Sure, a lesser film might have tried to do more with the motivations of the aliens to sell that big idea to the audience. But I would say a better film would have had the balls to do away with the motivation completely, given the source material. The desire for there to be some sort of conflict, and the aliens to have some "reason" to be here which is easily understood by humans, is a construct of the film to make the thematic expression more interesting and exciting to a mass audience, and I think it weakens the film.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Spoiler thread for Arrival | We have Contact again
- Thread starter shira
- Start date
- Status
Sure, a lesser film might have tried to do more with the motivations of the aliens to sell that big idea to the audience. But I would say a better film would have had the balls to do away with the motivation completely, given the source material. The desire for there to be some sort of conflict, and the aliens to have some "reason" to be here which is easily understood by humans, is a construct of the film to make the thematic expression more interesting and exciting to a mass audience, and I think it weakens the film.
Back-In-Black
Banned
Well, the idea is that the aliens are showing her visions of the future i.e. letting her experience how they view time, all at once. As a result, those future scenes with her and the General make absolutely no sense given this context. She isn't traveling forward into the future, she's being shown the future or rather her "memories" of the future. So the fact that she suddenly doesn't remember speaking to the General and the General acts like he's compelled by some force to give her this vital information makes no sense. Interstellar actually does a better job at showing a causal loop paradox than Arrival.
I'm not sure what you mean by "serious sci-fi," because if Interstellar is disqualified for its sentimentality then Arrival must be as well. Interstellar is just more heavy handed with its use of emotions and sentiment but they are essentially the same themes.
I still need to read the short story, but from the way it seems to treat the subject I have a feeling I'll end up thinking like you on that front after I do. Especially considering that the heptapods having a clear understandable reason didn't have an impact on the overall story and it could have concluded just the same without it. Thinking about it, the weakest thing about the movie seems to be the need to excite beyond what's truly necessary at certain parts. The moments I liked the most were the ones when it was not doing that.
Yes I enjoyed the movie quite a bit coming out of it, since I didn't know what to expect. After I read the original short story, I realized how much the movie compromised to make something they felt would fit the requirements of a "movie". That was disappointing, but I still like the film a lot. It's all perspective I guess. If you like the mystique of the aliens being used to flavor what is essentially a personal story about a woman coming to terms with loss before even getting to her joy, you'll love the short story.
The_Hitcher89
Member
6 people (iirc) go into the ship. And 4 of them just happen to be stupid enough to conspire to attack it, knowing that there are 11 other ships across the world, and with seemingly no knowledge of the structural integrity of the ship they're attacking, or the other ships' capabilities for retaliation even if they were to destroy the one in Montana.
Not having it.
There's acting irrationally in exceptional circumstances, and there's that. Give one of those soldiers a functioning brain and 7 seconds, and he'd easily convince the others that its a ridiculous idea. It just doesn't sit right that the rest of the film goes to some lengths to explore the balance between not provoking the aliens, and being ready to respond to an attack, then there's some ridiculous faction at the other end who essentially do something stupid even by direct-to-video standards to push the plot forward and up the stakes.
I liked the film, but thought that part was absolute nonsense.
Back-In-Black
Banned
It makes even less sense when you consider that in the event of such a real life scenario the government would ensure only the most disciplined and professional soldiers would be allowed near the alien craft. And, they most certainly would not be allowed access to conspiracy laden radio casts. Everyone there would likely have been quarantined from the outside world. The last thing they would do is allow unsecured calls to their families.
Maybe the movie didn't frame it well, but it worked for me. We know things are falling apart in the world, and the population at large is starting to unrest more and more, with the leaked pictures of the aliens who looked like lovecraftian monsters it just pushed people over the edge. We saw a call from the soldier's family and how stressed everyone outside the military camps seems to be.
Vincent Grayson
Member
I mean, in theory, you're right.
But if Arrival happened right now, under the Trump admin, I don't think that's even remotely true. It'd be a goddamn mess.
"DID YOU SEE THE SIZE OF MY CROWDS FROM SPACE"?
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
Really? People are stupid and fearful, they elected Trump despite having clear evidence what kind of person he is. Here the soldiers have little information except for what is at base and what has leaked out elsewhere and the new information considering a weapon...it's not that hard of a reach.
Anyway just saw the movie earlier tonight. Loved it, one of my favorite movies of last year. The only thing I had a little trouble grasping was experiencing time non-linearly...not sure how that would even work, but oh well. Does anyone have any idea if we are going to get a fifth great sci-if film in the fall?
God Particle. Originally for February but now is a October movie.
I disagree. We see enough motivation coming from their perspective. They listen to conservative radio and their families are panicking. they are tired of waiting and having some linguist teach them words. The army dudes are literally xenophobic. Once they find out the aliens want to 'use weapon' they acted selfishly. It's not far-out nor is it nonsense. they were afraid
Just watched it.
While it's very academic and conventionnal in a lot of ways, the editing saves the bad screenwriting and lack of mise-en-scène in most of the shots - except the ones that are concerned by the editing (shallow depth of field with soft bokeh and soft warm colors, cinematography à la Mallick). It's not empty though and the sound design (related to the editing in particular) will be studied for its accuracy, depth and usefullness in telling the story.
It could have been better without the traditionnal clues and hints left by screenwriters in dialogues and other narrative tips, but I guess that's how you can get 50M$ into that kind of project and get a glimpse of an auteur's view. That's the best you could get in that perspective.
Andrei Tarkovski or Stanley Kubrick would have made a masterpiece with this screenplay. Tarkovski especially since he built many theories around the idea of time in movies.
Yep and not only that kind of plot distorsion.
They lower the standard and that's a shame. Easiley understood by humans, that's the key here.
Yeah once again what a shame we've seen 2 o 3 sequences that are hinted into the rebellion within the army (+all the TV catastrophe sequences, another lazy tool to tell your story), and later confirmed 2 or 3 times for the people at the back that didn't catch it all.
Science fiction, above all genres, is about mystery ; and cinema is about making images, if you don't use the assets of the genre and the Tools of filmmaking it's sad.
While it's very academic and conventionnal in a lot of ways, the editing saves the bad screenwriting and lack of mise-en-scène in most of the shots - except the ones that are concerned by the editing (shallow depth of field with soft bokeh and soft warm colors, cinematography à la Mallick). It's not empty though and the sound design (related to the editing in particular) will be studied for its accuracy, depth and usefullness in telling the story.
It could have been better without the traditionnal clues and hints left by screenwriters in dialogues and other narrative tips, but I guess that's how you can get 50M$ into that kind of project and get a glimpse of an auteur's view. That's the best you could get in that perspective.
Andrei Tarkovski or Stanley Kubrick would have made a masterpiece with this screenplay. Tarkovski especially since he built many theories around the idea of time in movies.
Yep and not only that kind of plot distorsion.
They lower the standard and that's a shame. Easiley understood by humans, that's the key here.
Yeah once again what a shame we've seen 2 o 3 sequences that are hinted into the rebellion within the army (+all the TV catastrophe sequences, another lazy tool to tell your story), and later confirmed 2 or 3 times for the people at the back that didn't catch it all.
Science fiction, above all genres, is about mystery ; and cinema is about making images, if you don't use the assets of the genre and the Tools of filmmaking it's sad.
Samurai G0SU
Member
Just finished ... movies moved me in many ways. I love this movie. The lead to the ending about her seeing her future when i thought it was her past.
Ffffffff.........
Ffffffff.........
Monocle
Member
This right here is the entire pointthe key difference between the two movies. Arrival incorporates its emotional themes effectively, without striking any mawkish notes. The main characters are defined by their emotional arcs in a natural way. Interstellar uses sentiment as a blunt instrument to hammer feelings into you with cheesy lines and brute theatrics.
*Wall of text warning*
I saw this after reading the story, and I have to say that the movie and story have differing strengths and weaknesses. The story is more effective as philosophy, and the movie is more effective as drama.
The original story by Ted Chiang contains a very interesting philosophical idea based on a real concept from physics called "action." I'm far from understanding this concept adequately, but it seems to be a way of describing the completeness of an action - its beginning, middle, and end - as a single mathematical equation. For example, if you throw a ball, you can predict where it will land based on its angle. Equally, if you catch a ball, you can predict where it came from based on its angle. Time works in both directions for any action, and "action" is the name for the sum total of, in this case, motion over time.
So, in the book, the aliens experience the world this way, unlike us, who experience it as cause -> effect. Their entire language is based around this aspect of their existence - it's not written with a starting point and an end point, but simultaneously at all points. The words in a sentence can be in any order, with their relationships defined not by space within a sentence or the time order in which they are spoken, but by extra words in the sentence.
In the original story, as soon as Louise begins to think in the alien language, she suddenly becomes able to see the future and past simultaneously. However, she is unable to alter her own actions in response, in even the smallest way. She sees all her own actions and their consequences simulataneously, and is as powerless to change the future as she is to change the past. This is a very interesting concept, and Ted Chaing expands on it beautifully, but dramatically, it is a weakness of the story, because it doesn't seem to actually be possible, and no physical mechanism is described that might cause this effect in her.
The screenwriters of the movie made some key tweaks to this original concept that undermined it in some ways, but also resolved some of its weaknesses. The movie implies that the aliens have used their language to alter Dr. Banks in some way, although that is left as a mystery. Furthermore, she is aware of her ability to see the future and seems to be able to change her actions to alter it. That make that movie much more entertaining as a story, but also much more conventional and less interesting as a piece of philosophy.
In the end, I think the story as written would have been very unsatisfying as a work of drama. It might have been better for the screenwriters to try to keep more of the original unconventionality and philosophical imaginativeness of the original, but I can't think of any way they could have done that while still making an effective big-budget Hollywood movie.
I saw this after reading the story, and I have to say that the movie and story have differing strengths and weaknesses. The story is more effective as philosophy, and the movie is more effective as drama.
The original story by Ted Chiang contains a very interesting philosophical idea based on a real concept from physics called "action." I'm far from understanding this concept adequately, but it seems to be a way of describing the completeness of an action - its beginning, middle, and end - as a single mathematical equation. For example, if you throw a ball, you can predict where it will land based on its angle. Equally, if you catch a ball, you can predict where it came from based on its angle. Time works in both directions for any action, and "action" is the name for the sum total of, in this case, motion over time.
So, in the book, the aliens experience the world this way, unlike us, who experience it as cause -> effect. Their entire language is based around this aspect of their existence - it's not written with a starting point and an end point, but simultaneously at all points. The words in a sentence can be in any order, with their relationships defined not by space within a sentence or the time order in which they are spoken, but by extra words in the sentence.
In the original story, as soon as Louise begins to think in the alien language, she suddenly becomes able to see the future and past simultaneously. However, she is unable to alter her own actions in response, in even the smallest way. She sees all her own actions and their consequences simulataneously, and is as powerless to change the future as she is to change the past. This is a very interesting concept, and Ted Chaing expands on it beautifully, but dramatically, it is a weakness of the story, because it doesn't seem to actually be possible, and no physical mechanism is described that might cause this effect in her.
The screenwriters of the movie made some key tweaks to this original concept that undermined it in some ways, but also resolved some of its weaknesses. The movie implies that the aliens have used their language to alter Dr. Banks in some way, although that is left as a mystery. Furthermore, she is aware of her ability to see the future and seems to be able to change her actions to alter it. That make that movie much more entertaining as a story, but also much more conventional and less interesting as a piece of philosophy.
In the end, I think the story as written would have been very unsatisfying as a work of drama. It might have been better for the screenwriters to try to keep more of the original unconventionality and philosophical imaginativeness of the original, but I can't think of any way they could have done that while still making an effective big-budget Hollywood movie.
Atraveller
Banned
My Blu-ray is on its way, gonna do a rewatch soon and see what more details I could uncover.
If nothing else, i think they could've left the action thing in, for the light-through-water property.
In my opinion, the second go-around is better.
On the fifth as soon as my BD gets here
Atraveller
Banned
I saw Arrival the second time in theater today. I can't really put my finger on it, but I really think this is a very tightly edited movie, very precise.
Edit: I've just had an interesting thought. After Castello revealed its purpose and flew away, the movie cuts to a scene of Louise standing in her house alone, looking lost, I think that's right after Louise told Ian about their daughter's sickness and Ian stormed out. (No, wait!)
She was not really experiencing all of her time simultaneously, there was always a shape, a sound or a word that triggers her future memories to bleed into her present consciousness. "An honor" triggered her conversation with the general, and later "what do I say" to his wife's last words.
Edit: I've just had an interesting thought. After Castello revealed its purpose and flew away, the movie cuts to a scene of Louise standing in her house alone, looking lost, I think that's right after Louise told Ian about their daughter's sickness and Ian stormed out. (No, wait!)
The fact that the audience gets the "flash forwards" before she encounters the aliens really cheapens that twist. Because the audience is intentionally mislead from the very beginning, but not in a clever way.
The movie would've been better if she only started getting dreams about the daughter after the first encounter.
A bunch of other things don't make sense after she got the ability to see the future, like the future meeting at the dinner party with General Shang, and her getting married and shit.
This was an ok movie, that's all.
The movie would've been better if she only started getting dreams about the daughter after the first encounter.
A bunch of other things don't make sense after she got the ability to see the future, like the future meeting at the dinner party with General Shang, and her getting married and shit.
This was an ok movie, that's all.
I don't think you get what he's saying. The scene with the general doesn't make sense because it actually happens in the future, in which she would already know how everything played out including his phone number.
Atraveller
Banned
I disagree, showing her daughter's life at the start of the movie is a red herring. If the audience suspects something is up from very early on, then the twist packs no punch.
I see that now, but maybe she was feigning ignorance to prompt the general, so the memory would make sense to her present self. Like the heptapods should understand English from the very start, but they still have to go through the motions of being taught English at one point of their lives. That's the best I could come up.
ffejeromdiks
Banned
Uh what? No. The movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective if it was told chronologically from our main characters perspective. It wouldn't even be a twist if they staggered those scenes like that, terrible criticism. You're basically saying strip away the unique aspects of the film, instead opting for more cookie-cutter hollywood and spoon-fed nonsense.
Movie is stellar, and part of that reason is that it deceives you from the very start using film language, which cycles back to the core themes of the film: language and communication.
Nerdwriter has a great video exploring the depth of the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z18LY6NME1s
I don't think so. Feigning ignorance...really? That makes the movie even shittier if true.
The point of her daughter actually getting cancer and her husband leaving her was that her visions all come true. That she doesn't actually change the future, she can just see them.
Which makes the movie dumb because what's the point of being able to see the future if you can't change anything.
Atraveller
Banned
What? She could change the future but chose not to, that was part of the message of the movie. How could you miss that?
If you can change the future, what's the point of having that conversation with General Shang at the dinner party in the future?
Or are you saying that in a "previous future" timeline, she actually goes to a dinner party and feigns ignorance while chatting to Shang. But now that she saved the world, she no longer needs to feign ignorance or even talk to Shang because what's the point of even talking to Shang now that it's already happened?
Time is only linear from a very narrow perspective. The passage of the days/seasons is cyclical (sunrise-sunset-sunrise; spring-summer-autumn-winter-spring etc).
This film was good because it illuminated this, but to say it's pointing out something previously not experienced by humans is incorrect.
This film was good because it illuminated this, but to say it's pointing out something previously not experienced by humans is incorrect.
Holy shit the kid dies in the future. Mind. BLOWN.
She's not changing the future, or feigning ignorance, and there's no alternate timelines. She's experiencing time non-linearly. That's the whole point of the movie methinks.
She's not changing the future, or feigning ignorance, and there's no alternate timelines. She's experiencing time non-linearly. That's the whole point of the movie methinks.
I was at first bothered by the appearance of not knowing about past/future, for example during the conversation with the general.
However, it occurs to me that people might be assuming "can see parts of the past and future" to mean "remembers past and future at any given moment". But this isn't even true about spatial dimensions. I have access to the space in my home, but in any given instant I can't perceive all of it. Likewise, at a given moment in space, I'm not sure why she should be able to perceive everything along the temporal dimension.
This has some odd side effects, of course. For example, in the same way that I might step through a doorway and a part of space becomes imperceptible to me, if she moves into a specific interval of time, she may not be able to perceive other intervals of time -- both past and future.
Not sure if that makes any sense to y'all. Basically, ask yourself if you know everything about the space around you at any given moment. Answer should be "no", so now apply that concept to time as yet another dimension.
However, it occurs to me that people might be assuming "can see parts of the past and future" to mean "remembers past and future at any given moment". But this isn't even true about spatial dimensions. I have access to the space in my home, but in any given instant I can't perceive all of it. Likewise, at a given moment in space, I'm not sure why she should be able to perceive everything along the temporal dimension.
This has some odd side effects, of course. For example, in the same way that I might step through a doorway and a part of space becomes imperceptible to me, if she moves into a specific interval of time, she may not be able to perceive other intervals of time -- both past and future.
Not sure if that makes any sense to y'all. Basically, ask yourself if you know everything about the space around you at any given moment. Answer should be "no", so now apply that concept to time as yet another dimension.
It's sloppy writing.
What needed to happen was, at the dinner party she says to the general, "Hey, you know how I saved our asses 2 years ago? It's because at this moment I need you to tell me your late wife's dying words, and also your personal phone number."
Not, be all confused about why he's telling her all this stuff at the party. That makes zero sense in the movie.
Another problem is the ethics of knowing your future child will suffer and die from cancer, but having her anyway just because you personally decided to experience the good and bad.
I thought the General knew enough about the alien's language so he had to know he had to tell her specific things
as for that child part, the arrival is more important than the departure thingy
DevilPower
Member
In my opinion, in order to better understand this movie you would have to visualize time as NON-LINEAR. Meaning for Louise, past and future is the same. She can remember her past (like any normal person) and also could "remember" her future. All the psychological effects that apply to remembering past also apply to "remembering" future.
Take for example the effect of "distortion of facts" when we remember the past. As the event becomes older (in past) we start to lose details of it (we remember yesterday vividly but only a few moments from 20 years ago). The same applies to "remembering" the future. Louise remembers several details of her child's birth/childhood but few details while she was on deathbed (It could also be because the human mind tends to forget moments of grief and moments of happiness are remembered).
Another effect when remembering past is the when you remember things through interconnection (for lack of a better word).
An example of this:
You would not remember what you had for breakfast yesterday but if somebody mentioned to you that you arrived in the office late you you would make the connection between breakfast and office and would probably go like "Oh yeah... I didn't have any breakfast yesterday because I was getting late for Office...".
The same applies to "remembering" the future. In the movie Ian mentions the "Non-Zero sum game". In the scene that precedes it the daughter was asking Louise about the Win-Win situation and she didn't have a word for it, but when Ian mentions the exact phrase, she makes the connections and "remembers" telling her daughter the phrase.
The General Shang "phone number/wife words" scene is better understood if you consider it to happen in the past (for the sake of understanding). She doesn't remember what was the phone number or what to say to the General but when she forcefully tries to recall she remembers the General telling her his wife's dying words...
Louise's recollection of the future is not exact, same like our recollection of our past isn't always exact. Meaning the General wouldn't have told Louise her wife's words in the same way she recollects. It might have been different (who knows)...
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
LordKasual
Banned
If she gains the ability to perceive time non-linearly, she no longer needs to "change" the future. Only observe what she wants to observe. From this point on, everything will ultimately resolve itself. Which is why the Aliens only needed a single human to gain the ability in order to complete their task.
How it happens, the cause and effect, and the order of events are completely irrelevant at this point. As long as it CAN happen, Louise WILL find and observe the future in which it does, if only by avoiding the futures in which it doesn't. This is why when she asks the alien to send messages to the other ships, he simply tells her to just use the ability he gave her (to "OPEN time"). If the solution to her problem exists in her timeline (AT ALL), she has access to it. I think in this sense, the question "which timeline is it" is just as pointless as "which present is it". The concept starts to break down.
This is also what the Aliens themselves are doing. For whatever reason, they collectively need the humans 3000 years in the future. Of course, the moment Louise was successfully taught the ability to "open time", the Aliens already achieved a future in which humanity has successfully helped them -- the ability to re-program Louise's brain at all must be attributed to the fact that the Aliens essentially have the ability to observe only the future outcome they want to observe.
As for her PERSONAL actions, I think this is where the significance of the gift comes into play. She's still a human, with her own preferences and personality, and no matter how much of the future she can change (which would be anything), none of it matters because everything is already resolved.
You can ask why Louise doesn't just observe a future in which her child is somehow cured of cancer. But such a question like that wouldn't even be significant to Louise anymore. The concept of death is of absolutely no consequence to a being which could perceive time as tenseless. Death is still only a temporary configuration of her existence, or her daughter's.
Man that credits scene with Wolfram searching for his own book, not finding it and cracking self-deprecating jokes about it had me laughing my ass off.
Somehow i can see a lot of the linguist that consulted in Louise, she did a really good job.
Awesome analysis/docu and unlike most of their kind on Youtube the run time is fully-deserved. Thanks for sharing!
Ah, no. What you said would be sloppy writing because it would infer that she can time travel, or control time, which she can't. She's experiencing that event before she experiences the initial phone conversation, because, as the movie is explaining, there's no beginning, no end. It would be stupid for her to already know about the phone conversation and force the General to give her that information.
This is the PERFECT way to explain it. She's remembering the future. Gahhh. Thank you, you make it so much easier to wrap my head around.
broncobuster
Banned
You're incorrectly applying Bill and Ted Logic to this movie.
BLAUcopter
Member
Seductivpancakes
Member
Out of no where, Amy Adams has become one of my favorite actresses.
The score is fantastic.
The tension of the aliens arriving, combined with the constant grey, and Amy Adam's acting, totally fooled me into thinking she was still grieving for her daughter.
The score is fantastic.
The tension of the aliens arriving, combined with the constant grey, and Amy Adam's acting, totally fooled me into thinking she was still grieving for her daughter.
She is an expert in many languages. A couple of digits should be easy for her.
DevilPower
Member
Maybe the General's number is 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3. Easy to remember...
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Fuck I loved this, glad I finally got around to it.
ginger ninja
Banned
Glad I am not the only one who saw this like a spritual successor to cobtact. It even gave me the same post movie reaction as contact, Meh.
Edit: also I haven't had the chance to articulate my opinion on this movie but correct me if I am wrong: the reason that she is able to see the future is because she was the first one to decipher their language to that degree and in doing that it rewired her brain to think like aliens and thus able to think of time as non-linear and thus see the future, but isn't this logic breaking some form of time causality loop/paradox ?
Edit: and coming to the main question, if time becomes non linear for you, don't you basically lose the gift of free will ? Does choices even matter in such a world ?
Edit: also I haven't had the chance to articulate my opinion on this movie but correct me if I am wrong: the reason that she is able to see the future is because she was the first one to decipher their language to that degree and in doing that it rewired her brain to think like aliens and thus able to think of time as non-linear and thus see the future, but isn't this logic breaking some form of time causality loop/paradox ?
Edit: and coming to the main question, if time becomes non linear for you, don't you basically lose the gift of free will ? Does choices even matter in such a world ?
FunkyPajamas
Member
I liked the movie but this video highlights my main issue with it. There wasn't really any science discussed in depth in this movie. Ian's narration just glossed over pretty much all the questions I had. I get it that the point of the movie is not to explain how they got here, how they found humanity (I guess it all can be explained by "they see time as a circle" anyway), for how long they've been traveling, or why specifically humans are the ones to help them. Are there other species? What's their society like? Etc, etc. Like, even for some of the core subjects of the movie (communication/language/linguistics and determinism/free will/flow of time), the movie doesn't really go into much detail (e.g. how the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is only mentioned briefly).
I get the science behind the movie, and it's pretty cool that they did that, but the movie feels more to me like a drama with a sci-fi backdrop, and I wanted something a bit more sci-fi centered.
Amy's performance is great. I've always liked Renner, though his character feels relegated to the background here; this is Amy's movie after all. Whitaker is doing generic army general role, what a waste. The movie looks fantastic (I hate that I didn't catch it in theaters) and I liked the designs of the aliens/ship. As I said, I liked the movie but I'm not crazy about it. Oh, and I know Ian's narration talks about how long it's been for them studying/communicating with the aliens but come on people, grow a stubble or get some makeup for dark circles under your eyes or something. Sell me on the "it's been months" thing. The only thing stating how stressful/strenuous the whole process has been is probably Louise's hands shaking, and talking about lack of sleep/being tired.
We're low on good hard sci-fi films so I guess I understand why people are praising this movie so much.
The wikipedia entry for the short story that the movie is based on answers your questions a bit, if you want to read that (or if you want to read the story itself).
The gist of it is: she is able to experience time as a circle because she mastered a new language that is built/based around that principle. Apparently she's the first to actually learn their language up to that level (even though other countries/scientists also communicated with the beings, albeit with methods other than written language: e.g. mahjong). I'm not sure that premise alone would create a paradox, although the reason why she's able to actually grasp the language to such an advanced degree in the nick of time (right before she goes alone to the ship near the end) is because she's mastered the language in the future, I assume after months (or years) of studying the "dump" that the aliens left in the glass panel right before the explosion (the one Ian is studying when she wakes up, where he starts talking about time). So, she knows enough of the language so that her brain is being rewired and she's experiencing glimpses of the future, and then takes advantage of that to see her mastery of the language in the future which improves her domain/use of the ability.
I'm not 100% convinced that while in "the present" after she's talked to the aliens for the last time she's entirely aware of what's "the future" and what isn't, because she says to herself (when Ian is helping her back to the truck) "I know why my husband left me" (instead of "I know why my husband leaves me"). Imagine if you could jump both at will and unwittingly (triggered by a word, a sound, any sort of connection) to the future and you didn't have enough context to know whether you're "remembering" or "foreseeing". Even more, get rid of those words. Forget "remember" and forget "foresee". Change those to "experience". Get rid of "memory" and change that to "event". You're experiencing events. If you have no point of reference for where that event is occurring in your lifetime, how would you know to identify it one way or another?
Regarding free will. She had the option of not marrying him, and/or not having a daughter with him. But she still chose to (free will) because she fell in love with him and wanted to experience the joy of seeing her daughter grow. She chose to experience those events. It would have been interesting for the movie to explore that a bit more, I think, but it makes sense within the context of how a parent loves a child I guess (I don't have kids).
Anton Sugar
Member
This is cheating, but listening to a QA with the writer, he says that Abbott and Costello didn't attempt to stop the bomb because Abbott saw that Louise would choose the tragedy and love of her child over the alternative and he admired that decision.
So just because they CAN change events doesn't mean they will or want to.
So just because they CAN change events doesn't mean they will or want to.
DevilPower
Member
(Minor book spoilers about time paradox)
In the book the it is mentioned that such knowledge of future is a paradox but it also mentions a possibility that maybe experience of knowing the future changes a person so that she gets "a sense of obligation to act precisely as she knew she would"...
We don't know as it is not mentioned... Left up to imagination I guess...
(Minor book spoilers about possible reason)
None give. In the book even the 3000 years scenario is not mentioned.
- Status