If you want something a little slower, something you can think about after it ends, I recommend Arrival. But if you're expecting Independence Day 3 - this ain't the movie for you!

I watched it again a day or two later and everything made more sense. A also liked how they made Amy Adams really look like a college professor instead of a glamorous Hollywood star playing a college professor.

I'm watching the movie right now and I think it's pretty good. A little slow perhaps, but it doesn't talk down to the audience. I've read some of the user reviews on IMDb who think that it's dull, and to those people I say: Not all SciFi movies have to have aliens blowing people, places, and things every 5 minutes.

Correction: The last line of my post is SciFi movies don't have to have aliens blowing people, places, and things up every 5 minutes.

I was very excited to rent Arrival and I have to say, I am slightly disappointed. I don't understand why the aliens would do what they did. It is a slower movie which isn't bad, it was just something I was not expecting.

I understand your point. But when one of the Heptapods (I think it was Costello) told Louise that they came to Earth to make sure that someone understood their language because they will need help from the humans 3000 years from now, it made me think of the term making sure someone has your back. It also reminded me of one of my favorite movies The Fifth Element.

My favorite line was the Sheena Easton joke made by Jeremy Renner. What did you think about that?

even though i had no idea who Sheena Easton was, i found that line funny.

I think The Arrival was amazing, btw. I am still processing it and will probably re-watch it before i can discuss it.

I guess I didn't understand why the aliens had to come from 3,000 years in the future. The humans found a good way to communicate with them (for the most part) in a matter of a short time. (I would say under 5 years to learn a language would be a good timeframe). It seemed to me that why not the aliens come maybe 50 years in the future? People would still be alive then to have remembered the aliens. My point is this--- do you think that humans will continue writing the alien language for another 3,000 years? Humans are forgetful/unfaithful. Who is also to say that every human and country will be in accord with each other? I am not against aliens coming in the future but I guess my problem was the timeframe. Does that kind of make sense? And yes I did like Sheena Easton! I did like the movie overall but it was different than I expected.

What i see omitted from most discussions on this subject is that, as pointed out in the movie, language is consciousness-changing.

The new alien language, especially so. It actually changes the perception of time, and since consciousness is very largely time-based, the impact of learning that new language fluently would be impossible to even describe in words. It would literally change the world. Not overnight though.

And for any kind of consciousness change to take effect broadly, to transform the society, it takes time. But it wouldn't be something fleeting, something that fickle humans would try and then abandon to return to their old ways. You can never ever go back after your mind has experienced something like that.

I suppose it is ignored when discussing this, since so few people actually have had consciousness-transforming experiences and/or even speak several languages.

Touche k_who. Great and valid points.

@marshjes said:

I was very excited to rent Arrival and I have to say, I am slightly disappointed. I don't understand why the aliens would do what they did. It is a slower movie which isn't bad, it was just something I was not expecting.

They did what they did for the same reason Shang said what he said. Since change over time is still perceptible to them, even though all time is always visible, they understand that actions lead to outcomes and they desire a specific outcome. Since they already know that they are the catalyst for the desired outcome, they know that they will always have to be that catalyst else the outcome never happened.

An example might be: If, as a child, there was a particular tree that you always liked to climb and, because you could see all time always, you knew that it was your grandfather that planted the seed for that tree to grow into the one you enjoyed. So you told your present-moment grandfather that you appreciated the tree and you were grateful that he planted that seed. Then, because he could see all time always, he made certain to plant that seed in time for you to climb it as a child.

In the human linear time paradigm this might be regarded as a loop but in the 'all time always' time paradigm, it is simply cause and effect.

Hopefully, that helps to elucidate the concept.

The only lingering question I have about Arrival is: which Sheena Easton song was Ian referring to, Morning Train or For Your Eyes Only?