever information they could glean from the aliens.

I don't think we need to even consider ethics, though. World powers don't.

Yes, the writer was aware of that and that was the whole point.
It's a deterministic universe and once you grasp the language you experience the past, present and the future at the same time, that's why it's non linear, there is no "time".

Because it's nonlinear, all their decisions are interconnected so it's not like they view a youtube video of their past/future and then continue on with their life.

Yes but they don't see into the future and then experience it again later is what I mean. Some other thread some user was asking why amy adams didn't use her "time traveling powers" to save her daughter and that kind of question defeats the purpose of the movie

There's a reason it's physically impossible to predict the future, we're limited to 3 spatial dimensions and the duration of time.

Having this kind of thing take place in a movie throws all logic out the window and creates paradoxes.

Pseudoscience trash that had a shit nonsense ending. Good until the last half hour or so

This

I had no problem with the ending of Arrival other than the notion that just learning a language can make you experience all of time at once because Sapir-Wulf.
Also the anti-military shit felt kind of thrown in to advance the story sometimes. Otherwise I thought it was a really cool film.

>Of course they would and the movie makes it clear that world governments would absolutely try to weaponize whatever information they could glean from the aliens.

Must have missed that part. I believe in compatibilism anyway, so this is why I have problems with this movie.

One of the best movies in the last 10 years. If you think otherwise you are a faggot with shit taste in movies.

Yeah, maybe I'm reading in but it seemed obvious to me, which is why each country started cutting off communication with one another as soon as the word "weapon" started getting thrown around.

I did enjoy the film but I've watched so much time travel shit in my life that paradoxes just screw my head over. I think it was impossible for this particular story to have been told without them, though.

>Having this kind of thing take place in a movie throws all logic out the window and creates paradoxes.
no it doesn't and that's not even close to an argument against this film or determinism

These kinds of movies are true "turn your brain off" movies because determinism, free-will, compatibilism are impossible to prove and just lend favour to whatever philosophical and metaphysical flavours you happen to follow.

I enjoyed the film as well, but the time stuff was unnecessary and didn't add anything to the plot for me.

>no it doesn't and that's not even close to an argument against this film or determinism

You can't even prove determinism is real anyway, and a film can't tell you how the universe works. I believe in compatibilism like I said above, so that's why I have problems with this.

>These kinds of movies are true "turn your brain off" movies
I was really hoping it would be the opposite. I did have to hit stop on the old noodle at about the hour and fifteen minute mark, though.

Oh well. Better these than Independence Day 2's.

Very true, also noice trips bud

Fantastic for the first hour if for no other reason just the approach to the concept, even managed to completely ignore the poor casting.

Worst second hour/half of any movie I've ever seen. Worse than Nolanshit. Amy gives Leo a run for his money with the worst "I'M REALIZING THINGS" face.

>people are excited for 2049
>this is the man slated to direct Dune
Can't wait for this Dennis Venezuela meme to die, he's fucking shit tier.

...

>Amy gives Leo a run for his money with the worst "I'M REALIZING THINGS" face.
Ah, come on. She was good.

Well she cleary learns the non linuar language and isn't limited by the 3 dimensions and the duration of time.

I mean that the plot of the fucking movie.

>Well she cleary learns the non linuar language and isn't limited by the 3 dimensions and the duration of time.

She physically isn't traveling anywhere so yes, she is limited to all three spatial dimensions as well as the duration of time she's always been limited to.

She's not traveling in time, she's experiencing it with weird space magic that isn't even explained in the film. Like I said before, turn your brain off for this one because that's the only way you're going to enjoy it if you're already the sort of person who gets bothered with these sorts of ideas.

>isn't limited by the 3 dimensions and the duration of time.
I disagree. She became aware but in doing so was made acutely aware of how limited her ability to affect change really was.

in The Office, maybe. Might be able to win an Emmy some day.

I'm not entirely blaming her, she gets shit scripts. Maybe she should stop choosing them, if she is even at the point of choosing scripts. Then again, with her (in)capability, she'll never get to that point.

She's fine, I,E. she is that breed of actor where you think "Man, if only X or Y had been in this". They're not really bad, they're just jobbers doing their job fine.

Every single film from Villeneuve's filmography is atleast above average, and he has been making practically one film per year all the way from 2009.

Prove me wrong.

>Might be able to win an Emmy some day.

The one premise the film takes for granted is determinism
This is like getting upset with Clash of Titans because you're a christian

The concepts of determinism and free-will are interesting so I wouldn't say it's about turning your brain off
It does take a lot of suspension of disbelief for a movie to allow you to perceive it though

But then it leads to philosophical questions like "Why can't a person who experiences their future change anything?" It throws the idea of free will out the door, when in reality there is a lot of evidence to suggest we do infact have a free will.

It's hard to get around the idea that a person who experiences themselves dying at 90 years old surrounded by family is effectively going to be immortal until then. I think we have free will, but that free will is already determined in inaccessible higher dimensions. Time is a flat circle and all that.

>This is like getting upset with Clash of Titans because you're a christian

Not really, but it's dishonest science-fiction writing to throw your audience down the stairs and say "This is how the universe works because we need it to work this way for our story to make sense."

It would be more honest if the delved deeper into the implications of this sort of "time experiencing" but instead it just felt like something thrown in at the last moment for more sci-fi nerd points. It shouldn't have been in the movie at all in my opinion. Time shit in sci-fi is lame.

>The concepts of determinism and free-will are interesting so I wouldn't say it's about turning your brain off

I mean that to say it's the only way you're going to enjoy the movie. Eat up what they tell you about the concept and forget about it.

>It throws the idea of free will out the door, when in reality there is a lot of evidence to suggest we do infact have a free will.

I'd also add in that there is also evidence of determinism too before anyone gets upset.

>climactic scene
>music swells
>LET'S HAVE A BABY I LOVE YOU LOL

literally ruined the entire ending

>It's hard to get around the idea that a person who experiences themselves dying at 90 years old surrounded by family is effectively going to be immortal until then.

But once she grasps the concept, there is no "until then".
I say again, it's not like she views a video of her future and then continue on with her life, all her decisions are interconnected through time and basically happen at the same "time" (like the chinese general phonecall)

>LET'S HAVE A BABY I LOVE YOU LOL
Even worse, let's have a baby, I love you, but it's not going to work out and our baby is going to die but I'm not gonna prepare you for any of that shit.

Had a hard time rooting for this.

Believe me I know what you're saying, I'm just saying I don't believe in that sort of thing being possible since I do believe we have free will.

My point still stands, someone experiences their death at 90 while they're a 20 year old reading the main characters "Alien Language Time-Experiencing for Dummies" book and now suddenly they're an immortal being despite having the necessary amount of free will to talk over to a table, grab a gun and shoot themselves in the face. We can't debate this because these concepts are ultimately unprovable, we're simplifying exchanging our humble opinions.

I'm just under the opinion these filmmakers and writers don't think about this too much and throw it in their films to make them appear more interesting and smart. I get this is a movie where you're supposed to understand determinism is the way the universe works, but it's dishonest to throw that in without delving deeper into the concept. It's so nonchalant.

This plot is age old. However, it reminds me of the anime Magic Users Club. Any chance they ripped it off from there?

DUDE

CIRCLES

>annoying siren blaring in every cutscene
>wins oscar for best sound mixing

What did the Academy mean by this?

LMAO

You are talking about the soundtrack, sound mixing is the balance and overall dynamics of all the sounds in the film.

And Hacksaw Ridge won for sound mixing, Arrival won for best sound editing, and rightfully so because it actually used sound as a storytelling device where we hear clues from the future being played in the current narrative, where other films use it just to "fill the form".

First hour or so was pretty great, last hour was pretty dull

>this entire thread
has any film ever done a better job at exposing brainlets?

When that twist happened my theater lost their collective shit. No joke. Even heard a guy on the way out asking his girl if M. Night directed the movie.

>because we need it to work this way for our story to make sense
It's more
"if the universe works this way, here's a hypothetical story"

the story itself is completely sound and logical. You just have to accept one unverified (but still entirely possible and plausible) assumption
If anything, it's less ridiculous than high fantasy since this story never breaks the laws of nature in a way we can prove

>I'm just under the opinion these filmmakers and writers don't think about this too much and throw it in their films to make them appear more interesting and smart.
This is a ridiculous and arrogant claim.
not sharing your beliefs =/= the filmmakers didn't think about it too much

>but it's dishonest to throw that in without delving deeper into the concept. It's so nonchalant
That's because the story wasn't about determinism, it was about understanding and communication
You can write an entire book on determinism without proving anything. This film avoids the issue in such a way that there's only an issue if you know what determinism is in the first place and disagree with it (like you) which means there's no point in explaining the concept and alienating more of the audience

>That's because the story wasn't about determinism

But that's wrong.

I understand the story is logical in the way it treats the concept, it just doesn't work for me unless I shut my brain off.

Plus I've already stated I don't disagree with determinism. I've stated the complete opposite. Freewill and determinism are compatible with one another.

Extremely predictable "twist". You sit there for more for than an hour already knowing precisely how the rest of the movie is gonna pan out.

Extremely boring movie.

No tension nothing.

>But that's wrong.
No it's not. (this isn't an argument either)

Your version of determinism isn't the version posited here. Again, having different opinions to you doesn't mean that the film does anything incorrectly

In this film, everyone has free will such that they will always decide to do the same thing. If someone knew what would happen in the future and used that information to do something different in the past/present then the future would change and thus they couldn't know it happened in the future (since it didn't happen in the future anymore).
Therefore, one could only experience time in a non-linear fashion if future events are fixed

There's no turning your brain off. Either you accept that mortal beings can theoretically experience non-linear time (in which case everything in the film is logically entailed), or you don't accept that (in which case you have to suspend your disbelief in one area, hence sci fi)
That's all there is to it

>this isn't an argument either

Whatever you say.

>Your version of determinism isn't the version posited here. Again, having different opinions to you doesn't mean that the film does anything incorrectly

uhhhhhhhhhh, not an argument (plus I didn't even say it was incorrect I only said it's dishonest to shove that in your face without getting into the details and implications of this new future seer world)

>uhhhhhhhhhh, not an argument
Yes it is
Pointing out that you're talking about something different is an argument to explain why there's disagreement. Please don't get buttmad

> I only said it's dishonest to shove that in your face without getting into the details and implications of this new future seer world
This was responded to above
See In short, no it's not "dishonest"

It is dishonest. The nature of the debate has been a philosophical nightmare for the past 3000 years of philosophy, and for a film to treat it as a nonchalant throw in to make it seem more sci-fi is by definition dishonest.

You know how you make it more honest? Have the characters acknowledge the implications and the reality of future-seer. If you're not going to do that I don't have any reason to care or even agree with it.

"High concept" science movie that can't get its own science right/consistent.

Trash-tier "Close Encounters" remake.

And the whole "I'm gonna have this baby even though I know it will suffer and die" thing at the end just tore me out of the story and made Adams' character totally unrelatable and cold (especially considering her new-found knowledge of "time" and "infinity" and all that)

what an original, well-informed opinion that shows that you clearly paid attention to and understood the film
how will the filmmakers ever recover?

In the logic of the movie and determinism, she's a biological puppet who can't not choose to have a baby with the guy.