|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 11, 2016 23:59:51 GMT -5
ZD had some questions for the new film Arrival. This will be a thread for discussion. Don't read anything here or participate unless you have seen the film. You don't want to know in advance. It will be much better to slowly let the film unfold for you. You want your mind to be slowly blown, not spoilered all-at-once.
A jump start. The film has flashbacks {sort of}. Louise, the main character, has(had) [has had....has] a daughter, Hannah (we learn later the why of the name). Hannah asks mother a certain question. Finally, after several mis-attempts answering mother says, that's a science question, ask your physicist father. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 12, 2016 10:08:36 GMT -5
My first question was why the government apparently set off a bomb inside the vessel? That seems like the last thing they'd want to do.
I foresaw most of the twist at the end, but it only totally became clear when Louise's voiceover to Hannah was made after the aliens had departed.
I guess my biggest problem was with the implied governmental responses to the arrival of the aliens, and things like the freedom Louise had to move around in an environment that would have been much more strictly controlled. The human responses, collectively, seemed clichéd, trite, and the opposite of what I think would actually happen if such an event occurred.
The other issue that wasn't very clear to me was how Louise came to see the future. Was that an ability that she was given by the aliens, or was there some other explanation? I assume that she knew what to say to Chang via some telepathic transmission from the aliens?
The implicit question the movie raised was "Would you choose to change anything if you had the ability to do so?" This is similar to the question I posed in a past posting, "If you could create whatever reality (or heaven) you might imagine, how would it differ from the reality you currently perceive?" Anyone who looks deeply into this issue will probably be surprised by what s/he will discover. It isn't what is usually imagined. It's also the reason that sages are content with "what is" as it is.
Thanks for the feedback on 2001. I thought that the book preceded the movie. 2001 seemed extremely believable in all respects (and was scientifically quite accurate) until the end, when things became rather incomprehensible. This movie wasn't nearly as believable, but it was interesting and creative, and the acting of Amy Adams was, for me, the only thing that gave it emotional weight. The aliens were also cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 12, 2016 10:21:51 GMT -5
Hey ZD... I have to charge my phone and breakfast is ready. But the first thing. The government didn't set off the explosives. It was just a few soldiers...a rebel group taking things into their own hands. They were willing to let ian and louise die. And when the government found out, they went to stop them, and rebel group got out guns to stop them. .....later....
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 12, 2016 10:34:58 GMT -5
Hey ZD... I have to charge my phone and breakfast is ready. But the first thing. The government didn't set off the explosives. It was just a few soldiers...a rebel group taking things into their own hands. They were willing to let ian and louise die. And when the government found out, they went to stop them, and rebel group got out guns to stop them. .....later.... Wow! I totally missed that. So, did the aliens foresee that and save Ian and Louise by opening the wall and sacrificing Abbot? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 12, 2016 12:18:01 GMT -5
Hey ZD... I have to charge my phone and breakfast is ready. But the first thing. The government didn't set off the explosives. It was just a few soldiers...a rebel group taking things into their own hands. They were willing to let ian and louise die. And when the government found out, they went to stop them, and rebel group got out guns to stop them. .....later.... Wow! I totally missed that. So, did the aliens foresee that and save Ian and Louise by opening the wall and sacrificing Abbot? Yes. Earlier in the film they focused several times on this one sort-of merely grunt soldier. He seemed to agree with the Chinese leader, nothing verbal, but just an indication. So I decided to watch out for him. And then a couple of soldiers agreed, it time to do something, not even then much verbal. So then they began to gather explosives. Up until then ian and louise went into the alien shell only once every 24 hours, that was the aliens cycle, they had to redo the atmosphere. But then louise decided she had to go back in immediately. On the way they discussed going back in a second time during one cycle. One or the other said, it will be OK, we will not need to be there too long. The ~take things into their own hands~ group had already set the explosives, set the timer. When ian and louise showed up, the rebel dudes knew if they said anything, ian would stop the bomb, or alert the guys in charge. Either Abbot or Costello started tapping on the barrier, trying to point to the timer counting down, clearly visible (OK...maybe I forget which was attempting to break the barrier, by hitting it. If that's correct I didn't catch that. I assumed Costello(?), ]You say Abbot, I'm sure you're right, I didn't make a mental note] was killed from concussion). At the last minute when he couldn't get their attention, he blasted at them (something?), knocked them away from the blast, and yes, he sacrificed himself. Yes, A & C knew what was going to happen, as (obviously) they experience non-linear time. I didn't get immediately, during the film, that A & C had already tried to warn the authorities. That's what "Fire weapons" meant. They didn't know how to articulate into English (or any other language of the location of the other 11 shells), that a small faction of 'let's take things into our own hands' dudes were going to set off explosives in the shell. Later thinking about the film I realized that's what 'fire weapons' meant. Going to finish your earlier post now. (Another somewhat similar film I rated very high was Contact, with Jodie Foster). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 12, 2016 12:27:48 GMT -5
Wow! I totally missed that. So, did the aliens foresee that and save Ian and Louise by opening the wall and sacrificing Abbot? Yes. Earlier in the film they focused several times on this one sort-of merely grunt soldier. He seemed to agree with the Chinese leader, nothing verbal, but just an indication. So I decided to watch out for him. And then a couple of soldiers agreed, it time to do something, not even then much verbal. So then they began to gather explosives. Up until then ian and louise went into the alien shell only once every 24 hours, that was the aliens cycle, they had to redo the atmosphere. But then louise decided she had to go back in immediately. On the way they discussed going back in a second time during one cycle. One or the other said, it will be OK, we will not need to be there too long. The ~take things into their own hands~ group had already set the explosives, set the timer. When ian and louise showed up, the rebel dudes knew if they said anything, ian would stop the bomb, or alert the guys in charge. Either Abbot or Costello started tapping on the barrier, trying to point to the timer counting down, clearly visible (OK...maybe I forget which was attempting to break the barrier, by hitting it. If that's correct I didn't catch that. I assumed Costello(?), ]You say Abbot, I'm sure you're right, I didn't make a mental note] was killed from concussion). At the last minute when he couldn't get their attention, he blasted at them (something?), knocked them away from the blast, and yes, he sacrificed himself. Yes, A & C knew what was going to happen, as (obviously) they experience non-linear time. I didn't get immediately, during the film, that A & C had already tried to warn the authorities. That's what "Fire weapons" meant. They didn't know how to articulate into English (or any other language of the location of the other 11 shells), that a small faction of 'let's take things into our own hands' dudes were going to set off explosives in the shell. Later thinking about the film I realized that's what 'fire weapons' meant. Going to finish your earlier post now. (Another somewhat similar film I rated very high was Contact, with Jodie Foster). Got it. I just didn't remember the rebel military faction. My brother is now reading the short story that the film is based on, and promised to fill in more details shortly. I remembered the discussion about the pressure behind the wall being greater, so I assumed that Abbot blew the wall which blasted Ian and Louise out of the chamber prior to the on. I also assumed that the depressurization killed Abbot. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 12, 2016 13:24:20 GMT -5
My first question was why the government apparently set off a bomb inside the vessel? That seems like the last thing they'd want to do. I foresaw most of the twist at the end, but it only totally became clear when Louise's voiceover to Hannah was made after the aliens had departed. I guess my biggest problem was with the implied governmental responses to the arrival of the aliens, and things like the freedom Louise had to move around in an environment that would have been much more strictly controlled. The human responses, collectively, seemed clichéd, trite, and the opposite of what I think would actually happen if such an event occurred. The other issue that wasn't very clear to me was how Louise came to see the future. Was that an ability that she was given by the aliens, or was there some other explanation? I assume that she knew what to say to Chang via some telepathic transmission from the aliens? The implicit question the movie raised was "Would you choose to change anything if you had the ability to do so?" This is similar to the question I posed in a past posting, "If you could create whatever reality (or heaven) you might imagine, how would it differ from the reality you currently perceive?" Anyone who looks deeply into this issue will probably be surprised by what s/he will discover. It isn't what is usually imagined. It's also the reason that sages are content with "what is" as it is. Thanks for the feedback on 2001. I thought that the book preceded the movie. 2001 seemed extremely believable in all respects (and was scientifically quite accurate) until the end, when things became rather incomprehensible. This movie wasn't nearly as believable, but it was interesting and creative, and the acting of Amy Adams was, for me, the only thing that gave it emotional weight. The aliens were also cool. I don't read a lot of science fiction, a little (I don't read much fiction period), but the film was similar to a book I read many years ago, The Forever War. Aliens invaded our solar system, the there was a war that lasted I think it was about 900 years. I totally hated the ending. When they finally learned to communicate with each other, war stopped immediately, they found there was no reason to be fighting in the first place. And then yesterday I thought of present circumstances, the election results, the protesters in the streets, so many people upset. I wanted to say, people, just chill out. Listen to Obama and Hillary, give Trump a chance. So I would say the film gives a good representation of the division that such an event could cause, many different opinions about what to do. If fact, I'd say it's a synchronicity event, the film and the simultaneous election results, the "law of attraction". Twelve different sites, twelve different chances to learn to communicate. But 12 sites gave (the writer) every possible human response to the situation. So there was division within the 12 as to what to do. And then there was division even within each one of the twelve. (One scientist from a different country was shot trying to share their results with the other eleven). Saying all that to say I don't know why you have a problem with government response. Louise showed they were inept, in the beginning, and she would give in. But she gave the leader dude a way back (to her). She said, ask the other language expert (in Calif) they were going to see next, what is the Sanscrit word for war?, and then ask him to define it. When they did they realized louise was better for the job, and they came back to her (and then she translated the word for him). I guess you are saying she would not have been allowed to roam the base camp at will? ....a military operation. A question of realism didn't come up there for me, some things just promote the story line. I think the point of what might have happened strongly connects with the alien motives. They had only one motive, but the earth people didn't know that. So all the divisive action, the many different choices of action was all on the part of the earth nations. They tried to guess motives on the part of the aliens, absolutely nothing (speculated) applied. I'll have to think about what might happen in such a case. (This film is a lot like both versions of The Day the Earth Stood Still). For myself, I'd love for a flying saucer to land in my back yard. I'd immediately say, let's go for a ride. I have no fear in that regard. How did louise begin to see, to get knowledge via non-linear time, and how did she know what message to give Chang? This is one of those "time travel" paradoxes. But the direct answer is simple, Chang told her. When she experienced the future gala ball, she had learned enough (about non-linear time and getting messages) to know this was important. So then she was just having a conversation with Chang. But she (her consciousness) was still in the past, the event was in her future. The timing was critical, she had to get the message to Chang immediately (don't fire on the alien ship). She had to get his attention immediately. So, in the future, conversing with Chang, she asked him, what did I say, and he whispered in her ear, he told her. So then she immediately ~zapped~ back to her present time, got the satellite phone, called him, and she knew what she needed to say, because Chang had just told her (in the future) what to say (he told her what she had said in Chang's past, a circular paradox). (How did louise come to experience non-linear time?) Now, the film is just a film, just a story, so it cannot tell us about non-linear time in a facts sense, this is how it is. But it can try to maintain its own integrity, within the story. So, we must assume that non-linear time is the case. And then we must assume it's possible for anyone to be able to experience it. First of all, we know Hannah experienced it, because of the memories of louise, and the drawings of Hannah (she drew the canary in the cage, and she made a sculpture of the alien). And the major question she asked her mother, what is it called when everybody wins? And Louise finally said, ask your father. But then the answer came to her. I think this was another time paradox. I think future louise knew the answer, and ~sent it~ to past louise, in the moment, it's called non-zero-sum. OK, why, finally, are we told the aliens came? They said, you (earth people) are going to help us in three thousand years, so they came to teach us their language (so that we could help them in 3 thousand years). Ian figured out what was important about the language, he saw it involved non-linear time. So then, louise learning the language of non-linear time, began to experience non-linear time. And once she knew it, then that had repercussions all the way back in her own life, she could even have been the one to have taught Hannah how to experience non-linear time, and gain knowledge about the past and future through non-linear time, (that just came to me, but I say probably so). So the aliens taught her. I don't think it was a gift given by the aliens, apart from a learning process. The surprise ending totally came out of left field for me, didn't see it coming, at all. Didn't begin to suspect ian was past father-husband, that was cool. But I did see that ian loved louise, but I just thought that was boy-meets-girl new love. (That's one of the main reasons I want to see it again). I have a little to add about meeting the older guy after the movie.... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 12, 2016 13:36:47 GMT -5
Yes. Earlier in the film they focused several times on this one sort-of merely grunt soldier. He seemed to agree with the Chinese leader, nothing verbal, but just an indication. So I decided to watch out for him. And then a couple of soldiers agreed, it time to do something, not even then much verbal. So then they began to gather explosives. Up until then ian and louise went into the alien shell only once every 24 hours, that was the aliens cycle, they had to redo the atmosphere. But then louise decided she had to go back in immediately. On the way they discussed going back in a second time during one cycle. One or the other said, it will be OK, we will not need to be there too long. The ~take things into their own hands~ group had already set the explosives, set the timer. When ian and louise showed up, the rebel dudes knew if they said anything, ian would stop the bomb, or alert the guys in charge. Either Abbot or Costello started tapping on the barrier, trying to point to the timer counting down, clearly visible (OK...maybe I forget which was attempting to break the barrier, by hitting it. If that's correct I didn't catch that. I assumed Costello(?), ]You say Abbot, I'm sure you're right, I didn't make a mental note] was killed from concussion). At the last minute when he couldn't get their attention, he blasted at them (something?), knocked them away from the blast, and yes, he sacrificed himself. Yes, A & C knew what was going to happen, as (obviously) they experience non-linear time. I didn't get immediately, during the film, that A & C had already tried to warn the authorities. That's what "Fire weapons" meant. They didn't know how to articulate into English (or any other language of the location of the other 11 shells), that a small faction of 'let's take things into our own hands' dudes were going to set off explosives in the shell. Later thinking about the film I realized that's what 'fire weapons' meant. Going to finish your earlier post now. (Another somewhat similar film I rated very high was Contact, with Jodie Foster). Got it. I just didn't remember the rebel military faction. My brother is now reading the short story that the film is based on, and promised to fill in more details shortly. I remembered the discussion about the pressure behind the wall being greater, so I assumed that Abbot blew the wall which blasted Ian and Louise out of the chamber prior to the discussion. I also assumed that the depressurization killed Abbot. Yes, I assume all the aliens were on board for whatever it took to complete the mission, even self sacrifice. They (all aliens) were all looking for the greater good three thousand years into the future. The rebel guys were presented pretty subtly, I think this was to keep the explosion more of a surprise. And as with a good mystery, future events explain past events, so sometimes in a Sixth Sense way, and a Memento way, the end changes the whole movie, non-linear within non-linear. Oh...I added later, after your post yesterday, listen carefully, from the very first words. On her porch, talking (thinking) about her daughter, she said something like, I thought this was the beginning, or I thought I knew what the beginning was... That alerted me immediately...watch time as a factor. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 12, 2016 13:50:07 GMT -5
Okay. I guess my complaint is that movie makers always assume that humans will view aliens as enemies and will always mindlessly attack them out of fear. The same theme has been repeated in many alien movies "The Day the Earth Stood Still," etc. It seems to me that nothing would unify humans more than the arrival of aliens. If aliens showed up with giant vehicles that could remain suspended in mid-air with no obvious means of propulsion, and if they had mastered faster-than-light travel, I think humans would be forced to assume that they are far more technologically advanced than humans, and would not want to take a chance on provoking them.
I don't understand how learning to read the alien's language would grant access to non-linear time, but my brother told me that the short story goes into more detail concerning how Louise learned to translate their language, so maybe he can clear up that issue later. I guess the coolest aspect of the movie was the concept of an alien species that is truly alien--sort of like the alien in "Alien."
Interestingly, there are many online discussions concerning why SETI has been unsuccessful when math models suggest that there are probably millions of potential ET lifeforms. The one thing that's never mentioned is SR, and the possible effect of SR on a particular alien culture. Maybe some day a movie will deal with that issue in greater depth than the few that have previously only slightly touched upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 12, 2016 14:15:42 GMT -5
Talking to the older man in the hall after the film, I told him the film was 'right down my alley'. I told him my primary interests for over 40 years were religion, philosophy and popular physics (that's just shorthand, details not necessary, in such a situation). So (told him) I got the film immediately, liked it very much. I pulled out my pocket journal and showed him scribbled stuff. Walking out into the sun, I thought of a scar on my right hand, and walked back into the building to see if I could see him, but he wasn't within view (mall theater). I've told the following story several times before here on ST's, it's my own experience of non-linear time. It was the fall of 1977. I was standing at my kitchen window washing dishes. I had my hand inside a glass glass, a Tasmanian Devil glass, washing back and forth with a wash rag. Suddenly the glass broke cutting my hand, my right hand, blood starting to fill the sink. And the just as suddenly, the glass wasn't broken, no cut hand, no blood. I just thought...that was odd. And then (very stupidly it turned out) I began washing the glass again in the same manner. And then very shortly, the glass actually broke in the exact same manner I had just experienced it. My immediate thought was another Wow! followed immediately by, That was stupid!, why didn't you think about what had just happened?! So I estimated the time, I had gone about nine seconds into the future. I experienced the future, but it felt exactly like it was present time happening-now. It was as real as real can be, until the glass wasn't broken, no cut hand, no blood.
I had to go to the emergency room for stitches. It took about ten stitches to sew up the crescent-shaped cut, total length of the cut about an inch. It's still there, the scar. That's what I had looked down at walking out of the theater. So I have actually been thinking about that film for 39 years. I know from personal experience that non-linear time is a fact.
Gurdjieff also somewhat discusses non-linear time. He says the present can effect the past. And this is also discussed somewhat in relation to the enneagram. The enneagram is a circle divided into nine equal parts. Six points on the circle are given by dividing 1 by 7. You get a repeating number, 1-4-2-8-5-7(1-4-2-8-5-7, you have to at least come back to 1 to complete this section of the diagram [then you connect the remaining numbers {3,6,9}, to complete it]). You can take the numbers 1-2-4-5-7-8 to be a sequence in time. But the pattern made by 1,4,2,8,5,7, shows a non-linear sequence. I don't remember how the days are assigned, but if we take 1 for Sunday, and then number the days, the idea is what one does on 4/Wednesday, effects (the previous) 2/Monday. I have said previously, a higher state of consciousness encompasses ~more of~ time and space than is normally the case. This is partly the meaning of non-linear time. (No charge for the last paragraph).
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 12, 2016 14:44:40 GMT -5
Okay. I guess my complaint is that movie makers always assume that humans will view aliens as enemies and will always mindlessly attack them out of fear. The same theme has been repeated in many alien movies "The Day the Earth Stood Still," etc. It seems to me that nothing would unify humans more than the arrival of aliens. If aliens showed up with giant vehicles that could remain suspended in mid-air with no obvious means of propulsion, and if they had mastered faster-than-light travel, I think humans would be forced to assume that they are far more technologically advanced than humans, and would not want to take a chance on provoking them. I don't understand how learning to read the alien's language would grant access to non-linear time, but my brother told me that the short story goes into more detail concerning how Louise learned to translate their language, so maybe he can clear up that issue later. I guess the coolest aspect of the movie was the concept of an alien species that is truly alien--sort of like the alien in "Alien." Interestingly, there are many online discussions concerning why SETI has been unsuccessful when math models suggest that there are probably millions of potential ET lifeforms. The one thing that's never mentioned is SR, and the possible effect of SR on a particular alien culture. Maybe some day a movie will deal with that issue in greater depth than the few that have previously only slightly touched upon it. Yes, most films are mostly for entertainment purposes. You almost have to have ~money to burn~ to make a film you know in advance will most likely not turn a profit. So alien as bad guy is more likely to make money (of course, exceptions, Contact mentioned). As an aside, my most vivid and real recurring dream, had since childhood, but not recently, is about the arrival of flying saucers. It's always short, but there are about 30+ flying saucers floating slowly above the surface of the earth. I see them, I wake up. I think the film gave a fair shake to both sides, some said, let's explore this, some wanted to attack (eventually). Look forward to a report on the short story. I guess learning the language in and of itself would not give the ability to experience non-linear time. I'd say maybe it opens one t o the possibility. And then Louise had memories of her daughter, and then she saw that there was significant relevant-now information in the memories. And then she just began learning more how to do it. I am sure there is other "organic" life in other solar systems. I don't know why we haven't made contact yet, that is, by radio waves or light or laser light. I think it could happen any time, recognizing a mathematical language, from space. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 14:54:25 GMT -5
Okay. I guess my complaint is that movie makers always assume that humans will view aliens as enemies and will always mindlessly attack them out of fear. The same theme has been repeated in many alien movies "The Day the Earth Stood Still," etc. It seems to me that nothing would unify humans more than the arrival of aliens. If aliens showed up with giant vehicles that could remain suspended in mid-air with no obvious means of propulsion, and if they had mastered faster-than-light travel, I think humans would be forced to assume that they are far more technologically advanced than humans, and would not want to take a chance on provoking them. I don't understand how learning to read the alien's language would grant access to non-linear time, but my brother told me that the short story goes into more detail concerning how Louise learned to translate their language, so maybe he can clear up that issue later. I guess the coolest aspect of the movie was the concept of an alien species that is truly alien--sort of like the alien in "Alien." Interestingly, there are many online discussions concerning why SETI has been unsuccessful when math models suggest that there are probably millions of potential ET lifeforms. The one thing that's never mentioned is SR, and the possible effect of SR on a particular alien culture. Maybe some day a movie will deal with that issue in greater depth than the few that have previously only slightly touched upon it. Close Encounters of the Third Kind didn't have that narrative. And of course Contact, in which although there was a destructive force in the form of a fundamentalist movement, as a whole it was an exploration of inter-galactic meetings. K-Pax was also based around an extra-terrestrial character, that had tones of SR related perspectives. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 12, 2016 14:58:18 GMT -5
Oh yea, K-Pax, very good film.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 12, 2016 15:05:44 GMT -5
Yes, what you describe is a non-local event/experience, and many people have them, even though they are usually quickly forgotten. Chilton Pearce writes about this in his book "The Crack in the Cosmic Egg," and he explains that the mind maintains a high degree of what psychologists call "stable sameness." This is why non-local events are usually forgotten unless they're highly unusual. Even then, they're usually only remembered by the person who had them. I've had several non-local experiences, but the most powerful ones involved CC experiences and the aftermath of those experiences.
Stable sameness is most easily demonstrated by the "thumb in the eyes' blindspot" experiment. The first time I did it, I was amazed to watch the mind fill in the blindspot.
Chilton Pearce remembered an event from his college days when he knew that he was invulnerable to pain, but even though he demonstrated his knowledge by extinguishing lighted cigarettes on his face (and even his eyelids!), none of his friends remembered it afterwards.
Carol and a friend of hers once had this kind of experience, and they told me about it afterwards, so all three of us remember it.
Your scar story is similar, and it makes no logical sense because what's going on is NOT logical in many cases. LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 12, 2016 15:06:39 GMT -5
Okay. I guess my complaint is that movie makers always assume that humans will view aliens as enemies and will always mindlessly attack them out of fear. The same theme has been repeated in many alien movies "The Day the Earth Stood Still," etc. It seems to me that nothing would unify humans more than the arrival of aliens. If aliens showed up with giant vehicles that could remain suspended in mid-air with no obvious means of propulsion, and if they had mastered faster-than-light travel, I think humans would be forced to assume that they are far more technologically advanced than humans, and would not want to take a chance on provoking them. I don't understand how learning to read the alien's language would grant access to non-linear time, but my brother told me that the short story goes into more detail concerning how Louise learned to translate their language, so maybe he can clear up that issue later. I guess the coolest aspect of the movie was the concept of an alien species that is truly alien--sort of like the alien in "Alien." Interestingly, there are many online discussions concerning why SETI has been unsuccessful when math models suggest that there are probably millions of potential ET lifeforms. The one thing that's never mentioned is SR, and the possible effect of SR on a particular alien culture. Maybe some day a movie will deal with that issue in greater depth than the few that have previously only slightly touched upon it. Close Encounters of the Third Kind didn't have that narrative. And of course Contact, in which although there was a destructive force in the form of a fundamentalist movement, as a whole it was an exploration of inter-galactic meetings. K-Pax was also based around an extra-terrestrial character, that had tones of SR related perspectives. Yes, both of those movies came to mind as I was writing that post. |
|
