What Movies Have You Seen Lately?

Quote: Pacomartin

There is a second trailer out now. It looks incredible. Thank You!

Don't be too hasty. I had hopes for Independence Day (YUCK!) and Species (DOUBLE YUCK!). And if I ever meet Spielberg, I will loudly, forcefully and profanely demand an apology for Close Encounters.

But this one looks good. :)

BTW, for a bit it reminded me of a short story by Frank Herbert, which also involved aliens, a linguist, and people from all over the world. After watching the trailer, I immediately wen to IMDB to check what it was based on, but it wasn't that story.

That's a good thing. I hardly remember Herbert's story, but I do recall at the end thinking "So what?"

Quote: Nareed

BTW, for a bit it reminded me of a short story by Frank Herbert, which also involved aliens, a linguist, and people from all over the world.
That's a good thing. I hardly remember Herbert's story, but I do recall at the end thinking "So what?"

I am not familiar with Sci-Fi novels where linguistics is a major plot device (outside of 1984 of course). I looked at some lists, but I don't recognize the books. I remember one story where an intelligent life did not have prehensile appendages, but had hoofs. So we were supposed to imagine a world of with intelligent creatures who were incapable of "making anything". Since we normally consider tool-making the first sign of intelligence, it is difficult to imagine an intelligent cow.



Science Fiction using Languages or Linguistics as a Plot Device
Novels where the worldview is highly affected by a SF-created language, where linguistics and/or language factors are major plot devices, or where authors, writing in English, manage to construct worlds where derivational thinking, basic to English, does not function.
1 Embassytown by China Miéville
2 Foreigner (Foreigner, #1) by C.J. Cherryh
3 The Sparrow (The Sparrow, #1) by Mary Doria Russell
4 The Dispossessed by Ursula K. Le Guin
5 1984 by George Orwell
6 Invader (Foreigner, #2) by C.J. Cherryh
... see link
http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/22451.Science_Fiction_using_Languages_or_Linguistics_as_a_Plot_Device

Quote: Pacomartin

I remember one story where an intelligent life did not have prehensile appendages, but had hoofs. So we were supposed to imagine a world of with intelligent creatures who were incapable of "making anything".

I forget the title, but it was by Arthur C. Clarke. As I recall, the intelligent cows were telepathic, and the story begins shortly after a horrific war of some kind.

As to linguistics in general, one of my favorite stories is "The Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. It's not a plot device, so much as a goal. The setting is a Mars rife with ruins of an extinct civilization. We follow a team of archaeologists, who despair of ever deciphering the Martian language (I know, a whole planet with only one language? But it's a good story), except for the protagonist, who is sure she'll find a way. You get three guesses as to whether she does or not (this is not a spoiler).

The thing is leads in SF are usually soldiers, warriors, adventurers, engineers or scientists. That's all good, but it's nice to see the Humanities represented now and then. Next we should get a historian or two (there was a major historian/mythologist character in Asimov's 4th Foundation novel, "Foundation's Edge," but the lead character is a soldier (Navy officer) turned politician.

Quote: Nareed

I forget the title, but it was by Arthur C. Clarke. As I recall, the intelligent cows were telepathic, and the story begins shortly after a horrific war of some kind.

http://www.sffaudio.com/podcasts/SecondDawnByArthurC.Clarke.pdf

Thank you again. I was able to find it: "Second Dawn" by Arthur C. Clarke, collected in Expedition to Earth. originally published in 1953. It is the same book that includes "The Sentinel" on which 2001 was based.

Quote: Nareed

The thing is leads in SF are usually soldiers, warriors, adventurers, engineers or scientists. That's all good, but it's nice to see the Humanities represented now and then.

Ursula Le Guin was the daughter of anthropologists. She received her B.A. (Phi Beta Kappa) in Renaissance French and Italian literature from Radcliffe College in 1951, and M.A. in French and Italian literature from Columbia University in 1952. Her sci-fi was less tech oriented and more about sociology, anthropology and psychology.

Quote: Pacomartin

There is a second trailer out now. It looks incredible.

Maybe. If it's another 'we never see the aliens'
and they misunderstand us, try and kill us, and
we over react, we've been there and done
that. It has to have the suspense of us not
knowing till the end if they eat us for lunch,
become out friends, or decide we're not
worth it (we aren't), and give us the finger
and never come back.

Quote: Pacomartin

Thank you again. I was able to find it: "Second Dawn" by Arthur C. Clarke, collected in Expedition to Earth. originally published in 1953.

I do remember Mission to Earth rather well. maybe it was original when he wrote it, but it has since become cliché. he even made fun of the premise in an essay years later.

Quote: Evenbob

Maybe. If it's another 'we never see the aliens' and they misunderstand us, try and kill us, and we over react, we've been there and done that.

Although this short story was written in 1999, the fact that they made it into a movie with a $50m production budget seems to be hinged on the worldwide success of Interstellar.

While a $50 million budget doesn't seem huge, it compares to $90 million for Contact and $165 million for Interstellar. But in general, $50 million is a lot of money for a film that has little appeal to teens.

There is a hypothesis about the possibility that grammatical differences reflect differences in the way that speakers of different languages perceive the world. Languages that have formal an familiar tenses; languages that have singular and plural and dual number. While all languages use moods of indicative, imperative, subjunctive, and infinitive some make stronger use of the subjunctive.

Usually the problem of language is treated rather flippantly by sci fi movies. Universal translators are the norm, or "it's a cookbook", telepathy, or people that inexplicably speak English.

Quote: Pacomartin

Usually the problem of language is treated rather flippantly by sci fi movies. Universal translators are the norm, or "it's a cookbook", telepathy, or people that inexplicably speak English.

In the movie and the early episodes of Stargate, the aliens don't speak English, and it takes time to establish communication. By the third or fourth episode, everyone speaks English or at least can make themselves understood to everyone else.

Part of the problem is making the mutual understanding of languages entertaining or interesting. That's not easy to do, In "The Mote in God's Eye," by Niven and Pournelle, we're shown the problem but it's quickly glossed over and solved. And think, if every Trek ep took 15 minutes to get the crew of the Enterprise to understand the aliens, there wouldn't be much time left to tell the story.

That said, one rather good TNG ep involved aliens who couldn't be understood even with the universal translator. Assuming they spoke their language and the translator worked perfectly, what came out were things like "Darmok and Gilaad at Tanagra," "Bright and cheery at Lunga," Temoch the river in winter," "Timba, his arms wide."

SPOILER ALERT (for a very old episode)


It turned out the aliens spoke in allusions. Thus one had to know the context to understand the language.

The ep completely glossed over how these aliens could express new ideas (for which no allusion exists), complex ideas, or how they understand allusions to begin with.

Frankly the best plot device to overcome the communications problem is the Babel Fish in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Just saw "The Revenant". Any spoilers below are lame enough not to cover up I think.

I hadn't researched or read any reviews beforehand, although I had gathered that it was about someone who had survived a bear attack, then was left for dead. Thus my experience was about as unprejudiced as it can get, just revolving around what I have come to think of DiCaprio, which has turned favorable. I have noticed over the years that older men tend to have derogatory opinions of young actors; usually this revolves around their seeming to "not be real men", even effeminate. It finally dawned on me* that my similar initial gut reaction to DiCaprio in "Titanic" was another instance of this, especially since I never saw that movie. I have since seen other films with Leonardo and decided he is actually a pretty good actor, somebody I like to see in a movie, fit just fine to play a manly role [perhaps not perfect for it].

The story is about a real person of the 1820s, Hugh Glass, historically documented to some degree, legend to some degree, books and movies made before, this one based on a novel that is an amalgamation of at least two events in his life. The movie is really devoted to a realistic portrayal of those times. The weapons, the clothing, the area, the actual Indian tribes, all of it. If you like realism in movies, you should see it. That's not to say every moment felt right; in particular I didn't feel the initial attack by hostile Indians was portrayed well. Stone Age weapons versus flintlock era firearms is not a very even match, even admitting it would be more manageable than it would be against firearms a few decades later; to show an open assault in the face of those facts bothered me a bit. The grizzly attack I have to guess was CGI, but it was really impressively realistic. I've read up on bear attacks, and that the bear relents at the point he quits struggling fits with the only way to survive a grizzly unarmed - play dead. He *is* armed and kills the bear, I won't spoil it with the details, but I have to say I don't think he could have survived the degree of mauling that was shown, too many puncture and slashing wounds for the human immune system to deal with. On the other hand, it seems to be historically accurate that everyone thought he was going to die for sure, which was why he wound up left for dead. It was also a little absurd that only Glass and one other guy went after the bad guy, but necessary perhaps for the plot. In fact overall I would say the film's realism succeeded, plot devices notwithstanding.

Whether or not the movies succeeds otherwise is the question. Reviews tend to say it is too violent and too bleak. Such indeed is unrelenting; the novel might carry off having Glass's events all crammed into one story, but it makes for an excessively bloody movie. They really should have just largely stuck with the bear story. Another complaint is that the movie is almost entirely shot in winter, adding to the unrelenting bleakness. You have to guess that made for difficulties, and for what? The story may be legend as much as fact anyway, and the very ending is made up, never happened. It would have been immensely improved to have switched to early spring for at least that ending, which instead leaves the viewer uncertain as to Glass's fate - I thought you were to make your own decision as to whether he lived or died at the film's end. Since he lived on after the bear attack, why do that? [he was killed much later by Indians in a separate event.]

Overall, I'd just try to size up whether the description fits the kind of movie you like. I'd say it is a good movie if it is a good fit.

*I worked with a guy who really liked Brad Pitt as an actor. This astonished me as I respected his opinions generally, but Brad Pitt? Finally I realized he was maybe 15 years younger than Pitt and had grown up watching his movies... watching an older guy often playing an action hero, so naturally he became a fan. I still just 'go yuck' when thinking of Brad Pitt, though; I haven't been able to turn it around on him like I did with DiCaprio

Quote: odiousgambit

I worked with a guy who really liked Brad Pitt as an actor. This astonished me as I respected his opinions generally, but Brad Pitt? Finally I realized he was maybe 15 years younger than Pitt and had grown up watching his movies... watching an older guy often playing an action hero, so naturally he became a fan. I still just 'go yuck' when thinking of Brad Pitt, though; I haven't been able to turn it around on him like I did with DiCaprio

12 Monkeys is one of my all time faves
I thought Brad Pitt did an excellent acting job in that movie playing a mental patient
He really pulled it off, just a little crazy but with great intelligence. Bravo Brad :-)