# Arrival (2016)



## Stewart Hotston (Nov 14, 2016)

This is, quite simply, the best sci fi I have seen since Primer. It is spectacular, emotional and the hard science is superb. Go see it. I won't say anything else because the film relies on you not knowing anything about it before you've seen it. Stay spoiler free, people.


----------



## Stewart Hotston (Nov 14, 2016)

So a question then - what do you think is the best hard sci fi movie of the LAST 10 YEARS? (Primer was 2004, so is excluded...)


----------



## Stewart Hotston (Nov 14, 2016)

other than Arrival, obvs.


----------



## Rodders (Nov 14, 2016)

This is on my list of movies to see. Looks very good.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Nov 14, 2016)

It's a great movie. You know when all the studio intros at the beginning are obscure and indie, that you're in for a treat. 

Some of the allegory and metaphors were a bit heavy handed but it's definitely the best in class for me this year so far, and definitely there are prescient moments that reflect what is going on in the world today. 

@Stewart Hotston - did you like _Upstream_ _Colour_, as well? 

pH


----------



## Stewart Hotston (Nov 15, 2016)

It's on my to be seen list but not seen it yet.


----------



## J Riff (Jan 7, 2017)

Hmm. Err...... well it's not a see-it-twice film. Nice Cthulhu ETs though.


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 8, 2017)

2007's _Sunshine _was a very good sci-fi film. _The Martian_ was arguably the best in decade. _Edge of Tomorrow_ was also really good.


_Arrival _illustrates why complex novels do not become sci fi movies. The movie is a short story with a simple punchline, but being a movie we get to experience something much richer.


----------



## AlexH (Jan 14, 2017)

I saw this on the same day I was reading a short story by Ted Chiang (who I don't think I'd heard of before). It was only when I Googled him after enjoying the story, and also looked into what Arrival was based on, that I realised he was the inspiration behind Arrival too.

I thought it was a good, rather than great, film. 

*SPOILER* My friend thought Amy Adam's character had a choice in whether to have a child or not, but I disagreed with him, as it had already happened in her timeline. What do other people think? I'm yet to read the short story.


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 14, 2017)

AlexH said:


> *SPOILER* My friend thought Amy Adam's character had a choice in whether to have a child or not, but I disagreed with him, as it had already happened in her timeline. What do other people think? I'm yet to read the short story.


My take on that: Viewed externally, she had foreknowledge and a choice. From her viewpoint it would have been killing a person that already exists if she changed the future. 

And her daughter's life, though shorter than others, is as much of a closed loop as any other, so it has the same value. She sees her husband's desire to avoid a future pain to be irrational, because his daughter already exists to Amy's character.

That said, he is also likely mad that she ruined his experience of his daughter's life for him with foreknowledge that he can't process like she does. That is the other choice she makes - telling him what is going to happen.


All of this fits in nicely with the central idea of seeing time and choice as opposites instead of the same thing from two perspectives. Predestination and free will are not at odds when you no longer see time linearly.


----------



## J Riff (Jan 14, 2017)

Yech! Hating it more as I get away from it. No offence.. but this is a stupid, stupid fantasy hack at 'SF". are we to believe this is what would happen? Outrageous nonsense... there's no people who deal with this kind of stuff?, no ET people since oh, I dunno, the 50s? No, it's one gal, 'selected' by 'the united states' to talk to big squonkers who show up all speechless with some handy time travel to make a happy ending? Detestable reinvention, someone's idea of what might happen.... panic in the streets! Only watsername can figure it out! Then, time bloody travel, yet again! 
Bloody cheapo time travel out, again. Next.  
 The last 15 min. of this movie, well I blanked out, walked out of the room, came back and it was still on, as they talked about a positive message for humanity, etcetc. I deem this a fantasy in disguise, not the worst fantasy around, but still a waste of time travel. * )


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 14, 2017)

J Riff said:


> Yech! Hating it more as I get away from it. No offence.. but this is a stupid, stupid fantasy hack at 'SF". are we to believe this is what would happen? Outrageous nonsense... there's no people who deal with this kind of stuff?, no ET people since oh, I dunno, the 50s? No, it's one gal, 'selected' by 'the united states' to talk to big squonkers who show up all speechless with some handy time travel to make a happy ending? Detestable reinvention, someone's idea of what might happen.... panic in the streets! Only watsername can figure it out! Then, time bloody travel, yet again!
> Bloody cheapo time travel out, again. Next.
> The last 15 min. of this movie, well I blanked out, walked out of the room, came back and it was still on, as they talked about a positive message for humanity, etcetc. I deem this a fantasy in disguise, not the worst fantasy around, but still a waste of time travel. * )


The film is whatever, but calling it fantasy is off base. The examination of how language influences reasoning has been the subject of scientific study for a very long time. The suggestion that the only person who might be capable of acquiring the ability to understand time differently is a gifted linguist would appear to follow that paradigm.

The nature of time being different than what we perceive is also a long standing avenue of interest to physicists, regardless of whether the depiction of time in Arrival bears any similarity to reality.

Also, her character is not the only one that learned to speak to the aliens. She was just the only one (or first one) to make the cognitive leap to what the structure of the language actually signified.

Any criticism about how convincing all of that is portrayed is fair, but it is most definitely SF in its exploration of current scientific theories.


----------



## J Riff (Jan 14, 2017)

I'll be the Arrival hater, no problem. Back in 6 months to try it again, but maybe MST can do a version.... hehHEeh!! No really, there actually are intelligent people, teams even, in the world, alllll ready for ETs, should they show up. What a negative world-view these people have... ETs! Run, panic, like idiot children.


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 14, 2017)

J Riff said:


> I'll be the Arrival hater, no problem. Back in 6 months to try it again, but maybe MST can do a version.... hehHEeh!! No really, there actually are intelligent people, teams even, in the world, alllll ready for ETs, should they show up. What a negative world-view these people have... ETs! Run, panic, like idiot children.


Do you have any references to these teams?


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jan 14, 2017)

Saw it in the cinema with my 14 year old daughter and we both loved it.  She being smarter than I worked out the 'secret' (if you want to call it that) before I did but I thought it was a credible, well worked through piece.

And the sound was terrific!



> are we to believe this is what would happen? Outrageous nonsense... there's no people who deal with this kind of stuff?, no ET people since oh, I dunno, the 50s? No, it's one gal, 'selected' by 'the united states' to talk to big squonkers who show up all speechless with some handy time travel to make a happy ending?



It's a movie.  Fiction.  We have to be allowed access - if you made a realistic film about what might actually happen then it would be very long (months?) and just endless shots of committee rooms full of people having endless conversations.


Spoiler



And it wasn't time travel.  It was a different way of perceiving time.  She didn't travel to the future she was in the future and the now and the past.   She didn't learn how to travel in time but see it.


----------



## AlexH (Jan 15, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> My take on that: Viewed externally, she had foreknowledge and a choice. From her viewpoint it would have been killing a person that already exists if she changed the future.
> 
> And her daughter's life, though shorter than others, is as much of a closed loop as any other, so it has the same value. She sees her husband's desire to avoid a future pain to be irrational, because his daughter already exists to Amy's character.
> 
> ...



SPOILERS
I forgot about her telling him - that's a strange one if she already knows what going to happen. From what I remember, we saw her future life without him in the film?

It seems your view of a choice was what the screenwriter intended: moviesonline.ca/2016/11/eric-heisserer-interview-the-arrival/

Q: There’s a theme in the film of is it better to have lived your life in a certain way even if you already knew the outcome and how it would play out. Was that already in the short story? 

HEISSERER: The short story was far more rigid about determinism. Ted’s message within the short story was to embrace the inevitable. It didn’t give Louise a choice in the matter and it just let her be at home with that. I got very rebellious and said, “Well Ted, that’s not going to work for me in the film. Sorry. I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to change the core of this.” He’s been game. If he secretly hates me on some form like, “I can’t believe he changed this,” then so be it. But, I wanted to make it a profound statement that she still chose to have Hannah, despite knowing what was going to happen in her life. It’s a very small moment in the film, but it means so much to me. It’s when she talks about how Hannah is unstoppable because of her poetry and her swimming trophies and all of that. She’s talking about Hannah’s contribution to the world and how that affects other people, and the fact that if she chooses not to have Hannah, will the world be a lesser place? How many people will she not have been able to affect. It’s not a selfish thing. It’s very much she needs to make sure that this contribution exists.


----------



## RX-79G (Jan 15, 2017)

AlexH said:


> From what I remember, we saw her future life without him in the film?


Because the film is visual, the only way to preserve the mystery of her flashbacks being actually flashforwards is to not show who the husband is and to have her at the same house. That way the audience is fooled enought to be able to live through her experience of remembering the future in a natural way - like the way she experiences it.

This is one of the nicest pieces of the filmmaking - a kind of _Sixth Sense_ trick is played on us that keeps us open to what is evolving in her mind.


----------



## JunkMonkey (Jan 16, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> Because the film is visual, the only way to preserve the mystery of her flashbacks being actually flashforwards is to not show who the husband is and to have her at the same house. That way the audience is fooled enought to be able to live through her experience of remembering the future in a natural way - like the way she experiences it.
> 
> This is one of the nicest pieces of the filmmaking - a kind of _Sixth Sense_ trick is played on us that keeps us open to what is evolving in her mind.





Spoiler



And leads to that great moment where they kiss for the first time and she says something along the lines of, "I had forgotten what it was like!"


----------



## clovis-man (Jan 16, 2017)

One of the best SF films of the year. No ray guns, No space battles. A deal breaker for some, but not for me. I like to be challenged to think a little bit.


----------



## Fried Egg (Feb 25, 2017)

I can't wait to see this film, after only just finding out it even existed. I first read the short story it was based on about ten years ago and loved it then. Sound like they've done a good job of adapting it.


----------



## clovis-man (Feb 25, 2017)

And, of course, as with most all SF films, it will get stiffed by the Academy Awards. Except perhaps for getting a crumb thrown to it for, say Sound Editing.


----------



## J-Sun (Feb 25, 2017)

clovis-man said:


> And, of course, as with most all SF films, it will get stiffed by the Academy Awards. Except perhaps for getting a crumb thrown to it for, say Sound Editing.



Ironically, that's the last thing it should get, IMO. But maybe it was just a problem with my theater. Either way, much of the dialogue was hard to make out. Maybe I'm being Charlie Brown to the Academy's Lucy but I wouldn't be surprised if it actually got something this time - critics seem to love it, anyway - more than general viewers, even. Of course, I also wouldn't at all be surprised if it just got Best Makeup or whatever.

My extended ramble is here but the gist is that the story was great (not that I'm in philosophical agreement, btw) and got a decent adaptation which produces a good film worth seeing but not quite a film I can love. I feel kinda weird about it but I'd rather see _Rogue One_ again. One of these days somebody's going to combine action and thought even better than _Blade Runner_, _Aliens_, or _Terminator/T2_ and create the truly mind-blowing ultimate movie.



Stewart Hotston said:


> So a question then - what do you think is the best hard sci fi movie of the LAST 10 YEARS? (Primer was 2004, so is excluded...)



*The Martian* (2015) or *Europa Report* (2013). _Arrival_ gets an honorable mention along with _Ex Machina_ (2015).

(So it seems like there should be something from 2007-2012 I'm forgetting, but that's what springs to mind. A quick look around seems to indicate there was just stuff like _Moon, Inception, District 9_, etc. So, yeah, _The Martian_ or _Europa Report_.)


----------



## RX-79G (Feb 25, 2017)

Good SF stuff from the last 10 years:
_Sunshine, the Man From Earth, Cloverfield, Iron Man, Wall-E, District 9, Watchmen, Source Code, Chronicle, Looper, Gravity_.

I think _Arrival _is a good film, because it is well acted and edited, has attractive effects and a small but compelling SF story. But I don't think it is an astonishingly great film. Just a very solid, well done film (which are rare enough). I could see effects, editing or best actress, but I think you'd need some pretty weak other films for a best picture nomination.


----------



## GCJ (Feb 25, 2017)

I read an article about Westworld and the bicameral mind last night, directly after reading into what Arrival was was attempting to present.

The article pressed on how it is language and the complexity of language that may have driven the technological revolution.

One, so they said, must be able to describe complexity before it can be tackled.

It was a new concept for me, but one I immediately bought into.


----------



## RX-79G (Feb 25, 2017)

GCJ said:


> I read an article about Westworld and the bicameral mind last night, directly after reading into what Arrival was was attempting to present


Do you have a link to the article?


----------



## GCJ (Feb 25, 2017)

Back on point, though, The Martian was fantastic.  I'm a keen grower of spuds, so I can relate to his pain when a biting frost brings about their demise.

Don't bother until April, my Dad told me.


----------



## GCJ (Feb 25, 2017)

RX-79G said:


> Do you have a link to the article?


I'm not sure I'm allowed to post links for a while.  I'll dig it out and PM you if that doesn't break any rules.


----------



## GCJ (Feb 25, 2017)

https://www.inverse.com/article/142...rld-julian-jaynes-origin-of-consciousness-hbo

It appeared to work!


----------



## ProxySciFi (Feb 25, 2017)

I loved it too, Finally Aliens done right.


----------



## GCJ (Feb 25, 2017)

ProxySciFi said:


> I loved it too, Finally Aliens done right.



Nothing wrong with The Tribbles though.


----------



## clovis-man (Feb 26, 2017)

J-Sun said:


> One of these days somebody's going to combine action and thought even better than _Blade Runner_, _Aliens_, or _Terminator/T2_ and create the truly mind-blowing ultimate movie.



A problem for me is that we seem to have a tendency to compare SF movies just with other SF movies. Personally, I feel that *Arrival* stacks up okay with other Oscar nominees this year. But because of the SF label, it is likely to not be seen as sufficiently worthy by Academy voters. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## clovis-man (Feb 27, 2017)

Shamelessly quoting myself:



clovis-man said:


> And, of course, as with most all SF films, it will get stiffed by the Academy Awards. Except perhaps for getting a crumb thrown to it for, say Sound Editing.



I hate being right all the time.


----------



## Judderman (May 2, 2017)

Stewart Hotston said:


> This is, quite simply, the best sci fi I have seen since Primer. It is spectacular, emotional and the hard science is superb. Go see it. I won't say anything else because the film relies on you not knowing anything about it before you've seen it. Stay spoiler free, people.


Arrival as with Primer are definitely both on the thinking person's sci-fi end of the scale. Primer was as I recall very slow for about half the film. Arrival is exceptionally slow. I wouldn't call it great. But its portrayal of the aliens, the difficulty in understanding, the spooky atmosphere, the scale of the scene when meeting with the aliens, the fancy alien writing and the theme are all memorable. There was definitely some interesting ideas about the importance of language and evolution.

It is far better than the overhyped and boring Gravity from a few years ago but I wouldn't put it at the top in the last 10 years. Even if there hasn't been a lot of great sci-fi films. For the big budget films Interstellar was probably better.


----------



## Stewart Hotston (May 4, 2017)

I'd be interested to know your top ten then @Judderman


----------



## Judderman (Jun 21, 2017)

Oh I forgot this post when I went on vacation. Stewart, it's true that there are slim pickings for great or even very good sci-fi films in the last decade. Although not top 5 Primer and Arrival probably do make top 10. I have no doubt missed some decent films but here goes:

1) Inception (pyscho sci-fi dreamy brilliance).
2) The Martian (man alone on Mars.)
3) Looper. (Time travel and action).
4) Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (ok it is more action, CGI and drama but still sci-fi)
5) Her (dating AI. Only slightly futuristic drama)
6) Coherence (lots of weird goings on)
7) Interstellar (space exploration)

8) Primer (First half extremely slow but gets good. Proper sci-fi).
9) Arrival (Slow but thought provoking. Feels realistic.)

10) Oblivion (reasonably entertaining Tom Cruise movie. Has some good ideas).
11) Predators (sci-fi action. Far inferior to Predator but still entertaining).
12) Transcendence (AI shenanigans. I suppose Resident Evil has a similar basic premise but with added crazy creatures. Not a great movie by any means.).

Ok maybe Primer and Arrival are reasonably well up the list! Also some of the above are not hard sci-fi whereas Primer and Arrival are. I would give Guardians of the Galaxy an honourable mention too as it is close to science-fi, kinda, and is better than many of these listed. I haven't seen Ex-Machina but based on reviews it would be high on the list. I should watch that, and also Moon.
For others the recent Star Wars movies are not bad but too repetitive from the originals. Galaxy was a dull drama apart from showing impressive effects early in the film. Prometheus was so disappointing. I don't really remember the last Star Trek.


----------



## Stewart Hotston (Jun 22, 2017)

@Judderman I did not think Looper deserved to be up there - the science was pretty much irrelevant plus there's a massive flaw in the mechanic not to mention the deus ex machina ending. Fun to watch but not to think about. 

I don't think of inception as Sci-Fi. What, in your mind, characterises it as sf? I agree that the Martian should be up there. I thought Her was also deserving as was Interstellar - although the utterly unnecessary plot twist at the end introduces an unforgivable bootstrap paradox that damages its credibility as a story which, to that point, is superb.

However, no love for Ex Machina, Midnight Special or Monsters?

I didn't like Transcendence in the same way I didn't like Lucy - written by people who don't understand either logic or physics. The Sunny Delight of SF.

I like your thought about Primer - I've been thinking about the structure of the movie and I wonder if the slowness of the first half is an attempt to ground the characters, whose travels later on run the risk of becoming difficult to distinguish because it moves so quickly. It also feels quite dream like all the way through and combined with the slow, character focussed, first half makes it feel a little syrupy I guess.


----------



## Judderman (Jun 22, 2017)

We could definitely debate what is real sci-fi. If we get really strict about it then maybe there isn't so many sci-fi films about. But as you put I have some missing so haven't looked hard enough. I want to watch Ex Machina. I haven't seen Midnight Special or Monsters (or Moon) so will add those to the list! 

Inception involves some futuristic technology related to the mind. Though not particularly well grounded in real Science. Futuristic at least.

Sunny D is a great comparison for Transcendence! I watched Looper on a plane, maybe I was in a good mood..

Possibly if Primer was faster in the first half the latter part wouldn't work so well. Still I think maybe they went a bit too far that way. Though to be fair it is low budget which may have had some influence. We get accustomed to Hollywood throwing in action.


----------



## AlexH (Jun 26, 2017)

Judderman said:


> I haven't seen Ex-Machina but based on reviews it would be high on the list. I should watch that, and also Moon.


Without thinking about it, Moon would easily top my list. But I thought about it, and I think WALL-E would just beat it. I thought Ex Machina was good, but it wouldn't trouble a top 10.

I hadn't heard of Coherence before, so will have to check that one out. Reading the synopsis made me think of The Man from Earth.


----------



## Stewart Hotston (Jun 27, 2017)

Moon is great with a surprising story.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 27, 2017)

Just finished watching Arrival with my family - everyone loved it.

The only slight criticism is that the statement at the opening effectively clued me into what the film was actually going to be about. 

It was very atmospherically filmed, though - everything remained focused on Amy's character, so you felt like you went through her experience. The sound was great, too, but at times I wasn't sure whether I was hearing the aliens, or the soundtrack - though I suspect that in view of the ending there may not be an intentional distinction. 

Either way, a great film, and a great story - even though it pretty much turns on a paradox 



Spoiler



The phone call to General Chang


----------

