Talk:Primer (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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?

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.

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.

Quite right.

The high-temperature superconductor (actually a room-temperature, i.e. uncooled S/C - superconductivity usually requires extreme cold) is just a component – albeit a critical one – of the gravity blocking device that they’re actually trying to build.

Their project isn’t even original work: they’re simply trying to duplicate, cheaply, a much more expensive and (over)complicated NASA device they’ve seen in scientific papers. Whether the time-travel effect (more properly time-disconnection, perhaps) that they stumble upon is the result of their cheap implementation, or a direct consequence of ‘blocking’ gravity is not explained – and the implication of that open another what-if for the film: perhaps NASA will eventually realise they have the same discovery and problem. --Cdavis999 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fails GA nom

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Time Travel

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}}

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I may not be addressing all you're driving at here, but note that in the DVD Director's Commentary Carruth has explained that this jump cut is just an edit, and doesn't signify anything happening when they open the box. Apparently many people (me included) thought that there'd been a chrono-synclastic time-fart at this point.

Working on his tiny budget, every frame of stock counted, so there was never any extra footage for niceties like a fade or dissolve - which might have worked better in this transition. --Cdavis999 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2008 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Archive 1

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)

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)

Cast: Please include Keith Bradshaw04:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.55.135 (talk)

GA Review

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:

• "The film stars Carruth as Aaron, and David Sullivan as Abe" -> no need for comma.
• "Primer is notable for its extremely low budget..." -> the word 'notable' just sounds a little POV-ish and kinda weird. I couldn't think of a better word, but then I'm terrible with synonyms. Anything you can think of?
• "before receiving a limited release in cinemas" -> one doesn't 'receive' a release... maybe reword to something like 'opened in limited release...'
• "engineers — Aaron (Shane Carruth), Abe (David Sullivan), Robert, and Phillip — work" -> dashes shouldn't have spaces on either side.
• "run a side business out of Aaron's garage at night designing" -> maybe a comma before 'designing' for better flow.
• The last two sentences of the plot synopsis seem to be tacked onto the end and don't really fit. Up until that point, everything seems to be a chronological recount of events but then it advances into overarching themes and incidental detail about paradoxes which doesn't seem to fit anywhere else. And does the story end there, just like that, or is there some sort of greater climax? If so, don't skip on including it.
  • The first of the two sentences (the second-last of the section) is probably better included with the other themes, if you can stick a source on it. Would also bulk up the themes section a bit, which only currently consists of two quotes.
• In themes section, first blockquote contains quotation marks while second doesn't. I'd say go for them in both.
• "The time machine itself is a plain grey box" -> don't Americans spell it 'gray'? If it's an American film, it should use US spelling.
• "created by juxtaposing the sounds of a mechanical grinder and a car engine" -> is this mixing the sounds? 'Jusxtaposition' doesn't seem to be the right word here.
• "industrial parks and suburban tract homes which he had been so familiar with in his previous career" -> his formal career, meaning a mathematician/engineer? Why was he familiar with these environments from being a mathematician/engineer? Doesn't make sense to me; either needs some explaining or just remove sentence content from 'which' onwards.
• "It was produced with a budget of only USD $7,000[5]," -> citation goes after punctuation.
• "The extremely low shooting ratio of 2:1 meant that the number of takes had to be strictly limited,[4] and with no room for mistakes, every shot in the film was meticulously storyboarded on 35mm stills.[4]" -> both halves of sentence are cited to ref 4 so there's no need to have the first one in there.
• Link Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes and maybe explain their purpose as review aggregators. Check out most other GA or FA film articles for an example, it's pretty simple.
• List the journalist with the publication, i.e. "Dennis Lim of The Village Voice". Should be done with all occurrences.
• No full-stops (periods) necessary to end each bullet in the awards section.
• "The operation of time travel in Primer" -> italics for film title.
• "Abe and Aaron (right), test their experimental superconductor" -> do we need to know Aaron's on the right? There are only two of them in the picture, and IMO it's pretty hard to get them mixed up in the image if their names are correctly ordered in the caption. And even if we did have a directional prod, wouldn't it make more sense to say 'Abe (left) and Aaron test...' Also, no comma needed in current version.
• "Carruth took two years to fully post-produce Primer" -> italics for film title.
• References should be in 2 columns using {{reflist|2}}.

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, great, I'll get on it. JMalky (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of those changes have been made, I'll finish off the other ones later. I think I'm the only person editing the page at the moment, but if any one else is watching this page or planning on editing it, I've put a list of what has/hasn't been altered on my drafts userpage. JMalky (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I probably could've just put strikethroughs on the list above... not sure what the exceptions to the 'don't edit comments' rule are. JMalky (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it bothers some people but I'm happy if you want to strike out what you've done, though there's probably not much point now if you've got your own page with the list. And sorry to be picky, but it'd be really great if you could try and get stuff done kind of soon, because I'm going away on Friday (though with Australia-America time differences it may as well be Thursday night, Wikipedia time) and I won't be back for a month... Again, sorry, and thanks. No pressure :) —97198 talk 06:41, 17 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)

I realise that the plot section still isn't perfect, but the trouble is that the movie is so damned complex and open to interpretation! If you take a look further up this talk page, you'll see that arguments abound over the exact chain of events, what x and y meant, how the time machine works etc etc. Perhaps it's best to aim for a passage that outlines the arc of the story without getting into too much detail. JMalky (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks great to me. Thanks for hopping on that so quickly; I think we're good to got for a pass :) —97198 talk 15:02, 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)

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)

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)

Aaron wears the earphone in several other scenes and makes no attempt to conceal it. The dialogue suggests that they at least believe the bleeding to be a side effect. As for their friendship being compromised, I think the last scene where Aaron leaves and Abe tells him never to come back makes it pretty clear, as well as Aaron's prior annoyance at Abe not automatically telling him about the time travel ("decided to tell me? Oh, thankyou."), and for changing Aaron's life without his consent ("don't do this again, not where it affects me").Archiewood (talk) 00:48, 27 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)

I think that is more a minor and unneccesary detail, they are both still exiting from near when the boxes are turned on (The "A point"). The statement is made to differentiate from the watches and weebles which were removed at the "B point" (after the box was turned off) and they suffered severe aging. I can live with it as it is or if really desired I could also live with the minor variation: "Abe and Aaron are never shown to leave the machine at any point other than near the starting point"AbramTerger (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

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)

Spelling error in image

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)

 Done, someone had uploaded a near complete rewrite three days ago. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

xkcd

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)

Since xkcd is released under a CC2.5, I wonder if that comic can somehow be worked into the article? http://xkcd.com/657/ Random89 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's released under a noncommercial license.Prezbo (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered actually contacting Randall about it? He'd probably be willing to give specific permission for Wikipedia to use images, considering how ridiculous an idea Wikipedia is. --67.38.225.66 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost always more than willing to do so; I'm sorry the of CC-NC vs. CC-BY-SA/GFDL incompatibility is so annoying here. I'm just hard to reach (too much email/messages, not enough time). If anyone wants to suggest one place (maybe my user page) that I can easily respond to "please release part of comic X under a wiki-compatible license to illustrate article Y" requests, I can make more of an effort to be available for this. (I know I'm replying to a very old thread here; at some point later I'll check out what I'm worried is a rather busy xkcd user talk page). --xkcd (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page looks like the perfect place for such well-formed requests. Wikipedia will give you a notice every time someone writes there, and yours is not a high-volume talk page so you could likely manage that input. Diego Moya (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

CTCs

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)

Since CTC is not mentioned in the film, it would be original research to speculate on this (or any theoretical) mechanism of this sort. One could reference in some theory section an article which discussed the various concepts and how they related to Primer, but that would be about it. In my (limited) understanding CTCs are genearlly related to wormholes and the film specifically denies wormholes. CTCs also seem to be more for "fixed-Time" stories and Primer seems clearly to not be fixed-time.AbramTerger (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Carruth description

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)

According to our article on mathematician, "A mathematician is a person whose primary area study is the field of mathematics." That doesn't seem to fit here. Describing him as a "college math graduate" is more descriptive and doesn't suggest that he has published research in mathematics. It's also rather more in accord with his bio on the film site [2]. This also mentions he quit three engineering jobs, so unless all three of those were exclusively "software", saying "former engineer" is probably better. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Gimmetoo, "college math graduate" is much more descriptive and informative than "mathematician". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 00:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I still think mathematician is accurate as a college chemistry grad can be called a chemist. I can live with "college math graduate" but I would prefer something much less "clunky". I thought about it and used the term "graduated from college with a degree in mathematics" since it matches the citation and broke it into 2 sentences. It is a little longer, but with 2 sentences it seems to me to be less clunky. I still kept out the "software" description from engineer since it is not contained in the citation, only "three engineering positions". Thoughts/comments?AbramTerger (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

An "ist" is usually a person who works in a specific subject field. Thus, a chemist does chemistry for a living. He or she is employed as a chemist. A college graduate is not usually considered a chemist until they are employed as such. The central characters of Primer are clearly employed or self-employed as engineers and/or mathematicians. They clearly spend most of their time working. The film is very realistic in its portrayal of life in a young or proto-Startup. David Spector (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The title

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)

The term is never mentioned in the film. From an interview of Shane Carruth by Wendy Mitchell April 2005 (http://www.indiewire.com/article/dvd_re-run_interview_shane_carruth_on_primer_the_lessons_of_a_first-timer/) I would say Def#1 (though I think there is subcontent for being one of the first in the timeline which he also alludes to.) Carruth states:

"First thing, I saw these guys as scientifically accomplished but ethically, morons. They never had any reasons before to have ethical questions. So when they're hit with this device they're blindsided by it. The first thing they do is make money with it. They're not talking about the ethics of altering your former self. So to me, they're kids, they're like prep school kids basically. To call it a primer or a lesson was the easy way to go. And then there's also this power they have in using the device is something almost worse than death. To put someone else in the position where they're not sure they're in control of anything. They're not in the front of the line anymore and they're living in someone's past, to be secondary in that world. The thing that is most important is to feel like you're at the front of the line, to be prime or primer. I definitely never wanted to say that in the film, but that's where it comes from." AbramTerger (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this quote! This is really helpful. - tm (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Glad I could helpAbramTerger (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Listing Parodies

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)

Hi - well, at least for now it can be considered original research, with no citation. I've done a bit of an investigation to see if I could discover where this is evidenced anywhere online; that a parody of Primer was the intention or perception of the episode . Even the Looney Tunes Show Wiki doesn't mention any hint, except that the title is a parody of Wheel of Fortune. Even their outline of the plot sounds similar to Primer only in that they are inventing in a garage. So, I'm mystified and not much impressed by a "possibility", that only sounds weakly like a fact. I'm going to remove the paragraph for now, with a challenge for a citation :) Fylbecatulous talk 02:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal based on lack of references (sadly, since I'm the chap that added the content). It does look like the parody plot synopsis would be better suited to the Looney Tunes Show Wiki and then referenced from here as a one-line summary only. For the record, the parody episode is "The Looney Tunes Show" series 1 episode 11 "Peel of Fortune" (12 July 2011). It does not surprise me AT ALL that hardly anyone has noticed, I would imagine the cross-over audience between Primer and the 2011 Looney Tunes Show are near zero. However my wife and I happened to be in the room whilst our daughter was watching the show, we instantly recognised Aaron's Garage from Primer and exclaimed "no WAY is Looney Tunes doing a Primer parody" but that was *exactly* what unfolded in the episode. I fully realise this is difficult to believe. I also accept it needs references.

To add some depth to this discussion, though, The Looney Tunes Show parody goes a lot deeper than merely "garage inventions and time travel" and given the depth of parody woven into the plot (not just a cameo or one-liner) it might be worth re-introducing if it could be properly sourced:

• Daffy Duck's garage door is similar to that in Primer, notably the half-lights/windows set into the garage door. (In LTS they are small arched windows, in Primer they are rectangles)
• The time machine is a nondescript home-made box with loose wires (not a sleek neon-lit contraption as per other sci-fi stereotypes/tropes).
• The time-travel function is a side-effect of the intended invention (in LTS, Daffy's intended invention was a suitcase / book bag for time travellers, not a time machine itself, but as Bugs later points out, that wouldn't be much use if the box couldn't also travel in time).
• Both stories have characters from subsequent timelines trying to fool their friend/opponent into losing control of the invention of the time machine (in Primer this is the scene outside the storage facility where Abe convinces Aaron that this is the first time through the loop; in LTS this is where Bugs convinces Daffy that his time-traveller's luggage is worthless).
• Both stories show the characters becoming very rich as a result of an invention and how the resulting near-infinite money is not enough for a satisfying life.
• Both stories are about two friends using time travel to vie for control of inventions and their friendship falling apart as a result. In the main storyline the invention they vie over is an automatic carrot peeler, but towards the end of the episode it is revealed that this is Bugs' second timeline and he has taken control of Daffy's earlier (discarded) time machine invention in the first. As Bugs realises that the automatic carrot peeler would make him rich, Bugs enters a third timeline to gain control of that invention too. A subsequent post-credits scene shows Daffy trying to gain primary control of another of his discarded inventions ("butt paper" - toilet roll) by giving it to Neanderthals in a 2001-esque sequence, the suggestion being (my interpretation) that Bugs has stolen yet another of Daffy's inventions.

So, very much worth mentioning if and when but not until we can find a 3rd-party source. At the moment we can't find such a source, so it can't go in, certainly not to the level of detail that would explain its notability. Might be worth me writing it up in the Looney Tunes Show Wiki and then other editors might decide that it would be worth an external link using an extremely short summary such as "Primer is parodied in series 1 episode 11 of The Looney Tunes Show (2011)" or similar. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, fascinating, absolutely fascinating. I imagine I'm going to have to actually watch this episode now, although I'll probably break out in allergic hives :) Alas, even post-viewing, it still won't be inclusion worthy (we might simply be experiencing an imaginary copy). Thanks for your cheerful synopsis and I echo your worthiness to write it up in the Looney Tunes Show Wiki! Certainly, I'd be willing to attempt to add your information thusly, with your external link. In the current Wikipedia climate, we might be shot down but... Looking forward to working with you - in solidarity - Fylbecatulous talk 15:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird thing is, like Primer, Looney Tunes Show episode doesn't get really, really freaky until well after the story is established. You laugh at the garage and time-machine-(luggage-)lookalike as a throwaway Primer reference, there's a throwaway joke about toilet paper having already been invented, and then it settles down to typical mad-cap caper about the automatic carrot peeler. You think to yourself "well, it was amusing to have those cameo references, but it was too much to hope for the complexities of multiple timelines in a kids' show", then... blammo... about three-quarters of the way in, Bugs explains that the whole episode so far WAS his second timeline and enters a third timeline to rip off Daffy for a second time. Then there's a Roadrunner short, and just as the credits roll there's Daffy in an Nth timeline trying to control the invention of toilet paper. And the really, really annoying bit is that I'm now realising plot-points whereby I'm going to have to re-watch a KIDS' CARTOON because I'm now worried I've missed bits from watching it the first time and that a bloody episode of Looney Tunes has entered the very small club (comprising Primer, Memento and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) of stuff I actually want to re-watch for plot points. I'm going to really kick myself if my daughter has deleted it from the DVR. I wonder if Bugs or Daffy wore headphones at any point? ;-) Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I just watched the "Peel of Fortune" episode on YouTube. As far as I saw it has no Primer reference or even anything that hints at it. There is only 1 time travel trip in the story proper and the device looks like the device from the 1963 Time Machine film. It was made in the garage, but that is not really a Primer reference. There is a 2nd trip that is a 2001 parody, but nothing related to Primer. Just conventional time travel thingsAbramTerger (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Infinte doubles at party

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)

I see they created multiple clones/doubles, but that they are in alternate timelines. I see nothing to suggest multiple ones in this timeline. Entry into the timeline is limited to the number of boxes turned on. There are not infinite boxes into the timeline, so there are not infinite doubles.AbramTerger (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by Lem

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. --noosphere 00:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What possible basis do you have for saying that? Is there a source? The stories are similar really only in that multiple copies of a person exist. And that theme has existed in dozens of other stories. What is the basis of this claim? 169.234.128.51 (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a clarification here but "multiple copies of a person" never exist in this movie, it is about time travel not cloning. The same person exists at different stages in their timeline. This is also something that needs correct on the Article page, it is misleading to people who come here having watched the movie and are trying to understand what they have seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.64.239.39 (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty explicit that they are multiple copies, not just past and future versions of the people. For example, the Abe who uses the failsafe and drugs the otherAbe, did not get drugged in his past, and thus "DruggedAbe" and "FailsafeAbe" have become different copies of Abe. There are also multiple versions of Aaron in the last timeline shown in the film, all distinct from one another on separate "lifelines". This timetravel story is clearly not a fixed-timeline. It also seems pretty clear it is not a replacement, it is branching timeline story which creates multiple avatars.AbramTerger (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert of latest plot additions

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)

Some of the Plot as stated is wrong. We can surmise that Aaron did travel back at least 4 days in the failsafe because he has already recorded the conversation where Abe introduces him to the time travel devices as shown by Aaron replying to the wrong question. "Having traveled back four days in time using this failsafe point, Abe goes to meet Aaron and collapses. After Abe recovers, Aaron reveals that unbeknownst to Abe, Aaron had discovered this failsafe box and used it to get control" is incorrect, we do not see Abe collapse and in my interpretation his reaction is due to the realisation, in his already stressed from time travel state, that Aaron has already lived through this instance at least once due to his response to the recorded statement, not what Abe actually says.

What exactly do you think is "wrong" in what is stated. It seems to me to be an accurate description of the events shown in the film. That Abe travelled back about 4 days is pretty explicit in the film. We see the timer with 3 days, 22 hours, 9+ mins. And we do see Abe collapse. Yours (or anyone else's) interpretation of why he collapsed (be it tired from 4 days without food or some realization) is not really important to the description. The point is that the film shows Abe travel back 4 days, he meets Aaron at the parkbench, he collapses and then later Aaron gives his exposition. The plot described is what the film shows. I also don't think we can conclude anything about how long Aaron traveled back. I presume it is only a few days as he traveled back initially after discovering the failsafe, then later trips were only 1 day into the past to redo the party. Abe traveled after the Granger incident, Aaron seemed to have traveled before thisAbramTerger (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

VC versus Venture Capitalist

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)

-Technically- it is OR to assume we know what VC stands for. I'm not sure whether this can pass the "it's obvious" test. Given that VC never actually becomes pertinent to the plot, is it necessary to include that part? "With the proceeds of this work, they fund (additional) pet science projects." Doniago (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that they are funding the projects not for the sake of science (as the line without the VC attention suggests) but to make money. The VC aspect seems pertinent also to me since it plays a part in two sub-plots: the incident with Platts talked about the beginning of the film and mentioned several times afterwards (and foreshadows Aaron's desire to be a "hero") is due to their desire for VC attention as is the involvement of Thomas Granger stems from a desire for VC Attention. I think if "venture capital" is not obvious, remove the link to it and just keep the "VC attention" as straight text.AbramTerger (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverted "Venture capitalist" to "VC Attention". What are the thoughts again, since the issue seems to be raised again?AbramTerger (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it passes what Doniago describes as the "it's obvious" test. A compromise could be to use the abbreviation VC and wikilink to venture capital. Barnabypage (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The compromise is what had been done, the revisit now is if the compromise is still valid as someone is trying to remove the abbreviation explaining that it is "pointless". I just want to know the consensus. I do not believe the abbreviation is pointless as it is what the movie indicates, any more than I think the abbreviation JTAG is pointless either.AbramTerger (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this section earlier, I was looking for new discussion. The "someone" is me. So: if it's not pointless, what is the point of using "VC" in a rather clumsy sentence pasting in three words from the script than just saying "venture capital"? Though watching the film, it's obvious what it means, to anyone who is vaguely familiar with the milieu, but in general, VC has dozens of possible meanings, as you can see at the linked page, so in our plot summary it has to be explained and linked explicitly. According to MOS:ABBR Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Or, if you must use an abbreviation: WP:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations When an abbreviation is to be used in an article, give the expression in full at first, followed immediately by the abbreviation in parentheses (round brackets). In the rest of the article the abbreviation can then be used by itself ... but it's never used again in the article. So in this case it's better to paraphrase and just spell it out. As would be done in any work of non-fiction. As for "consensus" it seems this has been changed several times and AbramTerger keeps reverting it. So, no huge "consensus" can be cited. And by the way, it's no less, or more. WP:OR to just explain in the plain text as it is to do it by a link. See yet another policy link (sorry) : WP:EASTEREGG. Barsoomian (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

A third option would be to remove the sentence entirely. The detail only fills in backstory rather than furthering the plot—in the film and the article—so it wouldn't be missed. Plus, it's apparently contentious and unsourced, so maybe the easiest answer is to delete it? Woodroar (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd support deleting it if that can be done without causing serious problems. Ideally we could find a RS that specifically refers to venture capital and allay any OR concerns. If this only comes up in the plot summary, then I suppose the other question is whether this really is a significant detail. AT alleges that it is...what do other editors think? Doniago (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the facts, just the wording. But it isn't a terribly important point so if it can't be plain English, then just cut it. The plot section is pretty long and complex already. Barsoomian (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I made a few other edits and saw that the VC stuff really isn't worth explaining, let alone quoting and linking, so cut it. Hope that isn't too contentious. Feel free to revert that part (but not all the other edits) if you want to continue arguing. Barsoomian (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can live with the edits. I think the VC attention is important to the plot, but not as important to the summary since the desired financial backing with Granger is mentioned later, and the conflict with Platts is not mentioned in the summary.AbramTerger (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the sentence as it is now, without the VC reference in any iteration. Agree that it is not tantamount to the plot and it is better left unsaid if not referenced. I'll hunt around for a RS to add, so this could be reinstated, but not too sure one will turn up. Fylbecatulous talk 21:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not an argument

He argued that many of the greatest breakthrough scientific discoveries in history have occurred by accident, in locations no more glamorous than Aaron's garage

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)

I've changed the wording and added the above link. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Links to official website

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 references are available via the Wayback Machine: a search for the story.html page turned up a version from 6 Oct 2012 (the most recent, as all of the archived pages from 2013 are redirects). There's info about properly citing this at Template:Wayback. I'll try to get to it in a day or two unless someone beats me to it. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I did find a current website that has the same information in it (that website seems to have copied the Official website text to create its information). The Prodn and Bio are on the same page at this source so I merged those references. The Quote came from a different page and I created a "QA" reference for that. AbramTerger (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Revealing plot in the first sentence

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)

I've removed that one bit from the first sentence. If you disagree let me know, but I went ahead and did it. I also moved the second paragraph (which gives a plot summary) to the "Plot summary" section. KenFehling (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:Spoiler, we should not be removing anything because it could potentially spoil the plot. This is an encyclopedia, after all.  :) Primer is a movie about accidental time travel and its ramifications, so the lead really should mention that. Wyatt Riot (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I never proposed removing it, just moving it to the plot section. WP:Spoiler doesn't say spoilers should be in the lead, and most movie articles follow the convention of not revealing such information in the lead. For example, the lead of The Sixth Sense article describes the Bruce Willis character merely as "a troubled child psychologist," which is how the audience sees him at the beginning of the movie. Similarly, the lead of the Soylent Green article mentions nothing about making food out of people. These details are discussed further down in the plot section of those articles. Yes, time travel plays a large part in Primer, but this is not known to the audience until 30 minutes through the movie. A large part of the experience is discovering exactly what the box is capable of, just as the inventors are discovering it. KenFehling (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would actually suggest changing those other articles to add material to the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the important elements of the article should be right there at the beginning. Even the WikiProject Films style guidelines for the lead section says it should "convey the general premise of the film" and "provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film". The plot section can and should include twists (like the backup/"failsafe" device, in this instance) which I think would be reasonable to omit from the lead. But time travel is the fundamental theme of the film, and we should be reporting that, despite the fact that Shane Carruth disguised it so well. Wyatt Riot (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest not to reveal the plot in the first sentence. I suggest to think again about the guidelines for movies. 188.103.32.135 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in the guidelines about movies that prohibits revealing spoilers. In fact, WP:SPOILER specifically notes that spoilers are acceptable because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Doniago (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

One would have to live under a rock not to know that this movie is about time travel. Every description I've read about this film describes it as a time travel movie (in Amazon, Netflix, and probably even in the DVD box but I don't have it with me). --Itub (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Continuing this old discussion, I had the plot of this spoiled when I did a Google search. WP:Spoiler does not cover anything about spoilers in the very first sentence. I did not choose to visit the Wikipedia article, yet the blurb was enough to spoil me. I think for pragmatism's sake we shouldn't mention it in the first sentence; I've edited it as per WP:BOLD. Feel free to revert if you disagree. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER actually links to WP:LEAD right in the third paragraph, and LEAD says we should include a brief, standalone summary. (WP:LEADSENTENCE also says we should try to get much of this in the first sentence.) WP:FILMLEAD goes further, stating that the general premise of the film must be included in the first paragraph. By convention, we generally try to convey this information in the first sentence as long as we're not cramming literally every detail in there, which we're certainly not. I'm not opposed to a rewrite of the lead, but Primer is a movie about time travel, and we should be including that fact as early as possible. Woodroar (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2015 (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)

Plot

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:

Engineers Aaron and Abe work on personal projects in Aaron's garage. While experimenting with a device to electromagnetically reduce the weight of objects, they discover a time loop side-effect: objects left in the device's electromagnetic field travel back and forth in time repeatedly from point A (when the field is activated) to point B (when the field is deactivated), 1300 times faster than the normal passage of time.

Abe builds a stable machine, the "box", big enough to hold a person. He activates the box's field and goes to a hotel room to lay low; this is to avoid encountering his future self or altering the timeline too drastically. After six hours have passed, he enters the box, waits six hours, and emerges having travelled six hours back in time. There are now two Abes: Abe 1 (in the hotel) and Abe 2 (from the future). Abe 2 meets Aaron at a park bench, tells him what he has done, and takes him to the self-storage facility housing the box. At the end of the six hours, Abe 1 enters the box and disappears into the past. Abe and Aaron repeat the loop several times, using their foreknowledge of the stock market to make profitable same-day stock trades.

The men encounter Thomas Granger, the father of Abe's girlfriend's Rachel, who appears inexplicably unshaven. Granger falls into a coma after being pursued by Aaron. Aaron theorizes that, at some point in the future, Granger entered the "box" and altered the timeline. Abe decides that time travel is dangerous and that the box must be shut down.

Before he activated the field on the box he used to travel back in time for the first time, Abe activated a field on a secret second box, a failsafe. Abe enters the failsafe box and travels four days back in time to prevent his initial time travel, becoming Abe 2. He subdues Abe 1 so that Abe 1 will never conduct the first time travel experiment, and meets Aaron 1 at the park bench. As they talk, Abe realises that Aaron is reciting their conversation via earpiece, having recorded it in an earlier time loop. Aaron had discovered Abe's failsafe box and used it to travel back in time with a dissembled box, creating an earlier advantage over Abe's failsafe. This Aaron has altered the past more drastically, preparing his past selves with audio recordings detailing future events. Abe faints.

The two men reconcile. They travel back in time together, reshaping an event where Rachel is nearly killed by a gun-wielding party crasher. Aaron, with knowledge of the party's events, stops the gunman and becomes a local hero. Abe and Aaron part ways; Aaron considers travel to distant countries to tamper more broadly with the timeline and make more money. Abe states his intent to remain in town and sabotage the original "box" experiment, and warns Aaron to never return.

Two versions of Aaron are still alive and circulating through the timeline. Though Overlap-Double-Aaron successfully travelled back more than four day days to waylay and impersonate Original-Aaron, he was unable to unable to pursue his past self, and was instead bound and gagged by Original-Aaron. Past-Aaron and future-Aaron have switched places, both inhabiting the same timeline, both armed with the knowledge of future events (thanks to future-Aaron's voice recordings). Free to pursue his own plans, Original-Aaron begins construction of a warehouse-sized box.

Thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to be a spoil-sport, but was there a problem with the previous version? It appeared to meet WP:FILMPLOT–decent length, minimal editor interpretations, no made-up jargon, etc.–and had been relatively stable for years with dozens of editors. Not that I'm opposed to changing it wholesale, but any new version should not only meet MOS:FILM but also enjoy a broad consensus for inclusion. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the current version is OK, but from a style perspective, it has some unnecessarily complex sentences and unnecessary words. Take the first sentence, which begins: "Two engineers -- Aaron and Abe ..." You don't need to say there are two of them - we can count - so this can simply become "Engineers Aaron and Abe..." This simplifies the prose without removing information. Popcornduff (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that we improve the previous plot then rather than replace it and start the process over. Again, just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did. The draft above was rewritten from the existing plot summary. I think they might be more similar in structure and explanation than you realise - it's pretty much the same thing but with unnecessary words trimmed and simplified sentences.

I did it at the request of Sskoog, who hasn't added his/her own 2 cents yet... Popcornduff (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I really bounced back and forth on this particular issue. The central 'problem' with the writeup -- both writeups (and, by proxy, any attempt to summarize the film) is that names become ambiguous. The original (pre-sskoog) summary refers entirely to "Abe" and "Aaron," independent of context, which, I feel, almost immediately loses the uninitiated reader. The popular Internet-summaries go into elaborate "Timeline-9 Aaron" and "Timeline-10 Aaron," which is clearly too much/deep for a thousand-word summation. I tried to walk a modest tightrope between the two, with partial-but-incomplete success.

A secondary problem is what I'll term 'exception handling' -- to wit, the tendency to sum up the plot as "XYZ happened, but then later we learn that it wasn't entirely as we believed, because exceptional thing ABC happened, and then, later still, we learn that other exceptional thing PDQ happened" -- this is by its very nature difficult to read/comprehend, and yet I'm challenged to incorporate such details more smoothly and linearly throughout the actual narrative. Both my writeup and the previous indistinct-nomenclature writeup share this flaw.

Closest analog I can think of is Christopher Nolan's Memento. An outside viewer could plausibly summarize Memento in two parallel, equally-meaningful ways: "an amnesiac wakes up, and experiences confusing A, then B, then C, then D, in reverse order" -- but also, simultaneously -- "a memory-afflicted protagonist stumbles through D-C-B-A plot, not realizing that he is being manipulated and is even centrally causal to the original conflict." Might a similar approach work here? Sskoog (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you on both problems. I agree that simply saying "Aaron" and "Abe" isn't great, because there are multiple Aarons and Abes. Even putting aside issues of plot comprehension with this movie in particular, the different Aarons and Abes are literally different characters, and so need to be identified separately. I still think just numbering them might be the simplest answer, but I admit I haven't thought this idea all the way through yet.

As for the exception handling thing: my preference is, where possible, to convey information in the same order the movie reveals it in. (After all, plot is information revealed in a certain order, by definition.) That means, for example, writing something like "Sarah's mother bakes Sarah a cake. Sarah realises that her 'mother' is actually a killer in disguise." You have to "lie" in the first sentence, but that's OK. Popcornduff (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Popcornduff. Your edits were fairly significant and I had assumed you were working off of Sskoog's version. I'll gladly eat crow on that incorrect assumption. :)

What's funny is that every time I watch this movie, I reread the plot and consider what changes I would make. And I always get stuck at the framing issue: should we detail the plot as the watcher sees it, or more generally? If generally, how general? In these changes we're looking at now, I agree that Robert and Phillip are part of the side-plot and unnecessary. But I also think we can easily cut out mention of "1300 times" and turning the box on and off (or 'A' and 'B' points), and possibly even attempts to differentiate the doubles. I'm not overly concerned with spoilers, but I am with original research, and any kind of in-depth approach we take is going to involve some amount of editor interpretation.

Personally, I'd suggest we trim it way back:

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.

Okay, maybe not that far back, but it's a place to start. I really think most of the details, while wonderful, are tangential to the actual plot itself. Again, $0.02 and all that. Woodroar (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think your points about how the box works (A and B points, 1300 times) etc are totally right. We don't need them to summarise the plot and probably only confuse things more. Popcornduff (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of the first paragraph, which I think contains everything we need to know about how the box works: "Engineers Aaron and Abe work on personal projects in Aaron's garage. While experimenting with a device to electromagnetically reduce the weight of objects, they discover a side-effect: objects left in the device travel back and forth in time between the time the box is activated and the time it is deactivated." Popcornduff (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I say go for it. There's no way to make the recommended 700-word limit otherwise. This means that most/all of the alternate-timeline details will need to be pruned, perhaps replaced with some generalized "Abe repeatedly takes steps to prevent changes to the timeline, while Aaron attempts progressively greater and more ambitious meddling" description. The one thing I would keep in -- based on writer/director Carruth's own commentary -- is that (to Carruth himself) the gradual distrust and disintegration of the Abe-Aaron friendship is central to the narrative, and (to him) the main 'point' of the story. But this doesn't need to be elaborate or overlong. Sskoog (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue against including virtually all of the mechanisms of time-travel, because they're so easy to misunderstand and would require yet more words. Off the top of my head, just mentioning "travel[ling] back and forth" leads to questions about moving forward in time instead, whether there's a chance of failure if one leaves the box when it's not oscillating at "back", or what about leaving the box halfway through the scheduled time? I do agree that adding text about the friendship falling apart is important, but I feel that's an interpretation that we should source. (Was that on the DVD commentary?) I wouldn't even be opposed to clarifying some of the more vexing questions about time-travel–sourced to Carruth, of course–but I feel like any in-depth exploration should wait for more and better sources, but with any luck we won't have to wait long: I'm hoping that The Modern Ocean will be a success and generate more interest in Primer and Upstream Color. But we'll have to see, I guess. :) Woodroar (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131015160617/http://www.eddistribution.com/en/film.php?id_film=67&page=2 to http://www.eddistribution.com/en/film.php?id_film=67&page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080522050451/http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/artandindustry/primer.htm to http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/artandindustry/primer.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509063922/http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0440%2Clim%2C57301%2C20.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0440%2Clim%2C57301%2C20.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014192528/http://www.eddistribution.com/en/film.php?id_film=67 to http://www.eddistribution.com/en/film.php?id_film=67
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007024546/http://www.esquire.com/features/movies/ESQ1104-NOV_MOVIES to http://www.esquire.com/features/movies/ESQ1104-NOV_MOVIES

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links - appropriate?

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)

I've removed all of them except for those recommended by WP:MOSFILM for now. I think the Mark Allen piece is probably okay, since he's an established author. The others don't seem to fit WP:ELMAYBE and they certainly haven't been discussed here. Other opinions? Woodroar (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)