[Aptorian]

The Taxi series and later the Transporter is definitely films I would say are quintessential Besson films. The guy loves to film car chases.

It was when I saw the random car chase in Lucy that I realised this has to be a Luc Besson film.

This post has been edited by Apt: 15 November 2016 - 01:08 PM

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 14 November 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

Going spoilers to continue talking with QT, I think we're wrapping up our thoughts for now though, so it won't take over the whole thread for those of you plebians who've not seen Arrival yet.

Spoiler

QuickTidal, on 14 November 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

I have the same lingering questions as you...the child question for Louise was (unless I misunderstand it) that she feels she HAS to have Hannah, so that the heptapod portion of her life can occur and the world can exist and not go to war...similar to that LOST ep The Constant. You need the beginning (heptapod language study at the ship), and the end (Hannah's life) to make up the whole (time foreseeing) equation. I also think that Louise was willing to have the child simply because she was going to give her a good life even knowing where that short life ends up. My question: Is there a part of Louise that WONDERS if Hannah's illness can be averted now that she can use the heptapod language for foreseeing? I wondered at that. I THINK that's the implication with time not being linear for her any longer...but I'm not sure. Not that Hannah won't die for sure...but that there is a possibility it won't occur how it did in her visions...which might be enough for her to feel safe in going ahead with the pregnancy.

I think the tech level isn't ever going to be high enough in Louise's/Hannah's lifetime to fix the very rare genetic disease. And perhaps any child conceived between Ian and Louise would have it - and so having that time and love, even though it's going to end in heartbreak, is still the right move for Louise. That's such an emotionally fraught and complex thing. I love that the movie was willing to go there (haven't read the short story it's based on... yet).

Quote

I LOVE the conversation with Costello about the "in 3000 years humanity will help us", and how for that to happen the heptapods have to bequeath them with this foresight gift. I believe it DOES posit a more peaceful future. Because with people becoming unstuck from time, it would be hard to lie ..and would be easier to avoid potential issues?

I'm curious what it is the heptapods might need help with, but I'm fond of the idea that humanity has advanced enough by that point to do so.

I THINK it's also implied in one of her visions that Louise teaches the heptapod language to her students, so hopefully that means it's not just the purview of the elite, but that every can partake. This includes, her book....provided it's written in layman's terms.

The issue I saw with this is that if I envision a future in which I'm successfully able to hide the lie from you and you successfully envision a future where you discover the truth... who wins between you and I? Does this become an issue of collective belief regarding the future? Also the issue of propagating change from the worst futures to the better past to divert the stream of time runs into issues of "Who is doing the changing?" and "Which ones become effective in a cacophony?" Fascinating stuff.

The question of what the heptapods need help with is a very cool open ended one. I'd be very interested to see which route any follow-up stories take with it.

Quote

Also I love that there are little throwaway lines in the dialogue that are never explained, and if you miss them they might mean little...but when you dig they mean SO much. Like when the Russians heptapods told them "There is no time" and they took that to mean that an attack was imminent...meanwhile it was just the heptapods telling them that they have no concept of time. Just brilliant.

Yah. I also really want to know what the Mandarin lines were said in regards to General Shang. They were purposely left untranslated onscreen and I'm going to look and see if anyone has translated it yet. I know the "important line" is "In war, there are no winners - only widows." But I want to know the entire conversation and how Louise managed to get Shang to stay on the line long enough to listen to that.

The choice of "Abbott" and "Costello" for names is so inspired because of the famous "Who's on First" comedy bit the original comedians did. I recently saw a video of them doing it at the Cooperstown Baseball Hall of Fame and it was easily the best thing in that museum (I don't actually recommend going there unless you really fuckin' love baseball, which I don't).

Also, I don't think Abbott was tapping the wall to let them know about the bomb. The bomb was less important than getting Louise to touch the wall and thus be in contact with the symbols/knowledge that were there for the big data dump. I think that's a small reason why Louise tapped into the Heptapod Written Language so fast - she physically touched the walls, whereas the other linguists elsewhere may have not done so.

Spoiler

With regards to Hannah's affliction and eventual death. I agree that I think it's exceedingly brave to have gone there. Not a lot of Hollywood films would do that.

As for the question of lie in the face of a future truth, I have a feeling that maybe people would not lie as easily knowing they could be found out? And I think you're very right about all the branched conundrums about what other problems might need solved as a result of such a broadly new-frontier power. Definitely fascinating!

Agree about the help the Heptapods need of future help and what being left ambiguously unanswered. Not just because it's unneeded for the story at hand, but it's wonderful to speculate on as an afterthought. Which is something I feel this movie delivers in spades. I'm still thinking about the intricacies of it days later.

Yeah, I know someone had translated the "war makes widows" bit, but I'm sure someone who speaks Mandarin could parse out the rest of the convo, perhaps check Reddit over the next few weeks. I'll let you know if I see it pop up anywhere.

Wow, I never even THOUGHT of why they chose Abbott and Costello....and why Louise would react so positively to the naming Ian suggested. But that makes perfect sense. Just another amazing facet to the cleverly crafted narrative. Thanks for pointing that out!

Hmm, I'd assume that Abbot was tapping the wall to point out the bomb as they cut to it a few times and I assume they'd have seen it being placed and set...but I think you might have something there. I'll have to rewatch. If he taps the wall and then splays his tentacles, and then perhaps taps the wall again...that would make sense as a way to get Louise to touch the wall. this film will be worth more than one re-watch for sure.

Also, I should just say that after seeing this latest of his films...I have ZERO fears about BLADE RUNNER: 2049 now in Villeneuve's hands. He can NAIL the tone of a good philosophical sci-fi drama perfectly.

amphibian, on 14 November 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

A random good question: What is the movie that most explains Luc Besson?

I'm going to say only this. I love Luc Besson movies, but I feel like so far his masterpiece as a director is THE FIFTH ELEMENT. And that's because it was completely outside his comfort zone, but still held all his hallmark moves. So it ALMOST doesn't FEEL like a Besson film, while totally feeling like a Besson film. And in his filmic repertoire, it is bookended by two films that DO feel very much the typical Besson film (LÉON, and The MESSENGER).

That said, from a writing POV and to answer your question Amph, I think that the Transporter movies most explain him from a writer standpoint. They are a distillation of every single filmic tic that is present in his other films.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 15 November 2016 - 01:57 PM

[Slow Ben]

@QT

You seen this yet, kinda cool. B&B side by side trailer.

[QuickTidal]

Slow Ben, on 15 November 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

@QT

You seen this yet, kinda cool. B&B side by side trailer.

Huh. Amazing!

[Cause]

amphibian, on 14 November 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

Spoiler

QuickTidal, on 14 November 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

I have the same lingering questions as you...the child question for Louise was (unless I misunderstand it) that she feels she HAS to have Hannah, so that the heptapod portion of her life can occur and the world can exist and not go to war...similar to that LOST ep The Constant. You need the beginning (heptapod language study at the ship), and the end (Hannah's life) to make up the whole (time foreseeing) equation. I also think that Louise was willing to have the child simply because she was going to give her a good life even knowing where that short life ends up. My question: Is there a part of Louise that WONDERS if Hannah's illness can be averted now that she can use the heptapod language for foreseeing? I wondered at that. I THINK that's the implication with time not being linear for her any longer...but I'm not sure. Not that Hannah won't die for sure...but that there is a possibility it won't occur how it did in her visions...which might be enough for her to feel safe in going ahead with the pregnancy.

I think the tech level isn't ever going to be high enough in Louise's/Hannah's lifetime to fix the very rare genetic disease. And perhaps any child conceived between Ian and Louise would have it - and so having that time and love, even though it's going to end in heartbreak, is still the right move for Louise. That's such an emotionally fraught and complex thing. I love that the movie was willing to go there (haven't read the short story it's based on... yet).

Quote

I LOVE the conversation with Costello about the "in 3000 years humanity will help us", and how for that to happen the heptapods have to bequeath them with this foresight gift. I believe it DOES posit a more peaceful future. Because with people becoming unstuck from time, it would be hard to lie ..and would be easier to avoid potential issues?

I'm curious what it is the heptapods might need help with, but I'm fond of the idea that humanity has advanced enough by that point to do so.

I THINK it's also implied in one of her visions that Louise teaches the heptapod language to her students, so hopefully that means it's not just the purview of the elite, but that every can partake. This includes, her book....provided it's written in layman's terms.

The issue I saw with this is that if I envision a future in which I'm successfully able to hide the lie from you and you successfully envision a future where you discover the truth... who wins between you and I? Does this become an issue of collective belief regarding the future? Also the issue of propagating change from the worst futures to the better past to divert the stream of time runs into issues of "Who is doing the changing?" and "Which ones become effective in a cacophony?" Fascinating stuff.

The question of what the heptapods need help with is a very cool open ended one. I'd be very interested to see which route any follow-up stories take with it.

Spoiler

My understanding here was that if time is not linear your not experiencing a possible future and changing the outcome you are already living the path that will take you to your future. Humanity has 'already' helped the heptapods in the future 3000 years from now. Knowing we will help them in the future the aliens give us their language today, they already did/were going to anyway. Nonlinear time makes the existence of the past, present and future meaningless. Louise was experiencing her future in the present, she had a child and having that child is what inspires her to have that child in the future. She dialed the general and spoke to him the words he gave her in the future. He gave her the number and the words because she already did. Cause and effect are broken in a world of non linear time. The effect is its own cause.

This post has been edited by Cause: 15 November 2016 - 11:38 PM

[amphibian]

I think you aren't following what I'm saying, Cause.

Spoiler

If I have a goal of eating the last cookie on the plate and you have that same goal, what does that mean if we both have Heptapod powers? We each believe that we need that last cookie or we will commit suicide and neither of us will share. Which of us lives?

Is it a matter of desire that determines who eats the cookie and who dies? Belief? Superior mastery of Heptapod powers? Random chance?

Whatever happens is the only thing that happens, but before it happens, there's at least two possible outcomes. Unless the universe self corrects so that it isn't possible for us to both want the cookie, it's a conundrum.

That's what I'm talking about. Imagine if the cookie is interplanetary conquest or something equally cosmic.

[Cause]

amphibian, on 16 November 2016 - 02:35 AM, said:

I think you aren't following what I'm saying, Cause.

Spoiler

If I have a goal of eating the last cookie on the plate and you have that same goal, what does that mean if we both have Heptapod powers? We each believe that we need that last cookie or we will commit suicide and neither of us will share. Which of us lives?

Is it a matter of desire that determines who eats the cookie and who dies? Belief? Superior mastery of Heptapod powers? Random chance?

Whatever happens is the only thing that happens, but before it happens, there's at least two possible outcomes. Unless the universe self corrects so that it isn't possible for us to both want the cookie, it's a conundrum.

That's what I'm talking about. Imagine if the cookie is interplanetary conquest or something equally cosmic.

Spoiler

I understand what your saying, I just disagree with your interpretation. If two people both want to eat the cookie they can fight for it but one or both of them will see the future outcome. One of them has already won. It is not altering the past to change the future, the future outcome already happened and is fixed. Knowing the outcome ahead of time might simply mean that the 'battle' never happens or that it happens anyway even though one side knows it will lose.

Time is no longer linear. Cause and effect are broken. When Louise saw her future she did not change it, instead she locked into it and played it out exactly as she saw it. Also if she had changed it her future would be different and her past self's perception of her future would be different ans she may not have succeeded with the aliens. With the general she knew the number and what to say because he told her. He knew what to tell her because she already did it. It is a causal paradox without a prime mover. The future determined the past but the past determined the future simultaneously. A different future is not possible because it would mean a different past. Experiencing time in a nonlinear way simply means you have no present. You experience all of your time simultaneously. In reality it is impossible for us to truly understand what such a thing could mean.

This is why I argue that humanity has already helped the aliens in the future. They did not see a future where they need our help and so change the past to make it come true, rather we already helped them in the future so they have already helped us in the past to make both outcomes possible. Cause and effect are once again broken. Do they help us in the past so we will help them in the future or did us helping them in the future make them help us in the past.

Remember also Abbot was death process, they possibly/probably saw that outcome but still did not change it

[Aptorian]

Watched "Criminal" last night.

It's a Crime/Sci-Fi/spy story about a dead CIA-agents memories being transplanted into a convicts head. It's a film that takes itself overly serious, a la Face-Off or... I don't know I feel like I have watched similar films before but I am drawing a blank on specific titles... but it still manages to be pretty funny. Anyway, it's a film where Kevin Costner plays a sociopath that gets spy guy family man memories and how that effects him.

I really liked this film, mainly because Kevin Costner is really good at playing a kind of intimidating slightly off-kilter convict. Also the film has a surprising roster of good actors like Ryan Reynolds, Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Oldman.

This post has been edited by Apt: 16 November 2016 - 10:23 AM

[Imperial Historian]

Well arrival was incredible. Surprisingly does the short story justice. Film of the year for me.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Tiste Simeon, on 14 November 2016 - 10:00 PM, said:

OK that Beauty and the Beast film looks immense...

This. So excited!!

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Saw arrival last night. That was not the movie I was expecting it to be. I liked it though. My only complaint is some minor pacing issues, it drags a bit. There are parts that are hard to watch as a parent, it is wild how my perspective on things changed with a kid. Worth seeing.

[Hairshirt]

Briar King, on 19 November 2016 - 03:18 AM, said:

The Neverending Story! I love this movie. Should never have made sequels to it.

I loved that movie as a kid, I wore out the VHS copy of it. I don't have kids but I wonder how much kids would like it or hate it watching it today.

This post has been edited by Hairshirt: 20 November 2016 - 02:02 AM

[worry]

Briar King, on 19 November 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

3rd Divergent movie. This shit get dumber with each entry. Barely hanging on before I change channel

EDIT!! OMG are you kidding me? They have the nerve to stretch this POS out into a4th film...??!! $grubbers.

The fourth film might even be scrapped, for lack of interest. They're talking about a TV movie or even series to finish/continue the story. I actually read these books -- they are not great, to put it mildly -- but the movies (presumably, I only saw the first one) are a lot worse.

[QuickTidal]

New Scorsese movie. Looks good!

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Arrival was incredible.

Spoiler

I feel like "nonlinear" will be the cipher word for the early 2000s. Narratives seem to be increasingly fragmented and nonlinear (Memento, Inception, Enter The Void, [potentially] Westworld, Arrival, LOST [?], and likely many more that are on the tip of my fingers), potentially as a mirror to the postmodern collapse of cultural narratives across the world. Thoughts?

See related: Nonlinear warfare ( and http://www.economist...n-how-west-will)

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 25 November 2016 - 08:39 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Briar King, on 25 November 2016 - 08:38 PM, said:

Watching Blazing Saddles for the 1st time and I have to keep pausing it everytime the kids come in den to play.

Quality film. So many great scenes!

[polishgenius]

The new Alien film has a new poster and it's fucking awesome.

[amphibian]

Regarding Arrival and the Sanskrit part, I talked to a few family friends who speak/read/write Sanskrit (the really religious Hindus tend to get into this, kinda like a harder version of Latin).

Going into spoilers:

Spoiler

Sanskrit has a few different ways to say "war" or "battle". From what my translators say, yuddha or samara are the root words generally used to denote "physical battles/war" and both of them had never heard of "gavisti" before. The scene thus introduced "gavisti" in a bad way. It should have been something more like "ask the other linguist what gavisti, the Sanskrit word means". Then the other person could say "never heard of it" or "desire for more cows" and the real answer could have been "war over physical goods" or something like that. Basically, the Sanskrit language got Hollywooded up and it's the weakest part of the entire movie - which is still pretty strong.

I'm including the best written response of my family friends below, slightly edited for time/comprehension purposes.

"I think both yuddha and samara mean the same - battle, war, combat, contest etc. Here are 2 examples of the use of these 2 words.

From Valmiki Ramayanam, describing the battle between Rama and Ravana, the poet is speaking about the nature of the battle in that there is no comparison to it, it was one of a kind. The poet uses the word yuddham here.

Incomparable is the sky, which is one of a kind. Incomparable too is the ocean, like which there is no other. So too was the battle between Rama and Ravana – matchless, unsurpassed, beyond compare.

(Transliteration: gaganam gaganAkAram sAgaraha sAgarOpamaha / rAmarAvaNayOr yudhDHam rAmarAvaNayOr iva)
(From the Valmiki Ramayanam)

The word samara meaning battle is used again in describing Rama by the saint composer Tyagaraja in the song Sitakalyana Vaibhogame. He describes the wedding of Sita and Rama and lists Rama's attributes as being samaraika veera - a peerless warrior in battle.

In the song "shara shara samaraika soora", Tyagaraja cleverly uses the word shara in 2 different meanings( a white weed or grass and an arrrow). He says the unparalled one (soora) who used a blade of grass as an arrow in the samara (battle or war).

In Sanskrit, one word can have multiple meanings and there are multiple words to mean the same thing.

The word gavishti has multiple meanings, as shown below. I am unable to think of any phrase that uses the word in this sense. I know that gava is used to refer to cow, from cow etc. Example: In Ayurveda, they use something called pancha gavyam (the 5 from the cow) for purification - an extremely small quantity of 5 products from the cow (dung, urine, milk, yogurt and ghee) is mixed and consumed.

[Morgoth]

I saw the trailer for Passengers with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Prat. Looks like a neat sci fi that I will not have to watch as the trailer gave away seemingly every major plot point of the movie.

[worry]

Now this is some horrific godforsaken nonsense: http://www.elle.com/...non-consensual/

This is a hellworld.