Arrival : What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that every movie should be exactly the same? Do you happen to know how many other sci-fi movies there are that are 100% crap and don't even come close to the quality of this film?
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
Yes, I am saying "every movie should be exactly the same". I give you an A on reading comprehension.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
You sound like the type of person that's all about logic, and loathes poetry. Big mistake.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
Well, if the movie tries to present us the idea that we'll figure out an Alien language with logic (that's why they brought in a linguist and a physicist), then it should at least try to make that part coherent. If the idea is to say that we need poetry to figure it out, I'm fine with it too.
That being said, comparing this drivel to poetry is an insult to all poets who have ever lived.
That being said, comparing this drivel to poetry is an insult to all poets who have ever lived.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
It sounds like you might be disappointed because you went in expecting one kind of movie but saw a different one. That's understandable. But here's my take on it.
You're right, the arrival of the aliens really was just the background to the actual story, which is about how one woman comes to terms with the death of her daughter. The movie's theme is about how language affects our experience of our lives. So the plot, as it were, is about how she got there. (Big spoilers in my explanation below.)
We know that after the aliens leave, Dr Brooks will have a daughter with Dr Donnelly. We know that the daughter will die of an incurable illness, and that Dr Donnelly won't be able to handle it and will rather cravenly ditch both of them.
If you knew this was going to happen, would you still have the child? And if you did, would you treat that child any differently? That's a product of our linear thinking, which is expressed in our language: "My daughter will suffer and die at a young age" (future tense). Naturally, we'd want to avoid pain, or alter our lives to accommodate it somehow (for example, trying to cram a lifetime of experiences in a few years, or overwhelming the child with your anxiety).
As part of decoding the alien language, Dr Brooks needs to learn their way of thinking, which is non-linear, and in doing so, it alters how she lives. She learns to experience each moment of her life as if all of them were occurring simultaneously. What happens to her is that she realizes that if she chooses not to have a daughter, or arrange her life to avoid the painful experiences (including trivial ones like having her daughter scream "I hate you!"), she will also lose every moment of love and joy and meaning that she experienced raising her child. Dr Donnelly chooses to avoid the pain. Dr Brooks refuses to give up her life with her daughter.
Everything that happens in the movie contributes to our understanding of how Dr Brooks got from point A to point B (and how her tenacity and thoughtfulness helped get her there). To me, that's great science fiction, which alters a few variables in our world to see what it tells about our our universe and our existence in it. I realize this might still not gel for you (it's never explained how her memories are able to shift backwards in time, but in my opinion that's largely irrelevant). But keep in mind that great stories usually require us to put in some effort to grasp them, and that just because some stories seem great but turn out to be baloney on deeper inspection doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort.
Even though you didn't like the movie, I recommend checking out the original short story "The Story of Your Life." It explores the theme - including the language - much more deeply, and Dr Brooks' choice in the book is even more stark.
You're right, the arrival of the aliens really was just the background to the actual story, which is about how one woman comes to terms with the death of her daughter. The movie's theme is about how language affects our experience of our lives. So the plot, as it were, is about how she got there. (Big spoilers in my explanation below.)
We know that after the aliens leave, Dr Brooks will have a daughter with Dr Donnelly. We know that the daughter will die of an incurable illness, and that Dr Donnelly won't be able to handle it and will rather cravenly ditch both of them.
If you knew this was going to happen, would you still have the child? And if you did, would you treat that child any differently? That's a product of our linear thinking, which is expressed in our language: "My daughter will suffer and die at a young age" (future tense). Naturally, we'd want to avoid pain, or alter our lives to accommodate it somehow (for example, trying to cram a lifetime of experiences in a few years, or overwhelming the child with your anxiety).
As part of decoding the alien language, Dr Brooks needs to learn their way of thinking, which is non-linear, and in doing so, it alters how she lives. She learns to experience each moment of her life as if all of them were occurring simultaneously. What happens to her is that she realizes that if she chooses not to have a daughter, or arrange her life to avoid the painful experiences (including trivial ones like having her daughter scream "I hate you!"), she will also lose every moment of love and joy and meaning that she experienced raising her child. Dr Donnelly chooses to avoid the pain. Dr Brooks refuses to give up her life with her daughter.
Everything that happens in the movie contributes to our understanding of how Dr Brooks got from point A to point B (and how her tenacity and thoughtfulness helped get her there). To me, that's great science fiction, which alters a few variables in our world to see what it tells about our our universe and our existence in it. I realize this might still not gel for you (it's never explained how her memories are able to shift backwards in time, but in my opinion that's largely irrelevant). But keep in mind that great stories usually require us to put in some effort to grasp them, and that just because some stories seem great but turn out to be baloney on deeper inspection doesn't mean it wasn't worth the effort.
Even though you didn't like the movie, I recommend checking out the original short story "The Story of Your Life." It explores the theme - including the language - much more deeply, and Dr Brooks' choice in the book is even more stark.
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
The main reason I saw this movie was because I liked Villeneuve's prior work. That's where my disappointment stems from, because I think he didn't do a good job with Arrival.
You are of course right in your analysis of the main themes of the movie - what I am criticising is the execution of these themes. I simply didn't care for the main character enough to sympathise with her. OK, she's a linguistics professor (or teacher?), has one child, and seems to be divorced. Here come the Aliens. We'll later find out that her buildup was all flash-forwards, and therefore hadn't happened yet, which made it even harder to get emotionally invested, because who knows, maybe 10 minutes later it will all be revealed as being a dream or whatevermy point being: Why would you get emotionally invested in a character if the movie constantly makes you doubt that her story is real - it could all be a dream after all).
But all that doesn't break the movie - what breaks the movie imho is the oversimplified pseudo-profoundness of the message: "Hey if you knew your child would die of an illness later on, would you still decide to have it? - Of course you would, because the world is full of wonders., like Aliens and stuff, LOL?"
which is a very shallow, and frankly not very interesting answer to anyone pondering such a question.
You are of course right in your analysis of the main themes of the movie - what I am criticising is the execution of these themes. I simply didn't care for the main character enough to sympathise with her. OK, she's a linguistics professor (or teacher?), has one child, and seems to be divorced. Here come the Aliens. We'll later find out that her buildup was all flash-forwards, and therefore hadn't happened yet, which made it even harder to get emotionally invested, because who knows, maybe 10 minutes later it will all be revealed as being a dream or whatevermy point being: Why would you get emotionally invested in a character if the movie constantly makes you doubt that her story is real - it could all be a dream after all).
But all that doesn't break the movie - what breaks the movie imho is the oversimplified pseudo-profoundness of the message: "Hey if you knew your child would die of an illness later on, would you still decide to have it? - Of course you would, because the world is full of wonders., like Aliens and stuff, LOL?"
which is a very shallow, and frankly not very interesting answer to anyone pondering such a question.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
Based on what you've said here, I definitely recommend checking out the short story if the idea of the movie appealed to you. It's far more detailed in its treatment of the themes (and Dr Brooks' struggle to comprehend the language) and less sentimental.
Arrival really worked for me, but I get your points and can totally understand why you felt let down. I had a similar reaction to Prisoners. Let's hope that the new Blade Runner turns out to have been worth the long wait!
Arrival really worked for me, but I get your points and can totally understand why you felt let down. I had a similar reaction to Prisoners. Let's hope that the new Blade Runner turns out to have been worth the long wait!
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
I will do as you say and read the short story.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
And regarding to that, movie ask us to sympathize with a person who choosed put a doomed life thru all kinds of suffering JUST FOR THE MEMORIES! OOH! Bitch can't be more selfish
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Great post. One of the best I've read about this movie.
Don't get this part though. What do you mean b shift backwards in time?
it's never explained how her memories are able to shift backwards in time
Don't get this part though. What do you mean b shift backwards in time?
Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
I like Villeneuve's work but this was dull and boring
Post deleted
This message has been deleted.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
This is pseudo intellectual movie for pseudo intellectual hipsters and nerds.It is cheap copy of Contact
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
Its time for a clash of civilizations.. This is where the old world and the new world splits.. Evolution.. It is way past its prime. Glad to see others not accepting fakenews as reality.
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
Wait a second, isn't that scheduled to that happen tomorrow, Jan. 20th when the Cheeto is inaugurated?
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
Fake. This is fake news. Those aliens, the time thing, the chinaman in the hat. Never happened.
_____
"Football in the groin, football in the groin"
_____
"Football in the groin, football in the groin"
Re: What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Reply |
Why was so much time spend showing the two scientist trying to figure out the Alien sign language, making almost no progress - and then suddenly they had a full dictionary on their iPad "selecting" the letters to build translations?
1. It was not just "the two scientists", it was a team of translators working with other teams all over the world, sharing information about what they discovered.
2. It was not "suddenly", it took them months of daily work to achieve that result, it was nothing easy, they worked non-stop for a long period of time.
Especially because with the final explanation for the alien language making the whole buildup / learning process absurd?
No idea what you meant.
The revelation that the Montana aliens were only giving "1/12" of the full story (as Jeremy Renner's character calculated) - was abandoned shortly after and never mentioned again.
It was actually, it's the whole point of the meeting at the United Nations summit, it's what unifies the world in the end, so it's not abandonned at all.
You seem to have a hard time with subtext and visual narration.
This movie picked up so many different half-baked ideas and didn't even try to make them coherent - after all the director seemed to be keen on showing us Amy Adams and her child in over-sentimental scenes together, with the whole "Aliens coming to Earth" story serving as nothing but background to - well, to what exactly?
It was perfectly coherent and there were no such things as "half-baked ideas". It was not "over-sentimental", it was supposed to throw us off and make us think one thing to tell us something else.
As for the theme, perception of time and language, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis pushed to the extrem, humanity and how difficult it is for us to work together as a specie, is it worth living if it's to die in the end?, and so on.
This movie had no plot, no direction, and was way too lazily written - sentimental crap which fits nicely in the genre of "make idiots feel intelligent".
"make an idiot feel intelligent" would be a accurate analysis of your post. Because calling this movie plotless, directionless and badly written is such over-hating of this movie it's pointless engaging in any kind of reasonable discussions about it.
And after checking your post history and seeing a topic on the Amy Adams board named "Hot? How?", it is just telling me "What's the point of answering to you?" You most likely didn't like the main actress from the start and you wouldn't like any movie she stars in.
It took itself so damn serious too - which was the actual deal breaker. I don't think I'm gonna see the Bladerunner soft reboot by this director.
Good, we will avoid another pointless thread such as this then, hopefully. (No direction, really)
What's with the popularity of these pseudo-profound movies lately?
Why was so much time spend showing the two scientist trying to figure out the Alien sign language, making almost no progress - and then suddenly they had a full dictionary on their iPad "selecting" the letters to build translations? Especially because with the final explanation for the alien language making the whole buildup / learning process absurd?
The revelation that the Montana aliens were only giving "1/12" of the full story (as Jeremy Renner's character calculated) - was abandoned shortly after and never mentioned again.
This movie picked up so many different half-baked ideas and didn't even try to make them coherent - after all the director seemed to be keen on showing us Amy Adams and her child in over-sentimental scenes together, with the whole "Aliens coming to Earth" story serving as nothing but background to - well, to what exactly?
This movie had no plot, no direction, and was way too lazily written - sentimental crap which fits nicely in the genre of "make idiots feel intelligent".
It took itself so damn serious too - which was the actual deal breaker. I don't think I'm gonna see the Bladerunner soft reboot by this director.