The movie basically cuts physics completely out of the story (no principle of least action, no diffraction), which makes the continuing presence of Ian awkward since he doesn't have much to do. I thought this was disappointing but inevitable; general audiences don't want a 20 minute physics lesson at the theater.
Less understandable for me was that the film also eliminated any of the functional interaction for how Louise (or any linguist) would go about learning a previously unknown language by interacting with a native speaker. All of the guess-and-check, experimental structure that goes into this lingual interaction is gone from the film. The humans and aliens talk/grunt to each other, look confused, and then Louise just periodically declares out loud that she's figured things out. In the book, laymen can at least get a hint of how a linguist (and physicist!) thinks and solves problems, but the audience learns nothing like this in the film.
Finally, the film has unambiguous communication backwards in time, violating the known laws of physics. I've talked to people say they saw this in the original short story, but I think a careful reading shows that, though the narrator adopts a framing of fatalism/predestination, none of the real-world events described by the narrator actually require retro-causation. In the film (spoiler!), Louise literally use memories of the future to figure out what telephone number to dial.
Also, the standard Hollywood tropes weren't as bad as they could be, but still distracting. Does every film featuring the military need a painfully one-dimensional rude hawkish general who inexplicably wants to attack the enemy in every situation?
Also, the standard Hollywood tropes weren't as bad as they could be, but still distracting. Does every film featuring the military need a painfully one-dimensional rude hawkish general who inexplicably wants to attack the enemy in every situation?
It's been a long time since I've read the short story, but to me the alien contact part of the story wasn't really the primary point, it was primarily a tool to tell the actual story.
However, in the movie adaptation, the alien contact story has been elevated in importance to be co-equal with the, umm, other part of the story. I think that's a reasonable thing for the movie adaptation to do.
The downside of the alien contact plot in the movie, is, as you say pretty trope-y, but if you think of it as a plot device to get to the real meat of the story, then maybe that's not such a big deal.
> the film also eliminated any of the functional interaction for how Louise (or any linguist) would go about learning a previously unknown language by interacting with a native speaker. All of the guess-and-check, experimental structure that goes into this lingual interaction is gone from the film
Yikes, this was one of the more interesting parts of the story for me. Thanks for pointing this out.
> Also, the standard Hollywood tropes weren't as bad as they could be, but still distracting. Does every film featuring the military need a painfully one-dimensional rude hawkish general who inexplicably wants to attack the enemy in every situation?
There were many good things about the film but as you said the Hollywood tropes are out of control. It turns me off from visiting the cinema.
I enjoyed Machina Ex, I think I didn't sense them as much.
The 'military is composed of boneheads' is annoying (and wrong) but the thing that irritated me the most was the emotional take Hollywood injects into everything.
Why is Hollywood so emotional? Are Americans more emotional than Europeans? Maybe in L.A?
It doesn't match human experience at all.
Take a funeral scene. I don't know how it is in the United States, but having everybody wearing black (okay everybody wears dark colours, but the Hollywood scene is as if they went and bought uniforms), women with hat-veil things, many people sobbing and being tearful.
That doesn't describe any funeral I've been to. And we have very large funerals, with many hundreds of people. The occasional person emits a sob but nothing like the water feature I see on the screen. This breaks immersion. It's too heavy handed.
I'm beginning to suspect the reason why somebody would 'act out' in the scenarios Hollywood is known for, is because they are conditioned by Hollywood.
With rant complete, my favorite part was the sense of immersion with the 'things'. Reminded me of Half Life.
tldr; Give the prizes to the things. People are just bags of salt water.
The way I put it is that most of the complexity of the story was removed, but there are still some gestures in the direction of complexity. (For example the anecdote about "kangaroo".)
I assume it's at least partially because the movie is intended for a global audience, like most blockbusters these days. Some things get lost in translation :-)
The movie basically cuts physics completely out of the story (no principle of least action, no diffraction), which makes the continuing presence of Ian awkward since he doesn't have much to do. I thought this was disappointing but inevitable; general audiences don't want a 20 minute physics lesson at the theater.
Less understandable for me was that the film also eliminated any of the functional interaction for how Louise (or any linguist) would go about learning a previously unknown language by interacting with a native speaker. All of the guess-and-check, experimental structure that goes into this lingual interaction is gone from the film. The humans and aliens talk/grunt to each other, look confused, and then Louise just periodically declares out loud that she's figured things out. In the book, laymen can at least get a hint of how a linguist (and physicist!) thinks and solves problems, but the audience learns nothing like this in the film.
Finally, the film has unambiguous communication backwards in time, violating the known laws of physics. I've talked to people say they saw this in the original short story, but I think a careful reading shows that, though the narrator adopts a framing of fatalism/predestination, none of the real-world events described by the narrator actually require retro-causation. In the film (spoiler!), Louise literally use memories of the future to figure out what telephone number to dial.
Also, the standard Hollywood tropes weren't as bad as they could be, but still distracting. Does every film featuring the military need a painfully one-dimensional rude hawkish general who inexplicably wants to attack the enemy in every situation?