"Arrival"

Went to see it yesterday for my Thanksgiving treat as the girls were out of town with their mom. A friend who is a die-hard dipped to the bone SF fan was very, very enthusiastic about it and said it was the best SF film he'd seen in decades.

SPOILERS: My take is that the overall concept is very good and a "genuine" (as compared to a Hollywood) SF storyline. The actors are all very good, especially Amy Adams who was fantastic. However, my spending the holiday alone tied in with some themes of the movie and made me very sad. The plot tied things together much like "Signs" did but overall I'd have to say it was very good. I'd recommend seeing it on the big screen if you can.

I had to read that twice before I figured out what this had to to with a die-hard 49'ers fan. My brain is broken.

I agree. It was excellent.

It managed a strong element of suspense while keeping most of the action quite subdued. It was also quite believable, too. Like, that is how people would genuinely react in this sort of situation. For people who like good science fiction, this is arguably the best first contact movie I've ever seen. Up there with "Close Encounters" and "Alien", but in a very different style. Much better than "Contact".

I might like that. Sadly SWMBO has zero SF receptors in her system.

so this isn't about the movie where Charlie Sheen is a scientist that figures out that aliens are living amongst us?

What is "SF"? There were a lot of words on that post, but I still don't get it. But Amy Adams is stunning. That might be enough for me to know.

DrBoost wrote: What is "SF"? There were a lot of words on that post, but I still don't get it. But Amy Adams is stunning. That might be enough for me to know.

SF=Science Fiction

That's what I was thinking, this is a remake?

novaderrik wrote: so this isn't about the movie where Charlie Sheen is a scientist that figures out that aliens are living amongst us?

914Driver wrote: That's what I was thinking, this is a remake?

novaderrik wrote: so this isn't about the movie where Charlie Sheen is a scientist that figures out that aliens are living amongst us?

Nope. It is a new movie based on the short story "Story of your Life" which was published in '98. The Charlie Sheen movie "The Arrival" came out in '96. Plots are totally different.

This one is about first contact with Aliens who are not doing anything to hide their appearance whatsoever. 12 Ships very prominently just parked around the globe and everyone is busy trying to figure out what they're doing here, what they want, and how to even communicate with them to ask these questions.

Sine_Qua_Non wrote:

DrBoost wrote: What is "SF"? There were a lot of words on that post, but I still don't get it. But Amy Adams is stunning. That might be enough for me to know.

SF=Science Fiction

Ahh. I always heard/saw science fiction as "sci-fi". If we reduce if to SF, let's just say S?

DrBoost wrote: Ahh. I always heard/saw science fiction as "sci-fi". If we reduce if to SF, let's just say S?

People tend to prefer "SF" because it can also stand for "Speculative Fiction" which Heinlein coined as a term to incorporate works of Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and other similar speculative works that don't fit a neat category.

So it can cover works of alternate history, or that don't fit neatly into other literary genres. Something like "1984" speculates about how the future could be, but not really about scientific advances.

I am a sci-if fan. I loved the true "alien" aspect of it (I really liked Solaris for that aspect also). I liked the "twist" of it, but, for whatever reason, I was not blown away by it. Certainly don't let this stop you from seeing it, it's just my impression.

Again, I HIGHLY appreciate the non-formula aspect of it, and it's pure sci-if aspects of it, but it just did not hit me. I still liked it though, it certainly has an aspect of discussion...

WARNING SPOILER BELOW - do not read

.

.

..

..

....given the knowledge of what will happen, would you do it anyway...

Beer Baron wrote:

DrBoost wrote: Ahh. I always heard/saw science fiction as "sci-fi". If we reduce if to SF, let's just say S?

People tend to prefer "SF" because it can also stand for "Speculative Fiction" which Heinlein coined as a term to incorporate works of Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and other similar speculative works that don't fit a neat category. So it can cover works of alternate history, or that don't fit neatly into other literary genres. Something like "1984" speculates about how the future could be, but not really about scientific advances.

That makes perfect sense

aircooled wrote: I am a sci-if fan. I loved the true "alien" aspect of it (I really liked Solaris for that aspect also). I liked the "twist" of it, but, for whatever reason, I was not blown away by it. Certainly don't let this stop you from seeing it, it's just my impression.

I loved that the aliens were truly ALIEN. Not humanoid at all. Every other movie, aliens are constructed like earth creatures: a head, trunk, usually 4 limbs (maybe more, but definitely symetrical pairings, and maybe a tail. Oh, they may add extra wings, spines, tendrils, etc., but they're otherwise earth creatures with extra stuff slapped on them. Closest I've ever seen to truly alien were the Hanar in Mass effect. But even they were jellyfish.

These aliens were... alien.

I think historically, the humanoid alien has been for production efficiency and cost. I have heard a theory though that talked about how the humanoid form is the best evolutionary shape (two arms, two legs etc.) and thus the most common (maybe just a justification though).

I do think it is difficult for most people and writers to even think of truly alien. E.g. I think the only reason humans use base 10 mathematics is because we have 10 fingers.

I don't know if anyone else caught the reference in the movie, but at one point they translate the phrase "we have no time". Of course that is misinterpreted, much like "tool" and "weapon" where. There are a lot of little cues thrown out in the movie. Probably a good movie to watch a second time. When i was watching it I was thinking the child and parent relationship shown was a metaphor for the human / alien relationship.

aircooled wrote: I think historically, the humanoid alien has been for production efficiency and cost. I have heard a theory though that talked about how the humanoid form is the best evolutionary shape (two arms, two legs etc.) and thus the most common (maybe just a justification though).

I think that first argument makes a lot of sense for back in the days of practical effects. In these days of CGI or in computer games or animation, that doesn't seem necessary. Seems more a case of people making designs based on what they know.

Now, I do think the most likely forms to evolve would be the most efficient ones. I think symmetry makes a lot of sense. I also think that a species that is likely to become intelligent and dominant will be one that is inherently fairly weak and would have had to rely on cunning, cooperation, and tool use in order to survive.

Sci-fi also tends to be the campier than sf (yes, it is often lower case) which is typically more srs bznss.

A four-limned alien helps believability because you don't have to start from scratch. Chances are, some human on the planet can fit into the "body" or someone can do the motion-capture.

In the '90s, I was on the set of a well-known SF film which had a truly alien alien. Unfortunately, the producers were going nuts because they saw the dailies and felt the "alien" came off as a slightly perturbed floor lamp. The special effects company took some gas over that one.

My wife and I enjoyed Arrival very much. It was her idea to see it, actually. The movie spurred some discussion afterwards. We thought they did a good job with the aliens, especially since the architecture of their ship and even their atmosphere were completely alien as well.

Just got back. Nope, gotta say that this time I am not in synch with the hive. It kinda sucked. C-

Edit: I wrote Contact originally but meant Arrival. Fixed it. One of the vicissitudes of getting older....

Very much impressed by this movie. I thought it would be something very different than what it turned out to be. The acting by Amy Adams was very good. The way she acted all the way up to the point of the military knocking on her door at her home was excellent. Just very satisfyingly well done. She showed the separation from the rest of the world in her portrayal of someone that has/will experience(d) the trama of losing a child.

She then captured the mix of terror and excitement and delight with her first meeting of the aliens. She made the movie.

As far as the rest of it goes. Forest Whitaker actually caught my interest in his portrayal of the middle man military guy. He has orders but is willing to let the people who work for him, guide him to the right answers. He asked the right questions of the two scientists he dragged into this. Kind of off to the side character but was done well. I didn't really feel Renner's character. But he seemed to fill the role of what older films would use a pretty woman to fill in as for a lead male character. Sort of like a bond girl but a bond guy in this case.

I actually felt the film gave me much less from the aliens but more was given from the evolution of the main character and how her mind grasped hold to that evolution over time. The aliens by the halfway point were more like the Whitaker character just well done supporting work. It all made sense to me and maybe that is why I liked it so much. I caught on early in the film about the nature of Louise's look at time. But was still captivated at how all the details were pulled together in the second half.

As far as alien design go I always wonder why they usually are slimy on some part. I mean I know us humans have slimy parts but I don't think we display them or share them as often as aliens seem to do. Basically slimy parts of us are likely to be weak spots for physical attacks so aliens should be protecting them as well. Which brings up how come they seem to rarely have clothes. I would think they need to be protected from stuff too.

Advan046 wrote: As far as alien design go I always wonder why they usually are slimy on some part. I mean I know us humans have slimy parts but I don't think we display them or share them as often as aliens seem to do. Basically slimy parts of us are likely to be weak spots for physical attacks so aliens should be protecting them as well. Which brings up how come they seem to rarely have clothes. I would think they need to be protected from stuff too.

The heptapods weren't particularly slimy. I think the only part that sort of was was the inside of the toe that opened up.

I do agree on the point of clothes though. Goes along with my feeling about how a species that becomes a dominant advanced race would be inherently an imperfect match for any ecological niche. They'd need tools to adapt to the environment. Clothing is one of the very first tools, which you need to adapt to changes in weather and temperature to spread out around a planet as the population expands.

Just got home from date night with Tiger Mom and we thoroughly enjoyed it.

I wonder if M Night watched it and said "that's how I should be doing it!"

Finally watched it last night, had to watch a camrip since the theatres barely showed it and I'm not waiting until March. Was not all that impressed.

SPOILERS AHEAD

This movie has many of the trappings of a great movie - top-notch acting, design, special effects - but is brought down by one big flaw, the plot. It was a big letdown to me, towards the end you find out that you've actually been watching a pretty weak sci-fi movie the entire time, riddled with Terminator-like time travel paradoxes and plenty of magic. My dad said it reminded him of an M. Night Shyamalan movie early on, and he turned out to be right. It's a lot like his newer movies in that the plot gets thrown under the bus for a big twist.