our positions are contingent upon the next paragraph. we disagree, but I'll listen, i could not have thought it through. its the crux of the argument/all my issues with the movie.
Alright let's go through them.
i just dont agree. amy adams would have still been in that ship in montana. she still would have come out of it with the language (and everything that came with it.) she wouldnt be holding it secret.
Well, first off, she wouldn't have come out with the language on her own unless they wanted her to. In the film, as the aliens conducted their test, she studied it alongside a hundred other scientists for days relying a great deal on their
collaborative work. Which, was the point. She made a breakthrough, and she was the first to understand it, but, she relied on the work of others .. and .. others also made significant discoveries simultaneously.
This process is actually fairly similar to the culture barriers and political barriers that were broken down during the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos, as well as the scientific communities .. vision .. for the ethic (against the Nazis) and unethical (against the Japanese) use of nuclear weapons during World War II.
Also, it seems like you're leaving out the part that the aliens divided the message among 12 ships to get
all of humanity to work together. If they just wanted to abduct a linguist and have them learn the language (or a child, which would be far easier) then they would've done that instead. Remember, there is a specific reason to send 12 ships -- it was specifically to get humanity to work together to solve the problem.
what evidence do you have that its crucial to get them working together? and that we were in fact going to blow ourselves up?
Sure...
Very early on, Ian rather expositionally states that
"Language is the foundation of civilization. It is the glue that holds a people together, and it is the first weapon drawn in conflict."
This statement basically sums up the movie, and it prepares the audience for what's about to come.
Later on, this exact question comes up and is answered, again, expositionally. In a scene in the third act of the film; the Russians kill off their last remaining chief scientist because they are fearful of sharing any more information with the outside world. Remember, many countries, as they make discoveries, are going dark; hoping to use the open scientific sharing they've enjoyed up to that point, as enough of a start to solve the puzzle on their own and get a technological advantage.
And before I get more into this scene;
what evidence leads you to believe it was a test?
Because they explain it's a test in the third act, a few times. The first time Amy Adams character, Louise has the following interaction (again, starting with the Russian scientist):
Russian Scientist:
"Their final words translate to 'There is no time, many become one.' I fear we have all been given weapons because we answer the timeline wrong, please, if you" (Russians kill him)
LOUISE:
"I mean, there are ways to interpret what he said..."
Agent Halpern:
"I don't need an interpret to know what this means. Russia just executed own of their own experts to keep their secrets."
(puts on TV monitor):
Every Shell now hovers over their site. From Hokkaido to
Wales, the massive spheres hang in the air. Waiting.
LOUISE:
"Many become one" could just be their way of saying "some assembly required..."
AGENT HALPERN:
Why hand it out to us in pieces? Why not just give it all over?
LOUISE:
What better way to force us all to work together, for once?
Halpern looks to the other people in the room. Weber studies
him carefully, Ian nods, in support of Louise,
AGENT HALPERN:
Even if I did believe you, how in the world are you going to get anyone else to play along and give up their data?
(Ian jumps on this one)
IAN:
We offer our own in return.
(Halpern looks to Weber. Is he serious?)
AGENT HALPERN:
A trade.
IAN:
So it's a non-zero-sum game.
(Louise hears this and it dawns on her)
LAKE HOUSE - LOUISE'S STUDY - NIGHT (FLASHBACK)
Hannah storms down the hall. Picking up right where we left
her from the previous flashback.
Louise sits forward, with that same look of realization:
LOUISE:
A non-zero-sum game!
and again, wouldnt they already know the answer to this considering they can see into the future?
Again, I think you're still thinking of time as a one-dimensional continuum of events; but if you recall, they explain that time is spatial. That's the gift. That's the weapon. That's the tool. So they can experience and even
interact with potential futures based on the path they are on. It's
not omniscience, though; because there is still the element of choice - and thus, potential. So they can't know with certainty how humanity will respond; they likely just know it's worth the risk at this point.
because they would have mass blotted amy and scientist the previous session and avoid dying if they had. thats at the very least.
Well, again, I think there's a difference in how they view the experience compared to you and I.
From Abbot and Costello's experience, yes, it was a dangerous attack but one that they could surely survive. But Costello later states that Abbot is not "dead" but instead says that "Abbot is death process;" which entails something quite different. Abbot saves Louise in the process, which, was a choice of his to make. This choice happens because of the attack, but, it's not a final end to Abbot, insomuch as it demarcates his path to any future from a linear-perspective -- a perspective that the aliens do not perceive. So relative to Louise, Abbot "is death process;" but relative to Costello, that's obviously not the case (see Louise's time with her daughter).
So from Abbot's perspective, there was value in delivering the message as he did. It's not that he didn't know or couldn't prevent it.. and from our perspective, we might not value it the same way since we would perceive it as a final end to our own lives.
Now one could argue, well, didn't Abbot see that coming? Yes, he did.. but he may have chosen to sacrifice himself
in this respect in the same way Louise chooses to have a terminally ill child that will cost her her husband.
And not to get overly dramatic but, this is kind of like the same question asked of Jesus. Why didn't he just hop down off the cross? I mean.. he saw it coming, and he had the power to prevent it. But, what's missed is the sacrifice itself.
you and i disagree on the point of the necessity of visiting everywhere else, but i dont accept that premise at the moment
Do we still disagree? Again, I would point out that it's stated explicitly in the movie why they did this..
Louise even goes on towards the end to breakdown the fact that the logograms are broken into twelve parts, by her, and that the aliens knew humans would interpret them this way, because that's how Louise would initially interpret them (as twelve discrete segments), and that's why they send twelve ships... (insert mind-blown gif)
So the logograms are metaphorically representative of all the instances in the past, present, and future; as well as the twelve ships that come to Earth; as well as the Twelve Tribes of Israel (or, in essence, the tribes of civilization).
p.s.
Did you notice, when you look at the logograms closely, they actually change shape.