This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I hadn't thought that my plot description was really spoiling very much, since most reviews cover similar terretory. It's a fairly moot point though, I suppose. -- Shane Lin 17:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What do you think about Abe and Aaron being named for the Biblical characters? Should we put in a link to them on the Primer characters' names?
Another idea: the first two letters of the names are AA and AB, just like the "entry and exit points" in the diagram of the time travel drawn by Aaron. Coincidence? Moreover, at the end of the film Abe seems to have abandoned the idea of time-travel, while Aaron still seems obsessed with this idea. Like "Abe enters in A and exits in B", but Aaron keeps coming to A over and over. Too convoluted?
I believe there are many unanswered questions, such as:
- why does their handwriting suffer
- is that the aaron that left trying to build a box in france at the end?
i dont think so. i had too pause the movie several times to grasp what was happening but i dont remember anything that had to do with building a box in france.
- so overall, aaron has the upper hand?
I don't think these should go on the main page, and ruin the movie for people, but i can't find info anywhere else on the web, except for the timeline. This is a good a place as any to discuss these issues.
-Rachel is not Aaron's wife.
-Rachel is never killed in any timeline. Aaron intervened the first time so that he comes out looking like a hero. The second time Aaron and Abe work together to make sure that the ex-boyfriend goes to jail.
-Abe created the failsafe not Aaron. Aaron only found out about the failsafe when he saw 2 units rented by Abe on the storage unit manifest.
-It's possible Rachel is killed in one version of the party, which serves as a motive for Granger (her father) to attempt to travel back in time, and also explains why Aaron(2) mentions something like "there's no telling how many time it took him to get it right," referring to Aaron's intervention at the party.
-The plot summary states that Aaron and Abe where trying to make a high temperature superconductor. If you listen to the film carefully, or read the interview with Carruth that is one of the page references, you will find that they are actually attempting to make a "gravity degrading device" (apparently trying to improve on the design of another research team). The fact that the main improvement they implement is a field to knock out the internal magnetic field of the superconductor material, rather than using cooling, is not the point. The gravity degradation is what they are trying to produce, and what causes the observed time effects.
failed because: requires references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ike9898 ( talk • contribs) 09:06 February 26, 2006
"events in the film take place in the week Sunday, September 21, 2003 and Friday, September 26, 2003"
-Where does the info come from? The only references to dates are the numberous mentions of March Madness games being played.
Is all of the stuff in this article actually verifiable? Some of it seems like fan conjecture. I think any statements that are not clear from the movie itself should be supported by references to sources such as director's commentary. Anything not supportable in this manner belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia. ike9898 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
(ri) From the official site, ABOUT THE STORY: 'a device that reduces the apparent mass of any object placed inside it by blocking gravitational pull' [1] I think the statement should more closely reflect what the source states. 09:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The director's commentary on the DVD says they are trying to produce a High-temperature superconductor, hence the floating paper bits. Dominic 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In the main article, under the heading "Timeline 8", there's a sentence that states "Abe (4) and Aaron (1) chase Mr. Granger (1) ."
Shouldn't it be Aaron (5) by this timeline instead of Aaron (1) ?
Siakap 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In "Timeline 2" it says "Abe (0) exits from the first box (0) at 9:00 a.m. on Monday morning." Shouldn't it be Abe (1)?
Plesner 18:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I like this attempt at laying out the overall events in the film, but I have three concerns with the timeline presented, two minor and one major:
-Timeline 8. I agree with Siakap above, this seems like it should be Aaron(5) in Timeline 8, this seems an obvious Typo.
-Also in Timeline 8 we switch from Abe(3) to Abe(4) without Abe(3) ever entering a box. How is that possible? This also seems a typing error.
Now the big concern with this write-up: This movie is one that intentially confuses and has a cult following of people trying to explain the order of events. The order represented on this page seems fairly plausible; but it has a glaring error.
The write-up says that:
So if that happened on Wednesday night, both box(0) boxes are GONE after Wednesday night. Timeline 6 as it is written can not happen, because it claims:
These machines are not there to be started! Not if Aaron(1) took both boxes back through the failsafe on Wednesday night.
Again, the great thing about this film is how much fun it is trying to piece it together, but this interpretation of the order of events does not make sense because the boxes (box(0)) are gone after Wednesday night.
I'm going to look around on the films very large Message Board to see if there is a more consistent timeline, but I believe the one that is represented here is in error.
Knoma Tsujmai 2006.04.04
The Time Travel section was tagged because it is written in a pedantic and casual tone. Examples of the former:
It was also tagged for being problematically written in the second (you) and first person (plural). Jonathan F 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This article's tone or style may not reflect the
encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (December 2007) |
Primer examines the concept of time travel and paradox differently then most stories of the genre. Most stories treat any changes that occur as a result of time travel to the past have an instant or near-instant effect on the future (e.g. Back to the Future). However, in this version of time travel, if a person changes something in the past, it does not instantly propagate to the future. Every cause is on a time delay. As an example, if a time traveler were to go back in time exactly one day and kill his past self, that event would not cause a paradox. The entire film dwells on the exploration of paradox Aaron coming out of the box early and the cell phone incident.
If a person were to go back one day and kill himself, it would take two days for this action to catch up to him. But because he is always two days ahead (one day going forward and one going back in time) in his own personal timeline from receiving this action, it will never catch up to him. So he will never die. For example, suppose a person were to go back to their proper place two days in the future. But, say a year from now, he goes back in time between 48 and 96 hours, he could visit his (double's) grave. In this "worldline", he's been dead for a year. Understanding this is a prerequisite to understanding the plot.
The storytelling is actually quite linear. It tells the story from the point of view of the original (or initial) Aaron and always from his point of view, but from after he's gone through the failsafe once. The narrator on the phone is the Aaron from just under 10 days behind. But leave that at that for now.
The beginning of the movie is simple enough up until the point where Abe creates the first box. From this point on, the Aaron that the viewer sees in the movie is Aaron after he's gone through the failsafe once. This is indicated by the fact that he is wearing the earpiece (recording all the day's events) even during the basketball scene just outside his garage. Another indicator is that there is an Aaron double tied up in the attic as can be seen during the "rats and birds" scene. The tied up Aaron is behind the original Aaron by about 10 days.
The complications begin when Abe comes back from the failsafe device. It seems that the further away the time traveler is from "when" he/she should be, the greater the adverse effects to the body. When coming up to Aaron on the bench, Abe collapses. This is where the audio from Aaron's earpiece can be heard. So the viewer knows this is Aaron's second time through the failsafe (once back through to record the day's events and this time to have a three second advantage). This is confirmed by the narrator soon after.
The scene where the narrator comes into the picture is the most difficult to explain. Normally, during a loop, there would only ever be one double. In this case however, there are two. The second one, man in the middle, being the narrator. Why would there normally be only one double? This goes back to the causality delay. If you go back a day and kill yourself, your double is now dead. If your double were alive at the end of the day (or not tied up), he'd go in the box. But since he's dead, he cannot. So the box starts emptying going backwards in time for 24 hours. Once the box is completely empty and no one is going back in time, all of a sudden, there is no longer anyone getting out of the box. If no one gets out of the box, there can be no killing. So this version of "you" that isn't killed would go through the day normally and then enter the box at the end of the day none the wiser. This would create a never ending alternating cycle every 48 hours of your own personal timeline. A full cycle is 96 hours. During the loop, if one is alive, the other is dead. This is reminiscent of quantum entanglement. If you observe the state of one "particle", the other particle will be in the opposite state.
In the story, since one Aaron is knocked out and the other is conscious, the conscious one is free to take his double's place and go back in the box as many times as he wishes creating a perfect loop. Aaron has every intention of going back through a second time (and live events for a third time) and should theoretically only meet up with one double. But something causes an anomaly in the loop.
The Granger event is what breaks this loop. It causes Aaron to use his failsafe device earlier than normal. This in turn causes him to be able to witness his earlier self knock out an even earlier version. In other words, he's able to come back before the original failsafe device had time to empty itself (caused by the knocking out of the double and making it that he can't enter the box). Now by trying and eventually knocking out the second double, this second double takes a different path than he would normally. The second double is the narrator. So this is what the narrator means that he enters the story. But at the same time, he leaves everyone's life. That's what the narrator means that it depends on your perspective. Although unclear, it could indicate that the narrator is speaking to the Aaron locked up in the attic. This is when the narrator entered and left Aaron in the attic's life.
After this, the story continues on from the same Aaron as the first half of the film, but he's now on his third time experiencing these events. Or in other words, it's his second time through the failsafe as mentioned by the narrator. This also confirms that earlier in the film, Aaron had been through once already. Now you can follow Abe and Aaron reverse engineering the party.
So the entire film is always from the point of view of the same original Aaron. And the narrator is from about just under 10 days behind in personal time. Assuming the failsafe was taken at 4 days after activation, they were living 36 hours days with the mini-loops, this makes 4 times 36 which gives 144 hours. That makes 6 days. Adding 4 days to travel back makes 10 days. So it'd be a little less than 10 days because the Granger event made him come back earlier. How much earlier is difficult to tell.
It is unclear exactly who the narrator was speaking to. It could have been his wife or daughter so that he can now tell them what happened as he should have done originally instead of walking away. That may be his debt. He owed it to them to tell them the truth. Or it could be that he's talking to his double that he locked up in the attic so that he may know what happened that day. The film does not make it clear who the call is meant for.
At the airport, Abe and Aaron are upset at each other for going behind each other's back. Abe now wants to keep the timeline clean, so Abe sends Aaron away. But Aaron has bigger plans.
{{endspoiler}}
I would like to see an ammendum, just a couple of lines or maybe a short paragraph, added just prior to the 'Timeline Order' section explaining the characters of Mr Granger, Rachel and the significance of the perceived minimal impact of the events at the party and Aaron's behaviour there - minimal because Rachel is a person who doesn't affect Aaron's social orbit in the broader sense and the thing Aaron's actually trying to change is his hero-worship of the eyes of the guests, a little thing - significance because of the eventual ramifications of changing these little details in his seemingly content life. Its from this event that EVERYTHING in the movie eventually rests on, Aaron takes a lot of effort and risks to try to achieve this little goal (and, hey, causes more of a struggle once Granger enters a box...).
I think I (and a viewer can only humbly ever say that they think they...!!) got the general gist of the multiple timelines and multiple characters - took me a couple of watchings and a lot of laying in bed at night, scratching my head, to get there. But the one element that got me baffled from the first watch was the introduction of these characters, Granger and his daughter, and its only now, after a bit more thought, that I see the absolute impact that these little 'pebbles in the pond' ultimately have on the whole tale. I believe that Caruth deliberately left the impact vague because the smaller the characters are on the eye of the viewer, the more a viewer realises in later viewings exactly how significant they really are - growing in a viewers perception like the fungus on the weeble (eep, that was quite insightful for me!). I'd just like to see the article reflect that. But there's no way in hell I'm writing anything without everyone's permission first. Diving in and editing an article on Ken Dodd is one thing but a casual glance on the 'net shows how very serious everyone takes this 'cheap little flick'...!!!
Thoughts? Thumbsucker-UK 08:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC+1)
Yes, I agree. I felt the same way about these two characters. They feel underdeveloped as characters. Once Abe and Aaron manipulate the stock market, Granger's money isn't needed. If Aaron needs to be a hero, why did Carruth choose the event of Aaron saving Abe's friend Rachel? In one case the character (Granger) becomes irrelevant and in the other the character's (Rachel's) relevance is never fully explained.
That said, while I believe the characterizations of Granger and Rachel are shallow, I support the notion that the significance of the characters presence is vital to moving the story ahead. To start, Rachel is the catalyst for Aaron's heroics. But the Granger incident is critical. Seeing Granger is when Abe and Aaron realize that there is a breach in their secret project and suspicion and mistrust starts to grow between the two best friends (refer to Shane Carruth's Director's Commentary on DVD) and when the viewer realizes (me at least) that if multiple Grangers are running around then maybe multiple Aarons and Abes are running around, too. This was the "ah-ha" moment for me when the pieces started to click together.
You're right, these ripples grow to be more important. But, I'm not sure they warrant an entry in the Wiki article. Great discussion topic, great movie forum string, but it's not factual enough IMHO. -- Parenthetical Guy 15:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)I see what you're saying by not being "factual" enough, but highlighting the bits about how Rachel represents a cause and Granger represents an effect would be helpful. While their participation doesn't really explain the machinations of the film any further, they do provide clear understanding as to why Aaron and Abe do what they do in a way that won't be necessarily clouded by the multiple-timeline explication. There are too many numbers thrown in, too many iterations to keep keep discrete.
I interpretted the whole "Granger Incident" differently:
Consider that Aaron reacts very strangely to seeing Granger. He is the one that calls attention to Granger's car and then makes a point of telling Abe about Granger's 2-3 day-old beard growth. Next, Aaron gets out of his car to confront Granger, while Abe lags behind. Granger gets out of his car and runs, rather than simply driving away. Note that Abe has not actually seen Granger at this point. When Abe catches up to Aaron and Granger behind the house, Granger is in a sudden coma and Aaron is inexplicably lying on the ground.
My interpretation is that something (unseen in the movie) goes very wrong in the future so Aaron decides to convince an earlier Abe that things have gone terribly wrong and need to be set right, before the really bad stuff happens. In this interpretation, Aaron makes several trips through time to achieve his goal.
In the "Granger Incident", Aaron A drugs Granger in the future, then brings him back in a comatose state, planting him behind the house. (This explains why there are multiple Grangers and why Granger (b) has 2-3 days of beard growth.) Aaron A also drives Granger's car and runs behind the house before Abe can get a good look at him. Then Aaron B simply plays along with the plan by getting Abe to follow him, but not too closely. Then, behind the house, before Abe arrives, one of the Aarons leaves (or hides), while the remaining one lays on the ground, pretending to have fallen. After this, Narrator Aaron makes a comment that Abe began to tally all of the timeline changes in his head. After this point, we see Abe help Aaron to set things right. (Mission accomplished - and without giving Abe any knowledge of the future!)
Is this overly complex? Yes, but what part of this movie isn't? Considering Aaron's recurrent time travelling, I expect that there are really any number of Aarons cycling through time by that point. This also serves to explain why Abe is so keen to keep Aaron from meddling any further and the Original pair from ever time travelling at all.
As for the motivation for interfering at the party, my understanding was that Rachel was Abe's girlfriend (as evidenced by her calling him Monday afternoon after they watch themselves enter the storage facility, as well as several scenes that show the two of them sitting together). This clearly gives Abe motivation for saving her. However, in the real timeline, it is Aaron that actually disarms the ex-boyfriend. Therefore, with the Original Aaron drugged, the pair must devise a plan that still prevents the shooting from occurring and changes as few events as possible. And given the opportunity, they improve on the plan by making sure that Aaron doesn't get killed this time around. Imagine what would happen if Future Aaron got shot because something didn't happen just right, and then Original Aaron started walking around again the next day! You see evidence of chance events changing the events of this film when Future Aaron talks to the guy about coming to the party while playing basketball. In the original timeline, Aaron makes his shot, because you can hear the other guy say "nice shot; you should play golf with us sometime" in Aaron's earpiece. But in the altered timeline, Aaron misses his shot, causing the guy to ridicule him until Aaron gets the conversation back on the original track.
But those are just my opinions/interpretations...
Bc2586 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)In the shot where Aaron sees the registration sheet at the storage company with Abe's name on it (i.e. the way Aaron learns about the failsafe), you can read one of the dates on the sheet as 2001. So if anything, the film takes place in 2001. However, on the DVD commentary, Shane Carruth says that his objective was to make the film "timeless" as much as possible (for example, by using old-fashioned cell phones rather than the latest models). It seems that the cell phones and laptops shown in the film date from the mid-1990s if not before. In any event, the movie was certainly filmed well before 2003 because in the cast/crew commentary they say how easy it was to bring their camera to the departure gate to shoot that scene at the end of film, since this was before the September 11 attacks. Therefore I have removed from the article the statement that the film takes place in 2003. The director does say that the opening scenes of the film are supposed to take place around Christmas time and the later scenes (including all the time travel) a few months after, in March. -- Cinematical 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's one thing I don't understand. Suppose I plan to travel three hours back in time, from 10 AM to 7 AM. At 6:45 AM I set the timer to turn the box on at 7. Then I leave and return just before 10 AM. I enter the box at 10 AM and close the door behind me. Then I immediately start travelling backwards in time, so when my watch (inside the box) says 10:01, it would actually be 9:59. So why am I not interrupted at that moment, inside the box, by my double arriving at 9:59 to open the door and get in the box himself? -- Cinematical 07:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
the timelines personally confuse me, even if they're internally consistent. what i think should be added to the article are five narratives, representing what the two "surviving" abes and three "surviving" aarons (including the narrator) experience throughout the film. each narrative should be from the perspective of the person. the easiest one should be abe(0), since the film is linear from abe(0)'s perspective. check the official film site for more details. if anyone wants to help me do this, let me know (i don't have much wikipedia editing time, though). Streamless 12:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"While most critics have embraced Primer as a rewarding conundrum in the tradition of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 12 Monkeys and Donnie Darko, others have criticized it as a willfully pretentious exercise in obfuscation."
Can a movie be made "in the tradition of" a film that was released in the same year? I'm a little fuzzy on the usuage of this phrase. A little clarification would be appreciated. RichMac 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain the 15-minutes timer thing?
Gave a decent explanation to go along with the diagram. BTW, also explained the timers. If we like it we can remove the tag. -- Justanother 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Early on Aaron and Abe try the prototype box for the first time. The box cycles WAY up and burns something out. The pair then lift the box cover and the film cuts to Abe waking up on the floor to a phone call. In the call Aaron tells Abe that "it's 7 at night" and to come to the front door. As Abe is about to leave his room he pauses at the door to his room and says to himself "Hey Brad", as if rehearsing. He then leaves the room and says "Hey Brad" in response to something that Brad says.
Could this be an Abe from outside the story entering, somehow, via the anomalous prototype operation?
24.67.208.187 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Love this film- remember the weeble? Thats going backwards and forward 35,000 times in an infinite instant cycle- (kind of like rewinding then fast forwarding then rewinding etc... your video all day) - stay with me. (causing that fungus/microbes which naturally would have developed over 5 years). Imaging if the weeble wasn't stupid and it could stay in and do the rewinding bit and block out the primer to do the fast forwarding bit- and get out when the cycle was on the way back round, as long as the timer was set to the correct micro second on the correct reverse revolution you'd come out in the past( director was a mathmatician as you know)- Also there's at least 4 Aarons (maybe a million!!!) and definitley at least 2 Abes. Thats what makes this film so good- its more like a puzzle. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.106.200.23 (
talk) 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the source of the info that the movie is set in Coppell? Is that actually mentioned in the film? I ask because most of the recognizable shots (the rooftop, the pizza sign, the fountain at night) are in Addison, and the U-Haul facility is in Dallas (a couple of blocks from my house), although I don't believe that either of those locations are explicitly referenced in the movie. I haven't seen Primer for a while, I remember there's one reference (on a VCR label?) to a town in Texas that doesn't actually exist, and I don't remember any references to Coppell. HMishkoff 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the "overly long" tag on the plot summary. I could not make head or tail of the plot simply from seeing the film: the plot summary in this article, though long, explains much.
Also, I'd like to add a "Trivia" section dealing with the story of the Soviet space program and the pencil. Can anyone provide the exact quote and the name of the character who tells the story? Skaltavista 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just on a side note away from the movie for a second: it was totally reasonable that NASA spent all that money on a pen for zero-g...do you know how dangerous having pencil shavings, broken tips etc from pencils would be to such sensitive hardware?! that story always bugs me (as anti-us as i can sometimes be) its annoying to hear such undeserved credit being awarded. ok, now back to the movie. Trottsky 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Primerabe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in - but the zero G pen was and is your ordinary 13p bic biro- check it out with NASA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.200.23 ( talk) 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Primeraaron.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Primer screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a bunch of things I think the article needs to improve, as someone who is reading it after watching the film once (essentially); I am not expert enough to make such additions, but what this is what I'd like to see improved if someone can do so:
about 43 minutes into the movie, Abe walks Aaron what he did his first time through, and they recreate it the next day. "At 8:30 a. m. I set the timer for 15 minutes... While I was on the road at 8:45 the machine kicked on by itself..."
Every timeline except the failsafe box listed in this article has his setting the timer at 8:45 for 9:00. This must be a mistype unless I'm missing something.... TheHYPO 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's great how much effort was put into writing this article, but the majority of it unfortunately appears to be original research. We need to find reliable sources for this information, or it really should go. I am sure there is a place more suited than Wikipedia to this sort of thing. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Time Travel Method.jpg is not original research, but it contains opinion, the descriptor "weird". This makes the image inappropriate despite its description of the time travel method depicted in the film. I have edited the word out in a copy I saved to my hard drive, but I don't know how to re-upload it because of the GFDL. Do I make a new filename? Do I add my information to the previous author's? It's a bit murky to me, and I don't have the time this morning to figure it out. Any help? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You're a lunatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.110.235 ( talk) 04:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've added some references to the awards section, but it's difficult because not all festivals maintain a record of past award winners on their websites. And almost none record nominees. Do we have to have a section for 'nominations'? Is this really relevant information? The section is copied almost verbatim from the official website, and unless citations can be found I vote we chuck it. JMalky ( talk) 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The Lead section should be expanded to encompass all sections of the article. Specifically, maybe more Plot description can be added and Reception expanded? Conversely, the distribution mention in the Lead needs to be supported by detail in the body. I still think that a Themes section is necessary for this article to be considered GA quality. Trust and personal relationships appear to be worthy of further mention. There's more relationship material that can be mined from the Murray article and this review and this have something as well. Although this is from the film's own website, there's some more material there. This 21-minute audio interview may contain some additional thematic and development info.
I'll take a closer look at these when I have some time if someone else else doesn't get to them first.
Jim Dunning |
talk 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Primer (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. OK, so the article's looking pretty good right now. A few things, though, before it'll pass:
Alrighty, I think that's just about it. Give us a holler if you've got any questions or issues – you've got a week to make approprate changes to the article and hopefully it'll be passed! Good luck :) — 97198 talk 09:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've made the changes you've suggested. But if you think it needs any further alterations then I'll get them done ASAP. JMalky ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent article, I think, and the proofreading tips are constructive. Just one quibble though: Is there really a rule stating that articles about American films must use American spelling? By that same logic, Americans writing articles about British films would presumably be required to switch to British spelling? This seems like an arbitrary and unnecessary rule and one that could rapidly devolve into absurdity. (Imagine an article comparing a British film and an American film where the author feels obligated to switch the spelling of words like honour/honor, grey/gray, etc. in mid-paragraph in order to adhere to the same spelling conventions used by the director and producer of the respective films or the characters in them.) This might set a truly bizarre precedent. But again, it's just a small point. Good work on the article. Mardiste ( talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
My head hurts, the Timescape plot is much easier. 98.165.6.225 ( talk) 01:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
These are sections you may want to adjust, place the "setting" as a sub-section under "Production" or possibly "Plot." Identify the cast by character/role and actor. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC).
The section about bleeding from the ear being a side effect is uncited. I don't think it is unreasonable to interpret that scene as a stunt by Aaron to conceal a headphone. Also, where is the source saying that Aaron and Abe's friendship has been compromised? I never interpreted it that way. Full Decent ( talk) 13:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the current plot summary almost too much to change it -- but I think "Abe and Aaron are never shown to leave the machine at any point other than the starting point" is slightly misleading. One of the two creators (Aaron?) mis-times his exit very slightly (by a few minutes) at first usage, experiences great/painful discomfort (possibly nausea), and is strongly cautioned by Abe "I told you, you've got to time it perfectly, exit at exactly the six hours." Hard to drill too deeply into this stuff for fear of speculation, but that bit, at least, is factual. Sskoog ( talk) 21:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
In the image that depicts how the characters time travel in Primer, in the topmost part of the figure, the word becoming is spelled "becomming." I don't know how to edit images or otherwise I would just change it myself. Fowlerc ( talk) 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is notable but Randall Monroe mentions Primer in his comic and later that day it becomes the number 1 video on google videos.-- Louiedog ( talk) 23:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The time travel mechanism in Primer is basically the Closed Timelike Curve, or CTC. Would be nice if this was mentioned (by a relativity expert, which I aint). 203.161.144.190 ( talk) 03:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Debate about whether a college graduate with a degree in mathematics is a mathematician. It seems to me that definitions include a person skilled in mathematics and a person whose primary area of study is mathematics. I think a degree in mathematics qualifies for mathematician so it is not inaccurate and it is a lot less clunky. Also if software engineer rather than just engineer is to be added, it needs a reference. The reference cited says nothing about software engineer. AbramTerger ( talk) 23:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it clear from the film (or maybe from Carruth's interviews about it), in what sense the word primer is used in the title? (e.g. from the seven meanings listed here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primer#English)
Is this word ever mentioned in the movie itself? - tm ( talk) 12:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
A possible Primer parody was listed. Is this significant to be in the article? Is it actually a parody or does it just use similar time travel paradoxes that have been done for decades? Doesn't on some level it also constiture original research also? I think it should be removed. AbramTerger ( talk) 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If they did do the party multiple times, that would mean that that they created mutilple clones/doubles whom they would have either told to take a hike, or told them what happened, and made them wait for a few hours before before using the box to become their future versions which told themselves about what happened (even though it didn't happen that time). So either they did the party first time round, or it got extreamly stressful for those two. 77.103.119.51 ( talk) 21:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Primer was pretty clearly inspired by "The Seventh Voyage" from The Star Diaries by Stanislaw Lem. Carruth does provide his own take on the theme in Primer, but it's a pity he doesn't give Lem any credit. -- noosph e re 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I reverted some additions and edits to the plot. Some of the items are wrong (eg Aaron did not travel 4 days with the failsafe, only Abe did and he only brought 1 box with him). The additional detail I found unneeded and more confusing than what was in the article originally. There are some speculative points (the identity of the Aaron with the french-speaking people) that would also need to be adjusted. I also think the plot is long enough (it may be a little overly long) so I see no reason to expand it. An edit to tighten it up could be in order, but it is confusing if too much is eliminated. AbramTerger ( talk) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts about the WIKI plot of the movie. The plot lists: "With the proceeds of this work, they fund pet science projects which they hope will yield applications sufficient to attract VC attention." The quote from the film is "This has got to start being about what has the best chance of going to market and what is going to get us that VC attention." In the wiki description the VC links to "Venture Capital". There has been a few editors which have wanted to write use "venture capital attention" as opposed to "VC attention". But since The movie never mentions "venture capital attention", I prefer the "VC attention". Any thoughts or discussion? AbramTerger ( talk) 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not Carruth's "argument", but rather a historical observation about scientific discoveries. The wording should be changed to reflect this. Viriditas ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The official website for Primer has changed and much of the information and thus the citations are "invalid". The links work but the referenced content is no longer there. Reference 2 (about Production) is used 8 times and reference 3 is used once and had some bio information. New citations should be found. If I get the chance I will try to find some other ones, but anyone else please look for some of that content or else the information from the wiki article will probably need to be deleted as unreferenced information (even though it was referenced before). AbramTerger ( talk) 13:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence reveals a key plot point. This movie kind of unravels in a way which is surprising, and that surprise will be ruined for anyone who comes to this article. I think all spoilers should be in the "Plot" section, as it is with most movies. People usually know to ignore that section if they haven't seen the movie yet. KenFehling ( talk) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It does not really matter since the so-called spoilers here are very imprecise thus not revealing the real facts. -- editheraven ( talk) 13:36, 17 Oct 2015 (UTC)
At Sskoog's request, I've attempted to copy-edit the plot summary - but, predictably, in the case of this film it's kind of a nightmare. I go through phases of understanding the film's plot and then forgetting it again. (I also, I must confess, haven't seen it in a while.)
Trying to explain this thing in simple terms reminds me of my previous job as a technical writer for complicated database software. I can't do it alone - I'll need the help of people who understand it better than I do. But we can do it!
One thing I'd really like to get right is the terminology. The current summary uses terms like "Overlap-Double-Aaron". This kind of thing resists easy comprehension, and to be honest I don't really understand which Aaron is which in the current summary. If possible, I'd like to keep these simple and use numbered names: Abe 1, Abe 2, etc. Of course, this gets complicated fast, so maybe it's not the right solution either.
Something else I notice the plot summary doesn't do right now is discuss that the time travel is probably making its users sick (bleeding ears) etc. It attribues Abe's collapse to "shock and fatigue". We can't outright say that it's the time travel that's making him sick - the movie doesn't outright say it either, so that that would be personal interpretation, and inappropriate. But saying it's due to "shock and fatigue" is probably wrong and also counts as interpretation. I think we should fix this later after we get the bigger stuff right.
Here's what I have so far, but note this is rough and unfinished, and as I mentioned I still don't really know what's happening with the Aarons at the end:
Thoughts? Popcornduff ( talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Aaron and Abe are engineers who inadvertently build a time machine and use it to daytrade stocks. They discover that Thomas, the father of Abe's girlfriend, is also using their time machine. Abe reveals that he has built another time machine as a failsafe, and if necessary he can stop their original discovery. Aaron conspires with a past version of himself to disrupt Abe's plans.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Primer (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Primer (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Could editors take a look over the External links section of this article? A couple of the ones toward the end seem a bit dodgy to me, but I'm not an expert in these matters. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 20:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I hadn't thought that my plot description was really spoiling very much, since most reviews cover similar terretory. It's a fairly moot point though, I suppose. -- Shane Lin 17:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What do you think about Abe and Aaron being named for the Biblical characters? Should we put in a link to them on the Primer characters' names?
Another idea: the first two letters of the names are AA and AB, just like the "entry and exit points" in the diagram of the time travel drawn by Aaron. Coincidence? Moreover, at the end of the film Abe seems to have abandoned the idea of time-travel, while Aaron still seems obsessed with this idea. Like "Abe enters in A and exits in B", but Aaron keeps coming to A over and over. Too convoluted?
I believe there are many unanswered questions, such as:
- why does their handwriting suffer
- is that the aaron that left trying to build a box in france at the end?
i dont think so. i had too pause the movie several times to grasp what was happening but i dont remember anything that had to do with building a box in france.
- so overall, aaron has the upper hand?
I don't think these should go on the main page, and ruin the movie for people, but i can't find info anywhere else on the web, except for the timeline. This is a good a place as any to discuss these issues.
-Rachel is not Aaron's wife.
-Rachel is never killed in any timeline. Aaron intervened the first time so that he comes out looking like a hero. The second time Aaron and Abe work together to make sure that the ex-boyfriend goes to jail.
-Abe created the failsafe not Aaron. Aaron only found out about the failsafe when he saw 2 units rented by Abe on the storage unit manifest.
-It's possible Rachel is killed in one version of the party, which serves as a motive for Granger (her father) to attempt to travel back in time, and also explains why Aaron(2) mentions something like "there's no telling how many time it took him to get it right," referring to Aaron's intervention at the party.
-The plot summary states that Aaron and Abe where trying to make a high temperature superconductor. If you listen to the film carefully, or read the interview with Carruth that is one of the page references, you will find that they are actually attempting to make a "gravity degrading device" (apparently trying to improve on the design of another research team). The fact that the main improvement they implement is a field to knock out the internal magnetic field of the superconductor material, rather than using cooling, is not the point. The gravity degradation is what they are trying to produce, and what causes the observed time effects.
failed because: requires references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ike9898 ( talk • contribs) 09:06 February 26, 2006
"events in the film take place in the week Sunday, September 21, 2003 and Friday, September 26, 2003"
-Where does the info come from? The only references to dates are the numberous mentions of March Madness games being played.
Is all of the stuff in this article actually verifiable? Some of it seems like fan conjecture. I think any statements that are not clear from the movie itself should be supported by references to sources such as director's commentary. Anything not supportable in this manner belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia. ike9898 15:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
(ri) From the official site, ABOUT THE STORY: 'a device that reduces the apparent mass of any object placed inside it by blocking gravitational pull' [1] I think the statement should more closely reflect what the source states. 09:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The director's commentary on the DVD says they are trying to produce a High-temperature superconductor, hence the floating paper bits. Dominic 03:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
In the main article, under the heading "Timeline 8", there's a sentence that states "Abe (4) and Aaron (1) chase Mr. Granger (1) ."
Shouldn't it be Aaron (5) by this timeline instead of Aaron (1) ?
Siakap 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In "Timeline 2" it says "Abe (0) exits from the first box (0) at 9:00 a.m. on Monday morning." Shouldn't it be Abe (1)?
Plesner 18:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I like this attempt at laying out the overall events in the film, but I have three concerns with the timeline presented, two minor and one major:
-Timeline 8. I agree with Siakap above, this seems like it should be Aaron(5) in Timeline 8, this seems an obvious Typo.
-Also in Timeline 8 we switch from Abe(3) to Abe(4) without Abe(3) ever entering a box. How is that possible? This also seems a typing error.
Now the big concern with this write-up: This movie is one that intentially confuses and has a cult following of people trying to explain the order of events. The order represented on this page seems fairly plausible; but it has a glaring error.
The write-up says that:
So if that happened on Wednesday night, both box(0) boxes are GONE after Wednesday night. Timeline 6 as it is written can not happen, because it claims:
These machines are not there to be started! Not if Aaron(1) took both boxes back through the failsafe on Wednesday night.
Again, the great thing about this film is how much fun it is trying to piece it together, but this interpretation of the order of events does not make sense because the boxes (box(0)) are gone after Wednesday night.
I'm going to look around on the films very large Message Board to see if there is a more consistent timeline, but I believe the one that is represented here is in error.
Knoma Tsujmai 2006.04.04
The Time Travel section was tagged because it is written in a pedantic and casual tone. Examples of the former:
It was also tagged for being problematically written in the second (you) and first person (plural). Jonathan F 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This article's tone or style may not reflect the
encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (December 2007) |
Primer examines the concept of time travel and paradox differently then most stories of the genre. Most stories treat any changes that occur as a result of time travel to the past have an instant or near-instant effect on the future (e.g. Back to the Future). However, in this version of time travel, if a person changes something in the past, it does not instantly propagate to the future. Every cause is on a time delay. As an example, if a time traveler were to go back in time exactly one day and kill his past self, that event would not cause a paradox. The entire film dwells on the exploration of paradox Aaron coming out of the box early and the cell phone incident.
If a person were to go back one day and kill himself, it would take two days for this action to catch up to him. But because he is always two days ahead (one day going forward and one going back in time) in his own personal timeline from receiving this action, it will never catch up to him. So he will never die. For example, suppose a person were to go back to their proper place two days in the future. But, say a year from now, he goes back in time between 48 and 96 hours, he could visit his (double's) grave. In this "worldline", he's been dead for a year. Understanding this is a prerequisite to understanding the plot.
The storytelling is actually quite linear. It tells the story from the point of view of the original (or initial) Aaron and always from his point of view, but from after he's gone through the failsafe once. The narrator on the phone is the Aaron from just under 10 days behind. But leave that at that for now.
The beginning of the movie is simple enough up until the point where Abe creates the first box. From this point on, the Aaron that the viewer sees in the movie is Aaron after he's gone through the failsafe once. This is indicated by the fact that he is wearing the earpiece (recording all the day's events) even during the basketball scene just outside his garage. Another indicator is that there is an Aaron double tied up in the attic as can be seen during the "rats and birds" scene. The tied up Aaron is behind the original Aaron by about 10 days.
The complications begin when Abe comes back from the failsafe device. It seems that the further away the time traveler is from "when" he/she should be, the greater the adverse effects to the body. When coming up to Aaron on the bench, Abe collapses. This is where the audio from Aaron's earpiece can be heard. So the viewer knows this is Aaron's second time through the failsafe (once back through to record the day's events and this time to have a three second advantage). This is confirmed by the narrator soon after.
The scene where the narrator comes into the picture is the most difficult to explain. Normally, during a loop, there would only ever be one double. In this case however, there are two. The second one, man in the middle, being the narrator. Why would there normally be only one double? This goes back to the causality delay. If you go back a day and kill yourself, your double is now dead. If your double were alive at the end of the day (or not tied up), he'd go in the box. But since he's dead, he cannot. So the box starts emptying going backwards in time for 24 hours. Once the box is completely empty and no one is going back in time, all of a sudden, there is no longer anyone getting out of the box. If no one gets out of the box, there can be no killing. So this version of "you" that isn't killed would go through the day normally and then enter the box at the end of the day none the wiser. This would create a never ending alternating cycle every 48 hours of your own personal timeline. A full cycle is 96 hours. During the loop, if one is alive, the other is dead. This is reminiscent of quantum entanglement. If you observe the state of one "particle", the other particle will be in the opposite state.
In the story, since one Aaron is knocked out and the other is conscious, the conscious one is free to take his double's place and go back in the box as many times as he wishes creating a perfect loop. Aaron has every intention of going back through a second time (and live events for a third time) and should theoretically only meet up with one double. But something causes an anomaly in the loop.
The Granger event is what breaks this loop. It causes Aaron to use his failsafe device earlier than normal. This in turn causes him to be able to witness his earlier self knock out an even earlier version. In other words, he's able to come back before the original failsafe device had time to empty itself (caused by the knocking out of the double and making it that he can't enter the box). Now by trying and eventually knocking out the second double, this second double takes a different path than he would normally. The second double is the narrator. So this is what the narrator means that he enters the story. But at the same time, he leaves everyone's life. That's what the narrator means that it depends on your perspective. Although unclear, it could indicate that the narrator is speaking to the Aaron locked up in the attic. This is when the narrator entered and left Aaron in the attic's life.
After this, the story continues on from the same Aaron as the first half of the film, but he's now on his third time experiencing these events. Or in other words, it's his second time through the failsafe as mentioned by the narrator. This also confirms that earlier in the film, Aaron had been through once already. Now you can follow Abe and Aaron reverse engineering the party.
So the entire film is always from the point of view of the same original Aaron. And the narrator is from about just under 10 days behind in personal time. Assuming the failsafe was taken at 4 days after activation, they were living 36 hours days with the mini-loops, this makes 4 times 36 which gives 144 hours. That makes 6 days. Adding 4 days to travel back makes 10 days. So it'd be a little less than 10 days because the Granger event made him come back earlier. How much earlier is difficult to tell.
It is unclear exactly who the narrator was speaking to. It could have been his wife or daughter so that he can now tell them what happened as he should have done originally instead of walking away. That may be his debt. He owed it to them to tell them the truth. Or it could be that he's talking to his double that he locked up in the attic so that he may know what happened that day. The film does not make it clear who the call is meant for.
At the airport, Abe and Aaron are upset at each other for going behind each other's back. Abe now wants to keep the timeline clean, so Abe sends Aaron away. But Aaron has bigger plans.
{{endspoiler}}
I would like to see an ammendum, just a couple of lines or maybe a short paragraph, added just prior to the 'Timeline Order' section explaining the characters of Mr Granger, Rachel and the significance of the perceived minimal impact of the events at the party and Aaron's behaviour there - minimal because Rachel is a person who doesn't affect Aaron's social orbit in the broader sense and the thing Aaron's actually trying to change is his hero-worship of the eyes of the guests, a little thing - significance because of the eventual ramifications of changing these little details in his seemingly content life. Its from this event that EVERYTHING in the movie eventually rests on, Aaron takes a lot of effort and risks to try to achieve this little goal (and, hey, causes more of a struggle once Granger enters a box...).
I think I (and a viewer can only humbly ever say that they think they...!!) got the general gist of the multiple timelines and multiple characters - took me a couple of watchings and a lot of laying in bed at night, scratching my head, to get there. But the one element that got me baffled from the first watch was the introduction of these characters, Granger and his daughter, and its only now, after a bit more thought, that I see the absolute impact that these little 'pebbles in the pond' ultimately have on the whole tale. I believe that Caruth deliberately left the impact vague because the smaller the characters are on the eye of the viewer, the more a viewer realises in later viewings exactly how significant they really are - growing in a viewers perception like the fungus on the weeble (eep, that was quite insightful for me!). I'd just like to see the article reflect that. But there's no way in hell I'm writing anything without everyone's permission first. Diving in and editing an article on Ken Dodd is one thing but a casual glance on the 'net shows how very serious everyone takes this 'cheap little flick'...!!!
Thoughts? Thumbsucker-UK 08:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC+1)
Yes, I agree. I felt the same way about these two characters. They feel underdeveloped as characters. Once Abe and Aaron manipulate the stock market, Granger's money isn't needed. If Aaron needs to be a hero, why did Carruth choose the event of Aaron saving Abe's friend Rachel? In one case the character (Granger) becomes irrelevant and in the other the character's (Rachel's) relevance is never fully explained.
That said, while I believe the characterizations of Granger and Rachel are shallow, I support the notion that the significance of the characters presence is vital to moving the story ahead. To start, Rachel is the catalyst for Aaron's heroics. But the Granger incident is critical. Seeing Granger is when Abe and Aaron realize that there is a breach in their secret project and suspicion and mistrust starts to grow between the two best friends (refer to Shane Carruth's Director's Commentary on DVD) and when the viewer realizes (me at least) that if multiple Grangers are running around then maybe multiple Aarons and Abes are running around, too. This was the "ah-ha" moment for me when the pieces started to click together.
You're right, these ripples grow to be more important. But, I'm not sure they warrant an entry in the Wiki article. Great discussion topic, great movie forum string, but it's not factual enough IMHO. -- Parenthetical Guy 15:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)I see what you're saying by not being "factual" enough, but highlighting the bits about how Rachel represents a cause and Granger represents an effect would be helpful. While their participation doesn't really explain the machinations of the film any further, they do provide clear understanding as to why Aaron and Abe do what they do in a way that won't be necessarily clouded by the multiple-timeline explication. There are too many numbers thrown in, too many iterations to keep keep discrete.
I interpretted the whole "Granger Incident" differently:
Consider that Aaron reacts very strangely to seeing Granger. He is the one that calls attention to Granger's car and then makes a point of telling Abe about Granger's 2-3 day-old beard growth. Next, Aaron gets out of his car to confront Granger, while Abe lags behind. Granger gets out of his car and runs, rather than simply driving away. Note that Abe has not actually seen Granger at this point. When Abe catches up to Aaron and Granger behind the house, Granger is in a sudden coma and Aaron is inexplicably lying on the ground.
My interpretation is that something (unseen in the movie) goes very wrong in the future so Aaron decides to convince an earlier Abe that things have gone terribly wrong and need to be set right, before the really bad stuff happens. In this interpretation, Aaron makes several trips through time to achieve his goal.
In the "Granger Incident", Aaron A drugs Granger in the future, then brings him back in a comatose state, planting him behind the house. (This explains why there are multiple Grangers and why Granger (b) has 2-3 days of beard growth.) Aaron A also drives Granger's car and runs behind the house before Abe can get a good look at him. Then Aaron B simply plays along with the plan by getting Abe to follow him, but not too closely. Then, behind the house, before Abe arrives, one of the Aarons leaves (or hides), while the remaining one lays on the ground, pretending to have fallen. After this, Narrator Aaron makes a comment that Abe began to tally all of the timeline changes in his head. After this point, we see Abe help Aaron to set things right. (Mission accomplished - and without giving Abe any knowledge of the future!)
Is this overly complex? Yes, but what part of this movie isn't? Considering Aaron's recurrent time travelling, I expect that there are really any number of Aarons cycling through time by that point. This also serves to explain why Abe is so keen to keep Aaron from meddling any further and the Original pair from ever time travelling at all.
As for the motivation for interfering at the party, my understanding was that Rachel was Abe's girlfriend (as evidenced by her calling him Monday afternoon after they watch themselves enter the storage facility, as well as several scenes that show the two of them sitting together). This clearly gives Abe motivation for saving her. However, in the real timeline, it is Aaron that actually disarms the ex-boyfriend. Therefore, with the Original Aaron drugged, the pair must devise a plan that still prevents the shooting from occurring and changes as few events as possible. And given the opportunity, they improve on the plan by making sure that Aaron doesn't get killed this time around. Imagine what would happen if Future Aaron got shot because something didn't happen just right, and then Original Aaron started walking around again the next day! You see evidence of chance events changing the events of this film when Future Aaron talks to the guy about coming to the party while playing basketball. In the original timeline, Aaron makes his shot, because you can hear the other guy say "nice shot; you should play golf with us sometime" in Aaron's earpiece. But in the altered timeline, Aaron misses his shot, causing the guy to ridicule him until Aaron gets the conversation back on the original track.
But those are just my opinions/interpretations...
Bc2586 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)In the shot where Aaron sees the registration sheet at the storage company with Abe's name on it (i.e. the way Aaron learns about the failsafe), you can read one of the dates on the sheet as 2001. So if anything, the film takes place in 2001. However, on the DVD commentary, Shane Carruth says that his objective was to make the film "timeless" as much as possible (for example, by using old-fashioned cell phones rather than the latest models). It seems that the cell phones and laptops shown in the film date from the mid-1990s if not before. In any event, the movie was certainly filmed well before 2003 because in the cast/crew commentary they say how easy it was to bring their camera to the departure gate to shoot that scene at the end of film, since this was before the September 11 attacks. Therefore I have removed from the article the statement that the film takes place in 2003. The director does say that the opening scenes of the film are supposed to take place around Christmas time and the later scenes (including all the time travel) a few months after, in March. -- Cinematical 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's one thing I don't understand. Suppose I plan to travel three hours back in time, from 10 AM to 7 AM. At 6:45 AM I set the timer to turn the box on at 7. Then I leave and return just before 10 AM. I enter the box at 10 AM and close the door behind me. Then I immediately start travelling backwards in time, so when my watch (inside the box) says 10:01, it would actually be 9:59. So why am I not interrupted at that moment, inside the box, by my double arriving at 9:59 to open the door and get in the box himself? -- Cinematical 07:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
the timelines personally confuse me, even if they're internally consistent. what i think should be added to the article are five narratives, representing what the two "surviving" abes and three "surviving" aarons (including the narrator) experience throughout the film. each narrative should be from the perspective of the person. the easiest one should be abe(0), since the film is linear from abe(0)'s perspective. check the official film site for more details. if anyone wants to help me do this, let me know (i don't have much wikipedia editing time, though). Streamless 12:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"While most critics have embraced Primer as a rewarding conundrum in the tradition of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 12 Monkeys and Donnie Darko, others have criticized it as a willfully pretentious exercise in obfuscation."
Can a movie be made "in the tradition of" a film that was released in the same year? I'm a little fuzzy on the usuage of this phrase. A little clarification would be appreciated. RichMac 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain the 15-minutes timer thing?
Gave a decent explanation to go along with the diagram. BTW, also explained the timers. If we like it we can remove the tag. -- Justanother 16:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Early on Aaron and Abe try the prototype box for the first time. The box cycles WAY up and burns something out. The pair then lift the box cover and the film cuts to Abe waking up on the floor to a phone call. In the call Aaron tells Abe that "it's 7 at night" and to come to the front door. As Abe is about to leave his room he pauses at the door to his room and says to himself "Hey Brad", as if rehearsing. He then leaves the room and says "Hey Brad" in response to something that Brad says.
Could this be an Abe from outside the story entering, somehow, via the anomalous prototype operation?
24.67.208.187 22:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Love this film- remember the weeble? Thats going backwards and forward 35,000 times in an infinite instant cycle- (kind of like rewinding then fast forwarding then rewinding etc... your video all day) - stay with me. (causing that fungus/microbes which naturally would have developed over 5 years). Imaging if the weeble wasn't stupid and it could stay in and do the rewinding bit and block out the primer to do the fast forwarding bit- and get out when the cycle was on the way back round, as long as the timer was set to the correct micro second on the correct reverse revolution you'd come out in the past( director was a mathmatician as you know)- Also there's at least 4 Aarons (maybe a million!!!) and definitley at least 2 Abes. Thats what makes this film so good- its more like a puzzle. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.106.200.23 (
talk) 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the source of the info that the movie is set in Coppell? Is that actually mentioned in the film? I ask because most of the recognizable shots (the rooftop, the pizza sign, the fountain at night) are in Addison, and the U-Haul facility is in Dallas (a couple of blocks from my house), although I don't believe that either of those locations are explicitly referenced in the movie. I haven't seen Primer for a while, I remember there's one reference (on a VCR label?) to a town in Texas that doesn't actually exist, and I don't remember any references to Coppell. HMishkoff 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the "overly long" tag on the plot summary. I could not make head or tail of the plot simply from seeing the film: the plot summary in this article, though long, explains much.
Also, I'd like to add a "Trivia" section dealing with the story of the Soviet space program and the pencil. Can anyone provide the exact quote and the name of the character who tells the story? Skaltavista 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Just on a side note away from the movie for a second: it was totally reasonable that NASA spent all that money on a pen for zero-g...do you know how dangerous having pencil shavings, broken tips etc from pencils would be to such sensitive hardware?! that story always bugs me (as anti-us as i can sometimes be) its annoying to hear such undeserved credit being awarded. ok, now back to the movie. Trottsky 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Primerabe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in - but the zero G pen was and is your ordinary 13p bic biro- check it out with NASA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.200.23 ( talk) 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Primeraaron.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Primer screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a bunch of things I think the article needs to improve, as someone who is reading it after watching the film once (essentially); I am not expert enough to make such additions, but what this is what I'd like to see improved if someone can do so:
about 43 minutes into the movie, Abe walks Aaron what he did his first time through, and they recreate it the next day. "At 8:30 a. m. I set the timer for 15 minutes... While I was on the road at 8:45 the machine kicked on by itself..."
Every timeline except the failsafe box listed in this article has his setting the timer at 8:45 for 9:00. This must be a mistype unless I'm missing something.... TheHYPO 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's great how much effort was put into writing this article, but the majority of it unfortunately appears to be original research. We need to find reliable sources for this information, or it really should go. I am sure there is a place more suited than Wikipedia to this sort of thing. -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 04:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:Time Travel Method.jpg is not original research, but it contains opinion, the descriptor "weird". This makes the image inappropriate despite its description of the time travel method depicted in the film. I have edited the word out in a copy I saved to my hard drive, but I don't know how to re-upload it because of the GFDL. Do I make a new filename? Do I add my information to the previous author's? It's a bit murky to me, and I don't have the time this morning to figure it out. Any help? -- Chris Griswold ( ☎ ☓) 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You're a lunatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.110.235 ( talk) 04:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've added some references to the awards section, but it's difficult because not all festivals maintain a record of past award winners on their websites. And almost none record nominees. Do we have to have a section for 'nominations'? Is this really relevant information? The section is copied almost verbatim from the official website, and unless citations can be found I vote we chuck it. JMalky ( talk) 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The Lead section should be expanded to encompass all sections of the article. Specifically, maybe more Plot description can be added and Reception expanded? Conversely, the distribution mention in the Lead needs to be supported by detail in the body. I still think that a Themes section is necessary for this article to be considered GA quality. Trust and personal relationships appear to be worthy of further mention. There's more relationship material that can be mined from the Murray article and this review and this have something as well. Although this is from the film's own website, there's some more material there. This 21-minute audio interview may contain some additional thematic and development info.
I'll take a closer look at these when I have some time if someone else else doesn't get to them first.
Jim Dunning |
talk 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Primer (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. OK, so the article's looking pretty good right now. A few things, though, before it'll pass:
Alrighty, I think that's just about it. Give us a holler if you've got any questions or issues – you've got a week to make approprate changes to the article and hopefully it'll be passed! Good luck :) — 97198 talk 09:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've made the changes you've suggested. But if you think it needs any further alterations then I'll get them done ASAP. JMalky ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent article, I think, and the proofreading tips are constructive. Just one quibble though: Is there really a rule stating that articles about American films must use American spelling? By that same logic, Americans writing articles about British films would presumably be required to switch to British spelling? This seems like an arbitrary and unnecessary rule and one that could rapidly devolve into absurdity. (Imagine an article comparing a British film and an American film where the author feels obligated to switch the spelling of words like honour/honor, grey/gray, etc. in mid-paragraph in order to adhere to the same spelling conventions used by the director and producer of the respective films or the characters in them.) This might set a truly bizarre precedent. But again, it's just a small point. Good work on the article. Mardiste ( talk) 18:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
My head hurts, the Timescape plot is much easier. 98.165.6.225 ( talk) 01:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
These are sections you may want to adjust, place the "setting" as a sub-section under "Production" or possibly "Plot." Identify the cast by character/role and actor. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC).
The section about bleeding from the ear being a side effect is uncited. I don't think it is unreasonable to interpret that scene as a stunt by Aaron to conceal a headphone. Also, where is the source saying that Aaron and Abe's friendship has been compromised? I never interpreted it that way. Full Decent ( talk) 13:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the current plot summary almost too much to change it -- but I think "Abe and Aaron are never shown to leave the machine at any point other than the starting point" is slightly misleading. One of the two creators (Aaron?) mis-times his exit very slightly (by a few minutes) at first usage, experiences great/painful discomfort (possibly nausea), and is strongly cautioned by Abe "I told you, you've got to time it perfectly, exit at exactly the six hours." Hard to drill too deeply into this stuff for fear of speculation, but that bit, at least, is factual. Sskoog ( talk) 21:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
In the image that depicts how the characters time travel in Primer, in the topmost part of the figure, the word becoming is spelled "becomming." I don't know how to edit images or otherwise I would just change it myself. Fowlerc ( talk) 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this is notable but Randall Monroe mentions Primer in his comic and later that day it becomes the number 1 video on google videos.-- Louiedog ( talk) 23:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The time travel mechanism in Primer is basically the Closed Timelike Curve, or CTC. Would be nice if this was mentioned (by a relativity expert, which I aint). 203.161.144.190 ( talk) 03:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Debate about whether a college graduate with a degree in mathematics is a mathematician. It seems to me that definitions include a person skilled in mathematics and a person whose primary area of study is mathematics. I think a degree in mathematics qualifies for mathematician so it is not inaccurate and it is a lot less clunky. Also if software engineer rather than just engineer is to be added, it needs a reference. The reference cited says nothing about software engineer. AbramTerger ( talk) 23:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it clear from the film (or maybe from Carruth's interviews about it), in what sense the word primer is used in the title? (e.g. from the seven meanings listed here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primer#English)
Is this word ever mentioned in the movie itself? - tm ( talk) 12:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
A possible Primer parody was listed. Is this significant to be in the article? Is it actually a parody or does it just use similar time travel paradoxes that have been done for decades? Doesn't on some level it also constiture original research also? I think it should be removed. AbramTerger ( talk) 23:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If they did do the party multiple times, that would mean that that they created mutilple clones/doubles whom they would have either told to take a hike, or told them what happened, and made them wait for a few hours before before using the box to become their future versions which told themselves about what happened (even though it didn't happen that time). So either they did the party first time round, or it got extreamly stressful for those two. 77.103.119.51 ( talk) 21:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Primer was pretty clearly inspired by "The Seventh Voyage" from The Star Diaries by Stanislaw Lem. Carruth does provide his own take on the theme in Primer, but it's a pity he doesn't give Lem any credit. -- noosph e re 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I reverted some additions and edits to the plot. Some of the items are wrong (eg Aaron did not travel 4 days with the failsafe, only Abe did and he only brought 1 box with him). The additional detail I found unneeded and more confusing than what was in the article originally. There are some speculative points (the identity of the Aaron with the french-speaking people) that would also need to be adjusted. I also think the plot is long enough (it may be a little overly long) so I see no reason to expand it. An edit to tighten it up could be in order, but it is confusing if too much is eliminated. AbramTerger ( talk) 11:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What are people's thoughts about the WIKI plot of the movie. The plot lists: "With the proceeds of this work, they fund pet science projects which they hope will yield applications sufficient to attract VC attention." The quote from the film is "This has got to start being about what has the best chance of going to market and what is going to get us that VC attention." In the wiki description the VC links to "Venture Capital". There has been a few editors which have wanted to write use "venture capital attention" as opposed to "VC attention". But since The movie never mentions "venture capital attention", I prefer the "VC attention". Any thoughts or discussion? AbramTerger ( talk) 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not Carruth's "argument", but rather a historical observation about scientific discoveries. The wording should be changed to reflect this. Viriditas ( talk) 03:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The official website for Primer has changed and much of the information and thus the citations are "invalid". The links work but the referenced content is no longer there. Reference 2 (about Production) is used 8 times and reference 3 is used once and had some bio information. New citations should be found. If I get the chance I will try to find some other ones, but anyone else please look for some of that content or else the information from the wiki article will probably need to be deleted as unreferenced information (even though it was referenced before). AbramTerger ( talk) 13:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence reveals a key plot point. This movie kind of unravels in a way which is surprising, and that surprise will be ruined for anyone who comes to this article. I think all spoilers should be in the "Plot" section, as it is with most movies. People usually know to ignore that section if they haven't seen the movie yet. KenFehling ( talk) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It does not really matter since the so-called spoilers here are very imprecise thus not revealing the real facts. -- editheraven ( talk) 13:36, 17 Oct 2015 (UTC)
At Sskoog's request, I've attempted to copy-edit the plot summary - but, predictably, in the case of this film it's kind of a nightmare. I go through phases of understanding the film's plot and then forgetting it again. (I also, I must confess, haven't seen it in a while.)
Trying to explain this thing in simple terms reminds me of my previous job as a technical writer for complicated database software. I can't do it alone - I'll need the help of people who understand it better than I do. But we can do it!
One thing I'd really like to get right is the terminology. The current summary uses terms like "Overlap-Double-Aaron". This kind of thing resists easy comprehension, and to be honest I don't really understand which Aaron is which in the current summary. If possible, I'd like to keep these simple and use numbered names: Abe 1, Abe 2, etc. Of course, this gets complicated fast, so maybe it's not the right solution either.
Something else I notice the plot summary doesn't do right now is discuss that the time travel is probably making its users sick (bleeding ears) etc. It attribues Abe's collapse to "shock and fatigue". We can't outright say that it's the time travel that's making him sick - the movie doesn't outright say it either, so that that would be personal interpretation, and inappropriate. But saying it's due to "shock and fatigue" is probably wrong and also counts as interpretation. I think we should fix this later after we get the bigger stuff right.
Here's what I have so far, but note this is rough and unfinished, and as I mentioned I still don't really know what's happening with the Aarons at the end:
Thoughts? Popcornduff ( talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Aaron and Abe are engineers who inadvertently build a time machine and use it to daytrade stocks. They discover that Thomas, the father of Abe's girlfriend, is also using their time machine. Abe reveals that he has built another time machine as a failsafe, and if necessary he can stop their original discovery. Aaron conspires with a past version of himself to disrupt Abe's plans.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Primer (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Primer (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Could editors take a look over the External links section of this article? A couple of the ones toward the end seem a bit dodgy to me, but I'm not an expert in these matters. Thanks! DonIago ( talk) 20:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)