Talk:Primer (film)

New Movie?

Rumor has it that Carruth's new film will be called A Topiary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.253.21 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 March 2010‎

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)

Rewrite plot

The plot section is in need of a rewrite. It omits a lot of things, like the other Aaron fighting the second one, and similar aspects. I once rewrote the plot but was reversed. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 03:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You were reverted because your edits were in violation of WP:FILMPLOT. I would imagine you're free to rewrite the summary in general as long as you keep it below 700 words (it's close to 600 presently). Alternately you could see about developing a consensus to waive that guideline for this film. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding more plot details myself, but Primer is famously obtuse. As in, reliable sources love to talk about it being difficult to understand. If we're going to expand the plot section, then we should let reliable sources guide us and cite them appropriately, because any "I've watched the movie a bunch of times and have it figured out" bit of analysis is beyond what's allowed by FILMPLOT. Woodroar (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So what do both of you recommend? If I write a large plot (due to Primer's complexity) I get reverted, but a small one (like the current one) doesn't tell the whole story. So what do we do? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 22:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The current summary is incomplete, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Wikipedia exists to summarize it subjects, not explore them in excruciating detail. (See WP:NOT for more about that.) If sources exploring Primer in every tiny detail don't exist, then we definitely shouldn't try to fill that gap. Woodroar (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but it's omitting very important details. The 700-words may not be enough, and I consider that, in the current form, the summary is omitting more than it's acceptable. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 17:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Which details, and according to whom are they important? It's not necessary to tell the whole story, just an at-a-glance summary of it. DonIago (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

1. Aaron had to drug his other self the first time he went back in time.

2. The second time he went back in time, he waited for his other self to drug his other self, and then fought him. He lost the battle, but his other self left since he had already recorded the conversations.

Things like that WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 19:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been encountering this a lot on Wikipedia, lately. It took me several years to get comfortable with it myself. The urge to "capture every script-faithful detail" is strong, and present all over the Internet... but this is not a transcript service, nor is it a capture-every-subplot exercise. Representing the gist and resolution (and maybe a few of the pertinent themes), observing brevity as a tie-breaker, is close(r) to the spirit of the thing.

One of the challenges, here, is that, written as a straight adaptation, Primer flows like A happens --> then B happens --> but really C was going on --> but really D had an emergency box --> but really E had earphones --> but then, at the end, it was really F --> etcetera. This doesn't work in a Wiki presentation, and capturing intermediate twists like "X sedated Y" or "X really had a double-failsafe box all along" feeds into same. I'm certainly open to alternate plot treatments, provided the aforementioned stylistic guidelines are kept in mind. Sskoog (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite attempt

Two engineers, Abe and Aaron, supplement their day-jobs with entrepreneurial tech projects, working out of Aaron's garage. They attempt to create a box in which any inserted object would lose weight. However, after Aaron discovers that the box displays electric anomalies, Abe continues the experiments alone. One day, Abe approaches Aaron and reveals that any object left inside will bounce in time between the point the box is turned on and is turned off. Aaron realizes that, if one could enter the box when it's being turned off, one could exit the box after it was turned on, in the past. Abe reveals that he's done that: he built a bigger box and left it in a warehouse. He spent the day in a hotel, and later got into the box and exited in the past, reliving the day.

Aaron builds a box for himself and both travel to the past, after checking the stock market; this way, they can buy shares a few hours ago and slowly become rich. Aaron expresses the idea to punch Platt, their former investor, and travel back in time so he doesn't have consequences. Abe is opposed, since he doesn't know if they can change the past. During one occasion in a hotel, Aaron gets a phone call, and when they relive the day, he gets the same phone call, meaning his other self in the hotel doesn't get it. Abe realizes they can change the past.

During the night, some kids wake up Abe. He goes to Aaron and tells him they can punch Platt, get in the box, and prevent the kids from waking up Abe. The other Abe and Aaron will eventually get in the box, and Platt won't have been punched. However, on their way, they discover an unshaved Thomas Granger, the father of Abe's girlfriend, who is existing alongside his other suburban self. Granger falls into a comatose state after being pursued, and both engineers realize that for some reason, Granger has used a box and come back in time. Unable to get answers from him, Abe returns to the warehouse and enters a "failsafe machine" - another box who has been running since the beginning of the experiments.

Abe returns to the first day, and drugs his other self. He meets Aaron, but collapses due to fatigue. Aaron then reveals that he has also gone back in time, for the second time, bringing a disassembled box with him. The first time he came back, he used Aaron's failsafe after discovering it, and left his own failsafe in another room. He later drugged his other self, and recorded the conversations with Aaron. After Abe used his failsafe, Aaron used his own, and tried to drug his other self who just had drugged the original Aaron. However, due to fatigue, he couldn't, but his other self left anyway, since this Aaron had already recorded their conversations and had an advantage.

The two men briefly and tentatively reconcile. They jointly travel back in time, experiencing and reshaping an event where Abe's girlfriend Rachel was nearly killed by a gun-wielding party crasher. After many repetitions, Aaron, forearmed with knowledge of the party's events, stops the gunman, becoming a local hero. Abe and Aaron ultimately part ways; Aaron considers a new life in foreign countries where he can tamper more broadly for personal gain, while Abe states his intent to remain in town and dissuade/sabotage the original "box" experiment. Abe warns Aaron to leave and never return.

The ending of the film reveals that the Aaron who left is explaining the events to someone through a phone call. Abe watches his other self so the time travel experiments don't take place. The Aaron who left the country is seen with French-speaking workers, constructing a warehouse-sized box.

What do you think? WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. Not because I am married to my previous content, but because this rewrite flips tenses, is slang-jargon-y (realizing that my own version may qualify as 'stilted'), and because it falls into the "But really Other-Thing was happening, but really Other-Other Thing was happening" murkiness aforementioned. This isn't a ding on your work -- time travel is difficult to summarize clearly and concisely. Sskoog (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Primer (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

promoted in 2008. among other things, cites imdb and amazon, and has out of place sentences like The American director Steven Soderbergh is regarded as a fan of the film and one of the more fantastical elements of science fiction is central to the film. ltbdl (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)