I guess there was need for them to be this way because it is a movie but some of the quick irrational anger towards John was annoying. There were all suppose to be college professors. I really did like the movie though
shareThat's just the very real way some people get when confronted with things they either can't understand, or don't want to acknowledge as being possible.
shareI've noticed that a lot lately. Both religious people as well as scientists will do it. When confronted with something that doesn't fit nicely with what they've already "decided" is true, they automatically react with hostility. I think that was one of the themes of the movie, to show how quickly people devolve back to their dogmas, while the very rare individual actually does keep an open mind to all sides.
share"When confronted with something that doesn't fit nicely with what they've already "decided" is true, they automatically react with hostility. I think that was one of the themes of the movie, to show how quickly people devolve back to their dogmas, while the very rare individual actually does keep an open mind to all sides."
That statement is absolutely false! Big load of crap and you're an idiot! I refuse to listen to anything you are saying. Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala...
[deleted]
you've just described half the country with Trump
shareIs that really realistic that people react that way? Personally I can't imagine reacting that way, except if I see it as a kind of con with a negative outcome.
That people would react frightened and panicky or with violence if they learned the aliens have visited is kind of a movie trope. But is it true?
Personally I doubt it would be like it's made out to be. People would doubt, be suspicious, but not violent about something new.
by Dejay » Is that really realistic that people react that way? Personally I can't imagine reacting that way, except if I see it as a kind of con with a negative outcome.
That people would react frightened and panicky or with violence if they learned the aliens have visited is kind of a movie trope. But is it true?
Personally I doubt it would be like it's made out to be. People would doubt, be suspicious, but not violent about something new.
Well it's not that I'm really sure about this. I'm just curious if people would hear "The aliens have landed! They come in peace!", do they really immediately proceed to start rioting in the streets, looting and fleeing to the country. It's kind of a tv trope.
I probably didn't express myself well about the con thing. What I meant was if some big new revelation came about, and I would suspect this is just a means to con me, only then I would react negatively.
Like when people hear climate change, they don't actually proceed to think this is a con / conspiracy by the Chinese to sell more solar panels. That is propaganda by special interests to influence policy. Hmm of course that could be the actual problem with things like this - uncertainty create a kind of instability that other people can exploit. So the situation can get out of control if you have irresponsible, stupid or bigoted elements influencing the population.
by Dejay » Well it's not that I'm really sure about this. I'm just curious if people would hear "The aliens have landed! They come in peace!", do they really immediately proceed to start rioting in the streets, looting and fleeing to the country. It's kind of a tv trope.
I probably didn't express myself well about the con thing. What I meant was if some big new revelation came about, and I would suspect this is just a means to con me, only then I would react negatively.
Like when people hear climate change, they don't actually proceed to think this is a con / conspiracy by the Chinese to sell more solar panels. That is propaganda by special interests to influence policy. Hmm of course that could be the actual problem with things like this - uncertainty create a kind of instability that other people can exploit. So the situation can get out of control if you have irresponsible, stupid or bigoted elements influencing the population.
Yeah I guess Edith suddenly felt herself as a victim of a giant hoax, or at least being accused of being a dupe by John. So she got angry / hurt. Really weird for a scientist to be so defensive, you are just supposed to listen to facts - and John didn't even bring any facts so it would have been easy to dismiss him.
So I agree with you that many people could get violent when their preconceptions are seriously challenged. Or if something new happens and they get whipped up.
But I not sure about something broad as the "confronted with things they either can't understand". It's this trope that if you witness something supernatural or an alien people start to panic and scream immediately even if there isn't any harm done. I'd say this is a trope even if it's true, but I'd be curious if any experiments or studies have been done on this.
This "trope" is often used to create an irrational antagonist (like Gruber) when faced with the supernatural because someone is a freak or something unnatural.
by Dejay » Yeah I guess Edith suddenly felt herself as a victim of a giant hoax, or at least being accused of being a dupe by John. So she got angry / hurt. Really weird for a scientist to be so defensive, you are just supposed to listen to facts - and John didn't even bring any facts so it would have been easy to dismiss him.
So I agree with you that many people could get violent when their preconceptions are seriously challenged. Or if something new happens and they get whipped up.
But I not sure about something broad as the "confronted with things they either can't understand". It's this trope that if you witness something supernatural or an alien people start to panic and scream immediately even if there isn't any harm done. I'd say this is a trope even if it's true, but I'd be curious if any experiments or studies have been done on this.
This "trope" is often used to create an irrational antagonist (like Gruber) when faced with the supernatural because someone is a freak or something unnatural.
I'm not trying to argue really. Just discussing and exploring and trying to look at this as a "tv trope". Maybe call it "revelation panic" or something, the potential violent outburst from a person or people if they knew some mind shattering truth. It's often used as a motivator for people to do things or not tell things.
The only reason I bring up aliens is to try to look at it in a broader context. Of course the existence of aliens is less emotionally charged that the truth about Jesus. And no I don't really know where I'm going with this :)
dejay said - Of course the existence of aliens is less emotionally charged that the truth about Jesus
Maybe because we just got used to different theories or viewpoints about either of them. We hear stories about all if this and have time to form our opinions on them. But Edith was confronted with something new and pretty radical and it was right in her face. The only way for her to deny it was to loose a friend. Or give in.
Meh - now you have me arguing the opposite of what I started with! :)
Indeed.
Look at how hostile and immature some ppl get on this board when their thoughts on movies are challenged. And those are just movies.
Here we have a man who is basically threatening their entire worldviews. It MUST be a joke, but he's not stopping, so this alleged friend must be spending their final hours together basically make fun of things they consider very important for themselves.
I could kind of see it from the extremely religious woman as her faith was being undermined (though, to be fair, she turned insulting long before that point). But William Katt's character was angry and confrontational when he was assuming his friend was suffering a delusion. Not a constructive response to such.
shareI noticed and was baffled by it right away. I was thinking the same thing: Why the anger?
If someone were to tell me they were from 14,000 years ago I'd be listening with a smile on my face due to my interest in that person and his story, whether I believed it or not.
Every movie has an angry character; an antagonist of some sort. I don't really think it's necessary. This movie carried a very interesting concept. Conflict wasn't necessary to the story.
I agree, it was all in good spirits and fun about one of their good friend going away, the way some of them react so extremely and so shocked is really wtf
shareThey chuckle at first, but when John insists that it's true, some of them start to turn hostile. Is that not understandable?
shareAnd IIRC, it was Art who first turned hostile because it was his area of expertise (anthropology) that was first challenged when John said he'd read Arts' books and said he'd got "most" of his theories "RIGHT".
And I don't know about the rest of you, but I've encountered PLENTY of people who immediately turn borderline hostile if you even 'suggest' that they might not be right about something they believe they know as a fact...
On top of that, we're talking about Art's field of study. This is his life's work. He's probably really proud of it, and somebody being so casually dismissive of it (especially somebody he doesn't think of as being in the field) would be really obnoxious. Maybe he overreacts, but I definitely get why he's annoyed (particularly when John doesn't drop it).
shareAnd in just about any other case Arts' reaction could be considered justifiable, but given the way John does try to discuss the subject (in a reasonable manner and with comments on the subject that Art obviously can't refute), Art really has no reason to be so annoyed...except of course for his ego, another subject that was touched upon many times during the movie as to how such experts in various fields might react in such a discussion if it were to ever occur in real life.
shareArt is clearly arrogant and short-tempered, so I agree. I disagree with John a bit. John is attempting to be civil, but think about it from the perspectives of his friends: this is an impossible story, especially since John refuses to get any DNA testing or anything like that. He doesn't have any information he couldn't have gotten from a textbook and he spins this yarn out for hours. Without any evidence, I think any reasonable person would assume it was a put-on, but by the half hour mark (at the absolute latest) they'd all start going, "Okay, seriously, John; come on."
The movie does show us a true-to-life reaction from an academic (who do take themselves too seriously - just look at any hoax paper story and see how huffy they get over criticism and humour). But John also wouldn't appear reasonable to most people.
All of which is based on the premise that what John is doing must OBVIOUSLY just be a big joke, bringing us back to the point that no one would have rational reason to overreact or be annoyed to the point of ACTUALLY getting hostile.
shareI agree for the small amount of time we see John do it. Keep in mind, they arrive for helping someone pack, move, and for a sendoff dinner - this is a multi-hour engagement and John spends the whole time in the joke. This would be frustrating, like spending an evening with Daniel Day Lewis in-character, or Andy Warhol. At some point, you just want them to give a wink; John never does.
Furthermore, that kind of thing is fun while everybody is having fun, but almost immediately John takes a swipe at Art's work. Art starts getting annoyed. Even a good-natured joker would start getting uncomfortable with John bothering others, especially when he literally reduces one of their friends to tears. Of course, she was over-sensitive (so was Art), but making somebody cry is taking the joke too far, especially when it's been carried on for literally hours.
Also keep in mind that all of Johns friends basically invited themselves to his home after he'd left the official sendoff dinner, so they essentially placed themselves into the situation.
That said...
"...but almost immediately John "takes a swipe" at Arts' work"?
Simply questioning something, which again was based on comments that Art couldn't reasonably refute, is not the same as "taking a swipe". So again, no real reason for Art to have allowed himself to get annoyed, especially when you yourself have even characterized Art as the person who was being over-sensitive about something just because of how long it's been carried on.....sort of like seems to now be happening in THIS discussion...
Art's too touchy by half - yes. But a dismissive tone and the way John phrases things to emphasize negatives isn't helping. But, ultimately, yeah, Art's an overly-sensitive academic type who doesn't like being questioned.
I think they stayed because John hadn't dropped it. They left when he said, "Okay, you got me, I'm joking," because up until then there was no conclusion. He didn't say "get out", either, so it's just an after-dinner conversation that just wouldn't die.
To your last point: I'm not annoyed with this conversation, nor am I upset that you're questioning my conclusions. If you're annoyed, I apologize for annoying you.
[deleted]
Well Art being too touchy certainly makes it understandable why it would result in him interpreting Johns comments as being delivered in a dismissive tone and/or emphasizing negatives, regardless of whether that was actually how John was delivering his comments.
And it seemed that all doubt for why they'd stayed was removed when one of the characters specifically stated that it was because THEY had become trapped by his story (THEY couldn't drop hearing more of it).
But to your last point. OK, so you're not annoyed, and neither am I, so apparently, no apologies necessary all around, especially since I haven't been questioning YOUR conclusion, only Arts, and he is the only academic we're discussing, correct?
Yes, Art definitely would have interpreted John's comments as more hostile than they were intended, but it would be difficult to swallow, hearing one's life's work being contradicted by somebody one thought wasn't in the field.
They stayed because they couldn't stop hearing, but all for slightly different reasons. Harry seems amused and is having fun joking about the possibility, Dan is enjoying it as a philosophical exercise, but others like Art and Edith aren't enjoying it. Are they too closed-minded? Or is it a joke taken to cruel lengths? We, as viewers, of course have a different perspective, but imagining it from their POV shifts things. Even the very laid-back, logical Dan was ticked off when John finally said, "It's a joke," because Dan suddenly saw it as a joke taken WAY too far.
Art should have just put on one of John’s hats or jackets and vibe in on it to find out if he could holograph in on John’s memories during caveman times. Then he’d know if the story was true. Provided he remembered to wear the magic jammies.
shareAll of which, again, is based on the premise that what John was doing must OBVIOUSLY just be a big joke...which if we'll also remember, all of the people listed tried to initially make John the butt of (but which didn't result in HIM becoming hostile).... bringing us back to the point that no one would have rational reason to overreact or be annoyed to the point of ACTUALLY getting hostile.
shareI don't think it is obvious to everybody in that room that John is joking. In fact, I'm certain of it, because several of them start to believe him or are at least seriously entertaining the possibility. We see this by Edith's reaction, and Linda's. When John says, "Oh, I was joking," we can see by Dan's reaction both that Dan was at least seriously considering it and that he recognizes how the joke went too far by his cursing at John.
Art overreacted the most, Edith next most, and that if they were angry or upset by John, instead of responding as they did, it would have been better to say, "John, this isn't funny, and either you need to stop the joke or provide us with some kind of actual proof of this." So, we are agreed that this wasn't a rational reaction.
At bedrock, yes, those two overreacted. But they weren't the only ones to get angry (Dan).
Are we just mostly agreeing with each other here and splitting hairs on one or two points?
Before I provide any more responses to your questions, I'd like an answer to my earlier question of whether Art is the only academic this discussion could be interpreted as addressing.
For example, are YOU an academic in any of the fields represented by Johns colleagues in the movie?
I don't usually like to give out too many personal details on message boards. I like to keep things nice and vague.
Can I say that, academic or not, I am not personally offended by anything John is saying, nor am I looking to defend any of my work/life/beliefs from John. Is that enough of an answer to continue, or was there another reason you asked?
How exactly is just saying whether you're an academic or not providing too much personal detail?
That said, thank you for going so far as to answer a question I didn't even ask, which basically provided the answer to the overall question I had anyway.
I sorta figured that was the answer you were looking for.
I dunno. I just err on the side of caution when it comes to personal info online. Maybe I'm paranoid. Maybe I'm prudent. Maybe the difference between them is spelling.
And exactly what answer was it that you were referring to that you thought I was looking for?
shareI thought you were asking about whether or not I was taking it personally - relating to Art in some way, perhaps - and was looking to defend somebody I was relating to.
If I'm wrong on that count, then perhaps I've answered the wrong part of your inquiry. But if that's the case, perhaps you might illuminate why you're asking about my own connection to academia (or lack thereof)?
Interesting that you'd expect me to answer your question regarding connections to academia when you refuse to do so yourself.
That said, to answer a couple of your previous questions...
No, we were not just mostly agreeing with each other here and splitting hairs on one or two points, and not enough to continue.
No worries though, it was my choice to start this line of inquiry regarding the premise of your initial response, and it's also my choice to end it. Thank you for your participation.
Did Twitter not exist 6 years ago? Their reaction in the movie seems relatively tame compared to the behavior of many of the "intellectuals" I've seen there.
shareIf someone you know suddenly confronted you with this story I think most people would get irritated because they'd think it was a joke, or they were being treated like an idiot.
share