30 minutes in and this movie is already garbage

30 minutes in and this movie is already garbage

Other urls found in this thread:

whitelocust.wordpress.com/morality-and-abstract-thinking-how-africans-may-differ-from-westerners/
youtube.com/watch?v=z18LY6NME1s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

it's so overrated

It was an interesting concept but I didn't really like it. Could be bad execution, but maybe the idea is just not good enough to make a whole full-length movie on its own. Plus all the characters feel really bland.

DUDE GIANT SQUIDS LMAO

>i marathoned the first scene of a movie and I can safely tell you that it sucks

Boring as hell. Contact is way better.

The first 2 acts are actually very solid. The entire movie unravels in the third act which is a shame, it really ruins everything else and killed my desire to re-watch.

Contact is kino as fuck, I have watched it all the way through at least 4 times and am always up to watch it again. It's a personal mission of mine to get as many people as I can to watch it. Probably the best sci-fi film ever.

The scientific basis of the plot is total bullshit. Very few actual linguists take the sapir-whorf hypothesis seriously. A movie doesn't have to be accurately represent reality in order to be good, but that shit bothered me to no end

I could tell it was shit from the trailer, you must be a pleb

Amy Adams is overrated.

If a movie sucks within the first 30 minutes then it already fails

the trailer for the movie was legit good. Better than the movie itself

pleb

>30 minutes in

Kill yourself.

Just kill yourself. Hopefully that takes less than 30 minutes so your sperg ass doesn't lose interest and give up.

>but maybe the idea is just not good enough to make a whole full-length movie on its own

The short story is pretty good. But that's it, it's a small nice short story which uses the alien language stuff to tell a non-linear story.

The whole conflict between all the countries and threat of nuclear war was added to the movie and ruined it.

>sapir-whorf
Just because the movie takes it to an absurd extreme (knowledge of language allows a person to see the future) does not invalidate the core idea. Language absolutely informed how people think. Almost everyone thinks in language; if you think language DOESN'T inform thought you're being naive.

Hooo maaaannn.

take it back user

>not thinking in abstract images

If it hasnt gotten me in 20 its game over.

Yeah you're clearly too stupid to understand the movie. I'd recommend Justice League, it seems like more to your caliber

nah, in fact the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is much more a part of pop-culture than of actual linguistic.

one of the worst movies I've seen in my life.

It wasn't actually intellectual, hence half the movie being nigguel jackson randomly being angry and flashbacks of some bitch's sex/family life that has nothing to do with aliens.

The entire language thing is just deus ex machina bullshit. Aliens wouldn't be able to look at human writing and then know the meaning of the squiggles. They don't post an image next to each word or anything else when we have fucking google images available to communicate 10,000 times more effectively. The psychic connection shtick and the military plot were both utterly pointless.

The entire whole of the movie teaches nothing whatsoever about actual linguistics and it fails as any possible other genre of movie (it's the world's worst action movie, the world's worst romance movie, etc.)
I paid zero dollars to watch it and I wish I could get a refund for the time-wasted.

That's part of cognitive thought, but almost everyone works out problems using language. Of course there's not a lot of research into cognitive thought without language, because people who can't speak a language can't communicate their ideas to someone using language.

DUDE IT'S SO SCIENTIFIC LOL THIS IS WHAT COMMUNICATING WITH ALIENS IS REALLY LIKE CIRCLES LMAO

Sorry, but that's retarded. Abstract ideas predate language, and need to already exist before language is capable of articulating them. The development of language did inform our evolutionary history, but Sapir and Whorf thought that the language itself was what lead to human thought, and that the sort of language you speak can affect the sorts of thoughts you have. Almost all linguists post-Chomsky think that that's bullshit.

why dont you pause it every 10 minutes and give us an update on your opinion.

It's very well-shot though. I saw it on a nice screen and don't regret it based on that alone

denis villeneuve is like a poor mans nolan. Thinks hes all that but hes not.

Sicario is better than anything Nolan's ever directed

How old are you?

>Sapir and Whorf thought that the language itself was what lead to human thought
That's obviously untrue; if that is a part of the Sapir-Whorf theory it does it a great injustice because
>and that the sort of language you speak can affect the sorts of thoughts you have.
THIS has real validity. A lot of languages originate from PIE and that is maybe why many people share concepts across vast geographical distances. But there are fundamental differences between say, the Romance languages and those of the Orient. There are ideas and concepts that are extremely difficult to translate between the two. The best you can manage is tortuous approximations.

They both are really not that good. Don't understand the hype desu

Saying that language as a tool is separate from saying that language itself (separate from the biological realities of our evolved brains) can lead to different ways of perceiving the world.

>and need to already exist before language is capable of articulating them.
That's a good point that I have never considered. In order for language to be created, the words had to be referring to things that already existed (abstract ideas/concepts).
I remember in a philosophy class I took we briefly discussed the question of whether thought was possible without language, and I had never thought about that so it made me question it, but now it seems extremely obvious.

not necessarily true africans had verbal languages and no abstract concepts

can someone photoshop roastie?

That doesn't make sense.

>Saying that language as a tool is separate from saying that language itself (separate from the biological realities of our evolved brains) can lead to different ways of perceiving the world.
Not perceiving, but procession perception. Every human has essentially the same senses, the same hearing, sight, smell, touch, etc senses. But everyone responds differently to stimuli, and how we react and make sense of those things differs across cultures. Much of our conceptualizing is done by sharing ideas with others, and those ideas are shared primarily using language. Language MUST inform thought since it is the primary method of sharing ideas, not to mention how many people make SENSE of those ideas inside their own head-space.

whitelocust.wordpress.com/morality-and-abstract-thinking-how-africans-may-differ-from-westerners/

It's literally Slaughterhouse 5 for idiots.

I don't get the praise and I'm SHOCKED people found it confusing.

No there aren't. It's like when people say x language doesn't have a word for x concept, and then go on to explain the concept in a single sentence. It's not that the existence of the word creates a category in your brain that makes it possible for you to understand the concept, it's simply that that concept plays a bigger role in the culture where your particular language is spoken, so you have a word for it. Linguistic relativists used to think that teaching children to speak certain languages would bolster their cognitive development, but they gave it up after a bunch of research said otherwise. Learning a language other than your native does make you smarter in some measurable ways, but it's simply the act of memorization that helps your brain, not the language itself.

Jeff magnums still alive though?

reply to

>whitelocust.wordpress.com/morality-and-abstract-thinking-how-africans-may-differ-from-westerners/
>What follow are not scientific findings. There could be alternative explanations for what I have observed

So boring I just ended up fucking my gf

if you're too lazy to read it why not just say so or not post?

I'm arguing for linguistic influence, not linguistic determinism. Yes, it's ridiculous to say language determines cognition. It is EQUALLY RIDICULOUS to completely discount the role language plays in thinking.

pic of her ass? does her ass smell good?

I don't want to sound like a Sup Forumstard (i'm definitely not one), but a lot linguistic relativism survives because Jared Diamond types want to explain stuff like racial differences in IQ. So they bring up the lack of abstract concepts in African languages as a possible explanation for African failure, not knowing that language and the brain evolve in a symbiotic way, and that if a people who are less capable of abstract reasoning have a language, then that language will always be less capable of expressing abstract ideas. I'm not racist at all (i'm 1/4 native American), but there's a sort of racial apologetics involved here.

Are you retarded? You made a definitive claim that
>africans had verbal languages and no abstract concepts
and then posted that link as your proof. I was simply pointing out that the link you posted isn't proof at all, not even close, and your claiming that Africans don't have abstract concepts as if it is a fact was ridiculous and completely unwarranted.

>Jared Diamond types
what does this blog have to do with Jared Diamond?

The toolkit for everything we think and feel is the result of our wetware. Language doesn't change sensation, it contextualizes it. So while language (and culture, which is inseparable from language) is important when it comes to how we conceive of particular stimuli, those stimuli are objective across all languages.

his observations are that africans are deficient in abstract thinking not that african languages (which all but Zimbabwe IIRC) were not written and dont many/any abstract concepts. Obviously my claim wasn't a literal absolute regardless you fucking retard.

By Jared Diamond types I mean academics whose sole mission is to explain away distinctions between groups, especially when it comes to capability.

>Obviously my claim wasn't a literal absolute regardless you fucking retard
>africans had verbal languages and no abstract concepts
Sounds pretty absolute to me. For someone who's been implying they know a lot about language, you sure don't seem to know much about language.

what's the difference between "explaining" and "explaining away" according to you?

it is self evident that it can't be absolute because you can't have a complete record of a language that only exists as people use them and have nothing written down. How stupid are you?

A lot of these people are blank slatists who think that if you change the conditions in which certain people are raised, then they'd all be capable of the same exact things. They minimize the role of genetics, and only talk about cultural and environmental factors.

...

A lot of tl;dr ITT, someone give me a quick rundown. Then someone explain why africans are still so primitive

So a "Jared Diamond type" is someone who doesn't believe in the total explanatory power of genetics?

So, why was the other guy in there?
The girl was there to learn to communicate
Him?

They're the types who minimize genetics to nothing. The types who start with the thesis that all people are basically the same, and then form their arguments to fit that thesis.

>The types who start with the thesis that all people are basically the same
I didn't see that in the blog post.
Are you sure you didn't just decide your explanation was the only valid one and everybody who doesn't stick to it is a "Jared Diamond" type?

dumb big bang theory tier SCIENCE movies and chasing antelope for 20 miles until they die of exhaustion isnt an evolution pressure for intelligence

>the hard drive doesnt contain all the code because a keyboard exists
literally you have no argument

Jeff Magnum, you're alright for a tripfag. Thnx for the discourse.

just admit it you got btfo'd BROTHER

So for which reason did you hate this movie Sup Forums?
>a) Strong female lead
>b) Lead who doesn't rely on a male to get by
>c) Plot that requires more than a 5th grade IQ to understand

I can't believe you would look at a blogpost from a guy who live 20 years in Africa and has no problem with claiming the "typical African has a abstraction deficiency" and pretend that guy is some sort of PC police.

>heh I was almost forced to admit my argument was bad but I see here that you made it slightly too literal hahaha tough luck pal

My point about linguistic relativity being a sort of racial apologetics still stands, but I totally misread his blogpost when skimming it. He's an amram guy. That being said, he's a philosopher, not an expert on linguistics, anthropology, or evolutionary psychology. Take that shit with a grain of salt.

>maybe if i call him stupid people wont realize im actually the retarded one

The shit with her daughter was lame and there was way, way too much of it. I wish we could have had glimpses of whatever event the Heptapods were referencing that humanity would have to help them with in 3,000 years.

>tfw too intelligent to file linear flightplans

>tfw too smart for arguments

Arrival is part of a recent series of movies I'd describe as Dunning-Kruger Sci-Fi. Along with Interstellar and to a somewhat lesser extent The Martian, they perfectly play to the crowd that fancies themselves as (and, to be fair, may truly be) smarter than average audiences but are not as smart as genuinely "smart people." They are movies designed to make the audience feel smart by introducing complicated and heady concepts, and then holding the viewer's hand the entire way through until there is next to nothing to be left up to interpretation.

If you didn't already know the twist in Arrival by the time she was in the milky section of the ship with the aliens AT LEAST, you perfectly fit the audience I am talking about.

There is no reward for being smart while viewing these movies because everything is eventually spelled out in big fridge magnet letters. Any clever idea is made so transparent that even the most simple in the audience will get it. It also removes any reward for rewatching or trying to figure out what you just saw.

Granted, there is a difference between Arrival and Interstellar. I think where Interstellar was pretending to have a brain it actually didn't have, Arrival has a brain that it is refusing to let the audience use.

Completely disappointing movie.

Also
>so that just happened

It was good, get fucked.

She was exposed to other sources of radiation that caused interference but were unidentifiable / a mystery. She was also exposed to their atmosphere.
My only problem with the idea of her being turned into an Emissary (an idea not unique to this movie) is that other humans, including her future husband, did not seem to be altered either.

Interstellar realized partly way through that they were about to tell a story no one wants to see: one where only a tiny amount of humans survive, we are forced to abandon earth, and the surviving humans are as irrational, error prone, and adversarial as the ones that precipitated the events on Earth that doomed it.

Arrival is okay, it's about as complicated as a episode of Star Trek TNG or DS9. They could have completely dropped the pseudo-science justification and simply implied that the entire exercise was a cover for the aliens modifying the humans in contact with them, along with an implication that these humans would subtly propagate a change in humanity as a whole that would (in several thousand years) allow them to achieve sufficient levels of global cooperation as to be space-faring.

You're all terribly missing the point of the entire film.
The ayylmao's and the science are just the setting in Arrival where the actual story takes place in, the story of Amy Adams character relationship with her daughter and embracing life/death in general.
It is by no means a "hard sci fi" movie about aliens.

The opening and the ending sequences are about their relationship.
All the major scenes are intercut with it.
And even when it's in the present narrative it's either a heavy close up of Amy Adams for half the movie or a camera placement of her characters point of view.

The ayylmaos and the science were only plot devices for the actual narrative of the mother-daughter relationship.

I think there's some truth in the hypothesis, but I don't think a language could make you LITERALLY experience time differently. The brain doesn't have the hardware for that.

wait for what they try and pull at the end. it's complete trash

What did they try and pull at the end?

a really really bad time paradox

Why is it bad?

It always gives me the giggles when someone takes the movie to task for an "unrealistic premise" and inevitably goes on about the alien language plot, and apparently has no problem with the magic floaty egg spaceships themselves.

>here is my phone number and that personal information you've already told me

It's not THAT bad c'mon. Average-tier Sci-Fi.

this

youtube.com/watch?v=z18LY6NME1s

What's god-tier sci-fi?

All mainstream hollywood "sci-fi" is like this though. The majority of them are just using sci-fi as a vehicle to carry some nonsense message like "love transcends time" or "language transcends time" or "faith transcends time".

Sunshine.

Spoiler: It becomes a shitty slasher flick for the final quarter of the film.

> giggles
> quotation
> emotive, reactive blog update
You have in no way forwarded this discussion. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable on Reddit.

I don't care what anyone says, that first contact scene was easily one of the best executed first contact scenes in cinema history.

It was an actual experience watching it in cinema, Villeneuve knows how to create tension.

It only gets worse from there

>I didnt like therefore its bad execution

Get a grip kiddo.

But the first 2/3 of the movie are goat
You are fucking garbage that can't appreciate filmmaking and just wants to circlejerk among retards

I think what you're describing as a difference between smart and 'not as smart as they think' is really more the ifference between arty/abstract think-they're really smart and 'want a story that makes sense'.
Being open to interpretation is not automatically smart, or good storytelling.