Pure kino

t.newfag

you'res wellcome

2001 is one of the greatest films ever made, while Primer is closer to a toy puzzle than an actual film.

Nice strawman, 2001 is great. Primer is not

ITT : Brainlets who tried to watch it and got too confused after 10 minutes. You guys probably prefer watching your wives getting blacked by Tyrone.

2001 is an actual film. Primer is nothing but an example of how time travel would probably work in real life if it were possible, masquerading as a film.

Los cronocrímenes was pretty fun. The timer-travel aspect was very trivial in contrast, but as comedy it werked.

Attached: 18.Los Cronocrimenes.jpg (996x573, 94K)

You still don't get it. Primer is a toy, not a film.
Even the biggest brainlet can understand it with a single google search, the point is once you "get" it there's literally nothing else there. A rubik's cube, not an artistic expression.

Simply an atrocious non use of the visual medium.

Yeah, no. It genuinely doesn't tell the story coherently, that's why everyone finds it confusing. Not because it's actually complex (because it isn't)

>WAAAAAAAAH ITS BORING
>TIME TRAVEL SHOULD BE FUN LIKE BACK TO THE FUTURE, WHERE YOU CAN MEET YOUR YOUNGER MOM BEFORE YOU EVEN BORN LOL
>WHERES THE CGI? NEED MORE EXPLOSIONS
>WHERE ARE THE QTIES ACTRESSES IN THIS? WHERE IS EVA GREEN?
>IT SUCKS

Why did they have important plot moments in the film occur off camera?

It sucks because it's a non use of the visual medium. Compare it to any actual film like Mirror or 2001. And I'm not saying those are great because they are "le pretty", but because they actually use the medium of film, while Primer might aswell be a toy. You actually don't even have to watch or listen to Primer, you can literally just read the wikipedia plot synopsis and get the same exact experience, while you can read the script of any Tarkovsky film a hundred times if you want and you still won't get a fraction of the experience of actually watching the film.

>Mirror or 2001.
Are you fucking mentally disabled?
God, I hope you're baiting

Yes, Mirror is a million times better non linear narrative than Primer.

Can you clarify what you mean when you keep saying it's like a toy? I understand what you mean about it not being a visual film, it's more an exploration of the science and mechanics of the hypothetical machine rather than dramatized movie.

PRIMER BAD

Attached: 44.png (241x209, 7K)

Primer Man Bad

Attached: +_8be1857cb9e05dd0d42f007ae83fae6b.jpg (1000x698, 82K)

Incredibly ironic

>Comparing a 7k budget movie with 2001
Shane Carruth did an excellent job, probably the most logical time travel movie so far, sci-fi movies don't need a huge budget in CGI and Primer is the best example

When I say a toy I mean like a rubik's cube, a puzzle which you play with until you solve it and that's it instead of an artistic expression. There's absolutely no reason to ever rewatch the film once you "get it" because there is nothing else there but the puzzle of figuring out the mechanics of time travel in your head.
It's closer to an equation than a film or any artistic form at all.

If people want logic they watch a documentary. A film is first and foremost about entertainment. Primer is not entertaining. It fails its primary objective.

It's shit. It's story is incoherent. Visually, it looks terrible. Incredibly stilted acting. Literally why the fuck does it even have a following, there's nothing to like about the movie.

Not that user, but film doesn't have to be "entertaining". Is Threads entertaining? Is The Hunt entertaining?
The word you are looking for is engaging, and I don't think Primer is even that

Attached: primer.jpg (1098x735, 221K)

>I UNDERSTOOD IT COMPLETELY
>studies the time travel infographic

It's a movie for pseuds and wannabe filmmakers to jackoff to. Imagine having to make a huge graphic to put things into perspective because your film can't explain it well enough. The audio was shit and the actors were wooden. It's funny that the popularity is derived from telling people that said it was too confusing(it was) are brainlets. It's the classic
>the too smart
type of movie. Don't bother with this trash. Reminds me of of slightly decent student film(the same audience for the movie).

Attached: primer-chart.jpg (2791x1745, 1.57M)

Those films are entertaining. I meant what I said.

Attached: Primer Zoetrope.webm (1920x1080, 2.97M)

>Comparing a 7k budget movie with 2001
What do you expect?
>first movie
>He composed, directed, wrote even acted that movie
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
>Primer is not entertaining.
see

>what's that sound upstairs?
>I don't know, probably rats.

Mfw

Attached: IMG_20170204_103348.jpg (982x982, 290K)

None of that matters. It doesn't change the fact that it's a shot movie. You don't get brownie points for it being a directorial debut and having a tiny budget. Maybe if it was good in spite of those things, I'd praise it but it's not

>IT'S NOT A FILM UNLESS IT FALLS UNDER MY ARBITRARY CRITERIA!!!
Saying a film "isn't a film" isn't an argument

Attached: 3Q7iXtQ.png (645x729, 51K)

then, stick to your fucking blockbuster movies.
It's like trying to argue with a fucking kid

that fucking scene, didn't realize until I saw it for a second time

Reminder that the elitist faggots who think they’re too good for this movie are sneedposters and waifufags

>if you don't like primer, you must only watch blockbusters
wew, another strawman. Based retard

Agreed, i was really suprised to finally checkout this movie and find that it looks worse than even a student film, it straight up looks like 14 year olds making a youtube sketch

You literally couldn't know what that meant until the second time viewing.

Wait so only blockbusters need to have good performances? Or framing? Or composition? Or editing? Or lighting? Or characters? Or sound mixing? Or blocking? Or camera operating?
The execution of every single filmmaking element doesn't matter unless it's a blockbuster?

It is. Anyone saying otherwise is a pretentious fucking tool.
People only like it because "old thing good"-syndrome.

Just rewatch it

The film had a very small budget and set out to do a few very specific things and it did those things very well. If you are looking for something this movie doesn't have you will not like it.

There, does that make sense?

Nah. HAL is based. Sociopathic AI is kino.

Attached: finding_out_some_buildings_in_america_are_like_100_years_old_dude.jpg (446x456, 97K)

Am I pretending to like it by rewatching 2001 by myself almost every single year?
Also mind you I think Primer is a dogshit flick.

Holy shit. If not trolling please don't procreate.

not an argument
>Primer is boring
>Time travel should be entertainment
Name an entertainment time-travel movie It doesn't have to be low budget btw

You don't have to have a big budget to know how to frame a scene. You don't have to have a big budget to know how to write a character. You don't have to have a big budget to know how to edit. Or mix the sound. Or how to operate a camera etc etc. No excuse at all.

Yeah I can set out to make a film about achieving the speed of light in a vehicle, but me succeeding to portray that concept wouldn't automatically make it a good film if the film itself is dogshit, no matter how accurate I am in my portrayal of said concept.

No

This.

It's a pointless argument to make really. It's like a guy who does a few black lines on a canvas, it has none of the elements of art but it is still a piece of art. You might not see any merit in it but some people will and that's what makes it art.

delet yourself

Who could be behind this post?

Attached: 334.jpg (800x450, 44K)

the point of the movie is not time travel
pleb: filtered

>It's a dogshit flick
>wins a sundance award
really makes you think

Depends on the audience, honestly. People looking for hard sci fi might forgive it's shortcomings and love a movie like that.

Same with Primer.

You seem to think a "good film" is a designation given to a project that checks enough boxes. It's an opinion, bro. It's subjective.

The actual technical explanation of the time travel was obviously mumbled technojargon that they pulled out of their ass, but I feel like they could have explained it better
Maybe I'm the only fucking retard here, but the first time I watched the film I thought the box made them travel forward in time and then when they got back they could relive the day again

I enjoyed its sense of wonder and science but I couldn't understand the intricacies of the time travel logic in it. I need to see it again. Sadly my old computer broke. Any idea where to watch it?

There's a chart in this thread, but basically you decide you are going to time travel, but before you do, your future self appears in the machine. When he leaves you get in the machine for 12-24 hours, however long you want. When you get out, you are the one who originally left the machine. Now you go to a hotel and make stock trades all day and profit.

All you really need to know is that the time travel boxes work like this: You turn them on at the beginning of the day and then get in at the end of the day. When you come out, you will have been transported to the start of the day (when you turned the box on). Don't pay attention to any of the explanation during the first 15 minutes or so where they engineer that shit
>Any idea where to watch it?
You know how google tries to keep out illegal streaming sites from its results? All those can still be found on duckduckgo
Just search "primer putlocker"

I must be a brainlet because i literally can't wrap my head around it.

the absolute state of this board. JUST.

thanks lads

This guy explained it better. You turn it on, another you gets out. You get in and wait all day. When you get out you are the you that got out when you turned it on. Basically the box just resets the day and you can profit off info you gained during that day. Stock info, etc.

>You go to the time machine and turn it on. It won't turn on immediately, but is designed to turn on 15 minutes later, so you have enough time to get away from the machine in order to not meet yourself. Then, you do things that could give you beneficial knowledge in the past, like checking the stock market. After 6 hours you go back to the time machine and enter it. You stay in the machine 6 hours. The reference time between the inside and the outside of the machine flows backwards, meaning the 6 hours you spend inside the machine are the same 6 hours you spend looking at the stock market. After the 6 hours, you leave the machine. Now it is exactly 15 minutes after you turned on the machine earlier that day. Now you can relive the same 6 hours, but with knowledge you have gained during the last time, so you can speculate on the stock market and earn money. During these 6 hours you exist 3 times - once originally, once after the time travel and once inside the time machine. However, since one of those will enter the machine after the six hours and become the one inside, he will leave existence at the end and after the 6 hours end, there will be again only one of you left on the planet.

Is there a better time-travel concept than this?

>You know how google tries to keep out illegal streaming sites from its results? All those can still be found on duckduckgo
They can still be found on google. At the bottom of the page click on the "X number of pages have been removed due to DMCA complaints." And you can see the list of removed websites. Actually makes it easier to navigate them.