PDA

View Full Version : Primer



Generic Poster
07-03-2007, 07:06 PM
So, I just watched this movie, and felt like a moronic boob for not being able to follow it. Then I researched it some on the interwebs and found that nobody can understand it on one viewing.

It was an enjoyable enough mental exercise, but I can't see putting in the time it would really take to decode the whole movie. Has anyone here done so?

Patton
07-03-2007, 07:09 PM
I understood 90% of it the first time. Then watched it with the commentary for the other 5-7%

I understood it more than I understood Mullholland Drive the first time.

Great movie.

King of Mars
07-03-2007, 07:10 PM
So, I just watched this movie, and felt like a moronic boob for not being able to follow it. Then I researched it some on the interwebs and found that nobody can understand it on one viewing.

It was an enjoyable enough mental exercise, but I can't see putting in the time it would really take to decode the whole movie. Has anyone here done so?No...but everyone here will pretend that they understood it and thought it was brilliant.:)

Generic Poster
07-03-2007, 07:11 PM
I understood 90% of it the first time. Then watched it with the commentary for the other 5-7%

I understood it more than I understood Mullholland Drive the first time.

Great movie.

Yeah, I might rent it for the commentary. I watched it on IFC, so no commentary.

The whole shotgun guy at the party thing seemed to come out of nowhere, and really threw me off.

Generic Poster
07-03-2007, 07:11 PM
No...but everyone here will pretend that they understood it and thought it was brilliant.:)

Fuck! This is the tack I should've taken.

Garth
07-03-2007, 07:13 PM
Yeah, I always struggle with these kinds of movies. I always like films that rely on the viewer to take an active role and decode what is going on--not speaking down the viewer like so many movies these days. On the other hand, can a film really be considered quality, if it REQUIRES multiple viewings to understand what is going on. I understood most of it, but felt like I could get quite a bit more out of viewing it again.

Patton
07-03-2007, 07:14 PM
Yeah, I might rent it for the commentary. I watched it on IFC, so no commentary.

The whole shotgun guy at the party thing seemed to come out of nowhere, and really threw me off.

How come? I had more problems with making sure I knew which versions of the characters were there at which time.

The commentary enlightens almost every question I had, except the ones that were open to intetpretations, like the ending.

Generic Poster
07-03-2007, 07:16 PM
How come? I had more problems with making sure I knew which versions of the characters were there at which time.

Yeah - know which Aaron and Abes were where when is obviously very confusing.

I guess I mean the shotgun thing threw me off more in terms of storytelling - it was obviously some big event, but we never saw the "Timeline 0" version of what went down.

Patton
07-03-2007, 07:17 PM
Yeah, I always struggle with these kinds of movies. I always like films that rely on the viewer to take an active role and decode what is going on--not speaking down the viewer like so many movies these days. On the other hand, can a film really be considered quality, if it REQUIRES multiple viewings to understand what is going on. I understood most of it, but felt like I could get quite a bit more out of viewing it again.

I don't think it required it. I think the story was there. I fault myself for not paying close enough attention to it, probably because so many movies require so little attention.

Like Mullholland Drive, the story was there the whole time, but I didn't see it until the second time because I was sort of mesmerized.

Patton
07-03-2007, 07:19 PM
Yeah - know which Aaron and Abes were where when is obviously very confusing.

I guess I mean the shotgun thing threw me off more in terms of storytelling - it was obviously some big event, but we never saw the "Timeline 0" version of what went down.

Yeah. I definitely see what you mean. I think that was a great choice to not show the Timeline 0 version but yeah, it's jarring.

Great way to explain it, by the way.

xyzzy
07-03-2007, 07:25 PM
So, I just watched this movie, and felt like a moronic boob for not being able to follow it. Then I researched it some on the interwebs and found that nobody can understand it on one viewing.

It was an enjoyable enough mental exercise, but I can't see putting in the time it would really take to decode the whole movie. Has anyone here done so?

Not here, but,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_%28film%29)

It's pretty damn comprehensive.

Dusto
07-03-2007, 07:31 PM
Yeah, great movie, hard to appreciate on just one viewing, but pretty comprehensible after a second time through. Luckily it's only 80 some minutes long.

Bill?
07-03-2007, 07:56 PM
yeah i sometimes thought it was confusing just for the sake of being confusing. i guess they get props for trying to stay grounded in real science though.

YouStayClassy
07-03-2007, 09:44 PM
This thread alone just made me buy the DVD off eBay.

I HATE this board sometimes and how much money it costs me.:-x

But seriously.... thanks for this thread. I am PSYCHED to see this thing, and I've never heard of it before this thread.

Patton
07-04-2007, 03:34 AM
This thread alone just made me buy the DVD off eBay.

I HATE this board sometimes and how much money it costs me.:-x

But seriously.... thanks for this thread. I am PSYCHED to see this thing, and I've never heard of it before this thread.

awesome. Let us know what you think.

Oh and, I believe you but man, it's weird that you never saw any of these:

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=102613&highlight=primer

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=2699367&postcount=3

YouStayClassy
07-04-2007, 01:19 PM
awesome. Let us know what you think.

Oh and, I believe you but man, it's weird that you never saw any of these:

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=102613&highlight=primer

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showpost.php?p=2699367&postcount=3

From December to most of last month I've been completely offline and cut off from civilization. :(

haloJONES
07-04-2007, 02:03 PM
I heard of this movie on henry rollins IFC show and saw that it was playing nearby, worth watching. when you see the movie try to remember that it cost $500 to make.

Patton
07-04-2007, 03:00 PM
I heard of this movie on henry rollins IFC show and saw that it was playing nearby, worth watching. when you see the movie try to remember that it cost $500 to make.

$7,000.

which is still insane.

YouStayClassy
07-11-2007, 08:25 AM
Okay.... this arrived in the mail yesterday and I watched it once last night.

I'm very proud to say I was able to follow good portions of it, but will freely admit it completely and utterly kicked my ass towards the end.

The very second Aaron was revealed to be a "hero", I got that what we were seeing wasn't necessarily the true story. But man.... it started getting HELLACIOUSLY hazy after that.

I was completely lost on the failsafe box, on folding one box into another, and the whole Granger thing. The boxes made lost me, but the Granger thing made my entire brain freeze over.

But this was an incredible movie, especially with the budget it had, because never once does it look cheap. I'm very much looking forward to watching it again, with and without the commentaries.

I'll also be honest on the fact I don't think I'll EVER comprehend the scope of these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Time_Travel_Method.jpg/644px-Time_Travel_Method.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/PrimerTimeline.gif



:crazy:

Generic Poster
07-11-2007, 08:28 AM
Yeah, I still don't get the Granger thing at all (that was the father-in-law or whatever, right?)

YouStayClassy
07-11-2007, 08:30 AM
Yeah, I still don't get the Granger thing at all (that was the father-in-law or whatever, right?)

Just the father of a friend from what I understand. They were extremely opaque on that whole thing.

yeamon
07-11-2007, 08:39 AM
Saw this at Ebertfest a couple years ago, and the writer/director sat down with Roger and spoke with the audience after the film. I don't remember a lot of the conversation, but the guy struck me as very bright. I think he may have been an MIT guy, or something.

I contrast it with Donnie Darko, where I think a lot of that film is mistaken for complexity, when in actuality Richard Kelly admits there are flaws in the story's clarity. Primer is a precisely structured story, that may require multiple viewings and a little background homework to comprehend. Neither of which I have bothered with, so my comprehension and recollection of the film are spotty at best. Other than to say, I think everything is there in the film. Just needs to be extracted.

Rosemary's Baby
07-11-2007, 08:46 AM
Primer's great. Confusing as all hell. Can't believe it only cost $7,000 to make. It's inspiring.

Horizon Drive
07-11-2007, 09:03 AM
Confusing. Watched a bunch of times and have some weird theories about it that the director says is wrong. I am not quite sure if it is worth the effort.

The most intrigung part is what happened to the father in law. Who told him? Why did he try to stop them from punching their boss? Why did he go into the coma after meeting one of the time travellers. Unanswerable questions from the movie, but maybe they will be covered in the sequel :)

YouStayClassy
07-11-2007, 09:05 AM
Confusing. Watched a bunch of times and have some weird theories about it that the director says is wrong. I am not quite sure if it is worth the effort.

The most intrigung part is what happened to the father in law. Who told him? Why did he try to stop them from punching their boss? Why did he go into the coma after meeting one of the time travellers. Unanswerable questions from the movie, but maybe they will be covered in the sequel :)

What I was able to piece together....

1. Abe had to have told him everything. WHICH Abe though, I have no clue.

2. I'm thinking after Abe spilled his guts, Granger HAD to stop them from punching the guy just so they wouldn't keep doing stuff like that. He wanted to talk sense into them, and had to nip that shit in the bud.

3. He went into the coma because he left the coffin too early. They even said that in the movie.

Roman Noodles
07-11-2007, 09:06 AM
I watched it 4 times before I even knew the name of the damn thing!!!

Horizon Drive
07-11-2007, 09:21 AM
What I was able to piece together....

1. Abe had to have told him everything. WHICH Abe though, I have no clue.

2. I'm thinking after Abe spilled his guts, Granger HAD to stop them from punching the guy just so they wouldn't keep doing stuff like that. He wanted to talk sense into them, and had to nip that shit in the bud.

3. He went into the coma because he left the coffin too early. They even said that in the movie.

Its been a while since I've seen the movie so I am not sure of the character names and a lot of the specifics. But

1 and 2. Abe told him? OK- I don't remember that being said- My statement was more along the lines of wondering what chain of events compelled Granger (?) to go into the past and confront them. I imagine Granger's timeline was pretty bad for those involved and they pinpointed that time as being the start of when things began unravelling. That is very intriguing to me.

3. I could be wrong, but my recollection of the movie is that they didn't know why he was in a coma and leaving the coffin early was a possible explanation/theory. I do remember that his condition became worse when he was close to Abe. There were theories about that, but nothing was positive.

Like I said, I watched the movie about two years ago and my recollection of specifics about the movie are a little hazy.

YouStayClassy
07-11-2007, 09:25 AM
Its been a while since I've seen the movie so I am not sure of the character names and a lot of the specifics. But

1 and 2. Abe told him? OK- I don't remember that being said- My statement was more along the lines of wondering what chain of events compelled Granger (?) to go into the past and confront them. I imagine Granger's timeline was pretty bad for those involved and they pinpointed that time as being the start of when things began unravelling. That is very intriguing to me.

3. I could be wrong, but my recollection of the movie is that they didn't know why he was in a coma and leaving the coffin early was a possible explanation/theory. I do remember that his condition became worse when he was close to Abe. There were theories about that, but nothing was positive.

Like I said, I watched the movie about two years ago and my recollection of specifics about the movie are a little hazy.

Well, my "Abe telling him everything" is the best theory I can come up with, mostly based off how angry Aaron got when Abe mentioned it and how defensive Abe got (I read it as Abe saying it hoping that Aaron would agree with him, because he'd secretly already done it).

I'm thinking Granger went after them because he knew they were both a couple of knuckleheads that would REALLY get out of control if they started doing stuff like that, playing with the timelines in such a juvenile fashion. Or at all really.

And yeah, they did offer it as a theory as to why he was in a coma but that did make the most sense. But then again, I have no clue what was up with Aaron bleeding or the whole handwriting thing.

Horizon Drive
07-11-2007, 09:30 AM
Imperfect copies: they degrade the more you double or some such thing.

YouStayClassy
07-11-2007, 09:31 AM
Imperfect copies: they degrade the more you double or some such thing.

*smacks self on head*

DUH! How did I miss that?!

Artie Pink
07-11-2007, 09:39 AM
I love time travel paradoxes, and so I enjoyed this movie. I have to watch it again.

I'm interested in whatever the guy does next, but I'm worried that I haven't heard anything about him in a while now.

nihilance
07-11-2007, 09:43 AM
Great movie. There are several older threads on the board discussing it if you want to do a search to see.

YouStayClassy
07-11-2007, 09:44 AM
Great movie. There are several older threads on the board discussing it if you want to do a search to see.

I've read every single one of them. :)

Patton
07-11-2007, 09:45 AM
I love time travel paradoxes, and so I enjoyed this movie. I have to watch it again.

I'm interested in whatever the guy does next, but I'm worried that I haven't heard anything about him in a while now.

This is a recent quote. Sounds badass.


I've been working for a long time on this romance that has nothing to do with science. An 18-year-old oceanography prodigy falls for the daughter of a commodities trader; it's set at sea off eastern Africa and southern Asia, and it's about trade routes and smalltime transport. But now I'm sort of leaning towards this other story, which is science fiction, and would be a much bigger budget. Basically there are robots, but they're not manmade; they appear to be at first. The story starts in the past, and there's information given to people, symbols and glyphs and things they think they're seeing. It's not scientists, it's random people that it's happening to, and . . . the end result is we're talking about devices that the universe is inspiring people to make without them actually knowing it. The universe is 50 billion years old and we're on a planet that's 4 billion and it only took a fraction of that for us to get here. It seems like if you look into the night sky, you should see evidence of civilizations that are not 100 years more advanced but millions if not billions of years more advanced, and yet when we look, we don't see anything. This is the story to explain why that is.

yeamon
07-11-2007, 09:46 AM
I'm interested in whatever the guy does next, but I'm worried that I haven't heard anything about him in a while now.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he's working on. But I don't imagine the studios lining up for a guy who made an indy film that nobody quite understands. I don't imagine "complexity" is a word that finds itself into very many pitches. Arronofsky would be an exception, but he had a lot more buzz than this guy... whose name escapes me.

Raphael J
10-10-2007, 08:10 PM
This is a recent quote. Sounds badass.

As much as I'd like to see him try new things, the latter idea sounds incredible. Either way, I can't wait to see what he does next.

Patton
10-10-2007, 08:18 PM
As much as I'd like to see him try new things, the latter idea sounds incredible. Either way, I can't wait to see what he does next.

You finally watched it?

Awesome.

Raphael J
10-10-2007, 08:23 PM
You finally watched it?

Awesome.

Yeah. I had to sit down and think about it for twenty minutes, but I think I've got it.

I think.

Patton
10-10-2007, 08:25 PM
Yeah. I had to sit down and think about it for twenty minutes, but I think I've got it.

I think.

I had to watch the commentary to get it 100%.

Raphael J
10-10-2007, 08:26 PM
I had to watch the commentary to get it 100%.

I'm gonna wait a few days for the commentary. I just have to let it sit for now.

It was definitely a lot to take in.

And the dialogue was excellent. I was pleasantly surprised by how great it was. The best part was that there wasn't a single part of the film that was dumbed down, which really made for a rewarding and engaging experience.