Talk:Arrival (film)

Arrival's Plot

Plot write-up error - The daughter dies of a generic disorder not cancer. in the film when the main character is speaking with the daughter about the father leaving she mentions a genetic disorder. Cancer is never mentioned in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:A30:4D31:A474:F3A3:1A10 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember whether the specific illness was mentioned in the film or not. There are however multiple citations giving it as cancer, including the LATimes cited in the article, where this is specifically mentioned. I believe I saw an interview with Amy Adams where she said the same. IanB2 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Crboyer and Vmars, is it really Arrival's plot when this film is not released yet in United States officially?

IreneTandry (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Crboyer (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The film has already premiered in other locations. While I can't confirm or deny that this plot is the film's official plot, it is justified in being present. Perhaps you could ping the user who added the info in the first place.-RM (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's just the plot distributors released, it'll likely be updated once it's official release.Vmars22 (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The film has not had a commercial release anywhere. The plot was added on Oct. 10 here by an anon IP, sometime after the Venice premiere. It was completely inappropriate and a violation of core WP:FILM guidelines to have had a full plot — and an overwritten, more than 700-word version at that. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing in WP:FILMPLOT that says anything about not adding a plot summary until after commercial release. If content is available, it can be added now, in so far as I understand the guidelines. But, yes, it is advised that it is less than 700 words unless particularly complicated. Bondegezou (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it does say that: "The plot section describes the events of the original general release." So if there's been no original general release, there's no plot section, just a synopsis. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Science magazine review

Good review in Science magazine, which spoke to linguists, who had a favorable reaction, and explained some of the linguistic principles that the movie included.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/linguists-new-sci-fi-film-arrival-cant-come-soon-enough
For linguists, the new sci-fi film Arrival can't come soon enough
By Brice Russ
Science
Nov. 11, 2016

“The linguistics was very good,” says David Adger, a linguist at Queen Mary University of London who specializes in syntax, the rules that govern sentence structure. “The portrayal of trying different hypotheses about the language, coming up with generalizations, and testing them out was spot on. It gave a good sense of the excitement of fieldwork on a new language, as well as of some of the frustrations.”

--Nbauman (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a fluff piece, allowing a linguist or two to say a few feel-good things about their field. It's routine practice: hook into whatever pop crap is hitting the headlines and say something nice about it and about your field. This type of "outreach" faff gets academics promoted, but in the long run it only cements popular misconceptions and thereby the anti-intellectual alienation that gets demagogues elected. As for the actual linguistics in the actual movie, it is all rubbish, of course.137.205.100.185 (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Wolfram's contribution

Stephen Wolfram was a consultant, and his son wrote much of the code in the movie, which he described in his blog:

http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2016/11/quick-how-might-the-alien-spacecraft-work/
https://backchannel.com/i-had-one-night-to-invent-interstellar-travel-b2466882ef5c?gi=7e73be09588d
Quick, How Might the Alien Spacecraft Work?
November 10, 2016
--Nbauman (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh brother...137.205.100.185 (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

flash forward

All of her visions were a flash forward, even before she came in contact with the heptapods? Bangabandhu (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

She didn't have any visions or flash forwards before she started learning the language. The opening shots of the film were a plot device - a flash forward by the movie itself - to plant the idea in viewers' minds that the sequences with the child were in the past, hence increasing the surprise when the true plot line is realised. There is lots of discussion about plot points on IMDb. IanB2 (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I now think that the film's opening sequence is a true reminiscence, occuring after her daughter's death and, thus, many years after the aliens' arrival. This is a common device in movie making. The spoken words fit this theory. Unfortunately, other interpretations would fit too -- she could be thinking these thoughts at any point after the aliens' departure. This all amounts to OR but it is relevant if we are to choose appropriate wording for the article's plot section.

Perhaps we should change "In what appears to be a flashback," to something like "In the opening sequence," and, later in the sentence, we might add "in a voice-over, she says".

This might avoid the problem of supporting any particular theory. I haven't fully thought this through yet but I wanted to share it, in case others want to pick up this torch. Black Walnut (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

the film ends with Louise and Ian still discussing the possibility of having a child, who isn't at that point in time conceived, let alone born. Therefore it cannot, in the context of the plot and its timespan, be a 'flashback' or reminiscence, since we never get to the time from which the past events are being remembered. As a plot device it is intended to throw viewers off the scent of the real plot - that Louise will slowly come to be able to see the future. So it's a preview of a flashforward - and has to be a flashforward since the events within it take place after the time period of the storyline in the film, as do the later forward-sequences showing Louise with her child IanB2 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Paradoxes

It would be interesting to discuss next paradoxes (and maybe add to article the explanation):
First let the arrival to begin on 01.06.2016 12:00 UTC. The Louise's call was on 28.06.2016 06:00 UTC. The banquet on which general Shang showed his mobile number was on 28.12.2017 00:00 UTC.
1) If Louise doesn't remember the call to Chinese general, who was calling to him during period 28.01.2016 06:00 UTC -- 28.06.2016 00:00 UTC?
2) What would happen if general Shang did not show her his mobile number?
37.52.42.124 (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you need IMDb? This doesn't appear directly relevant to an encyclopaedia page on the film.

E.g. in article [1] there is illustration. Besides, I don't know how to discuss on IMDb (I assume at least the registration will be needed, and IMDb does not appear to be a scientific resource).37.52.42.124 (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We cannot add anything to the article which is not sourced and there is not much point in us trying to "figure out" (speculate, i.e., original research) things like the paradoxes ourselves on the talk page, since the talk page is devoted to discussion on how to improve the article and OR is not allowed. You seem to want a "scientific" explanation for things in a fictional film dealing with fictional science (accessing her own future to affect her present is science fiction), sorry, that's not what we do here, and actually it's a waste of your time. Time paradoxes are not real observable phenomena, they're the result of time travel thought experiments (what if you could go back in time...). There is no scientific explanation for such things since they don't happen, as far as we know, in real life ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the time structure of the film a closed loop, mirroring the nonlinear script of the aliens? At the outset of the film, Louise has lost her daughter Hannah and is teaching at the university - at the end, she is ready to marry Ian even though she knows he will father Hannah and that Hannah will die early. So they are all living in a "hidden" looped timeline? Or ia the time continuum folded once the aliens arrive? 83.254.129.192 (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Arrival's Plot & spoilers

Isn't there a rule on wikipedia about not providing spoilers in film plots? Yet the first sentence of the plot provides one. 2001:44B8:41CD:3800:A46B:45C:2603:AB38 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:SPOILER, which explains Wikipedia's stance on plot spoilers. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Plots are not movie trailers and Wikipedia is not a fan based discussion board where people waste time and space creating elaborate banners shouting 'spoiler' before engaging in any discussion about a film currently playing. If you don't want to know what goes on in the first few minutes in a film, then don't read the first lines of a plot about the film, it's really that simple. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Cause of Hannah's death

An IP raised above the issue of what Hannah dies of. The article says "cancer", with a citation. This isn't what I heard in the film. This source says "Hannah will die of a rare illness that, the film suggests, was caused by her parents’ exposure to the aliens before Hannah was even conceived." This blog says "In the film, the dialogue clarifies that it’s an incurable genetic disease." Another blog has "Hannah dies from a 'rare and unstoppable' disease." I can't find any sources other than the one given that say it's cancer. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Your claim doesn't really stack up, given that the quickest of web searches on the film including the word 'cancer' throws up dozens of hits, and the original formulation used in this article of "a rare form of cancer" was a direct quote from the first review of the film in the Hollywood Reporter after its release at the Venice Film Festival. What isn't clear is where the Reporter got the info from. It has however also been subsequently reported (or copied, perhaps?) by authoritative media sources across the world. IanB2 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong about other sources saying "cancer" – I wasn't searching with the right keywords. However, in spite of the number of times it's repeated, I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the film is this said. We have a responsibility to report what reliable sources say, even if they are wrong, but we also have a responsibility to challenge what they say if we think they are wrong and there are sources to back this. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

With so many reputable published sources, and with THR having been on the spot interviewing the key people at the film's preview launch, it is going to be a tough one finding authoritative evidence to the contrary? Also worth noting that the points made by the IP aren't necessarily contradictory - of illnesses likely to be caused by exposure to an alien substance, I would imagine cancer is top of the list; many cancers are incurable/unstoppable; some are rare; some forms of cancer are geneticly inherited. And it's just a fictional story, anyhow, with the cause being irrelevant to the plot. The article would work just as well without referring to the cause at all; if it isn't in the actual film, maybe that's the answer? Provided we are certain of that fact. IanB2 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Opening line of plot summary

"An introductory sequence shows linguist Louise Banks's daughter Hannah, who dies in early adulthood from an incurable illness."

I understand why this is here. But here are my problems with it:

• Speaking generally, convoluted constructions like "An introductory sequence shows"... aren't great in plot summaries. In almost all cases, they're clunky to read and usually describe technical editing and structure, not plot.
• To the first-time reader, "An introductory sequence..." appears redundant - they know it's the introduction because it's the first thing in the plot summary. They can't know, at this point, that it's really there to avoid suggesting that the scenes happen before the rest of the story. Even if you think this is it worth it for the "payoff", it's not a great reading experience.
• And actually, considering the first-time reader will assume "An introductory sequence..." takes place before the rest of the story anyway, I'm not sure it's a great point of clarity. They will simply take from it the same meaning they would as if "In an introductory sequence..." weren't there.

I suggest one of two solutions:

• remove the entire sentence (we lose no plot information this way - seriously - we just introduce the "flashforwards" a little later)
• rewrite as "Louise Banks's daughter Hannah dies in early adulthood from an incurable illness." This doesn't commit us to a timeframe, and while readers will assume it happens before the other events, they will also assume this from the current, convoluted wording. Same effect, fewer words. Popcornduff (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm learning towards having the line in there as you've written in the second bullet (with the addition of "Linguist" prior to "Louise" how it was prior to September 24?). I do agree that "An introductory sequence shows" isn't appropriate. Does "she has visions of herself with Hannah" in the second paragraph imply that everything surrounding Hannah occurs in the future? – Rhinopias (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@MapReader: I have changed the final sentence, partially reverting your edit here because it's more clear what their "fate" is involving Hannah. Whether or not Popcornduff's suggestions are implemented, somewhere the plot should mention Hannah dies. – Rhinopias (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Judging from the Reception section it would seem this movie is almost universally acclaimed. However, reading the majority of the IMDB reviews it seems this movie was mostly panned by regular viewers - at least by the people who took the time to write a review. Maybe this article needs to balance the praise of the reception section with a couple of quotes from people who thought the movie was crap.184.160.140.254 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

What did she say to General Shang?

What were the words Shang's wife said to him on her deathbed, which Louise Banks repeated to him over the phone? Did Amy Adams pronounce the Mandarin clearly enough that someone could translate them? This information could augment the article. Thanks for your time. Twixter (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)