>watch this meme movie that /tv/ used to never shut the fuck up about
>it's shit and it looks like it was made by first year film students
Why did this get any praise again?
Super low budget and they make it work. Did it not have enough CGI for you? Maybe they should've put capeshit in it to hold your attention.
Also you're about 5 years too late with this thread. They don't really discuss this anymore.
>since Kubrick made 2001
Top kek
>>67974426
IIRC the director is making some other movie with Anne Hathaway. So it's a pretty good start
>>67974777
>it needs to be low budget and use no cgi to be good
Look at this pleb
>IT'S LOW BUDGET!
Why do faggots keep bringing this up like it's a good thing?
Why would I spend my time (and possibly money) on something made by hacks who couldn't even find funding for their project?
If a cinema ticket costs $10 it would be much smarter for me to see a film that cost $400 million to make than a movie that cost $400k.
Because it's an underrated gem like Moon and Barry Lyndon that /tv/ would talk about before the manchildren invasion
>>67974426
I must've missed the meme-o (get it, like memo)
What memes came from this movie? Please, teach me, oh meme master
>>67974923
>Why would I spend my time (and possibly money) on something made by hacks who couldn't even find funding for their project?
I expected the last bit of your sentence to say "if it's cheap looking or bad", but instead you don't wanna watch it because a couple of independent filmmakers' couldn't find the money.
It might be good, it might be bad, but it doesn't have a 200 million budget, so it's a no go. Go back to /pol/.
>>67974968
>that /tv/ would talk about before the manchildren invasion
this.
I actually fear for the future of cinematic entertainment, if they keep pandering to the lowest common denominator and dumbing everyone down in the process.
>>67974426
>it's shit
Explain, you already covered that you didn't like the budget, what else?
Upstream Color is Shane Carruth's true masterpiece.
>>67974923
...and this is why your generation is broken. just pander to demographics and cover it in the glitz of a few million shekels and you dumb cunts will embrace it and worship it a golden calf.
All the best directors have been upstarts that showed their skill to the studios by how much they did with so little. Who ever would have believed in 1990 that the big studios would entrust a billion dollar franchise to Peter Jackson based on his first movie Bad Taste. They saw how much he did with the small budget he had and it became a part of his credentials.
>>67974923
I bet you enjoy capeshit.
>>67975448
ehh i didn't like it very much tbqh. I certainly liked primer more
I'm not sure why, maybe it is worth another look.
>>67975448
It was supposed to be A Topiary
sorry for being 'that guy' for bringing it up. But I literally just had this conversation with a friend
>>67974923
Why would it be smarter?
>>67975177
This is the only meme it produced.
>>67975589
>sorry for being 'that guy' for bringing it up. But I literally just had this conversation with a friend
Don't be sorry, have a conversation about it here, with us. Elaborate on your comment please
>>67974890
>>it needs to be low budget and use no cgi to be good
Not what he said, but do go on.
>>67975448
>directing and starring in your own movies
Narcissist tire
>>67975589
>You might never see A Topiary
Why live?
>>67974426
It sounds like you probably liked BvS and maybe are even excited for that Warcraft movie
it was dense, interesting, had a great concept, well acted and technically pretty good (considering it had no budget)
>>67975745
Does that detract from the quality of the movie? I don't think so.
>>67974426
It's the most consistent kino about time travel ever made. You're probably too dumb to get it OP.
>>67975745
I never understood why anyone ever even thinks about this kind of shit. Just watch the fucking movie.
>>67975677
It's a project he spent 3 years working on after Primer, but eventually scrapped it because no studio would back it.
>>67975649
>>67974777
>>67975789
>muh budget
Is this literally the only thing people can say about this movie?
>>67974426
It has an interesting premise but everything else about it was crap
Bad acting
Bad dialog
Bad camera work
Bad sound
Bad characters
Bad plot
>>67975870
Did you miss the part where he said it was interesting, had a great concept and great acting?
>>67975927
This.
It's great because it conveys really well the absolute clusterfuck of confusion and mixed up timelines that actual time travel would cause.
>>67975929
>great acting
Come on
>>67974923
>If a cinema ticket costs $10 it would be much smarter for me to see a film that cost $400 million to make than a movie that cost $400k.
Because it's a clear example of why your statement is wrong and shows that you can do good without multimillion $$ CGI
>>67975927
If you say so
>>67976047
Well there weren't any particularly dramatic performances. I feel like the actors kept it very close to what two engineers chatting in a garage would really be like.
>>67976034
Like back to the future 2 but with zero characters ?
>>67975927
But the movie was about presenting and exploring a concept. If you expected great acting and cinematography you missed the point.
>>67975927
>Bad acting
Meh I liked their acting.
>>67976118
Except Back to the Future 2 isn't confusing at all.Unless you're retarded
>>67976126
It was a movie
I think you're missing the point
>>67976169
Different movies do different things, anon.
>>67976157
Neither was primer
>>67974426
>fags not recognizing this as the best time-travel movie ever made
baka
>>67976107
Not that anon but I agree with you. The only thing I didn't like about primer was the opening scenes when they were all talking over each other. It probably bothered me because I can't stand that irl.
>>67976200
This movie did nothing.
>>67976222
Really? You figured it out on your first viewing? Explain it to me in your own words, if you would be so kind.
>>67974890
>IIRC the director is making some other movie with Anne Hathaway. So it's a pretty good start
Also Keanu Reeves
Get hype. Fuck off with these Star Cucks threads
>>67976277
It explored the hypothetical concept of time travel in a more grounded and realistic way than any other movie I've seen.
>>67976107
I'd imagine two engineers would find time travel at least somewhat interesting instead of them just finding it boring
>>67976321
>time travel
>realistic
Nope
>>67976281
Not that anon but I understood it the first time through but, I also enjoy reading about causality loops and similar topics.
My girl hated it and it took me longer to explain it to her than it took to actually watch the movie.
>>67974426
Because /tv/ is full of first year film students, and primer is a very good student film.
>>67976324
Did you watch the movie?
>>67976366
But time travel is real.
>>67976389
>movies woman will never understand.
>>67976366
>Hypothetical
You should read a little slower next time.
Half of the movie is not understanding the shitty camera work.
It would be a lot less confusing if they weren't so poor.
>>67976366
>movie
>realistic
Are you one of those people?
>looks like it was made by first year film students
No it doesn't, it looks fantastic. If you honestly think it looks amateur, you haven't seen truly amateur work.
At the risk of sounding like a humongous faggot, Primer is not really a movie that you can criticize effectively after one viewing. At most you can say that it's excessively complex and that in itself is a negative quality (and maybe you could say it has bad cinematography or something, although I don't think it does). Aside from that, though, the movie is so dense that you're not going to be able to meaningfully critique things like plot, character development, themes etc until you've watched it a few times and really tried to figure it out.
>>67974923
Fucking end it, faggot.
>>67976047
It was basically a student film, but it ended up being a hell of a lot better than most shit I see these days.
It's all relative. You can't exactly compare it to something like Inception or 12 Monkeys
In it's own right, as a low budget, indie movie from first time filmmakers, they did a great job
>>67974923
>If a cinema ticket costs $10 it would be much smarter for me to see a film that cost $400 million to make than a movie that cost $400k.
>pic related
Fucking horseshit. Monsters was made for something like half a million dollars, it was made by one guy and two professional actors. It's got some serious flaws but it also had a lot of heart. It's small budget made it a leaner more contained story.
Fast forward to the sequel that cost multiple times what its predecessor did and you get a complete cluterfuck of a movie.
money =/= quality
>>67976453
>movies woman will never understand
Lol, hadn't thought to classify it that way
>>67976492
>It would be a lot less confusing if they weren't so poor.
Your programming is complete
>>67976432
>Because /tv/ is full of first year film students
/tv/ used to be filled with STEM dropouts. What went wrong?
>>67974426
It is actually really great, if you get it. It functions as a pleb filter, too
>this movie is shit
>what movie?
>this movie
>primer?
>yeah
>what like the acting?
>no like, all of it
>oh
>the dialogue too
>the dialogue?
>yeah the dialogue
>oh
>wanna go see Star Wars 8 in a year?
>yeah let's go
>>67976562
That's from your perspective. Sorry I forgot this was /tv/
>>67976562
FOR YOU
I just can't believe the amount of people claiming it has bad camera work. I thought the cinematography was the best thing it had going for it.
>>67976788
Contrarianism has hit a new high.
>>67976773
Did you understand it perfectly on your first viewing?
>>67976562
Or you can just watch it once then read this >>67975649 like everyone else did.
>>67976843
Not that anon, but that's ok, the state of /tv/ is always changing. We have to make /tv/ what we want it to be.
Like many others around here, I am dissatisfied with many of the threads that are posted repeatedly. Even though it's been a while since I've seen Primer, I got excited when I saw the thread and was looking forward to discussing it. I don't care if you loved it or hated it, i'm just happy to talk about something besides marvel, dc, and star wars and i'm a huge fan of those.
>>67974426
Because it was an interesting film made on a 7000$ budget. Most commercials cost more than that.
>>67976993
That's what I did, but you still have to watch it at least once more to properly understand how the plot stuff affects the characters and performances and whatnot. I suppose you could also read the infographic first and then watch it for the first time with that knowledge.
>>67976921
Yes
This >>67976389 was me. No, I'm not going to make several posts explaining the movie if that's what you're getting at. The infographic posted earlier does a good enough job explaining it, I assume that there are several youtube videos that explain it as well.
>>67976772
>this is /tv/ now
Shane, get in here and teach these plebs!!!
>>67976772
The dialogue was good though
>>67974426
>Why did this get any praise again?
Classic example of 10/10 content but poor execution.
>>67976281
>Really? You figured it out on your first viewing?
Is this some kind of meme? Is it like with Inception, where everybody felt smart for "getting" the movie? The movie shoves it in your face, what is so confusing?
>>67974426
DUDE PROVOCATIVE CONTRARIAN OPINION!
LOOK AT ME!
IM A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE
fuck off and stop emberassing yourself
>>67977422
Like most people, I didn't get it on my first viewing. So no, it's not a meme.
>>67977422
>The movie shoves it in your face, what is so confusing?
I've been trying to not say this but since it's out there now i'd like to hear an answer from people that didn't understand it.
>>67977482
>emberassing
If anyone should be embarrassed it's you for not knowing how to spell.
>>67977643
good point! typos are really the worst thing and make my opinion absolutely invalid
>>67977422
it is really not as straight forward as your typical hollywood flick, but yeah, if you dont have ADHD, it all should makes sense. But there really are some details I only spotted on the second viewing
>>67977807
They should. If you're too retarded to spell simple words your opinions are likely just as stupid.
>>67978110
>what is a typo
>ad hominems are legit arguments
>if I ignore his point, it will go away
>>67978195
You didn't have a point to begin with.
>>67978223
Not that anon but if you didn't get his point then I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't understand the movie.
>>67978320
Just because he was trying to formulate a point doesn't mean he actually succeeded.
>>67978195
>this much damage control for being retarded
Just face it. You can't spell therefore I can't take your posts seriously.
>THE HEADIEST, MOST SINGULAR SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE SINCE KUBRICK MADE 2001
This would be funnier but the sad thing is /tv/ will actually defend this.
>>67975448
this movie was fucking ass
FUCK OFF PLEBS THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE IN YEARS GO BACK TO YOUR CAPESHIT STAR WARS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERREEEEEEEE
>>67974426
horrible fucking piece of shit
>>67980067
Interstellar was a much better science fiction movie and that was essentially 3 hours of people crying.
>>67981807
NO IT ISNT FUCK YOU AND FUCK THIS BOARRD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>67974426
I didnt like it, but it was impressive that they were able to pull it off so cheaply, so I respect them for that.
Here's a quick story
I came to /tv/ back in 2009. One of the first threads I made was asking for time travel movies. At least 75% of you faggots recommend Primer saying it was the best time travel movie ever made. I watched the first 20 minutes and immediately shut it off. /tv/ then had a bitch fit when I told them I couldn't even get pass 20 min and said I was too stupid to understand it
Took me about a week to realize /tv/ was full of autistic edgelords and the least popular a film is the more you Faggot pretend to like it
I STILL HATE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU AND HOPE YOU ALL DIE A VERY PAINFUL DEATH
>>67977603
>>67977893
I didn't understand it on my first viewing. I got the basic thrust of it - there are engineers who build a time travel machine, they start creating time loops and having issues with alternate-timeline copies of themselves, it leads to trouble etc etc. But I'd be lying if I said that I understood every detail of the plot or themes on my first viewing.
I don't usually watch movies with an eye to "figuring it out" the first time around - I prefer to just enjoy the experience, and if I pick up on some of the more subtextual stuff that's great but I don't go searching for it. Generally afterwards if I liked the movie (or even if I didn't but feel like I didn't get a lot of it) I'll do some reading on it, and if it turns out there was a bunch of stuff that went over my head I'll go back a second time so I get the deeper stuff. I suppose if you tend to watch movies in a more involved manner the first time around maybe you would get Primer after one viewing.
>>67983239
lmao but it was just a meme.
It's just like saying Problem Child 2
>>67983239
Thank you for your post. It's exemplar to show that most people are what they are, there's no change with time. You were a pleb in 2009 and 7 years later you're still a hopeless retard. Don't forget to donate your body to science.
>>67984234
>I suppose if you tend to watch movies in a more involved manner the first time around maybe you would get Primer after one viewing.
That's probably why I understood it the first time through. I don't watch movies like that intentionally though, that's just how I see everything. Sometimes it really sucks and I wish I didn't see everything with so much detail.
>>67983239
AND YET YOU'RE STILL HERE
>>67984375
Kek
>>67983239
But no one liked it.
