why didnt the aliens just learn english? Then they could have just written on the wall in english "hey there is a bomb over there", and then abbott would not be death process?
What would they even need our help with? They seem pretty big and have those rocks they fly around in, they seem to have everything pretty in hand. And how is she even meant to memoirse chinese mans number in like 2 seconds?
>And how is she even meant to memoirse chinese mans number in like 2 seconds?
i assume it's because the memory is ever present in her mind. i imagine it works by slaughterhouse-five rules
>And how is she even meant to memoirse chinese mans number in like 2 seconds?
i assume it's because the memory is ever present in her mind. i imagine it works by slaughterhouse-five rules
[...]
That's why i'm posting here
>The entire film was about humanities burgeoning alien foot fetish
>why didnt the aliens just learn english?
Their way of interaction is entirely intentional so humans have to work together to solve what's happening. That’s why there are 12 spaceships across the globe instead of one, if they just came to Amy Adams house with a simple instructional word file then there would be no one to help them in 3000 years like they wanted to. >What would they even need our help with?
They need help in 3000 years, not right then.
>why didnt the aliens just learn english?
The only way you could possibly ask this question is if you didn't watch the film or paid literally zero attention. The entire point was to bring humanity together
Humans become smarter than the aliens in 4000 years in this movie. Humans always think they are at the top, which is why their gods are so similar to them.
If the 'humanity fuck yeah' stories on /tg/ are to believed, once there is some sort of galactic government the other species will regard humanity with fear as we naturally produce one of the most controlled substances, adrenaline.
There's some schizoid harvard linguistics professor IRL who keeps talking about how vibrations within some part of the brain can partially change how we perceive our surroundings and some other shit about "shadow biomes" that exist on earth. wish i could remember the dudes name but I absolutely love shit like this
Stanford, not Harvard.. immunologist and microbiologist. Garry Nolan.
He briefly hinted that in a podcast, he didnt specify shadow biosphere, just said that the research was very interesting from the group doing it, and that they are doing papers on proving it, they could measure something there.
Maybe if you’re not interested in the topic of UAP. The guy is literally nobel prize nominated, you should listen to some interviews with him.
?t=2511
This is the reference video, like i said this is something only he can elborate on, reseach is ongoing currently as far as i understand from this.
small scale, character drive plot with big implications for the rest of the world, so actions feel compelling.
amy adams' got robbed of her oscar with this performance because hollywood wanted to suck its own dick with la la land
good writing, dialogue, and central theme. ultimately, a good representation of what love (and ensuring that china won't nuke everyone) will push you to do regardless circumstances
I actually love La La Land and I think it's underrated (everyone says it's overrated, it seems like only the academy actually rates it highly though).
But Arrival is in a completely different league.
probably because it's the first thing that made you actually considered a language taking a different form than your own and this made you think you're intelligent because you understood what they were trying to do with the concept but, in truth, the language form they demonstrated in the movie was fucking retarded and wouldn't really work in real life and that almost certainly every alien language would actually look something akin to ours
I didn't really think about the "mechanics" of any of the scifi stuff because it's a hollywood movie. I'm already well aware that the language one uses effects their thought patterns. Why do you think everyone on Cinemaphile talks the way they do moron?
>WE dont even have "one language" you can call "ours"
Yes, we do. The general aesthetics, structures, and rules to all languages are essentially the same. Just as in math, these things are universals they just haven't been given the same respect and strictures that scientists have placed behind mathematics, yet. Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics. Grammar. Rhetoric. Logic. Et cetera. It's all an evolution of standards around language. Hell even Tolkien's Phonoaesthetics. Phonetics. Poetics. Articulation. Pronunciation. Just because we have different words or sounds doesn't mean the rules of language in general are different.
You seem to know what you're talking about so let me ask you some questions. Doesn't Latin have a completely different syntax from most modern languages? Do you consider that they are more alike than different because they both have syntax? Don't African click languages fall outside of a lot of the standards that you're talking about?
>Doesn't Latin have a completely different syntax from most modern languages? Do you consider that they are more alike than different because they both have syntax?
Yes and no, but your second question does generally allude to what I mean. English is more principled and ordered but they’re more alike than different to me. >Don't African click languages fall outside of a lot of the standards that you're talking about?
I would say even click languages are phonetic and can be written grammatically with the best analogy to something akin to Morse code, etc.
Don't chinks use what is essentially hieroglyphics for their written language?
>Don't chinks use what is essentially hieroglyphics for their written language?
Yes but the formal (pictographs) we’re from a much older time when technologically they had to keep things short. Writings on signs, bamboo, etc. Informal mandarin is much closer to our modern development.
The written languages in asia are completely different because they use (as you said) hieroglyphic-type words where a symbol represents an idea/object instead of a sound.
But that doesn't mean that what he said is necessarily wrong. I thought he was really wrong, but basic google translate tells me that the language is still formed of the same general components. You can test this by translating a sentence and then changing a couple of the words and seeing how much that impacts the translated sentence. A language that was formed in an entirely different way would wholly change when translated because the translation would be attempting to describe the meaning rather than the words (since the words wouldn't have 1:1 counterparts)
You have a part of your brain dedicated to doing language. If it's destroyed you can't talk anymore. If it's damaged you can talk but extremely poorly, even if you're able to "think" as well as before, you can't articulate your thoughts. Children pick up languages automatically, but if you try to learn one part the age of 14 you will forever sound wrong to a native speaker. Children will also spontaneously create new grammars if you leave them alone, and they will even fix the grammar of broken languages. E.g., if you have two immigrant populations living on top of and mingling with and intermarrying each other, they will develop a "creole" language, which is a mix of the two populations' native languages. But this creole language will be simplistic and awkward. That is, *until* those people have children and teach their children their mixed language, at which point the children will spontaneously correct all the grammatical flaws of the language and fill in missing words with new ones of their own.
I could go on, but anyway, the evidence is basically unambiguous that humans are born with an innate understanding of language, and varied words and grammars are just symbols filling in pre-existing structures. (Probably, also, the reason there are so many different languages isn't because language is e.g., too complicated for people to share the same one, but because different populations deliberately create their own languages for the purpose of social exclusion).
But... this doesn't suggest that language is universal, just that all humans share the same language instinct. A different species might well have a different one. Apparently this is a controversial subject in linguistics (I'm not a linguist, I just read books for laymen).
The premise of the movie is still retarded though.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>also, the reason there are so many different languages isn't because language is e.g., too complicated for people to share the same one, but because different populations deliberately create their own languages for the purpose of social exclusion
That's genuinely fascinating. And it makes so much sense when you have have languages on the verge of dying out and get people autistically clinging to them for no practical reason other than "muh culture" (gaelic springs to mind). >The premise of the movie is still retarded though.
In what way? You must be very familiar with the way that language changes the way people think about things, beyond just reading the sapir-whorf wiki page. So why does a sci-fi take on that seem retarded to you?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>and varied words and grammars are just symbols filling in pre-existing structures.
based plato continues to be correct. i had to get interviewed by a glowie psychiatrist because i answered one of their forms with wrongthink stating that a human being is incapable of truly discovering anything new because it already exists in our mind's physical structure
3 months ago
Anonymous
>spends and entire post gushing about why humans are biologically hardwired to crack languages >thinks the premise of arrival is retarded
you got like 99% of a good post and analysis but fell on your face at the end
This. You can nitpick about little shit all you want but the message and themes of the movie are sound, the acting is well done, it's unique, but the ending kills it.
it's pretty well-written sci-fi as long as you don't mind the premise.
it's also the only Denis Villeneuve movie he doesn't have a writing credit for, yet is also the commercial success he was able to ride to making multiple mega-budget borefests.
I just wish they spent more time on explaining how they translated the language
They basically smash cut from "oh they make cool symbols" to "okay we can translate these 20 words already"
I suppose the writers would have had no fucking idea how to get that first step
Because even though it goes a bit christopher nolan/makoto shinkai at the end - it's a great movie, and there is vanishingly few good scifi movies at all these days.
It wasn't a great a movie but it had some really cool aspects. There's something really neat about being curious and attempting to communicate with some giant scary aliens that are actually docile. Was Abbott able to foresee the future if it went beyond his lifespan or was he just trusting Costello's insight?
Abbott would know his own death is necessary for the greater good. He would know he would sacrifice himself to save the woman from the moment he understood language. He cannot see past that, but knows it must happen from talking to others of his species.
>You know what the incredible thing about all this was? It wasn't communicating with aliens on their spacecraft, it was meeting you.
Bracvo Villenolan. 10/10 writing.
Am I the only one who likes the anticipation of meeting the aliens for the first time in these types of movies? Like where you see the military jets flying and the government setting up camp around the ships? For some reason I find a lot of enjoyment from that type of hype.
If this were an episode of Outer Limits, it would've been fucking amazing. But for a feature length movie, it's got some intensely weak execution. The not-Alex-Jones army guys are cartoon characters, and the rest of it's leaning so heavily on you giving a shit about her and her kid that it forgets to actually build that need to care.
>The not-Alex-Jones army guys are cartoon characters
I thought it was handled very well. I don't need multiple scenes of him and some other grunts yelling about Aliens making the frogs gay. Just having sprinkled in a silent scene of this one guy consuming propaganda content and you know, without him saying anything, that he is planning to do something.
Why are none of these new Oscarcore movies as memorable as old ones? It feels like these movies are called masterpieces then a year later no one even remembers they exist. That didn't seem to be the case with the best movies coming out between 1970 and 2010
Because you have shitty taste in movies
/Thread
/reddit
it's science fiction with good writing.
why didnt the aliens just learn english? Then they could have just written on the wall in english "hey there is a bomb over there", and then abbott would not be death process?
What would they even need our help with? They seem pretty big and have those rocks they fly around in, they seem to have everything pretty in hand. And how is she even meant to memoirse chinese mans number in like 2 seconds?
self fulfilling prophecy
>And how is she even meant to memoirse chinese mans number in like 2 seconds?
i assume it's because the memory is ever present in her mind. i imagine it works by slaughterhouse-five rules
That's why i'm posting here
giant alien feet lmao
Imagine seeing a chicken for the first time and thinking its face was its feet
>The entire film was about humanities burgeoning alien foot fetish
Hang, they were feet the entire time?
it shows their true form in the last 15 minutes of the movie. they spent about 2 hours talking to and obsessing over alien feet
>oi, is that a 1.5 metre cloaca I see there? looks like it could use a good probin'. he'll really be pissed off neyow.
>why didnt the aliens just learn english?
Their way of interaction is entirely intentional so humans have to work together to solve what's happening. That’s why there are 12 spaceships across the globe instead of one, if they just came to Amy Adams house with a simple instructional word file then there would be no one to help them in 3000 years like they wanted to.
>What would they even need our help with?
They need help in 3000 years, not right then.
>why didnt the aliens just learn english?
The only way you could possibly ask this question is if you didn't watch the film or paid literally zero attention.
The entire point was to bring humanity together
Humans become smarter than the aliens in 4000 years in this movie. Humans always think they are at the top, which is why their gods are so similar to them.
If the 'humanity fuck yeah' stories on /tg/ are to believed, once there is some sort of galactic government the other species will regard humanity with fear as we naturally produce one of the most controlled substances, adrenaline.
>why didnt the aliens just learn english
because that wouldnt help them later
aliens that feel truly alien- "heptapod" means 7 limbs and those aren't a thing on Earth. plus their entire system of language.
There's some schizoid harvard linguistics professor IRL who keeps talking about how vibrations within some part of the brain can partially change how we perceive our surroundings and some other shit about "shadow biomes" that exist on earth. wish i could remember the dudes name but I absolutely love shit like this
Isn't that the guy who thinks the tic tacs are living creatures that have emerged from the shadow biome?
Stanford, not Harvard.. immunologist and microbiologist. Garry Nolan.
He briefly hinted that in a podcast, he didnt specify shadow biosphere, just said that the research was very interesting from the group doing it, and that they are doing papers on proving it, they could measure something there.
Could you expand?
You sound kinda schizo yourself here. What's the claim that he's actually making? And what does the evidence say?
Maybe if you’re not interested in the topic of UAP. The guy is literally nobel prize nominated, you should listen to some interviews with him.
?t=2511
This is the reference video, like i said this is something only he can elborate on, reseach is ongoing currently as far as i understand from this.
Linked the wrong video, here is the one, dont have a direct timestamp, but here is a clip from reddit of it.
https://libreddit.spike.codes/r/UFOs/comments/11dxm3h/garry_nolan_on_the_extraordinary_ongoing_research/
The melancholic style that Villeneuve always uses in his drama movies
small scale, character drive plot with big implications for the rest of the world, so actions feel compelling.
amy adams' got robbed of her oscar with this performance because hollywood wanted to suck its own dick with la la land
good writing, dialogue, and central theme. ultimately, a good representation of what love (and ensuring that china won't nuke everyone) will push you to do regardless circumstances
This lost to lalaland?
>people think La La Land won the Best Picture to this day
Get wrecked, gay Blacks
Lala land was better
>Lala land was better
This
Lalaland was better. Hating on Lalaland is a truly midwit take.
i dont even know what people see in la la land, it was mid af
I actually love La La Land and I think it's underrated (everyone says it's overrated, it seems like only the academy actually rates it highly though).
But Arrival is in a completely different league.
probably because it's the first thing that made you actually considered a language taking a different form than your own and this made you think you're intelligent because you understood what they were trying to do with the concept but, in truth, the language form they demonstrated in the movie was fucking retarded and wouldn't really work in real life and that almost certainly every alien language would actually look something akin to ours
I didn't really think about the "mechanics" of any of the scifi stuff because it's a hollywood movie. I'm already well aware that the language one uses effects their thought patterns. Why do you think everyone on Cinemaphile talks the way they do moron?
>that almost certainly every alien language would actually look something akin to ours
>ours
WE dont even have "one language" you can call "ours"
>WE dont even have "one language" you can call "ours"
Yes, we do. The general aesthetics, structures, and rules to all languages are essentially the same. Just as in math, these things are universals they just haven't been given the same respect and strictures that scientists have placed behind mathematics, yet. Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics. Grammar. Rhetoric. Logic. Et cetera. It's all an evolution of standards around language. Hell even Tolkien's Phonoaesthetics. Phonetics. Poetics. Articulation. Pronunciation. Just because we have different words or sounds doesn't mean the rules of language in general are different.
You seem to know what you're talking about so let me ask you some questions. Doesn't Latin have a completely different syntax from most modern languages? Do you consider that they are more alike than different because they both have syntax? Don't African click languages fall outside of a lot of the standards that you're talking about?
>Doesn't Latin have a completely different syntax from most modern languages? Do you consider that they are more alike than different because they both have syntax?
Yes and no, but your second question does generally allude to what I mean. English is more principled and ordered but they’re more alike than different to me.
>Don't African click languages fall outside of a lot of the standards that you're talking about?
I would say even click languages are phonetic and can be written grammatically with the best analogy to something akin to Morse code, etc.
>Don't chinks use what is essentially hieroglyphics for their written language?
Yes but the formal (pictographs) we’re from a much older time when technologically they had to keep things short. Writings on signs, bamboo, etc. Informal mandarin is much closer to our modern development.
Don't chinks use what is essentially hieroglyphics for their written language?
The written languages in asia are completely different because they use (as you said) hieroglyphic-type words where a symbol represents an idea/object instead of a sound.
But that doesn't mean that what he said is necessarily wrong. I thought he was really wrong, but basic google translate tells me that the language is still formed of the same general components. You can test this by translating a sentence and then changing a couple of the words and seeing how much that impacts the translated sentence. A language that was formed in an entirely different way would wholly change when translated because the translation would be attempting to describe the meaning rather than the words (since the words wouldn't have 1:1 counterparts)
You have a part of your brain dedicated to doing language. If it's destroyed you can't talk anymore. If it's damaged you can talk but extremely poorly, even if you're able to "think" as well as before, you can't articulate your thoughts. Children pick up languages automatically, but if you try to learn one part the age of 14 you will forever sound wrong to a native speaker. Children will also spontaneously create new grammars if you leave them alone, and they will even fix the grammar of broken languages. E.g., if you have two immigrant populations living on top of and mingling with and intermarrying each other, they will develop a "creole" language, which is a mix of the two populations' native languages. But this creole language will be simplistic and awkward. That is, *until* those people have children and teach their children their mixed language, at which point the children will spontaneously correct all the grammatical flaws of the language and fill in missing words with new ones of their own.
I could go on, but anyway, the evidence is basically unambiguous that humans are born with an innate understanding of language, and varied words and grammars are just symbols filling in pre-existing structures. (Probably, also, the reason there are so many different languages isn't because language is e.g., too complicated for people to share the same one, but because different populations deliberately create their own languages for the purpose of social exclusion).
But... this doesn't suggest that language is universal, just that all humans share the same language instinct. A different species might well have a different one. Apparently this is a controversial subject in linguistics (I'm not a linguist, I just read books for laymen).
The premise of the movie is still retarded though.
>also, the reason there are so many different languages isn't because language is e.g., too complicated for people to share the same one, but because different populations deliberately create their own languages for the purpose of social exclusion
That's genuinely fascinating. And it makes so much sense when you have have languages on the verge of dying out and get people autistically clinging to them for no practical reason other than "muh culture" (gaelic springs to mind).
>The premise of the movie is still retarded though.
In what way? You must be very familiar with the way that language changes the way people think about things, beyond just reading the sapir-whorf wiki page. So why does a sci-fi take on that seem retarded to you?
>and varied words and grammars are just symbols filling in pre-existing structures.
based plato continues to be correct. i had to get interviewed by a glowie psychiatrist because i answered one of their forms with wrongthink stating that a human being is incapable of truly discovering anything new because it already exists in our mind's physical structure
>spends and entire post gushing about why humans are biologically hardwired to crack languages
>thinks the premise of arrival is retarded
you got like 99% of a good post and analysis but fell on your face at the end
>essentially the same
"essentially" is doing an Atlas level of heavy lifting here
Sure. You’re welcome to disagree.
you didn't
Because it's an absolute masterpiece and probably the best sci fi film of the 21st century.
It was unique. I still enjoyed the short story more and wish the aliens were more like it described them.
The ending makes me cry like a moron every time. I never cry at movies, but it's so fucking tragic.
This. You can nitpick about little shit all you want but the message and themes of the movie are sound, the acting is well done, it's unique, but the ending kills it.
moron.
And to think there's people who say that women don't visit Cinemaphile.
I'm a man but I have been described by several ex-girlfriends as "womanly" and "too feminine" before.
It's over
And Yet I Fuck
post of a webm of the dream scare
it's pretty well-written sci-fi as long as you don't mind the premise.
it's also the only Denis Villeneuve movie he doesn't have a writing credit for, yet is also the commercial success he was able to ride to making multiple mega-budget borefests.
further proof that books > movies
I just wish they spent more time on explaining how they translated the language
They basically smash cut from "oh they make cool symbols" to "okay we can translate these 20 words already"
I suppose the writers would have had no fucking idea how to get that first step
the movie was shit
Because you're reddit
Because even though it goes a bit christopher nolan/makoto shinkai at the end - it's a great movie, and there is vanishingly few good scifi movies at all these days.
cause youre a redditor
It wasn't a great a movie but it had some really cool aspects. There's something really neat about being curious and attempting to communicate with some giant scary aliens that are actually docile.
Was Abbott able to foresee the future if it went beyond his lifespan or was he just trusting Costello's insight?
Abbott would know his own death is necessary for the greater good. He would know he would sacrifice himself to save the woman from the moment he understood language. He cannot see past that, but knows it must happen from talking to others of his species.
Because it's actually very good.
>You know what the incredible thing about all this was? It wasn't communicating with aliens on their spacecraft, it was meeting you.
Bracvo Villenolan. 10/10 writing.
Am I the only one who likes the anticipation of meeting the aliens for the first time in these types of movies? Like where you see the military jets flying and the government setting up camp around the ships? For some reason I find a lot of enjoyment from that type of hype.
Same. Taking all of the precautions possible and then giving them a chance by sending in some madmen to take a leap of faith to see what happens.
same
I liked this movie but when I really try to think about it I realize I'm a brainlet.
If this were an episode of Outer Limits, it would've been fucking amazing. But for a feature length movie, it's got some intensely weak execution. The not-Alex-Jones army guys are cartoon characters, and the rest of it's leaning so heavily on you giving a shit about her and her kid that it forgets to actually build that need to care.
>The not-Alex-Jones army guys are cartoon characters
I thought it was handled very well. I don't need multiple scenes of him and some other grunts yelling about Aliens making the frogs gay. Just having sprinkled in a silent scene of this one guy consuming propaganda content and you know, without him saying anything, that he is planning to do something.
>handled very well
Yes, allowing uncontrolled outside comms during the biggest event in military history was handled very well.
>uncontrolled outside comms
From what I recall, it was uncontrolled input, but outgoing comms were tightly controlled.
I wanted to like it but the language/time travel twist was too fucking stupid. Would have preferred almost anything else
Why are none of these new Oscarcore movies as memorable as old ones? It feels like these movies are called masterpieces then a year later no one even remembers they exist. That didn't seem to be the case with the best movies coming out between 1970 and 2010
People are literally talking about Arrival in this thread, what are you on about?
I think he's comparing stuff like Green Mile and Godfather to the run of the mill Oscar bait like La La land, moonlight and hidden figures.