Support NeoGAF

[Ashodin]

Yeah guys it's okay TDM is having a hard time understanding it hehe

UnemployedVillain has it; the reason we're calling it "bollocks" or "shitty" or "no way it could happen" is because we're trying to explain it using the confines of our current knowledge.

What is happening is that Louise is remembering the future as she is experiencing the present; To use a term from Doctor Who, the implications is that whatever she sees in the future is fixed time -- it cannot be changed because it had to have happened in the past to be able to occur in the future. However, the way I can describe it is very similar to the imagery in the movie.

As time moves forward in the movie, Louise is able to remember things from the future that relates to the moment, in essence writing the future and the present at the same time to eventually reach a middle point. I'll draw it like a line:


present---------------->_______________<-------------------------future

The middle space is what happens in between (kid being born, book being written, kid dies, chinese general meets her at her book showing, etc)

Once Louise experiences the event that needs her to recall the future or experience it, it becomes fixed and cannot be changed at all. Even if she wanted to change the future about her kid dying, she has already experienced it, and thus her inevitable decision will be that she will have the kid.

So when she is doing the phone call about the general, she is remembering the future's relevant information (which at some point the general in the future learns the language too, is what I got and why it looked so obvious he was doing this on purpose then) and needs time to remember what he said (as I wrote before, present and future are writing themselves into existence simultaneously).

It's all very awesome and cool to think about. And yes the movie promotes that once one knows of the future they cannot change it.

 

[Aselith]

In particular, unless I'm missing something, she basically chooses to go along with the "Let's make a baby" line KNOWING that she's condemning a girl to grow up and die of cancer as a teenager? I know it's painful for the mother too, but even if she doesn't know in advance that Hawkeye will abandon the family, wouldn't it be better for the girl never to be born than be born and die of cancer that young? It's like saying "Well I want to get the joy out of knowing you."

I suppose you could go full on predestination and say that everything foreseen must be acted out the way it's foreseen or else you go into a parallel future where the aliens don't happen etc.

I don't really think so. Cancer is terrible and it's certainly a horrible thing to have to experience but the movie also shows the daughter having a lot of joy in her life. I don't feel that coming to a bad end means life is not worth having lived. In the end, all life is fleeting and we'll all die so length is just relative. Just like I don't think life is not worth it if I don't live to be 200, I don't believe life is not worth it if I live to be 15 instead of 60 or whatever.

Ultimately, we take the time we're given and take what joy we can while we're here.

 

[voodoopanda]

Yeah, it's the difference between time travel and nonlinear time. This movie isn't about time travel, like Back to the Future or Terminator 2, which would cause a paradox. It's about time becoming nonlinear, which means it no longer flows in a certain direction. That's why events in the "future" affect the "past" since the future and past no longer exist like we think they do. It's all happening at once, essentially.

Like a book you pull off the shelf, you can skip to any part of it and read it in any order. If you read the last chapter of, say, a murder mystery novel first, you'd know who the killer is. Then you could read the first chapter, experiencing it for the first time but knowing exactly who the killer is even though you should have no idea, if the experience of reading the novel was actual linear time.

The movie makes it pretty clear that it's about nonlinear time and not time travel, so it comes down to whether or not you can accept nonlinear time in a sci-fi context.

 

[mrkgoo]

In particular, unless I'm missing something, she basically chooses to go along with the "Let's make a baby" line KNOWING that she's condemning a girl to grow up and die of cancer as a teenager? I know it's painful for the mother too, but even if she doesn't know in advance that Hawkeye will abandon the family, wouldn't it be better for the girl never to be born than be born and die of cancer that young? It's like saying "Well I want to get the joy out of knowing you."

I suppose you could go full on predestination and say that everything foreseen must be acted out the way it's foreseen or else you go into a parallel future where the aliens don't happen etc.

That's exactly one of the themes brought up - is it worth experiencing a life if it's cut short, maybe with an amount of suffering? Louise (and the movie) would suggest yes. It's like is it better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all? Is it selfish?

These are the questions it asks, and it makes you think.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I would probably side with Louise in a similar situation.

One last note... the daughter may die of cancer "young" relative to our own lives, but to that child (and any child in the same predicament)....that time is literally an entire lifetime.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Well it's a FUN time paradox at least. I think it's a lot like the one in Interstellar.

It's not just Interstellar and this, it's one of the most definitive time paradoxes, the bootstrap paradox.

The SF guide to Chronophysics divides the "types" of timelines that exist in fiction up into 4 general categories, which each come with their associated types of paradoxes.

The history in Arrival is presented as a Type A timeline, which is the same as exists in Twelve Monkeys, Interstellar, Bill & Tedd's Excellent Adventure and The Terminator. It's an extremely popular type of time travel story setting, because writers fucking love the "twist" (which shouldn't be a twist at this point because everyone uses it) of characters setting out to change things, and then somehow causing what they set out to change. In Twelve Monkeys, Bruce Willis becomes the man he saw in his childhood. Skynet sent the Terminator back in time to kill Sarah Conner, and the man sent back to protect her turns out to have been John Conner's father all along. Ergo Skynet created the rebel leader they it was trying to kill.

As the guide explains:

Time&#8208;meddlers meet themselves leaving, fail in neatly dovetailing ways, and worry about free will. Tales of abortive attempts to alter history (e.g. Terminator 1) often turn out when examined to be set in a probable Type One Time Line after all, which is rather anticlimactic. It's less traumatic if you don't try to “interfere”, so Wellsian time&#8208;tourist stories commonly use this backdrop. For further examples see “Dragonflight” (McCaffrey), “The Anubis Gates” (Powers), and “Twelve Monkeys”.

The special paradox associated with Type One chrononautics (almost unavoidable when retrograde Time Travel occurs in such a Time Line) is the Closed Loop:

• Causal loops – complicated deterministic dances in which any attempt to escape turns out to cause exactly what you were trying to prevent.
• Informational loops – if Shakespeare's plays were written by a Time Traveller, where did they come from? (Answer: they were logically necessary!)
• Financial loops – Time Travellers can start an account using its own interest.
• Material loops – if I die in 1920, and bequeath to my future self a gold ring which I got as an heirloom from myself, how old is the ring?
• Personal loops – e.g. the classic Heinlein character who is his/her own father and mother. Is he/she genetically human? If so, why?

Such “paradoxes” are nothing to be afraid of – in fact they can be very handy. Any intelligent person in a Type One plot can “bootstrap” godlike powers… indeed, even Bill and Ted can figure it out. In any tricky situation, your elder self can bail you out; any seeming disaster can be negated by going back and converting it into a fake – so when you thought you witnessed your own death it was really an android, or a hologram, or (cheapest and simplest) a post&#8208;hypnotic suggestion! Type One Time Travelling civilisations usually turn out to have been bootstrapped into existence in the first place.

Bootstrapping is exactly what Amy Adams did in this film. Is it "fun"? I guess so. It was definitely fun in Bill & Tedd. At the same time, I find it hard to take seriously simultaneously because it's so overused and because the people using it never seem to really think through the implications firmly.

And if we think of it as a circle each of those actions has a distinct cause and effect. It's just that sometimes, time wise, the effect occurs before the cause.

As for why the general knew he had to give her those details despite not knowing why? It seems like in the future she's published a book on the heptapod language so it's possible he learned a little and saw that he had to tell her those things at that exact point in time.

You're merely explaining the paradox in its logical sequence. I think everyone here understands mechanically what happened. A series of events exists in a closed loop, without cause. That's why people call it a paradox, because circularly caused events are directly equivalent to uncaused events. Why did this happen, as opposed to some other sequence of events that might also have averted war, or perhaps not averted war? There is no answer beyond "because the author decreed it so".

 

[Foolworm]

I've only read the book, so how does this movie shape up compared to its source material?

 

[ElFly]

I don't think the movie relies on 'fixed time' and predestination

Louise obvs had a choice in a lot of stuff

maybe she can only remember the futures where she is fluent in Heptapod

 

[Carcetti]

I kinda feel that getting stuck on the exact time travel mechanics is just missing the point of the movie.

Why not just settle for the fact that once you understand the heptapod you are no longer a linear creature and the same rules for time paradoxes no longer apply because you move out outside of causality. Remember those folks who lived in the wormhole in DS9?

 

[Ashodin]

I don't think the movie relies on 'fixed time' and predestination

Louise obvs had a choice in a lot of stuff

maybe she can only remember the futures where she is fluent in Heptapod

Nah. The moment she saw her future it was predetermined to get to that point. She can take any road she wants but ultimately she will get there, to that exact moment.

Trying to explain bootstrapping

I think you're missing the point. It's about HOW the loop is obtained, as opposed to the explanation of loops itself.

You're trying to tell us "It's this thing!" when the explanation for it goes against the normal explanation of a bootstrap paradox.

By definition events have to occur in a non-linear way, but the actual acquisition of the events (bootstrap is in a sequenced order) occurs in this movie nearly exactly at the same time. By virtue of it being a movie and literally impossible (unless they showed both scenes simultaneously) to show it without looking weird, it occurs in a sequential order to show you how the simultaneous experience is observed.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I don't think the movie relies on 'fixed time' and predestination

Louise obvs had a choice in a lot of stuff

maybe she can only remember the futures where she is fluent in Heptapod

How did Louise have a choice in any of it? If time is not actually passing, if "forwards" and "backwards" are an illusion, then time is fixed. That's what that means. Human lives do not pass from one moment to the next, rather, they stretch across past, present and future (from our perspective) but all points exist simultaneously. The heptapod language causes humans to percieve time simultaneously, meaning Loise can remember things that will come to pass. But you can't remember a future that doesn't exist. If she could just "choose" to ignore that future and do something else... then how was she receiving that information? That future self won't exist so she won't remember it!

Why not just settle for the fact that once you understand the heptapod you are no longer a linear creature and the same rules for time paradoxes no longer apply because you move out outside of causality. Remember those folks who lived in the wormhole in DS9?

You could suspend your disbelief for any film, but that's got no real connection with whether or not this was a time paradox. It was. It's ok... 99.9999999% of time travel movies have time paradoxes as their whole point. This movie is about two or three things, but one of the main ones, and the one which bookends the film, is about how Louise copes with foreknowledge of her daughter's death. You can't divorce this time travel stuff from the whole film - that's what it was about. That's what the heptapod language was about. That's why they came to earth to give humans. For some reason it's important for a lot of people ITT that this "not be a paradox"... I don't know why. Like I said, the super-majority of all time travel films are about paradoxes.

I think you're missing the point. It's about HOW the loop is obtained, as opposed to the explanation of loops itself.

You're trying to tell us "It's this thing!" when the explanation for it goes against the normal explanation of a bootstrap paradox.

By definition events have to occur in a non-linear way, but the actual acquisition of the events (bootstrap is in a sequenced order) occurs in this movie nearly exactly at the same time. By virtue of it being a movie and literally impossible (unless they showed both scenes simultaneously) to show it without looking weird, it occurs in a sequential order to show you how the simultaneous experience is observed.

Doctor Manhattan in Watchmen experiences knowledge of the future but is unable to use this to change the past and does not create any loops. That was arguably a better conceptualization of a being unstuck from time who exists in a linear timeline.

A bootstrap paradox exists when an effect is its own cause. That occurred in this movie. The precise mechanism is irrelevant, whether through "remembering the future", through seeing the future with a giant telescope, through using a crystal ball, through actually traveling to the future then coming back, or whatever. All fixed timelines can be said to exist simultaneously or proceed from past to future, it makes no structural difference with respect to the paradox.

There are several points in this film where that possibly occurred, but one where it definitely occurred. It possibly occurred when Louise remembered her daughter's name from the future. It possibly occurred when Louise remembered reading her own future book on the language so as to FULLY understand it, rather than partially understand it. It possibly occurred when the Aliens themselves "remember" the humans in their future, and thus have to unite humanity and give them their gift now to facilitate their future meeting where upon humanity will help them.

Those three could be argued against based on slight ambiguity. The one completely unambiguous instance is the General Shang dilemma. Louise remembers Shang in the award's ceremony telling him his wife's dying words. Shang tells Louise these words, because Loise told them to Shang on the day of crisis. It is a perfect causal loop.

So tell me again, how is this not a bootstrap paradox?

 

[ElFly]

How did Louise have a choice in any of it? If time is not actually passing, if "forwards" and "backwards" are an illusion, then time is fixed. That's what that means. Human lives do not pass from one moment to the next, rather, they stretch across past, present and future (from our perspective) but all points exist simultaneously. The heptapod language causes humans to percieve time simultaneously, meaning Loise can remember things that will come to pass. But you can't remember a future that doesn't exist. If she could just "choose" to ignore that future and do something else... then how was she receiving that information? That future self won't exist so she won't remember it!

the whole point is that she decides to have a kid even knowing she will die

she makes this decision painfully; she doesn't surrender to it

the truth is that neither the aliens nor Banks vision is perfect and they still get things wrong, mainly, the explosion in the ship, which both Banks is blind to, and the aliens barely manage to save the humans from it. which means they are still subject to variations in their futures and that not everything is written

 

[Ashodin]

the whole point is that she decides to have a kid even knowing she will die

she makes this decision painfully; she doesn't surrender to it

the truth is that neither the aliens nor Banks vision is perfect and they still get things wrong, mainly, the explosion in the ship, which both Banks is blind to, and the aliens barely manage to save the humans from it. which means they are still subject to variations in their futures and that not everything is written

Except how did the Aliens even know it was there unless they had advance knowledge?

And TDM, dude I can see there's no real arguing my position to you when you call the thread "having some sort of obsession with not calling it a bootstrap paradox" when we're just trying to quantify what happened in a new way. Just because there's an explanation that fits closely (but not exactly) means you can apply it. That would be akin to calling a rhombus (without knowledge of what a rhombus IS) a square; yes it fits, but there's a functional difference between the two that makes it a rhombus. Just like in the movie, they said weapon, but Louise thinks it means tool. We so often try to cubbyhole what we see into established parameters because of the desire to pack away knowledge and feel satisfied doing so.

Time travel literally means going from one time to another. She is living both moments at the same time. This is the difference that changes it from "bootstrap paradox" (Where paradox is a word used for linear time) to something new, something beautiful.

 

[Veitsev]

Except how did the Aliens even know it was there unless they had advance knowledge?

They watched the soldiers plant it.

 

[ronaldthump]

Except how did the Aliens even know it was there unless they had advance knowledge?

And TDM, dude I can see there's no real arguing my position to you when you call the thread "having some sort of obsession with not calling it a bootstrap paradox" when we're just trying to quantify what happened in a new way. Just because there's an explanation that fits closely (but not exactly) means you can apply it. That would be akin to calling a rhombus (without knowledge of what a rhombus IS) a square; yes it fits, but there's a functional difference between the two that makes it a rhombus. Just like in the movie, they said weapon, but Louise thinks it means tool. We so often try to cubbyhole what we see into established parameters because of the desire to pack away knowledge and feel satisfied doing so.

Time travel literally means going from one time to another. She is living both moments at the same time. This is the difference that changes it from "bootstrap paradox" (Where paradox is a word used for linear time) to something new, something beautiful.

its a paradox because the timeline where she has that party with the general literally can never happen per the logic of the story. Its the future affecting the past.

In the movie, she sees the sick child, moving forward she can a) have the child b) not have the child.

The child's timeline certainly is within the control of amy adams in her non-lineal timeline as it is an "incident" that will/can eventuate. she can have the child, she can not have the child.

The other sequence with the general cannot eventuate. (this might as well been a) dream vision that magically saved the world b) divine intervention) and it would work just as well.

 

[hank_tree]

They watched the soldiers plant it.

It's probably a bit of a stretch to claim that the Hectapods could tell, by sight, that the boxes with explosives were different from the other boxes that were there.

Or that they could read the timer so they could know the exact time to save Louise and Ian.

 

[ronaldthump]

It's probably a bit of a stretch to claim that the Hectapods could tell, by sight, that the boxes with explosives were different from the other boxes that were there.

Or that they could read the timer so they could know the exact time to save Louise and Ian.

well the movie is hokum anyhow

if they can read non-lineal time, they would have seen the explosions. And would have reacted way in advance to the threat to save themselves etc.

This movie's softly arthouse scifi presentation seems to lend it greater meaning than it really possesses.

 

[PandaShake]

Saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it. Reading this thread made it even better by finding things I wasn't aware of. My only gripe is that i would like the pacing at the end of the movie to be a bit better. It had great style and vibe, but the pacing was unyielding throughout. By the end when I wanted to see what was next, the screen had cut to black and I thought the credits were going to role. Instead, it was an extremely slow pan downwards to Louise's room showing her looking out at her husband. Many shots of Louise slowly turning her head when we already understand or reshowing the same flash forwards that didn't add more to the reveal like nose rubbing. Still, great movie.

 

[hank_tree]

if they can read non-lineal time, they would have seen the explosions. And would have reacted way in advance to the threat to save themselves etc.

You very clearly didn't understand the concept of non-linear time as presented in the movie.

 

[Matt]

well the movie is hokum anyhow

if they can read non-lineal time, they would have seen the explosions. And would have reacted way in advance to the threat to save themselves etc.

This movie's softly arthouse scifi presentation seems to lend it greater meaning than it really possesses.

Yep, Abbott knew he was going to die. Which makes his sacrifice a sad and noble thing, but if you are wrapped up in trying to understand the logic of it that emotional reaction can be ruined.

It's interesting how Arrival and Interstellar both try to to be these emotional sci-fi stories with love as a central element, but Interstellar falls flat on its face by trying to talk about the science and the logic behind it's nonsense, whereas Arrival succeeds because it allows the emotional weight of the film to do all of the work.

 

[Timeaisis]

the whole point is that she decides to have a kid even knowing she will die

she makes this decision painfully; she doesn't surrender to it

the truth is that neither the aliens nor Banks vision is perfect and they still get things wrong, mainly, the explosion in the ship, which both Banks is blind to, and the aliens barely manage to save the humans from it. which means they are still subject to variations in their futures and that not everything is written

You are completely ignoring the mechanics of her memory. If she could choose, it means she could have made another chose, which means she might not have received the information she received from the future. If she perceives time like it is exemplified in the film, it is necessary for it to be fixed or else her visions would not be accurate.

Also, I don't care about the paradox, but TDM is right, it is one. Literally the only way you can make that work is if you accept determinism. My problem with the end of the film is it utilizes this paradox in such a boring way. Saving the world from a chinese general by telling him his wife's dying words? I mean, I can suspend my disbelief a little, but that coupled with the fact that language causes you to experience the present and the future simultaneously? It's too much.

I said it a few pages back, but the film completely abandons logic and reason in the last 1/4 in favor of emotion and "a twist".

 

[TruHero]

Wife loved it. Cried a couple times. Couldn't stop talking about it on the drive home.

I found it enjoyable enough.

 

[y2dvd]

Saw it for the 2nd time with a bunch of friends that saw it for the 1st time. They all loved it. What I noticed the 2nd time around was Amy's acting in reaction to the flashforward scenes. It was perfect. There was a perfect balance of it appearing that she's either reminiscing or being bewildered from the flashforwards. Some fine acting.

 

[Ashodin]

Yep, Abbott knew he was going to die. Which makes his sacrifice a sad and noble thing, but if you are wrapped up in trying to understand the logic of it that emotional reaction can be ruined.

It's interesting how Arrival and Interstellar both try to to be these emotional sci-fi stories with love as a central element, but Interstellar falls flat on its face by trying to talk about the science and the logic behind it's nonsense, whereas Arrival succeeds because it allows the emotional weight of the film to do all of the work.

That this movie has stimulated this discussion is proof of its quality.

 

[Blizzard]

I don't really think so. Cancer is terrible and it's certainly a horrible thing to have to experience but the movie also shows the daughter having a lot of joy in her life. I don't feel that coming to a bad end means life is not worth having lived. In the end, all life is fleeting and we'll all die so length is just relative. Just like I don't think life is not worth it if I don't live to be 200, I don't believe life is not worth it if I live to be 15 instead of 60 or whatever.

Ultimately, we take the time we're given and take what joy we can while we're here.

Yes, but it's the mother making that decision for someone else -- deciding they should have maybe 10 years of enjoyment and then suffer horribly while dying.

*edit* Some of the posters above do seem to suggest the predestination thing, that essentially everything is fixed and no one really has a choice because all time exists at the same time, and there aren't parallel universes or multiple timelines. While that can resolve paradoxes, it makes for a very sterile and unpleasant story to me.

 

[Epcott]

Saw it last Thursday, it was pretty meh. Maybe it was the overhype? I expected a "Holy shit" twist like something from Oblivion or Interstellar. It really wasn't.

 

[Aselith]

Yes, but it's the mother making that decision for someone else

Well, that's how motherhood and parenting work. You don't think she's making a decision for someone else if she decides not to have it?

 

[Slurpy2k20]

That this movie has stimulated this discussion is proof of its quality.

Nope, it isn't proof of anything. That's like saying all the attention Trump has gotten proves he will be the best President ever. I've thought about this movie alot, and read a shitload of analysis and theory, and in the end my conclusion that it's mediocre hasn't changed. Ambiguity is fine to a certain extent, but this movie took it way too far and was way, way too slow. People are comparing it favorably to Interstellar here, and I can never understand that. Interstellar was a much, much more solid and well rounded piece of film-making.

 

[hateradio]

I thought it was a decent movie, but it just doesn't really have a fulfilling resolution. Everything sorta goes back to how it was, but having time jumping can have a lot of implications that weren't really touched upon.

 

[Vic_Viper]

Loved the movie. How does the book compare? Are there alot of differences and does it go more in depth as to what happens after the aliens leave?

I heard a few people talk about how they were setting up a sequel lol. I seriously doubt they would ever do a movie set 3000 years into the future even though it would be pretty cool, I dont think that was the point of the reveal. Did they ever hint as to what they needed humanities help with?

 

[Blizzard]

Well, that's how motherhood and parenting work. You don't think she's making a decision for someone else if she decides not to have it?

No, because the other person doesn't exist if she decides not to have it.

It's a decision between zero suffering and nonzero suffering balanced by limited enjoyment. I understand some people think enjoyment balances it out, and maybe my family experience with people dying of cancer just colors my opinion.

 

[mrkgoo]

I thought it was a decent movie, but it just doesn't really have a fulfilling resolution. Everything sorta goes back to how it was, but having time jumping can have a lot of implications that weren't really touched upon.

Of all the potential complaints, I don't think that "everything sorta goes back to how it was" was not something I even remotely considered as one of the interpretations. How odd.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Interstellar was a much, much more solid and well rounded piece of film-making.

I consider them both to be roughly on par. Both movies fell apart in their final act for me, but I still enjoyed both overall. This movie was more grounded and "small" for most of its runtime, which I think is the primary difference. But the similarities are quite striking despite the movies theoretically being very different - in both cases there's the emotional core built on the relationship between parent and child. In both movies they're trying to save the world from destruction (the details differ obviously). In both movies you get the time travel aspect resolving the third act and wrapping up the story, start to end, in a bow.

Both are high quality pieces of film making that do everything a movie should do. Arrival has less action and set pieces, Interstellar was a big blockbuster, but it doesn't surprise me that people constantly compare them. I was thinking about Interstellar as I watched the movie on several occasions.

 

[Aselith]

No, because the other person doesn't exist if she decides not to have it.

It's a decision between zero suffering and nonzero suffering balanced by limited enjoyment. I understand some people think enjoyment balances it out, and maybe my family experience with people dying of cancer just colors my opinion.

But she would still know that person would exist and making the choice that they should not. Which is a valid choice, of course, but still making a decision on her behalf.

I'm sorry to hear about your family Fuck cancer.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

edit nvm misread

 

[Haribi]

Just saw the movie.

Why couldn't she remember the phone call with General Sheng at the anniversairy but he could?

 

[ronaldthump]

Just saw the movie.

Why couldn't she remember the phone call with General Sheng at the anniversairy but he could?

because its a paradox/plot contrivance.

 

[dlauv]

Really good movie.

Right afterwards, I thought to myself, "Man, fuck Doctor Strange."

I particularly liked how the audience was brought into the world of seeing time non-linearly by seeing the post-movie daughter arc before the movie even began proper. And I liked the whole "pen is mightier" thing that tied in with the ink and such.

I heard the movie is particularly frustrating for people who served; as in, the protocol was really lax and dramatized idiotically.

Also, I've been watching a lot of TNG lately and I agree with Mike in that it felt like a really good episode of Star Trek throughout.

 

[BBQMan]

I thought the daughter ended up living because the scene where she is in the hospital bed is before the zero sum game scene. And the fact the girl looks older in the Zero sum game scene. I must have missed something. I went to the toilet just before the sat phone call.

 

[border]

I don't see how you can really reconcile free will with predetermination in this film. We're supposed to admire Louise for choosing to have her baby and admire Abbott for choosing to sacrifice himself, but if free will is actually a factor in determining events then it creates the bootstrap paradox others have been complaining about.

If everything is predetermined, and it was a forgone and unavoidable conclusion that Louise's child would die and Abbott would get blown up, that's fine. But Louise and Abbott's decisions then become kind of meaningless. They knew what would happen and accepted that grave fate with bravery, but did not really have any say in the matter.

 

[ronaldthump]

I thought the daughter ended up living because the scene where she is in the hospital bed is before the zero sum game scene. And the fact the girl looks older in the Zero sum game scene. I must have missed something. I went to the toilet just before the sat phone call.

The daughter will die. She knows its going to happen but still goes ahead with having the relationship with renner and having the child anyhow. Which is why renner left her. Knowing that she allowed it to happen; putting the girl through the pain and suffering.

 

[BBQMan]

The daughter will die. She knows its going to happen but still goes ahead with having the relationship with renner and having the child anyhow. Which is why renner left her. Knowing that she allowed it to happen; putting the girl through the pain and suffering.

I understand that. What I dont understand is why the daughter looks older in the Zero Sum scene than the death/hospital scene.

 

[mrkgoo]

I understand that. What I dont understand is why the daughter looks older in the Zero Sum scene than the death/hospital scene.

She probably just looks smaller and more frail.

 

[Matt]

The daughter will die. She knows its going to happen but still goes ahead with having the relationship with renner and having the child anyhow. Which is why renner left her. Knowing that she allowed it to happen; putting the girl through the pain and suffering.

There is a really strange idea going on in this thread that seems to be a life ended at 15 wasn't a life worth having.

Nowhere does the film say that the Dad was mad because the daughter would suffer. Instead is says that he left because the pain was too much for him.

 

[Aselith]

There is a really strange idea going on in this thread that seems to be a life ended at 15 wasn't a life worth having.

Nowhere does the film say that the Dad was mad because the daughter would suffer. Instead is says that he left because the pain was too much for him.

Yeah, couples frequently split after experiencing tragedies like this because they simply can't deal with it and each other after the loss.

 

[Mike Works]

I'm guessing Renner's character left (in addition to the grief and anguish) because Adams likely revealed that she knew all along that their daughter was going to die.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

I'm guessing Renner's character left (in addition to the grief and anguish) because Adams likely revealed that she knew all along that their daughter was going to die.

Yep, she tells Hannah that he left because she told him something he wasn't ready to hear, and it was before it was known that she was sick.

 

[wildfire]

People suggesting space time is fixed in this movie are absolutely wrong and this movie falls flat because it couldn't achieve that.


If space time is fixed then it's impossible for Louise to get that phone number and dying last words when she is at a stage where she has no tools or social access to get it. The only way this works is if space time isn't fixed.

There had to be a point where Louise fails but she continues learning the language on her own and through that devises a plan to teach herself a way to contact Chang to avoid the bad future.

It's even suggested that time loops are a thing with the way the aliens always write in a broken loop.


This movie also is flawed because the characters aren't that interesting. As someone said earlier Abbot's last moments were more poignant than what they could muster in most of the human relationships. The only exception is with Hannah which is why on some level I can see why she would continue to make that choice.

This was a movie about science fiction and love and it is weak on both fronts.

 

[CitizenCope]

Just saw it and thought it blew. Maybe I'll enjoy it more after reading this thread but I shouldn't have to do that.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

If space time is fixed then it's impossible for Louise to get that phone number and dying last words when she is at a stage where she has no tools or social access to get it. The only way this works is if space time isn't fixed.

There had to be a point where Louise fails but she continues learning the language on her own and through that devises a plan to teach herself a way to contact Chang to avoid the bad future.

You're pointing out why it's a paradox, but that's exactly what happened in the film. Shang specifically said that he was contacted on that very fateful day and it changed his mind hence how they got to that awards ceremony. Then at the Award Ceremony, he gave the information to Louise, who then, remembering it in the past, fed it to him. There is a perfect closed loop. Louise can only contact herself in the past by remembering things in the future, meaning that at some point in the future, she somehow gained the most intimate secrets from Shang, who would have no reason to talk to her. You basically have to invent this elaborate side story that has no textual evidence in the film and seems incredibly implausible. What actually happened is just that the writer did exactly what we saw on screen - an uncaused causal loop. It's a paradox, yes it makes no sense, but that's what was written and presented to us.

The mechanics as presented in the movie was that that people remember the future, not that they remember "possible" futures or futures that "might happen" or definitely not futures that never happened because they changed it. We never see time change, everything appears to be fixed.

If you could just go back in time and change anything you wanted why would the aliens ever need humanity's help? They could just go back in time and give themselves godly powers thousands of years in the past (since they are apparently immortal, hence how they "remember" that they will need humanity's help in the future) and warn themselves about every single problem they will ever have. Why didn't Costello go "oh shit Abbott is about to die, better give him more of a warning to push the bomb out six hours ago long before the two new people go onboard?" His death was 100% avoidable with foreknowledge.

Your reading of the film is way off base imo.

 

[Detox]

I like the idea of non linear time, the message of living in every moment despite knowing what it will lead to. I just didn't like the pacing at all.

A technical question is the movie very muted and grey? It felt like gears of war but with grey and blue instead of brown. The brightness felt low too. Is it supposed be like that or the cinema fucked up, can a cinema with digital projector fuck up?