|
Well Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was originally supposed to be Cloverleaf, the third part of the trilogy involving Chinatown and The Two Jakes, so that's why it's got all that sort of stuff going on. Not sure why exactly they made the switch, though.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
It is a staple of Film Noir to have a segregated society and a hero who can cross sides freely. Many times, the hero is portrayed as being welcomed by both sides. These sides are usually racial and/or economical but sometimes political or some other social construct.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:How did you interpret the ending? If I read it correctly, Aaron intended to fill the building-sized machine with air tanks and food, then travel back even further (?) I was always a bit confused about the ending to Primer. If I understand correctly you can only go back in time until when the machine was first turned on, as that is point A. So I guess Aaron's plan would be to build a box he can stay in for months/years and then gather as much information as he can about what happens between then and the longest time he could survive in the room, then go back and take advantage of his knowledge. Alternately, he might be banking on the possibility of finding a way to make the device more portable so that he could bring back a portable room sized device so he could return to point A repeatedly and try to perfect the world the way he perfected the resolution of the party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Shutter Island is the most depressing case of confirmation bias known to man. It hid its twist so well that people didn't see it because they thought they had figured the twist out from the trailer Can you expand on this? What did people think the twist was? That he's being held prisoner on the island? brick cow posted:I did, however, watch Disney's Hercules over the weekend and there's a point where he's posing for a painting wearing a lion head crown and he throws it on the ground. The lion's head is Scar's from "The Lion King". Made me chuckle. Doesn't Disney hide references to older movies in basically everything? Or is that just Pixar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Doesn't Disney hide references to older movies in basically everything? Or is that just Pixar. Pixar likes to reference their movies that aren't even completed yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Can you expand on this? What did people think the twist was? That he's being held prisoner on the island? I think it was that the girl didn't exist, but not that he was a patient(Shutter Island spoilers)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Section 9 posted:I was always a bit confused about the ending to Primer. If I understand correctly you can only go back in time until when the machine was first turned on, as that is point A. So I guess Aaron's plan would be to build a box he can stay in for months/years and then gather as much information as he can about what happens between then and the longest time he could survive in the room, then go back and take advantage of his knowledge. The most obvious explanation for the ending of Primer is that Aaron's intention is to build a box which is big enough to accomodate himself and his wife and daughter, so that he and his time-travel duplicates can indeed "each keep a set". But that's one of many possible routes forward. Primer, like all time travel movies, is not about time travel. It's about having an incredible amount of power to rig the universe in your favour - but still not having enough. Assuming Aaron's warehouse-sized machine will work, he'll have a huge amount of power: he'll be able to return from arbitrarily distant points in the future with arbitrary amounts of foreknowledge and advanced technology and even people. But none of it is going to be enough to make him happy. Another way of looking at it is: although that's where the movie ends, that's not where the story ends. The movie just stops at the point where the level of complexity of the story is getting too big for any of the viewers to handle. Primer is already insanely complicated; whatever happens next must be close to chaotic, too much even for the characters themselves to handle. The movie ends just as the freight train runs off the cliff, just as the whole universe is about to overbalance. Aaron can't keep the warehouse a secret. When he turns on his warehouse machine the first time, who will climb out of it? From how far in the future? Why will they have come back? With what intentions? To avert what catastrophe? In fact, Aaron's decision to build the thing is a really bad idea! It's a "DUN DUN DAAAH" open-ended ending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Primer chat I'd forgotten the very important (and basic  ) fact that Aaron must to complete the warehouse before it can be used, and that there isn't going back further than the moment he completes it. I like your explanation, qntm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Wasn't there a whole thing about how that isn't actually a fixed constant, and that you can put a box inside another box and travel back further? i had assumed his plan was to build a nested stack of the boxes, turn them all on, then after some fixed period, go back in time [Period]*[Layers] and start making things "correct" from there. It's been a while since I've seen the movie though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
teamdest posted:Wasn't there a whole thing about how that isn't actually a fixed constant, and that you can put a box inside another box and travel back further? i had assumed his plan was to build a nested stack of the boxes, turn them all on, then after some fixed period, go back in time [Period]*[Layers] and start making things "correct" from there. It's been a while since I've seen the movie though. The point that the narrator made wasn't that you could have multiple boxes running inside each other, which wouldn't accomplish much, it was that you could disassmble a box, take it in a running box, and then reassemble it when you came out, allowing for a "reset" on that journey because you now have a second box running at the appropriate time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Christ, just talking about Primer makes my head hurt. A drat good movie about how loving crazy time travel really is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Morpheus posted:Christ, just talking about Primer makes my head hurt. A drat good movie about how loving crazy time travel really is. Yeah, I love how much complexity they managed to get out of "you can travel through time, to yesterday morning." Another subtle Primer moment: When Abe is showing Aaron the functioning time box for the first time, there's a long shot down the hallway of the storage facility with someone's shoes in the foreground. The shoes leave the frame, and then Abe and Aaron round the corner in the distance to enter the shot. The shoes are Aaron's, so we just saw Aaron-2 or Aaron-3 one step ahead of the guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
I may have to finally bite the bullet and make that Primer thread over in CD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
I would support that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
I would too, especially since the Upstream Color one kind of died (great film as well, by the way)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
teamdest posted:Wasn't there a whole thing about how that isn't actually a fixed constant, and that you can put a box inside another box and travel back further? i had assumed his plan was to build a nested stack of the boxes, turn them all on, then after some fixed period, go back in time [Period]*[Layers] and start making things "correct" from there. It's been a while since I've seen the movie though. This is what I got out of it. With a warehouse sized box, he could nest as many as he needed to go back as far as he wanted. Of course I also figured that whoever was funding and manning it for him would just take it away when finished, Eatrn European military-style.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Primer is a really poorly-communicated movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
I think it set out to be, and I thought the style was interesting. The viewer is basically the little brother hanging out with his older brother and his friends during most of the scenes, and it allows it so that after the movie is finished you continue to think about it and realize the magnitude of what just happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Roger Tangerines posted:Primer is a really poorly-communicated movie. I think its a little more impressive if you know that the movie was made for basically nothing. The budget went toward the film stock and that's it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
So, inspired by all the chatter about it in this thread, I finally watched Primer. what
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Now watch his next movie, Upstream Color!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
CowboyKid posted:This is what I got out of it. With a warehouse sized box, he could nest as many as he needed to go back as far as he wanted. Of course I also figured that whoever was funding and manning it for him would just take it away when finished, Eatrn European military-style. Depending on how you timed the insertion of the metaboxes, you would either go further back in time than the construction of the first box, create some kind of stasis, or create a prison to turbo-age somebody to death in 10 minutes. I think. I like that the movie leaves more questions than answers. Also, I had no idea that the director made another movie. Closet Cyborg has a new favorite as of 02:54 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
CowboyKid posted:This is what I got out of it. With a warehouse sized box, he could nest as many as he needed to go back as far as he wanted. Of course I also figured that whoever was funding and manning it for him would just take it away when finished, Eatrn European military-style. You can only go as far back as when the first box was first turned on. The nested box thing was just building another one, taking it back in time, and hiding it elsewhere. It was just a second route back to the same time the first one was turned and no further back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Closet Cyborg posted:Also, I had no idea that the director made another movie. Its on Netflix streaming. Once again he writes, directs and stars in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
Terminal Entropy posted:You can only go as far back as when the first box was first turned on. The nested box thing was just building another one, taking it back in time, and hiding it elsewhere. It was just a second route back to the same time the first one was turned and no further back. See, that's what I was thinking and had typed a wall of text about that, but then I had an insight before I hit "post". Take a large box, box A. Turn it on for 1 day. Turn it off. During its wind-down, start up box B, get in, and have somebody put it inside A. Now A is in its backwards cycle while B is in its forward cycle. When A approaches its start point, pull out B and switch it off. You are now at A's start point as B is beginning its back-cycle. Let B run until it hits its subjective on-point, and then get out. You have experienced 2 subjective days in the box, and you are now 1 day before you ever started A.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
Closet Cyborg posted:See, that's what I was thinking and had typed a wall of text about that, but then I had an insight before I hit "post". Take a large box, box A. Turn it on for 1 day. Turn it off. During its wind-down, start up box B, get in, and have somebody put it inside A. Now A is in its backwards cycle while B is in its forward cycle. When A approaches its start point, pull out B and switch it off. You are now at A's start point as B is beginning its back-cycle. Let B run until it hits its subjective on-point, and then get out. You have experienced 2 subjective days in the box, and you are now 1 day before you ever started A. I haven't seen the movie, but wouldn't box B in this example just take you forward in time to when it was activated? Unless you turned it on inside of box A, and even then only maybe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
Was the idea in the movie that all possible time machines could only go back to the point when the first ever time machine was built? Oh and if so, would this apply after all the suns burned out and our universe collapsed into one black hole and made a second big bang and sentient species evolved again? Were the Aaron(s) and Abe(s) supposed to be in parallel universes but the machine stopped the universe-fork for only them? How come Primer didn't have any sex scenes and what's the deal with that poster?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
People who like Primer should also check out the movie Timecrimes. Its a Spanish movie that's hard to describe without giving the plot away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
If you liked primer I heartily recommend clockstoppers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
RyuujinBlueZ posted:I haven't seen the movie, but wouldn't box B in this example just take you forward in time to when it was activated? Unless you turned it on inside of box A, and even then only maybe. I'm making the assumption that the box doesn't care about the objective time it was turned on/off, because the power supply and such can be outside the box. The way I view it, it just creates a zone of oscillating time inside the field with the limits defined by how long the box was powered, and subject to some sort of decay rate. If Aaron and Abe had been experimenters rather than engineers, there's lots they would have done differently. Put a watch inside a person-sized box to see if the decay rate is lower on a bigger box, for example. Or put the original little box inside the person box to try to determine the effects of stacked fields. Nesting active boxes could do a few different things depending on when and how they were nested, and the effects of nested fields, which is unknown. The narrating Aaron refers only to nesting an inactive box in an active box. They don't try anything else onscreen. While we're talking Primer, though, what are the theories on Mister Granger? His motives can be inferred, but his coma is pretty inexplicable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
I think fundamentally, the whole thing breaks down if there's an aribtrary "beginning" at the time when the first box turned on. That's how Abe (and Aaron?) originally viewed it, that was the purpose of the backup box, so you could always go back and reset it, but it can't actually work that way. The time fields are subjective and oscillatory. put a box in a box, power both on: you get two fields that are oscillating in sync through the same frame. but turn the outside one off when it's "back" as far as it goes, leave the inner one on. Now the inner box, field, and anything inside it, are in a different point in time, but the inner field is still oscillating. Now you can turn that one off likewise when it is at the furthest point back in time, which is BEFORE the first box was powered on, since the fields are the same temporal length and you were already at the point where you had just turned the boxes "on". Maybe I'm thinking about this wrong, I'll have to go back and watch it again now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:People who like Primer should also check out the movie Timecrimes. Its a Spanish movie that's hard to describe without giving the plot away. Triangle is a horrifying mindfuck of a time travel movie that is similarly hard to sell without spoiling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
teamdest posted:I think fundamentally, the whole thing breaks down if there's an aribtrary "beginning" at the time when the first box turned on. That's how Abe (and Aaron?) originally viewed it, that was the purpose of the backup box, so you could always go back and reset it, but it can't actually work that way. The time fields are subjective and oscillatory. put a box in a box, power both on: you get two fields that are oscillating in sync through the same frame. but turn the outside one off when it's "back" as far as it goes, leave the inner one on. Now the inner box, field, and anything inside it, are in a different point in time, but the inner field is still oscillating. Now you can turn that one off likewise when it is at the furthest point back in time, which is BEFORE the first box was powered on, since the fields are the same temporal length and you were already at the point where you had just turned the boxes "on". There's lots of possible intricacies here, but the magic of the movie is that it leaves a lot of possibilities open. Thanks for recommending Timecrimes and Triangle, people. I've got some movies to watch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
My biggest problem with Primer was that I honestly could not reliably distinguish the one main character from the other one, particularly when they had them doing sneaky things in the dark. This only got worse when there were multiple instances of a person running around at the same time (which I'm at least fairly certain happened), as I couldn't even use the process of elimination. I've seen it twice, and I feel like the scene where someone injects something into someone else's (or maybe his own past self's) milk jug is really the point where I no longer have the foggiest sense of who is doing what or why. Strudel Man has a new favorite as of 08:25 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
This thread finally convinced me to go ahead and watch Primer. I got kinda lost during the last act, but then maybe half an hour after I finished watching suddenly everything clicked into focus and it all made sense. Now it seems perfectly straightforward to me  VVVVV What can I say? I watched it already knowing it'd be complicated so I made sure to try and analyse everything as it happened and I'm a  at heart VVVVV
Perestroika has a new favorite as of 12:43 on Aug 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:This thread finally convinced me to go ahead and watch Primer. I got kinda lost during the last act, but then maybe half an hour after I finished watching suddenly everything clicked into focus and it all made sense. Now it seems perfectly straightforward to me This is a film that requires a very large, complex flowchart to explain the plot. You did not understand everything half an hour after watching it for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:My biggest problem with Primer was that I honestly could not reliably distinguish the one main character from the other one, particularly when they had them doing sneaky things in the dark. This only got worse when there were multiple instances of a person running around at the same time (which I'm at least fairly certain happened), as I couldn't even use the process of elimination. I had this problem as well, I also have this in pretty much every war movie. For content some things from the World's End. I'll spoiler it because it's a new film This one everyone probably saw coming from a mile away, but the names of all the pubs reflect the plot: They start at The First Post, meet an old friend in The Old Familiar etc etc etc. The story of how the first night out went is a pretty good description of how the second night out will go, down to specific details: Martin Freeman gets taken out in the same pub as the first night, the walk through the bowling green again, they loose the other friend there and they end on the hillside overlooking the village with 3 left. When Nick Frost tells how it takes real balls to walk into a bar after a rugby match, with all the guys there wearing war paint, walk up to the counter and order a tap water. That's exactly what Simon Pegg does in the final scene.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 09:56
|
|
|
If you need some help understanding Primer, XCKD made this helpful timeline:
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 11:40
|
|
|
Someone made an actual flowchart trying to track the characters through the various timelines but Shane Carruth has stated in interviews that he wasn't using anything like that when he was writing the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Someone made an actual flowchart trying to track the characters through the various timelines but Shane Carruth has stated in interviews that he wasn't using anything like that when he was writing the movie. I've seen two or three flowcharts, which differ on some pretty major things. After seeing Upstream Color I'm not surprised Carruth didn't use a flowchart. Like Donnie Darko the films lose something if you treat them exclusively as a puzzle-plot. They're more about the confusion and emotional devastation that results when you're denied that eureka moment. The pain is constant and sharp. Even after solving it there is no catharsis. Your answer continues to elude you and you gain no deeper knowledge of yourself. No new knowledge can be extracted from your telling, the diagram has meant nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 12:03
|
|
