Talk:Arrival (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Ling. Determinism/Relativism)[edit]

I'd like to add something in this article on the prevalence of certain Linguistic principles in the film. Most notably, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Linguistic Determinism/Relativism). Arrival(2016) is used as an example of this Linguistic theory in popular context in another wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism#Arrival_(2016). Especially since this article mentions the academic reception to this film, specifically by linguists in the field. Where best would this fit? Plot? Or perhaps under a new section titled something like "Themes and Interpretations"? see V for Vendetta as an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Themes_and_interpretationsRosarioFreedom (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you need a citation. What that says will help you work out whether and where it is relevant to the article. There is already a reference to this theory in the article, in the academics section, and we would not want to unbalance the article by adding top much more, unless there is something new to say? MapReader (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding and adding your thoughts here, MapReader! It was very helpful. Perhaps this section could go further in detail to explain why certain academics disagreed with the use of the sapir-whorf hypothesis. The given reference says it simply "went beyond anything plausible". Well, how? Here are a few articles we could cite to provide a background on how it was used in the film, how this was part of the greater theme of language in the film, and why some linguists, notably Betty Birner, found the popular use of the theory misleading. Language as a main theme, is portayed not only with the difference between human and alien species, but between national differences and differences between certain characters and their occupation. Their occupation and the language used within those fields influence their frame of reference and approach towards how best to deal with the alien species; their expectation of what most likely will occur. Language in the film goes far beyond Sapir-Whorf and it should be noted as a main theme.RosarioFreedom (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should have a read of WP:FILMSCI before proceeding, I think. The risks concern balance and relevance, and the point made within the MoS that WP is explicitly not aiming to record every known fact about everything. This is an encyclopaedia article about a piece of fictional drama - and while it is reasonable to include a reference to an academic debate arising from the film, an extensive discussion of the sort you appear to envisage would only be justified if you can show that the issues discussed have been the subject of widespread discussion among academics. In other words, it wouldn’t be appropriate to unbalance the whole article purely on the back of a couple of essays in obscure journals. Therefore the place to start is with the sources. MapReader (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping to point me in the right direction. I agree, not everything needs to be added. To clarify, and as it was part of my first question, was something along the lines of what the V for Vendetta page has. Perhaps not adding to the film reception but write to the main theme of language in the film, just as we would add summary detail for plot and production. RosarioFreedom (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the conclusion of the debate, the very existence of this exchange owes much to a strange underlying issue: people in our society learn more from the movies (and shows) than they have learned in school, and much of what they "know" is very wrong as a consequence. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:923:64C:C379:29D8 (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Birner review[edit]

I wonder why she was cited- she fails to understand that these aliens knew us and our paths to understand how those same aliens communicate. I Was satisfied and entertained that the language thing unfolded as it did because the aliens visited us had known for untold years that there would be a critical point when such an encounter would emerge. Not to insult, but my college had (as many colleges have) courses likened to my "Science for poets" and "Humanities for Science", since the two magisteria have little overlap and some hand holds through these different realms were undoubtedly the theme of the film- the understanding that her all-important flashbacks were core to her communications with the aliens- that the most important communications were not so much with the aliens but with herself in other timeframes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:2452:A66A:97AD:6B8 (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Vance story "The Gift of the Gab"[edit]

These things get contentious real quick, so I would just recommend that wikipedians read Vance's story and in particular his description of establishing communication with alien decabrachs and deciding how much the movie owes to this classic sci fi story (the title of which alone is already an improvement on the po-faced film's). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:923:64C:C379:29D8 (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources connecting the film with that story. There are no grounds for inclusion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to include anything, just to read the story. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:923:64C:C379:29D8 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles' talk pages are for improving the articles. They aren't intended to be general forums to discuss the topic. See WP:NOTAFORUM. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified reverts[edit]

@Randy Kryn and GenQuest: Firstly, please read WP:MASSR: Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad, and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. If the only concern was the use of first/last names, please not revert the rest of my edit without an explanation. Secondly, both of you are misreading WP:LASTNAME, which explicitly states: For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker. It is the longstanding and standard convention on articles about fiction to refer to characters by either their first or last names, depending on which is their common name. In most cases, that is the first name, and it is the case here as well. Using first names here is by no means a violation of the MoS. I will also note that BRD is an optional essay, though I am discussing here to avoid further unecessary edit-warring. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bad edit all round, breaking various policies including and MoS:poss, MoS:us. In the circumstances I think reversion was justified. MapReader (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:POSS no longer applies now that we're using "Louise" and not "Banks", and MOS:US only calls for consistency between "U.S." or "US". InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My objection was that the edit used the common name for one main character, Ian, and not for Louise Banks, who was still called Banks. As long as "Louise and Ian" are used I'm fine with it. This objection was part of my edit summary. Fictional names in plots rightly call for more familiarity than in real-person biographical articles, but doing so consistently and not choosing one main character for a common name and not the other. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If one character in a film/show/book/whatever is commonly known by their first name, and another character in the same film/show/book/whatever is commonly known by their last name, it is acceptable (and not uncommon) to be inconsistent in plot summaries. With that being said, if there are no outstanding concerns, I will restore my changes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, except in this movie, the surnames are used far more than given names. Why fix what wasn't broken? Keep it wp:status quo. GenQuest "scribble" 18:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can't say I agree with that, I seem to remember "Louise" and "Ian" being spoken more frequently than "Dr. Banks" and "Dr. Donnelly", but maybe I'm wrong. But like I said, the default on film articles is to use first names; using last names is a rarity only used in exceptional circumstances. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And the editor should also respect other MoS policies. MapReader (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MapReader: Kindly point out which parts of WP:MOS my edit here violated. As far as I know, there are none, so it would be helpful for me to know exactly which part of the edit you believe breaches MoS policies. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MoS:poss, MoS:US, repeated use of the first name, and some of the punctuation is also poor. MapReader (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
​Thank you for clarifying.
  • The edit makes no changes to possessives, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
  • As stated above, MOS:US only states that an article must be consistent in using "U.S." or "US". It does not favor one version to the other, nor does it prohibit changing it.
  • Repeated use of first names is not prohibited by WP:LASTNAME, which states, For fictional entities, use common names. For example, Jason, Luigi, and Wesker. It is the standard convention on film articles to use first names.
  • My punctuation changes corrected several grammatical errors, such as the missing comma after "When they wake".
  • There are also other changes, such as the removal of references per WP:PLOTCITE and the shortening of the "linguist" link per WP:NOTBROKEN.
InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could read both your edits and the policies, to avoid a needless exchange. The very first line of your edit conflicts with MoS:poss. MoS:US says that either form is acceptable - hence there is no basis for switching one with another - and also says that the unpunctuated form should be used for consistency with other unpunctuated national abbreviations, such as appear in this article. Common name isn’t the first name; WP articles including film ones usually use surnames only after the first occurrence. Some of your punctuation is poor, for example replacing the colon before the translation of the quote with a full stop. If you are going to make a long complicated edit, it would be appreciated if it were MoS consistent; alternatively make your edits in stages so that the non-conforming ones can be reverted. MapReader (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common name isn’t the first name; WP articles including film ones usually use surnames only after the first occurrence. is not correct, the vast majority of film articles use first names in plot summaries. The period before the quote is because I added an {{efn}} note. I'll stand down on the "U.S." and "Banks's" changes, but in the future, please do not revert an entire edit simply because a portion of it was problematic. The current plot summary as it stands breaches WP:PLOTCITE, WP:LASTNAME, WP:NOTBROKEN, and WP:QUOTEMARKS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

−
[[linguistics|Linguist]] Louise Banks's daughter Hannah dies at the age of twelve from an incurable illness.

Twelve extraterrestrial spacecraft hover over various locations around the Earth. Affected nations send military and scientific experts to monitor and study them. In the United States, US Army Colonel Weber recruits Banks and physicist Ian Donnelly to study the craft above Montana. On board, Banks and Donnelly make contact with two cephalopod-like, seven-limbed aliens, whom they call 'heptapods'; Donnelly nicknames them [[Abbott and Costello]]. Banks and Donnelly research the complex written language of the aliens, consisting of [[palindromic]] phrases written with [[Logogram|circular symbols]], and share the results with other nations. As Banks studies the language, she starts to have flashback-like visions of her daughter. When Banks is able to establish sufficient shared vocabulary to ask why the aliens have come, they answer with a statement that could be translated as "offer weapon". China interprets this as "use weapon", prompting it to break off communications, other nations follow. Banks argues that the symbol interpreted as "weapon" can be more abstractly related to the concepts of "means" or "tool". China's translation likely results from interacting with the aliens using [[mahjong]], a highly competitive winner-takes-all game. Rogue soldiers plant a bomb in the Montana craft. Unaware, Banks and Donnelly re-enter the alien vessel, and the aliens give them a more complex message. Just before the bomb explodes, one of the aliens ejects Donnelly and Banks from the vessel, knocking them unconscious. When they wake the alien craft has moved beyond reach and the US military is preparing to evacuate in case of retaliation. Donnelly discovers that the symbol for time is present throughout the message and that the writing occupies exactly one-twelfth of the 3D space into which it is projected. Banks suggests that the full message is split among the twelve craft and that the aliens want all the nations to share what they learn. China's General Shang issues an ultimatum to his local alien craft, demanding that it leave China within 24 hours. Russia, Pakistan, and Sudan follow suit. Communications between the international research teams are terminated as worldwide panic sets in. Banks goes alone to the Montana craft which sends down a transport pod. Abbott has been mortally injured as a result of the explosion. Costello explains that they have come to help humanity, for in 3,000 years they will need humanity's help in return. Banks realizes the "weapon" is their language. Learning the language alters humans' linear perception of time, allowing them to experience [[flashforward|memories of future events]]. Banks's visions of her daughter are revealed to be [[Precognition|premonitions]]; her daughter will not be born until sometime in the future. Banks returns to the camp as it is being evacuated and tells Donnelly that the aliens' language is the "tool" that was meant by the word "weapon". She has a premonition of a United Nations event celebrating newfound unity, following the alien arrival, in which Shang thanks her for persuading him to stop the attack when she called his private number and recited his wife's dying words: "War doesn't make winners, only widows". He then shows her his private number. In the present, Banks takes CIA agent Halpern's satellite phone from a table and calls Shang's private number to recite the words. The Chinese announce that they are standing down and releasing their twelfth of the message. The other countries follow suit, and the twelve spacecraft depart.

During the evacuation, Donnelly expresses his love for Banks. They talk about life choices and whether he would change them if he could see the future. Banks knows that she will agree to have a child with him despite knowing their fate: that Hannah will die from an incurable disease and Donnelly will leave them both after she reveals that she knew this.
+
[[Linguist]] Louise Banks's daughter Hannah dies at the age of twelve from an incurable illness.

Twelve extraterrestrial spacecraft hover over various locations around the Earth. In the ensuing widespread panic, affected nations send military and scientific experts to monitor and study them. In the United States, [[US Army]] Colonel Weber recruits Louise and physicist Ian Donnelly to study the craft above Montana. On board, Louise and Ian make contact with two cephalopod-like, seven-limbed aliens, whom they call "heptapods"; Ian nicknames them [[Abbott and Costello]]. Louise and Ian research the complex written language of the aliens, consisting of [[palindromic]] phrases written with [[Logogram|circular symbols]], and share the results with other nations. As Louise studies the language, she starts to have flashback-like visions of her daughter. When Louise is able to establish sufficient shared vocabulary to ask why the aliens have come, they answer with a statement that could be translated as "offer weapon". China interprets this as "use weapon", prompting it to break off communications, and other nations follow. Louise argues that the symbol interpreted as "weapon" can be more abstractly related to the concepts of "means" or "tool"; China's translation likely results from interacting with the aliens using [[mahjong]], a highly competitive winner-takes-all game. Rogue soldiers plant a bomb in the Montana craft. Unaware, Louise and Ian re-enter the alien vessel, and the aliens give them a more complex message. Just before the bomb explodes, one of the aliens ejects Ian and Louise from the vessel, knocking them unconscious. When they wake, the alien craft has moved beyond reach and the US military is preparing to evacuate in case of retaliation. Ian discovers that the symbol for time is present throughout the message and that the writing occupies exactly one-twelfth of the 3D space into which it is projected. Louise suggests that the full message is split among the twelve craft and that the aliens want all the nations to share what they learn. China's General Shang issues an ultimatum to his local alien craft, demanding that it leave China within 24 hours. Russia, Pakistan, and Sudan follow suit. Communications between the international research teams are terminated as worldwide panic sets in. Louise goes alone to the Montana craft which sends down a transport pod. Abbott has been mortally injured as a result of the explosion. Costello explains that they have come to help humanity, for in 3,000 years they will need humanity's help in return. Louise realizes the "weapon" is their language. Learning the language alters humans' linear perception of time, allowing them to experience [[flashforward|memories of future events]]. Louise's visions of her daughter are revealed to be [[Precognition|premonitions]]; her daughter will not be born until sometime in the future. Louise returns to the camp as it is being evacuated and tells Ian that the aliens' language is the "tool" that was meant by the word "weapon". She has a premonition of a United Nations event celebrating newfound unity, following the alien arrival, in which Shang thanks her for persuading him to stop the attack when she called his private number and recited his wife's dying words.{{efn|In the film, this line is spoken in Mandarin without English subtitles. According to screenwriter [[Eric Heisserer]], it translates to "War doesn't make winners, only widows".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Patches |first=Matt |date=November 13, 2016 |title=The Mystery Line in 'Arrival,' Revealed |url=https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/arrival-chinese-line-ending |access-date=February 20, 2023 |website=[[Thrillist]]}}</ref>}} He then shows her his private number. In the present, Louise takes CIA agent Halpern's satellite phone from a table and calls Shang's private number to recite the words. The Chinese announce that they are standing down and releasing their twelfth of the message. The other countries follow suit, and the twelve spacecraft depart.

During the evacuation, Ian expresses his love for Louise. They talk about life choices and whether he would change them if he could see the future. Louise knows that she will agree to have a child with him despite knowing their fate: that Hannah will die from an incurable disease and Ian will leave them both after she reveals that she knew this.

References

  1. ^ a b Heisserer, Eric (20 August 2015). "Arrival Screenplay" (PDF). Script Slug. p. 125. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 28, 2019. Retrieved 28 September 2019.
Personally I would use last names in this context, but will wait for others to comment. Otherwise the things I notice, present also in the original, are “winner takes-all”, which can be deleted not least because the game isn’t such, and “communications,”, which should be followed by a semi-colon given the clause that follows. MapReader (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: In this case they should all be surnames. GenQuest "scribble" 15:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I will reinstate my changes, minus the last name switch. (Unwatching this page, please ping if there are future developments.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrival_(film)&oldid=1205365267"