Slashdot Mirror

Wasn't that what the engineers in the movie Primer (trailer) were working on?

Sorry, I just watched that for the first time earlier this week and am still enamored with it.

Best time travel movie I've ever seen. Cost of development? $10,000. Seriously.

Wikipedia has a terribly written entry that tries to break down the timeline. There's tonnes of better places on the web where people have discussed what they think happened. like here. Or just google for explanations of primer the movie. The good news is there is no official explanation so there's multiple possibilities. The thing I like about the layered hierarchy of the film is that to understand the third layer you have to watch it two or three times.

Clerks was ~$40k
pi was ~$60k
cube was ~$250k

Oh, I didn't know Bacall was still around. My mistake.

If I might, I'd suggest you track down a movie called "Primer". Sci-fi, but almost no special effects, purely plot and concept driven and remarkably gripping.

http://primermovie.com/

Also interesting, nearly dialogue free, but containing some nudity (used as a device to accentuate the utter subservience of a humanoid robot, a situation more morally repugnant than sexual which is in a way reversed by the end of the piece) and an equally small amount of CGI is a short film called "Eve".

http://www.visceralpsyche.com/welcome.html

Obviously I'm a sci-fi fan. To be honest, I see well written sci-fi as a plot device (like the transporters in Star Trek were originally a method of eliminating the boring bit of getting from scene to scene), and the stories themselves are really other genres disguised by gizmos. Alien: horror. Soylent Green: conspiracy/mystery. Solaris: boring ;) (actually I liked the original, so: psychodrama)

As much as I agree with what you said, I also think there are some wonderful opportunities opened up to film makers by the new technologies. Granted, this is often used to make plotless drivel. I wouldn't call the Star Wars series "art" by any stretch, although I do respect them as technically well made action films which (compared to the old Zane Gray, Tarzan and Flash Gordon films) are highly absorbing on a purely escapist level. I don't expect brilliant writing or deep examination of characters from the likes of Lucas or Speilberg, though, because they grew up watching those old action films, and that over-awed-child-like thrill is exactly what they're aiming for. I can enjoy them on that level, despite the two-by-fours delivering crass dialogue, but I don't take them seriously.

But speaking as a very minor film maker myself (I'd link to my IMDB listing, but I want to keep some anonymity around here), I prefer to make films that rely first and foremost on story. I also co-produce a show on community TV devoted to short films, and I must say I'm consistently impressed by the imagination and thought that goes into them, and the high standards that are achieved on tiny budgets; but I know many of these directors could produce truly remarkable results, given adequate funding and a free hand (absolute directorial freedom? Not from any funding body I can name). The problem I see isn't that money inherently makes things bad, but that money comes with strings attached.

I could go on, but the point I'm making is that trite action films have always been there (don't tell me Sylvester Stallone is any more of an ape than Johnny Weissmuller ;)...well, maybe), and it is only the filter of time that separates the wheat from the chaff. Our age is no different, except that the major studios have now pegged the cost of production, distribution and promotion so high that they can't afford not to be populist. There are as many good writers, actors and directors as ever, but you won't see them in your local multiplex. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but search them out and you'll be pleasantly rewarded, I assure you; the internet is good for that, at least.

Happy viewing!

See also Primer.

Firstly, since my post ended up a bit long, I wanted to plug the movie Primer. Best sci-fi film made in a long time, doesn't pander to the audience at all. I think most on Slashdot will love it, despite the measly $7K it cost.... And now with the rest of the story: Perhaps people would go to theaters more regularly if: a) It wasn't so expensive. b) The movie-going experience was more rewarding. The cost of going out to a movie makes it difficult for the industry to compete with cheaper alternatives. The reward of seeing the movie needs to justify the cost; with todays movies it's rarely the case. Because people see so few movies in theaters, they usually choose to see the biggest movie out. Many of the quality movies get overlooked. There are also fewer "easy yet rewarding" movies. Those that are accessible and enjoyable by all, yet aren't cheap comedies, dramas, horrors, or remakes. Directors used to make a few movies every year. Quality isn't about the movies needing to be films, they don't need to raise questions or be difficult to understand. Quality is just about them being entertaining and capturing the human imagination (The difference between episods 4-6 vs. 1-3). Lucas is right, but I think for the wrong reasons. The poster that said King Kong failed because the studio couldn't pull in the reigns on Jackson is right on. It could have been a beautifully re-imagined version of the original, but instead has much directorial masturbation that dilutes the story. It's not that quality movies aren't being made, it's that they are overlooked. That will change as the big studios get behind more of the small quality films. I think it's a similar trend that's happening in music and radio as well, as the large corporations realize the value in trying to sell quality products rather than market crappy products to death. Primer

Firstly, since my post ended up a bit long, I wanted to plug the movie Primer. Best sci-fi film made in a long time, doesn't pander to the audience at all. I think most on Slashdot will love it, despite the measly $7K it cost.... And now with the rest of the story: Perhaps people would go to theaters more regularly if: a) It wasn't so expensive. b) The movie-going experience was more rewarding. The cost of going out to a movie makes it difficult for the industry to compete with cheaper alternatives. The reward of seeing the movie needs to justify the cost; with todays movies it's rarely the case. Because people see so few movies in theaters, they usually choose to see the biggest movie out. Many of the quality movies get overlooked. There are also fewer "easy yet rewarding" movies. Those that are accessible and enjoyable by all, yet aren't cheap comedies, dramas, horrors, or remakes. Directors used to make a few movies every year. Quality isn't about the movies needing to be films, they don't need to raise questions or be difficult to understand. Quality is just about them being entertaining and capturing the human imagination (The difference between episods 4-6 vs. 1-3). Lucas is right, but I think for the wrong reasons. The poster that said King Kong failed because the studio couldn't pull in the reigns on Jackson is right on. It could have been a beautifully re-imagined version of the original, but instead has much directorial masturbation that dilutes the story. It's not that quality movies aren't being made, it's that they are overlooked. That will change as the big studios get behind more of the small quality films. I think it's a similar trend that's happening in music and radio as well, as the large corporations realize the value in trying to sell quality products rather than market crappy products to death. Primer

Well, you can make a fairly good film for $7,000. Film production is a huge waste of money, just as much as hyping Britney Spears is a waste of money.

Yep, Primer. Very cool movie.

Just because Napoleon Dynamite made a lot of money dosen't mean it had a good story..... (ducks behind something large and heavy)
Primer though....now theres a good movie made on a budget...check it out...
http://www.primermovie.com/

I'm inclined to agree that Dr Who does work best as horror - after all, we all talk about our time behind the sofa as kids. The only thing I didn't like was the Slitheen - the fart jokes were just too much silliness for my taste.

I often found myself thinking "I wish they'd have let me rewrite that bit of the plot so it made more sense..." but I think that in all science fiction I watch (except, maybe, for Primer, but that's only because I can't actually figure out if it needs rewriting).

I think Unquiet Dead was very classic Dr Who - I could easily imagine that as a Tom Baker episode, say. I think the Empty Child was one of the best Dr Who stories ever, better than almost all of the classic episodes considered good. (I also like Coupling a lot, Steve Moffatt is certainly a versatile writer and he proves that a writer who made his name writing about relationships can also do science fiction.)

Enough rambling...

You could start hiring people with talent.

Like this movie. I've watched it 5 times. One of the most enjoyable independant films I've ever seen. It cost $7000 to make. And, of course, it's geeky to the max.

Not in the theory of multiple universes..

In this case, predicting the future and then altering it by doing something in the present just means you switched to an alternate universe. the other one still exists... and you still clicked the link.. you just don't know about it because in your current universe you didn't click it.

In other words, go watch Primer.

In the context of scientifically "quasi-correct" movies, you can never go wrong with Primer: low budget, high quality (in acting, sound AND production, who whoulda thunkit?) movie that was written, directed and starred by a Math major.

Watched it 3 times and still have some stuff to figure out.

http://www.primermovie.com/

I'm really surprised that nobody has mentioned http://www.primermovie.com/ Primer yet.

Well, as a pretty devout and even hard line Christain I think this idea SUCKS. I don't like the popularized Bush type of Chistianity and I think this easily falls into that catagory.

From a Bible standpoint everything that is really awesome glorifies God. As a future game developer (it probably takes a religious nut job to have enough hope to think that I can get into the games industry) I will focus on making the most kick ass, intelligent and fun games possible. Sticking a Christian sticker on something doesn't make it Godly (please no Socratic dialogs on what is Holy please) or holy or anything. If it can't compete with other games then to me, it is actually LESS Godly then let's say, UT2004.

Please, leave God's name out of it. Just make something that is AWESOME. That goes for music, for movies and whatever.

(A good example of this idea is this: http://www.primermovie.com/ It's one of the best sci fi movies in a decade, mad by a Christian guy but nowhere does it say THIS IS A CHRISTIAN MOVIE anywhere on it. It's just a great film.)

Forgot to choose HTML when I posted - Info on Shane Carruth's Primer - now with a link.

....eh shoulda used 16 mm film. But hey who cares if it looks like crap?

A really good sci-fi movie shot for a very low budget ($7000) I recommend is Primer.

Haven't read the article yet (gotta get that karma, baby!) but I think the movie Primer is a great example of a niche movie. (And the niche is us geeks.) It's a hard movie to follow and is definately geared towards smart folks, so the audience is bound to be small, but it will definately generate a profit. Dig a bit and you'll see why...

Oh yeah, it's being released in Dallas and New York on Friday. More cities to follow. :)

...there were places to see it.

The website has not really been updated since June for additional screenings. Is it still being circulated?

It says on the site that ThinkFilm acquired the distribution but it doesn't say if Primer will be circulatiing their typical distribution of coffe house independent film venues or not.

Does anyone know where I can find an up to date showing list?

Here's the official site w/trailers:

http://www.primermovie.com/

http://www.primermovie.com/