Talk:Primer (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primer (film) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: February 26, 2006

Primer (film) is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page. To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.) Date: 20:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Spoilers 2 Biblical names 3 Unanswered questions 4 Errors in the Overview 5 Fails GA nom 6 Dates 7 Any original research in this article? 8 Typing Errors? 9 Critical Error in the current version 10 Explanation of inappropriate tone/persons tags 10.1 Time Travel 11 Rachel, The Granger Incident and its relevance to the story 12 Film does not take place in 2003 13 Operating the time machine 14 in addition to the timelines, perhaps there should be a person-specific narrative 15 in the tradition of 16 15 minutes timer 17 How it works 18 Another Abe? 19 Coppell? 20 Overly long? 21 Fair use rationale for Image:Primerabe.jpg 22 Fair use rationale for Image:Primeraaron.jpg 23 Fair use rationale for Image:Primer screenshot.jpg 24 Article improvements 25 Time errors? 26 Original Research 27 Image 28 Referencing Awards 29 Adjustments to consider 30 Lead concerns

[edit] Spoilers

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)

[edit] Biblical names

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?

To answer this year-old question, it's possible Carruth got the names from the Bible, as he told Christianity Today in 2004 that he read the Bible regularly (www.christianitytoday.com/movies/interviews/shanecarruth.html). The namings seemed to me more like a defiance of the recommendation given to novice screenwriters to choose names for main characters that start with different letters, to limit confusion. Whether Carruth was exposed to this doctrine in the film course he audited at SMU, who knows? As to the second question, nah. Jonathan F 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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?

[edit] Unanswered questions

I believe there are many unanswered questions, such as:

- why does their handwriting suffer

They both put their hand into the first version of it when they test the magnetic field with the paper dots. Could this cause it?

- 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.

His translater remarks to the group something like "every 3 meters"(i might be wrong about the amount) this essentially means they are constructing some sort of array, similar to what is discussed at the beginning of the movie, when they talk about building a box for human use(about setting up an array of devices).69.14.33.214 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

- 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.

Apparently you fail to grasp the purpose of an encyclopedia. Spoiling movies is not our concern, nor is it an encyclopedia's duty to judge which information may displease its readers. If those questions have factual answers appropriate for an encyclopedia, then they should by all means be added. You don't see spoiler warnings in Britannica, do you?

You also don't see non-mainstream movies covered in enough detail to actually spoil them, so your point is misguided. Spoiler warnings help readers and encyclopedias are entirely there to help their readers.

[edit] Errors in the Overview

-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.

Yeah, I wrote the overview before I understood the film. It was repetitive anyway. Fixed. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

-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.

[edit] Fails GA nom

failed because: requires references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ike9898 (talk • contribs) 09:06 February 26, 2006

[edit] Dates

"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.

I agree. I haven't found a souce for the dates, and given the 'error' of the March Madness game that is supposedly made, I think that 1993 (North Carolina 77-71 Michigan - March Madness) could be more accurate. I'm not suggesting we change to 1993, but that we don't speculate without proof (reliable source) on the dates. agapetos_angel 09:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any original research in this article?

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)

For example, what is the source for this statement, "design a device which can alter the effect of gravity". I don't think the movie specifically supports this statement. I'll give anyone who wants to a while to respond to this type of thing, then I'm going to start cutting. ike9898 23:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I am somewhat lost in the following of the various timelines, it appeared to me that the device they created did affect the weight of the paperweight doll (or whatever it was). It is clearly stated in the film that the doll weighed 77 grams, although the readout for measuring the weight was in decagrams. The men are excited to see the weight read at various amounts below 7.7 decagrams, and the possibility of time travel occurs as an unexpected result of their experiments. Whilst they may not have set out to design a device that would alter the effect of gravity they clearly set out to create some type of device which had an attachment to measure the weight of the item inside. At least that's how I understood things (and I certainly welcome further explanation of this enjoyable film!) RevJohn 15:15, 6 April 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)

it's not one or the other, it's both. they're trying to build a device that creates a partial negative gravity field (as established by the scene with the Weeble and the 7.7 decagrams going down to 6.6) by using high-temperature superconductivity (as established by the scene where abe and aaron are using a diagram in the garage to explain to robert what their project is). Streamless 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typing Errors?

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)

[edit] Critical Error in the current version

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:

Sometime on Wednesday Aaron(1) discovers that Abe has rented two rooms at the storage facility, discovering the failsafe box(0) and guessing its purpose (for Abe to have a reset button should something go wrong). This discovery is narrated by Aaron(2) in a flashback during a phone call. Later that day Aaron(1) enters the failsafe box(0) taking both boxes(0) with him, creating timeline 4. This is the canonical version. Some fans believe that Aaron does not enter the failsafe until after Rachel gets shot.

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:

At 8:45 AM on Thursday morning Abe(3) and Aaron(4) start 15 minute timers on the first(0) and second(0) machines respectively and leave for the hotel.

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.

No. This is not an error, though I suppose it is some kind of paradox. Aaron may have taken both boxes back through the failsafe on Wednesday night in one timeline (which I guess we call Timeline 3). This creates duplicate boxes(1) on Sunday, at the beginning of Timeline 4. The first box(0) is where it is supposed to be on Sunday, at the beginning of Timeline 4, and the second box(0) is created by whichever copy of Aaron on Monday night in Timeline 4. These boxes(0) are never moved again. In the new timelines, no copy of Aaron removes them, even on Wednesday night.

Also remember that Aaron(2) drugged Aaron(0) after he went back, which gurantees that the first(0) and second(0) boxes won't be moved since it was Aaron(0) who created Aaron(1) who took back the boxes. With Aaron(0) drugged Aaron(1) would never exist to take back the boxes. Instead, Aaron(2) would take Aaron(0)'s place and Aaron(3), who has no need to take back the boxes, would take Aaron(1)'s place.

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

[edit] Explanation of inappropriate tone/persons tags

The Time Travel section was tagged because it is written in a pedantic and casual tone. Examples of the former:

To understand this film, one must understand how causality works in this "world".

Understanding this is a prerequisite to understanding the plot.

The storytelling is actually quite linear.

The beginning of the movie is simple enough up until the point where Abe creates the first box.

It was also tagged for being problematically written in the second (you) and first person (plural). Jonathan F 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section has serious problems even beyond that, particularly verifiability and original research. It really reads a lot more like a college paper than an encyclopedia entry. I moved it here so that it could be reviewed and perhaps salvaged, but I'm inclined to think it doesn't belong in the article in its current form. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 02:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I only wrote it because the timeline section is really ambiguous. I wanted a better explanation on how the so-called "duplicates" appeared. The section on "how the time machine works" and the diagram is perfect and resolves that problem so you can remove the Time Travel tag and article below. The only thing that's left to explain is how the narrater was "created" with the whole super loop thing. The timeline section is really relly bad for this. Anyhow good job to whomever wrote the How the time machine works section! My purpose here is done. -Anon July 10, 2006

[edit] Time Travel

The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.(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. Template:Endspoiler

[edit] Rachel, The Granger Incident and its relevance to the story

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)

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.

[edit] Film does not take place in 2003

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)

[edit] Operating the time machine

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)

Ah, but you're NOT 'immediately travelling backwards in time'! It's one of the bigger concepts to try to get anybody's head around but it's dealt with in the scene in the garage, discussing the A-in and the B-in theory of the boxes operation as explained by Abe. As you sit in the box, time and it's direction appear to continue as normal for the traveller (that is, in a forward direction), so you don't 'reverse' time in the box, crossing over (in your example) 9:59. It's only when you exit the box, leaving the field which its cycling through the A and B-ins, that you exit the cyclical loop, at the A-in. It's like jumping off a merry-go-round on the opposite side you got on - you're essentially hitting the same ground, just in a different place.

Christ, I hope I've got that right. I still think the actual physics is a 'red herring', however well researched. The main thing is the consequences, not the deed itself... --Thumbsucker-UK 02:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't actually seen the movie, but you wouldn't necessarily meet in any case, even if you were immediately travelling backwards in time. The original enters the box at 10AM, at which point he immediately starts travelling backward, when his watch reads 10:01, it would be 9:59 outside, but the outside version wont open the box until 10:00... the original only touches the box's time-line at precisely 10:00, when he splits with the time traveller and starts moving backward toward 7am with respect to the box inhabitant. Not a very good explanation I suppose, I can't explain it any better than that though. The merry go round explanation above, would only seem to me to make sense if the dimensional travel of the box, was along a different dimension than time or space. I agree with the above that maybe physics isn't the most important thing to be thinking about here, since general relativity basically rules out time travel of any sort (even the proposed workarounds would require stellar quantities of energy and presuppose the existence of wormholes). Seems like a cool movie though in any case, will have to check it out. --Shadowdrak 07:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] in addition to the timelines, perhaps there should be a person-specific narrative

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)

[edit] in the tradition of

"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)

[edit] 15 minutes timer

Can someone please explain the 15-minutes timer thing?

When the box is turned on, that is the exit point when the doubles come out of the box. Abe mentioned that he didn't want to risk bumping into the doubles, so he uses the timer so he can be clear out of the area when the box is activated. Robomojo 08:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How it works

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)

Yeah, I can't help but to beg this small indulgence. As capable mentally as I am, this movie still causes my brain to tie itself in rather uncomfortable knots. 61.69.210.25 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Abe?

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)

[edit] Coppell?

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)

Good catch - I am fixing it now. --Justanother 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overly long?

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)

I agree with the disagreement over "overly long." This is a complex movie; one or two paragraphs won't work. Cwp2112 07:49, 22 April 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)

Actually, what I wanted to add to the article was the fact that NASA was not behind the development of the Space Pen at all. Fisher Pens developed it all on their own, mainly for publicity purposes, and eventually sold the pens to both NASA and the Soviets for use in their space programs. Before the advent of the Space Pen, both sides used pencils. Skaltavista 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the story on the pen vs pencil tale is available at Snopes. --ND 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Primerabe.jpg

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Primeraaron.jpg

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Primer screenshot.jpg

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)

[edit] Article improvements

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:

• Characters - Reading the whole article, I get no idea who Mr. Granger, Rachel or Will are to the story or how they are relevant. The characters should be outlined before any of the timeline business.

• In the diagram, what do the "1st" and "2nd" paradox characters represent and which timeline do they spin off from? (the diagram is effective in that, as timelines progress, the lines go "up" the digram - but then sometimes they go down - a legend explaining what this represents would be helpful. I'm not sure I get the Granger part of the diagram.

• The conversation recording "plot" isn't quite explained thoroughly - maybe it's just me, but I don't quite get it yet.

• In the "plot" section, the second paragraph about "time travel events" probably ought to come AFTER the third paragraph which actually explains the plot that there is a time machine... The section goes from "there's a superconductor" to "the time travel events..."

• This has nothing to do with the article, but just a plot question: While I understand the "point" of Abe's failsafe box, I'm not exactly clear on why Aaron turns into a "villain" and needs to "thwart" the failsafe plan by reworking the whole failsafe plan and "getting the jump" on Abe. I guess I missed the point where they go from being friends to being rivals in some way TheHYPO 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time errors?

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)

[edit] Original Research

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)

It's sad that so much of it has to be original research, but that makes up for 90% of any reasonabel plot explanation (coming from someone who's read 90% of all the Primer forum posts on the movie's site). I'll have another listen to the commentary on the DVD and see what I can gather as being official about the story. Codernaut 07:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing been published about it? Surely some film student has written a dissertation. I will look in the Google academic search and see what I can find. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The DVD commentary is not very useful--it's mostly about technical aspects (lighting, camera mounts, mostly the difficulties of making an ultra-low-budget movie) & about general matters of themes, inspiration, &c.--but aside from some discussion of the two points in the film that aren't determinable from the available info within the film (Mr Granger's story & the question of why Abe & Aaron's handwriting deteriorates) the actual plot isn't discussed. This is obviously deliberate--the director thinks there's enough info in the film for you to piece the story together, except for those key points. --ND 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we have no sources. I haven't found anything. I think it's time to delete the OR in this article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's not actually original research. The deleted material, though not organized perhaps as best possible, none-the-less explains the plot of the film almost flawlessly and makes very few actual conjectures (and the few it does, it usually identifies). It simply happens to be an extremely complicated plot, perhaps one of, if not the most complicated in film history, but nearly all of it is there in the movie and the only way to "source" it, would be to put a time code for each moment in the film where something in the plot outline is explained. This is not required of other movie entries on wikipedia, so it should not be required here. Granted this is an unusual case, but the deleted description was about as concise as you could be while remaining accurate. I just watched the film, came here and read the deleted section. If you can wrap your head around it, the logic is nearly impeccable. Only a few areas need to be cleaned up, but how is that different than any other wiki article? If anyone has objections, please watch the film and then read the deleted description, you will find it complicated but accurate and obvious. So if no one objects again, I will reinstate the deleted material. (If there was writing here about the nature of time, quantum physics, or some such, that might be original research, but a lengthy description of the plot, taken entirely from the movie, is not; it is what this wikipedia entry should contain.)--Gatfish 06:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

However, one must make the argument and discussion as to whether deleted scenes, even if they explain the plot perfectly, are considered a "legitimate" part of the film? once a scene is cut, are its events still assumed to be canon to the plot? I don't have an answer, but I'm sure it's a point of debate that the film truely contains only what is scene in the actual film cut. However, I do believe that you understate the situation. You say that the only way to cite is to use timecodes for when things are "explained". The problem is that most of the OR in this article isn't stuff explained in the film - it's still inferred from the film or even implied in the film (or in some cases, not even that - assumed from watching. Eg: the entire first two timelines that don't exist in the film - the days that were 'done just like what you see in the film, except the first time they happened' are completely inferred by whoever wrote that part of the article. There is no solid proof in the film that those timelines exist (or that there are "multiple timlines" - that's just a convenient way to visualize it, but that makes it somewhat OR.

The problem with your logic of "watch the film - this all makes sense" is that you can say "watch the 9/11 footage and some of the conspiracy theories make perfect sense". The problem is that a plot synopsis making sense as an explaination for a film does not therefore result in proof that the synopsis is a) correct or b) cited fact and not OR. In fact, nothing in wikipedia says that prohibited OR need be false. OR can be completely true. But it has to be cited to be valid wikipedia material. While it is interesting and perhaps helpful, I have to agree that it constitutes OR unless citable - especially for the more contravercial/debatable assumptions in the plot. TheHYPO 07:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good response. I'll try to give a counter argument for each of your points. First off, the plot synopsis does not explain deleted scenes, it explains non-seen "timelines" which ARE actually referenced by the characters in the film, though not seen by the audience. I think is plenty legitimate to list them, since many films reference occurences that happen off camera but are still an integral part of the plot. Like I said before, the information in the summary has very few "inferred" details. In fact, it simply references timelines that the characters themselves reference in the film. To support this, I'll give an example: The movie Chinatown references the protagonist's work in chinatown a few times and it is crucial to the plot to know what happened there, though the audience itself never sees these events, it is still crucial to understanding the film.

There ARE actual multiple timelines in the film, I think it's impossible to deny this, since there are multiple characters interacting from multiple time lines and this is repeatedly seen and referenced. If anything, it should be explained before the plot synopsis here that there are really more than two protagonists because the film alternately follows varying forms of the two main characters when they multiply themselves, even a couple times when multiple copies are present at the same time.

The reason I said "watch the film" is because the plot is extremely complicated and plenty of people simply won't get all the iterations to begin with, but it is just about all there in the film, that's why I said timecodes would be needed to "prove" it, but it's not actually interpretation, it is all verifiable by simply watching the film. Even if the conjectures in the plot summary were removed (which I agree there are a few, but something like 5%) the plot summary would still be very long and complicated and it would need to cover events that are referenced by the characters but unseen by the audience. The comparison to 9/11 footage doesn't really work simply because that is not a work of fiction, but a real event. Works of fiction are inherently encapsulated and although their meanings may be open to interpretation, the facts of the film are not if they can be varified by watching the movie, which I claim these can be, and easily.--Gatfish 02:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the image also needs to go because it's a visual depiction of OR. If this was from a book, great, then we coul keep it. But we can't. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

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)

Without citation, it is Original research, as the film does not explicitly state things in the image like "the original person has an ambiguous temporal existance". The question of causal influence over "both his new timeline and his original timeline", is also OR, in that there is nothing in the film that says that there are alternate timelines, if I recall correctly. That's a construct of people analysing the films. Most of the captions in the image are OR. In addition, there is a LOT of textual information in the image - I don't know if there's any policy on this, but because the casual wikipedi-er cannot easily edit the image text, it is a bad policy to have large chunks of text in an image - it prevents public editing of that information. What a proper diagram would have is the arrows with ABC, and the text would be in the article, not in the image, thus it could be edited for content that is OR or opinion. As it is now, one couldn't even read the info in the image without clicking to zoom it, which is not great article construction either. TheHYPO 05:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing Awards

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)

Under the "Awards" section, it is perfectly reasonable to list nominations as well as awards. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC).

So would you say the official website is an ok source? If it is, I'm not complaining. JMalky (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adjustments to consider

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).

Mmmmm: I think it needs more work, although it generally is a pretty good article. Refs should be cleaned up (use templates or modify existing cites to ensure complete info is included, such as article title, author, publication date, publication name, etc.). Also, consolidate refs by using the "name" parameter. There are still minor spelling and grammar errors, as well as some inconsistent usage issues (the film is American, but at least one editor is using British spelling and forms). Reformat the Cast section so the character name is first. Insert the names of the actors into the Plot section so it is able to stand on its own, independent of the rest of the article. The mention of the thematic element in the Plot section seems misplaced, maybe because it is so slim. This does beg the question of whether there should be a treatment of themes elsewhere, either its own section or at least in the Reception section. Can a Release or Distribution section be added (or further information added to Reception)? For example, the Lead mentions limited release in cinemas, but this isn't supported in the body of the article. Finally, I would probably move Awards under Reception. Just some thoughts.
Jim Dunning | talk 10:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead concerns

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)

Ok, that all sounds good. There is certainly enough material for a complete themes section, although I've noticed that Carruth contradicts himself in various interviews when asked about the themes, so that has to be kept in mind. Hope I've not jumped the gun by adding the GA nomination. It's just there's a backlog on that page, and I figured that the nomination would give me (and anyone else who was interested) the impetus to really improve the article! JMalky (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the seeming contradictions may make the article more interesting.
Jim Dunning | talk 09:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at MOS:FILM and partly re-wrote the lead section. I also moved the existing content on 'themes' to a subsection under 'Plot'. Perhaps it could be an independent section though?JMalky (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Themes can have its own section (I reformatted it). Lead looks good.
Jim Dunning | talk 15:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)