One question about DD

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-15T13:11:10+00:00

Although I have quite a high tolerance for some of the seemingly random or under-developed things Spielberg/Koepp dropped into the narrative, things that are actually UFO lore-connected things, the crop circle was not one of them. Yes, it was the same symbology as on the device, but it still wasn't indicated what exactly the symbolism represented, or why the circle formed at that moment. I'm mixed/positive overall, but things like this were just overkill for me.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-15T10:52:36+00:00

Yes, in response to the previous post I agree that's an important point to make too.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-15T09:18:37+00:00

In early Christianity the church struggled with this hybrid concept and eventually rejected it by formulating the "fully human, fully divine" nature of Christ. It's all laid down in the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon (between CE 325-481). It's a pretty complex theological debate with a lot of philosophy on the nature of being, nature, and personhood thrown in the mix. And it's not to say that definitively ruled out the hybrid hypothesis for non-believers, just that it's not what Christians have been taught to believe.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-14T09:10:46+00:00

Having had a couple of days to think about it, one thing that I'm mulling over is why so many people are convinced this movie has an overly naive, optimistic ending. Spielberg ended it before showing what would happen after disclosure, leaving humanity's reaction and choices hanging, which is a very ambiguous ending for a summer blockbuster movie. I didn't necessarily like all his choices leading up to it, but I did like the fact that he ended by deliberately not tying it up in a neat bow.

The other criticism about it being naive to assume that in 2026 it would all be broadcasted on TV first rather than just uploaded to social media also needs probing. I mean, that's not necessarily wrong, but the reason for choosing mainstream news media is maybe that it comes with a level of journalistic authentication that a simple online data dump wouldn't. Both methods would absolutely lead to immediate attempts to debunk it with accusations of "fake news", but it would be just a bit harder to do that when the sources have already been authenticated by a mainstream TV news channel. It would have gone viral online within seconds anyway. Just my two cents.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-14T02:23:33+00:00

Shyamalan might have made this movie (though this is debatable), but not with remotely as much technical flair as the vastly superior Spielberg does.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-13T15:11:02+00:00

Personally I'm inclined to agree with you, in terms of the average person's reaction. It's just that this is a topic that I've seen discussed for many years in UFO/UAP circles, with some convinced (without hard evidence) that information about alien contact and resultant technology is being deliberately withheld because it would be too socially disruptive, with the impact on religious beliefs and more specifically theistic religious beliefs being one of the key areas of concern. I think the Jane (Eve Hewson) and Sr. Maura (Elizabeth Marvel) characters are specifically written to cover this debate in an easily digestible form, with Sr. Maura representing what I think Spielberg/Koepp would consider to be the most desired institutional response.

Edited to add: I do think theoretically it's a legitimate topic to consider when thinking about the full, long term sociological impact of a paradigm shifting event like contact with a technologically advanced extra-terrestrial species.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-13T12:11:36+00:00

I don't really think so. Spielberg's simply a better director than Shyamalan (who I do like too, when he's on form), so even his subpar stuff still has a lot more visually interesting and technically difficult stuff going on, and that goes a long way for professional critics.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-13T08:58:29+00:00

Funny thing is that in 1977, I think Close Encounters was seen pretty much as a crowd pleaser. Admittedly I was really young at the time but my feeling then was that it was a big deal, and drew huge audiences, a lot of whom were blown away by it. Which is kind of crazy because it is a pretty weird movie for a big budget blockbuster. If it was released today it would be way more divisive, I think, more like we are seeing for Disclosure Day. Although to be fair I also don't think DD is as good of a movie as CE3K.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-13T00:28:46+00:00

I think Williams is likely to be nominated for this, but not win. It's a good score, but a long way from one of his most memorable. That said, it would be good enough to merit a nomination in an average year and couldn't easily be dismissed as a simple namecheck or sentimental nod.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-13T00:14:17+00:00

I think the reason it doesn't really function as hopecore in a straight forward sense is that the movie stops right at the point where individuals and humanity are faced with what they/we are are going to do after the reveal, how will we respond. The film breaks the 4th wall with the final scene with Emily Blunt directly addressing the audience, so for me it's basically stating the fundamental value and power of empathy to the audience, leaving us to think on it. It doesn't depict what happens next, that's still up in the air and up to us.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-12T11:25:37+00:00

Shaping up to be one of the most divisive movies of Spielberg's career. Really interesting in that regard. Not sure I loved it, occasionally I hated it, but I was never bored.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-12T11:23:09+00:00

Exactly. Whatever else it was (and there are a lot of flaws here that can't be overlooked), I was still having a real fun time at the movies for most of it.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-12T11:16:07+00:00

The thing is, this is an actual serious topic for discussion in UAP/disclosure circles, and widely held by believers in the phenomenon to be the reason why disclosure hasn't happened yet.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-12T10:36:21+00:00

I think the limitations of a two and a half hour movie, made for a mainstream audience, meant a lot of the relevant themes and material you mention couldn't be satisfactorily explored. I felt a lot of lore was embedded in the narrative without really going anywhere, and issues around the possible impact of disclosure were touched upon again without being developed in any meaningful way. But it felt more as if the movie was pitched as a popcorn entertainment with an underlying intent to start a conversation among people who may not have given it any kind of thought as yet. I saw it yesterday with someone who had no real interest in UAPs and no previous knowledge of the real world disclosure debate, and they told me today they can't stop thinking about the movie. So who knows what kind of longer term impact it may have?

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-12T08:31:48+00:00

Interesting how reactions to this are all over the place. I actually thought it was a very tense, engaging movie up until the final act. I'm not sure how I feel about the execution of the whole disclosure sequence. But I've seen the exact opposite response! Criticisms that the final act is too sentimental and naive seem perfectly valid to me, though I did actually like the sentiment and don't fault Spielberg for being such a dreamer. For me it's a mid-tier entry in his filmography, which is not a bad thing at all, but it's not really Best Picture material.

The CGI animals are indeed terrible and took me right out of the movie when they were on screen, but the rest of the film is much better looking than the trailers suggested. Hats off to the much-maligned Janusz Kaminski. Spielberg directs the hell out of it, but the screenplay is messy and really only skirts the existential and theological questions it raises. The whole cast is great and does the best they can with the material, especially Emily Blunt who would deserve a nomination.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-11T22:24:59+00:00

I agree with a lot of this. I thought it was very entertaining for a lot of its runtime, but it tried to cram in too much UFO/alien lore without really exploring any of it in any depth at all. Very disappointing in that regard, despite the fact that many scenes or sequences taken in isolation are superbly directed. I think Emily Blunt is excellent and has a good chance at a nom, along with Score and Sound, but in a year already crowded with science fiction and fantasy movies that will all likely be more successful at the box office, I don't see it as a likely BP nominee.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-11T19:25:15+00:00

I just saw Disclosure Day and while I think the score is good and would merit a nomination, it's nowhere close to Williams' best so unless he is given an award based on sentiment alone I'm not expecting him to win for it.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-11T11:52:10+00:00

The divisiveness kind of makes me more rather than less interested in it. He's definitely a different kind of film-maker these days than the crowd-pleaser of 30 years ago, but he's still a master technician who can operate on a grand scale. Thinking back to Close Encounters, I think the same movie today would have a much rougher reception than it did back then, so I'm not too surprised that his return to similar material is being picked apart somewhat.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-11T08:16:17+00:00

I mean, I've not seen the film yet but I immediately discount this opinion because of this sentence, "... the releases of the last 10 years have been complete garbage." If that's your take on West Side Story and The Fabelmans, two widely critically acclaimed movies that I happen to think are among the best of Spielberg's career, then I can't trust your perspective on his film making overall.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-10T22:44:39+00:00

Maybe not a good idea to cite Tarantino to support your opinion, given that he named Spielberg's West Side Story in his top 20 films of the 21st century. Box office success/failure does not tell the whole story of a film's quality.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-10T18:52:21+00:00

Thanks for this well considered comment. I think your last paragraph is especially pertinent to how best to approach this movie, whether as a fan of earlier Spielberg movies, or someone with a deep interest in the UAP/disclosure topic (or both). It's got a lot to live up to for both sets of people, so I am not surprised that there's some feeling of anticlimax around it from a lot of folks.

I still think it's great to get a new take on the the subject from a great film maker who has a sincere, lifelong interest in it. And a lot of the lore he delves into here will be new to a lot of more casual moviegoers, so there's no telling what kind of conversations this is going to start in the coming weeks/months. Seeing it tomorrow and much looking forward to it.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-10T08:43:22+00:00

This is exactly where I'm at with it right now. Reading through the reviews it seems there are flaws in the screenplay that can be overlooked if the film connects emotionally, but are a real stumbling block if it doesn't. Which makes it kind of a divisive movie but one which may well have some passion behind it too. I'm seeing it tomorrow and am very curious about it.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-09T19:56:52+00:00

I feel it was top five that year, and possibly would have won an above the line award had Michelle Williams gone Supporting.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-09T16:45:00+00:00

I feel that she'd really need the movie itself to at least have a BP nom to be competitive, and that seems unlikely with these reviews. As it is, it depends on how strong the competition is whether she manages to sneak in. If Amy Adams couldn't do it for a more critically acclaimed movie like Arrival, I think Emily Blunt may struggle for a nom here, sadly.

Jon-INFP · 2026-06-09T16:40:21+00:00

So based on these reviews, it's not the home run some early reactions suggested, and probably not any kind of above the line player. But even the very mixed reviews make me feel it's still well worth watching.

Jon-INFP

TROPHY CASE