list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Primer on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Primer/240079/default.aspx Title: Primer
Year: 2004
Director: Shane Carruth
Plot: The debut feature from filmmaker Shane Carruth -- who wrote, directed, photographed, edited, scored, and stars -- Primer is a psychological sci-fi thriller about a group of four tech entrepreneurs. Toiling away in a garage, the quartet have successfully created error-checking systems for their clients. But their recent work seems to have created an unexpected and seemingly impossible side-effect. Suddenly, two members of the group realize they are in possession of a device that can double, or perhaps even quadruple, the space-time continuum of anything that enters it. What at first seems like a windfall of astronomical proportions eventually proves to be much more than they bargained for, as the duo attempt to manipulate time to their financial -- and emotional -- benefit. Also starring Casey Gooden, Anand Upadhyaya, and Carrie Crawford, Primer premiered at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, where it won the coveted Grand Jury Prize for dramatic film. ~ Matthew Tobey, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 28
Number of Lists: 25
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 11
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 11 May 2009 00:56:21 GMTPrimer2004Shane CarruthThe debut feature from filmmaker Shane Carruth -- who wrote, directed, photographed, edited, scored, and stars -- Primer is a psychological sci-fi thriller about a group of four tech entrepreneurs. Toiling away in a garage, the quartet have successfully created error-checking systems for their clients. But their recent work seems to have created an unexpected and seemingly impossible side-effect. Suddenly, two members of the group realize they are in possession of a device that can double, or perhaps even quadruple, the space-time continuum of anything that enters it. What at first seems like a windfall of astronomical proportions eventually proves to be much more than they bargained for, as the duo attempt to manipulate time to their financial -- and emotional -- benefit. Also starring Casey Gooden, Anand Upadhyaya, and Carrie Crawford, Primer premiered at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, where it won the coveted Grand Jury Prize for dramatic film. ~ Matthew Tobey, All Movie Guide28Tag Target (>10)256113http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t55303th6ca.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Primer/240079/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_March_9_Time_Travel/625/41882/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/29/2009 4:27:57 PM
Body: [quote user="joem18b"] If you're going to watch Primer, I strongly recommend printing out the wiki timeline, maybe before the second time through. the movie is complicated. [/quote] I just looked at that timeline again for Primer. I remember you posting that once before. It was never my impression that the movie was mapped out so specifically. Maybe I will rent Primer again and start watching it along with that timeline. I'll probably just fast forward to the part when the first get into the machine because I found everything before that rather boring as well. [quote user="joem18b"] Free will (which i'm thinking most neurologists don't believe exists, but the brain is so complicated that it might as well do) and the notion that the protagonist always has the option of opting out of trying to remain unique are essential to the plot. [/quote] But is that what most neurologists really think? That free will doesn't exist? Is that what they would honestly and bluntly say? I don't doubt that much of their methods and results insinuate the lack of free will, but would they say so bluntly? Or would they say something like what you said, that although they make an assumption that free will doesn't exist to some extent for the purposes of their scientific method, the brain is so complicated that they could never really state that practically. I think that's the difficulty in trying to think about time travel which is a purely theoretical scenario based on a scientific understanding of the universe as a cause an effect type of operation mix, and then having people whose minds and wills might be something beyond that kind of speculation. It's interesting to wonder how these things fit together.
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:27:57 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme4/29/2009 4:27:57 PM[quote user="joem18b"] If you're going to watch Primer, I strongly recommend printing out the wiki timeline, maybe before the second time through. the movie is complicated. [/quote] I just looked at that timeline again for Primer. I remember you posting that once before. It was never my impression that the movie was mapped out so specifically. Maybe I will rent Primer again and start watching it along with that timeline. I'll probably just fast forward to the part when the first get into the machine because I found everything before that rather boring as well. [quote user="joem18b"] Free will (which i'm thinking most neurologists don't believe exists, but the brain is so complicated that it might as well do) and the notion that the protagonist always has the option of opting out of trying to remain unique are essential to the plot. [/quote] But is that what most neurologists really think? That free will doesn't exist? Is that what they would honestly and bluntly say? I don't doubt that much of their methods and results insinuate the lack of free will, but would they say so bluntly? Or would they say something like what you said, that although they make an assumption that free will doesn't exist to some extent for the purposes of their scientific method, the brain is so complicated that they could never really state that practically. I think that's the difficulty in trying to think about time travel which is a purely theoretical scenario based on a scientific understanding of the universe as a cause an effect type of operation mix, and then having people whose minds and wills might be something beyond that kind of speculation. It's interesting to wonder how these things fit together. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_March_9_Time_Travel/625/41715/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/23/2009 1:58:08 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"] I definately thought about this one for quite a bit, and I agree that this film actually did a great job of exploring the concepts of free-will. But I don't know, it really seemed more than anything that the only thing restricting this character's free will was his fear of the whole butterfly effect thing. In short, he had free will, he was just too afraid to do anything different than what he had allready done (huh??) because he felt the need for whatever he knew was going to happen (or allready happened) to remain the same....... But I think I just said almost the same thing you did. Damn it. The more you discuss this film, the more you can get lost in it...... But anyway, I wish I had more time, because it really deserves it. I'll try to revisit this one a bit. I will say that (I'm sure you'll disagree Rizzo) I actually thought that everthing that this film did, was actually done better by Primer. That movie used those same concepts and then added about 4 or 5 layers of other shit to think about. I loved that it was completely unapologetically complicated. And I think that it will hold up better than Timecrimes to repeated viewing. [/quote] I wonder if there would have been another way to show the same situation where the person wasn't afraid so you didn't have to question that motivation but if there was a way that everything he had done was by accident. Like maybe he would try to do something different just to see what might happen, only to realize that the result of his actions still resulted in the same results he experienced the first time around, only though a different way than he anticipated. I think there was some of that in this situation too though. It wasn't all fear, especially the third time around! The third time he thought he could change things. He found out that he couldn't, but he realized that his first impression of things were not exactly has he had assumed. Maybe I will have to watch Primer again. Everyone seemed to go ga-ga over it, but I wasn't interested enough in it to try to piece it all together.
]]>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:58:08 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme4/23/2009 1:58:08 PM[quote user="leeroy711"] I definately thought about this one for quite a bit, and I agree that this film actually did a great job of exploring the concepts of free-will. But I don't know, it really seemed more than anything that the only thing restricting this character's free will was his fear of the whole butterfly effect thing. In short, he had free will, he was just too afraid to do anything different than what he had allready done (huh??) because he felt the need for whatever he knew was going to happen (or allready happened) to remain the same....... But I think I just said almost the same thing you did. Damn it. The more you discuss this film, the more you can get lost in it...... But anyway, I wish I had more time, because it really deserves it. I'll try to revisit this one a bit. I will say that (I'm sure you'll disagree Rizzo) I actually thought that everthing that this film did, was actually done better by Primer. That movie used those same concepts and then added about 4 or 5 layers of other shit to think about. I loved that it was completely unapologetically complicated. And I think that it will hold up better than Timecrimes to repeated viewing. [/quote] I wonder if there would have been another way to show the same situation where the person wasn't afraid so you didn't have to question that motivation but if there was a way that everything he had done was by accident. Like maybe he would try to do something different just to see what might happen, only to realize that the result of his actions still resulted in the same results he experienced the first time around, only though a different way than he anticipated. I think there was some of that in this situation too though. It wasn't all fear, especially the third time around! The third time he thought he could change things. He found out that he couldn't, but he realized that his first impression of things were not exactly has he had assumed. Maybe I will have to watch Primer again. Everyone seemed to go ga-ga over it, but I wasn't interested enough in it to try to piece it all together. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_March_9_Time_Travel/625/41643/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 4/17/2009 9:27:06 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="mercurial"] [quote user="Risselada"] Before I add any more I just want to say up front that if anyone is a fan of time travel movies and you haven't seen Timecrimes yet, try to do so as soon as possible. I saw it at a cool theatre here in Chicago, but it's probably not playing anymore. Hopefully it will be out on DVD soon for everyone. Looks like there is a Hollywood remake in the works too. It has the potential to be GREAT with a bigger budget and better actors, but it's also possible for Hollywood to really fuck it up with unecessary Hollywood crap as well, so we'll see. [/quote] For whatever reason I just couldn't get into Timecrimes. Throughout the entire film I was overly critical of the main character's motives for continuing to pursue the actions that it was clear he could avoid. For being a relatively low budget film it was shot and constructed incredibly well, but after watching the film and then watching the chronological version of the film included on the DVD, I still found that the main characters actions were just too ridiculous. But apparently it's just me. [/quote] He couldn't avoid the actions he had already taken. [/quote] ***SPOILERS TO FOLLOW**** I think the kind of view of how time travel must work is essential in which types of time travel movies you will enjoy. Merc apparently does not see time travel in the same way that maybe I or the filmmakers do, but for me I thought it was brilliant! The guy KNEW that things had to go the the way that he remembered them happening to him from his perspective of events the first time he experienced them when he was experiencing them the second time. As far as he knew he had to do his best to make sure they would happen that way again. Although technically it wasn't as if they were happening AGAIN. They had already happened. He just didn't know HOW they were being caused to happen from his new perspective. There was no way they COULDN'T have happenedend that way, BUT he didn't know why they did. He wasn't able to understand, just like we as the audience weren't entirely sure of, if he had jumped into a new timeline or if he was still in the same one. It turns out at the end that he was always jumping back into the same timeline. If he had somehow decided to do something different. If he had went and ran up to the clone of himself that was living the experience from the first perspective, something that he knew didn't happen the first time he experienced it, would that have somehow thrown him into a new timeline? I don't know! And not knowing that is pretty fuckin scary! That could potentially alter his existance in completely unknowable and irreversible ways. I don't think he had time to even really ponder this excessively though. He just kind of knew he had to keep things going the way that they had been going. I think the third time he experienced it he still didn't know if he could change anything or not. He soon found out that he couldn't change what happened, but his understanding of different perspective of events changed. The most fascinating part of all of this to me is the examination of the idea of free will. The way we view time is usually a sequence of cause and effect actions. Will one cause always necessitate the same effect if all of the same physical factors are in place? Usually in scientific studies this is thought to be true, but is it also true for our minds? Will the exact same phsyical factors and effect on our senses at a particular moment in time in our lives always phsyically necessitate the same progression of thoughts and actions? If so, there seems to be no real things as free will. Now, that doesn't mean that this movie negates the fact of free will, but it does show a view of time in which your decisions are permanently tied to a permanent space-timeline even though you may have had a free will. It's very difficult for me to wrap my head around, and I may be looking at it completely correctly. It has spritual implications too though. As in the question of, "If God knows everything you will do, how do you have a free will?" I guess just because God knows what you will do, it doesn't mean that he hasn't allowed you to make the choice. Although at times it does seem like a very difficult paradox. I of course am still wrestling with these ideas. [/quote] Have you ever seen a movie and thought about it a lot. And were just hoping someone else who saw it would mention it so you could start spitting out all your thoughts and be able to bounce them off other people and have a great discussion? That's what I was hoping would happen here!! Doesn't anyone have anything to say about this?? [/quote] I definately thought about this one for quite a bit, and I agree that this film actually did a great job of exploring the concepts of free-will. But I don't know, it really seemed more than anything that the only thing restricting this character's free will was his fear of the whole butterfly effect thing. In short, he had free will, he was just too afraid to do anything different than what he had allready done (huh??) because he felt the need for whatever he knew was going to happen (or allready happened) to remain the same....... But I think I just said almost the same thing you did. Damn it. The more you discuss this film, the more you can get lost in it...... But anyway, I wish I had more time, because it really deserves it. I'll try to revisit this one a bit. I will say that (I'm sure you'll disagree Rizzo) I actually thought that everthing that this film did, was actually done better by Primer. That movie used those same concepts and then added about 4 or 5 layers of other shit to think about. I loved that it was completely unapologetically complicated. And I think that it will hold up better than Timecrimes to repeated viewing.
]]>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 01:27:06 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme4/17/2009 9:27:06 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="mercurial"] [quote user="Risselada"] Before I add any more I just want to say up front that if anyone is a fan of time travel movies and you haven't seen Timecrimes yet, try to do so as soon as possible. I saw it at a cool theatre here in Chicago, but it's probably not playing anymore. Hopefully it will be out on DVD soon for everyone. Looks like there is a Hollywood remake in the works too. It has the potential to be GREAT with a bigger budget and better actors, but it's also possible for Hollywood to really fuck it up with unecessary Hollywood crap as well, so we'll see. [/quote] For whatever reason I just couldn't get into Timecrimes. Throughout the entire film I was overly critical of the main character's motives for continuing to pursue the actions that it was clear he could avoid. For being a relatively low budget film it was shot and constructed incredibly well, but after watching the film and then watching the chronological version of the film included on the DVD, I still found that the main characters actions were just too ridiculous. But apparently it's just me. [/quote] He couldn't avoid the actions he had already taken. [/quote] ***SPOILERS TO FOLLOW**** I think the kind of view of how time travel must work is essential in which types of time travel movies you will enjoy. Merc apparently does not see time travel in the same way that maybe I or the filmmakers do, but for me I thought it was brilliant! The guy KNEW that things had to go the the way that he remembered them happening to him from his perspective of events the first time he experienced them when he was experiencing them the second time. As far as he knew he had to do his best to make sure they would happen that way again. Although technically it wasn't as if they were happening AGAIN. They had already happened. He just didn't know HOW they were being caused to happen from his new perspective. There was no way they COULDN'T have happenedend that way, BUT he didn't know why they did. He wasn't able to understand, just like we as the audience weren't entirely sure of, if he had jumped into a new timeline or if he was still in the same one. It turns out at the end that he was always jumping back into the same timeline. If he had somehow decided to do something different. If he had went and ran up to the clone of himself that was living the experience from the first perspective, something that he knew didn't happen the first time he experienced it, would that have somehow thrown him into a new timeline? I don't know! And not knowing that is pretty fuckin scary! That could potentially alter his existance in completely unknowable and irreversible ways. I don't think he had time to even really ponder this excessively though. He just kind of knew he had to keep things going the way that they had been going. I think the third time he experienced it he still didn't know if he could change anything or not. He soon found out that he couldn't change what happened, but his understanding of different perspective of events changed. The most fascinating part of all of this to me is the examination of the idea of free will. The way we view time is usually a sequence of cause and effect actions. Will one cause always necessitate the same effect if all of the same physical factors are in place? Usually in scientific studies this is thought to be true, but is it also true for our minds? Will the exact same phsyical factors and effect on our senses at a particular moment in time in our lives always phsyically necessitate the same progression of thoughts and actions? If so, there seems to be no real things as free will. Now, that doesn't mean that this movie negates the fact of free will, but it does show a view of time in which your decisions are permanently tied to a permanent space-timeline even though you may have had a free will. It's very difficult for me to wrap my head around, and I may be looking at it completely correctly. It has spritual implications too though. As in the question of, "If God knows everything you will do, how do you have a free will?" I guess just because God knows what you will do, it doesn't mean that he hasn't allowed you to make the choice. Although at times it does seem like a very difficult paradox. I of course am still wrestling with these ideas. [/quote] Have you ever seen a movie and thought about it a lot. And were just hoping someone else who saw it would mention it so you could start spitting out all your thoughts and be able to bounce them off other people and have a great discussion? That's what I was hoping would happen here!! Doesn't anyone have anything to say about this?? [/quote] I definately thought about this one for quite a bit, and I agree that this film actually did a great job of exploring the concepts of free-will. But I don't know, it really seemed more than anything that the only thing restricting this character's free will was his fear of the whole butterfly effect thing. In short, he had free will, he was just too afraid to do anything different than what he had allready done (huh??) because he felt the need for whatever he knew was going to happen (or allready happened) to remain the same....... But I think I just said almost the same thing you did. Damn it. The more you discuss this film, the more you can get lost in it...... But anyway, I wish I had more time, because it really deserves it. I'll try to revisit this one a bit. I will say that (I'm sure you'll disagree Rizzo) I actually thought that everthing that this film did, was actually done better by Primer. That movie used those same concepts and then added about 4 or 5 layers of other shit to think about. I loved that it was completely unapologetically complicated. And I think that it will hold up better than Timecrimes to repeated viewing. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_March_9_Time_Travel/625/40919/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 3/10/2009 12:31:49 AM
Body: This one is just too obvious. I had to look through our previous discussions to make sure we hadn't done this one. I was pretty surprised to find out that we haven't touched it yet. I love time travel movies. It has the ability to be one of the most complicated thematic elements, but when done well, it can completely suck you in.. I think Primer is my favorite example of an intelligent film with a complex plot. 12 Monkeys is just one of the coolest flicks ever. I absolutely love the whole 'science is the newest religion' aspect. I also thought The Jacket was pretty good. That's about all I've got for now. I'm really more interested in getting some recomendations. So, let's hear it. San Dimas High School Football RULES!!!!!!!!
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:31:49 GMTleeroy711Weekly Theme3/10/2009 12:31:49 AMThis one is just too obvious. I had to look through our previous discussions to make sure we hadn't done this one. I was pretty surprised to find out that we haven't touched it yet. I love time travel movies. It has the ability to be one of the most complicated thematic elements, but when done well, it can completely suck you in.. I think Primer is my favorite example of an intelligent film with a complex plot. 12 Monkeys is just one of the coolest flicks ever. I absolutely love the whole 'science is the newest religion' aspect. I also thought The Jacket was pretty good. That's about all I've got for now. I'm really more interested in getting some recomendations. So, let's hear it. San Dimas High School Football RULES!!!!!!!! http://www.spout.com/blogs/joem18b/archive/2008/12/22/38717.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: joem18b Blog
Post Date: 12/22/2008 1:41:13 PM
Body: The grandfather paradox: you go back in time and kill your grandfather, which means you were never born and couldn't have gone back and committed the murder in the first place.This paradox is easily explained if you keep in mind that the universe comprises matter and energy, and that space and time are only ways to describe the current state of matter and energy, not corporeal entities in their own right. In that context, time is not a river flowing in only one direction. It, like space, is merely a way of specifying the arrangement of matter and energy in one of the universe's infinite states. (And btw, if you choose a system of units in which the speed of light = 1, then E = M, because matter and energy are actually the same thing.)So you and your grandfather are collections of matter and energy, little bits of the universe's total supply. In one state of the universe, he's alive and you haven't been born. In another state, he's dead and gone and you're alive. In a third state, the two of you are in the same place and you're murdering him.The seeming paradox arises when you think of time as that simple stream, moving only in one direction. The universe is in fact a limitless collection of individual moments in which every quanta existent occupies a particular spot defined by time, space, and physical state coordinates. It's as if the universe were a giant, static, space-time cube or matrix. If we had the perspective, we could see that every possible position of every quanta is present; this means, as far as we are concerned, that every possible thing that could happen has happened and hasn't happened, will happen and won't happen, going both forward and backward in time - that is, every state in some sense is there already.What this means is that pretty much any sci-fi timetravel plot ever contrived is OK - the plot for Primer, for example.
]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:41:13 GMTjoem18bjoem18b Blog12/22/2008 1:41:13 PMThe grandfather paradox: you go back in time and kill your grandfather, which means you were never born and couldn't have gone back and committed the murder in the first place.This paradox is easily explained if you keep in mind that the universe comprises matter and energy, and that space and time are only ways to describe the current state of matter and energy, not corporeal entities in their own right. In that context, time is not a river flowing in only one direction. It, like space, is merely a way of specifying the arrangement of matter and energy in one of the universe's infinite states. (And btw, if you choose a system of units in which the speed of light = 1, then E = M, because matter and energy are actually the same thing.)So you and your grandfather are collections of matter and energy, little bits of the universe's total supply. In one state of the universe, he's alive and you haven't been born. In another state, he's dead and gone and you're alive. In a third state, the two of you are in the same place and you're murdering him.The seeming paradox arises when you think of time as that simple stream, moving only in one direction. The universe is in fact a limitless collection of individual moments in which every quanta existent occupies a particular spot defined by time, space, and physical state coordinates. It's as if the universe were a giant, static, space-time cube or matrix. If we had the perspective, we could see that every possible position of every quanta is present; this means, as far as we are concerned, that every possible thing that could happen has happened and hasn't happened, will happen and won't happen, going both forward and backward in time - that is, every state in some sense is there already.What this means is that pretty much any sci-fi timetravel plot ever contrived is OK - the plot for Primer, for example. http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_The_Problem_with_Time_Travel/4/38531/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: joem18b
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/18/2008 2:29:28 AM
Body: hard to beat Primer for an exploration of time travel. i heard somewhere that shane carruth is finally making another movie. he's been working on it for 2.5 years and is about to go into production. there's an excellent Primer timeline. I printed it out in pieces, taped it together, and held it on my lap the last time i watched the movie.
]]>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:29:28 GMTjoem18bsci-fi12/18/2008 2:29:28 AMhard to beat Primer for an exploration of time travel. i heard somewhere that shane carruth is finally making another movie. he's been working on it for 2.5 years and is about to go into production. there's an excellent Primer timeline. I printed it out in pieces, taped it together, and held it on my lap the last time i watched the movie. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/25/37652.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/25/2008 7:01:15 PM
Body: Catherine Hardwicke hit one out of the park for female directors this past weekend, but she had a lot of help. Not only was she working with a pre-sold property, she also had a very manageable budget of $37 million. Quite different from the $2 million she had to work with on Thirteen a few years back. Of course, she had similar budgets on Lords of Dogtown ($25 million) and The Nativity Story ($35 million), and both were box office disappointments. Still, she’s going to keep on being trusted with more money — if Summit is smart they’ll keep her on for at least the first Twilight sequel, which will surely come with a higher price tag — and as long as she continues with genre films, she’s sure to remain a profitable director. Not every talented filmmaker does well with more money. Danny Boyle, for instance, typically bombs with bigger budgets. And a lot of foreign auteurs strike out when handed costly studio-produced genre or franchise pics (Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection is a favorite example). But there’s the occasional filmmaker who, like Steven Soderbergh or Christopher Nolan, can make something worthwhile out of any budget they’re allotted. And then there are the many indie filmmakers who quickly find themselves at home with modestly priced broad comedies, such as the case with Seth Gordon easily transitioning from the Slamdance doc The King of Kong to the star-studded Hollywood holiday pic Four Christmases, out this week. Who will be the next small-scale filmmaker to successfully rise up and prove him or herself worthy of bigger budgets? SpoutBlog has selected five directors we’d like to see given an economic boost, each because he or she would likely deliver something more interesting and popular than the usual Hollywood product. James Marsh (Man on Wire; The King) He recently gave us one of the most entertaining documentaries of all time (Man on Wire), and it’s likely that he could also give us an equally entertaining blockbuster of some kind. His best gateway would be a big deal crime caper, along the lines of Soderbergh’s Ocean’s series or even the more modestly priced The Bank Job. He pretty much already showed he could shoot a riveting heist film with his re-enactment scenes in Man on Wire. Maybe he can also hold on to the French angle by helming one of those Melville or Dassin films that are always being announced and never actually being made. Marsh’s follow-up to Man on Wire will be a relatively small British crime drama (one-third of Channel 4’s series of David Peace adaptations), but afterward he needs to be heavily wooed by the American studios. Larry Fessenden (Wendigo; The Last Winter) He makes some of the most interesting “horror” films around (people sometimes call them “art horror”), but they’d be even better with a little extra cash to spend on special effects. His last two films kind of lose their heat in their third acts, when the cheaply constructed monsters and ghosts appear. But had The Last Winter cost $5 million instead of $50,000, it might have grossed $33 million domestically rather than $33,000. And its not like Hollywood wouldn’t be into Fessenden’s pro-nature plots. If they can give Roland Emmerich more than a hundred million for The Day After Tomorrow, they can give a guy like Fessenden less than $10 and actually get a smarter, more entertaining genre flick. Shane Carruth (Primer) He gave us one of the biggest mindf*cks in the history of cinema with his 2004 Sundance-winning sci-fi film Primer, but he hasn’t really been heard from since. According to Wikipedia, he’s been planning his follow-up for the past two years and is ready to start on the financing, so here’s an idea: Hollywood should get on that. If this former engineer has spent that long working out the details of his next project, it’s likely to be smarter than most of the speedily scripted science fiction released by the studios. And it’s certainly time for an intelligent blockbuster dealing with time travel or space travel or something else in that vein. Sure, Darren Aronofsky went from math-nerd sci-fi (Pi) to a big-budget disappointment (The Fountain), but now he’s coming back strong with The Wrestler and is set to helm a RoboCop remake next. Carruth could have a similar career without the bomb in the middle if one studio hands him just a fraction of what they gave Aronofsky. Anything’s going to be an increase over Primer’s $7,000 budget. Gregg Araki (The Doom Generation; Mysterious Skin; Smiley Face) His most recent movie, the stoner comedy Smiley Face, should have been given the same size push as The Pineapple Express, which interestingly enough proved that indie darling David Gordon Green could be trusted with bigger budgets. Unfortunately, Araki continues to be a mere cult favorite. But he’s not necessarily a Hal Hartley or John Waters; he can break out if given the chance to. The world is just waiting for him to become the missing link between Judd Apatow and Gus Van Sant. Or is a bisexual filmmaker not the most perfect person to handle the ever-increasing-in-popularity bromantic comedies? Helen Hunt (Then She Found Me) This actress-turned-filmmaker could be the 21st century Nora Ephron if only Hollywood believed that women could want something a little less cheesy than Sleepless in Seattle. Too bad movies like Sex and the City and Twilight are showing us female audiences actually prefer things even cheesier. But even a slight increase on Then She Found Me’s $3.5 million budget could give Hunt the ability to deliver a thoughtful cross between romantic comedy and Hallmark melodrama that might just elevate the tastes of moviegoers, or at least attract more intelligent women to the multiplex. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:01:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/25/2008 7:01:15 PMCatherine Hardwicke hit one out of the park for female directors this past weekend, but she had a lot of help. Not only was she working with a pre-sold property, she also had a very manageable budget of $37 million. Quite different from the $2 million she had to work with on Thirteen a few years back. Of course, she had similar budgets on Lords of Dogtown ($25 million) and The Nativity Story ($35 million), and both were box office disappointments. Still, she’s going to keep on being trusted with more money — if Summit is smart they’ll keep her on for at least the first Twilight sequel, which will surely come with a higher price tag — and as long as she continues with genre films, she’s sure to remain a profitable director. Not every talented filmmaker does well with more money. Danny Boyle, for instance, typically bombs with bigger budgets. And a lot of foreign auteurs strike out when handed costly studio-produced genre or franchise pics (Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection is a favorite example). But there’s the occasional filmmaker who, like Steven Soderbergh or Christopher Nolan, can make something worthwhile out of any budget they’re allotted. And then there are the many indie filmmakers who quickly find themselves at home with modestly priced broad comedies, such as the case with Seth Gordon easily transitioning from the Slamdance doc The King of Kong to the star-studded Hollywood holiday pic Four Christmases, out this week. Who will be the next small-scale filmmaker to successfully rise up and prove him or herself worthy of bigger budgets? SpoutBlog has selected five directors we’d like to see given an economic boost, each because he or she would likely deliver something more interesting and popular than the usual Hollywood product. James Marsh (Man on Wire; The King) He recently gave us one of the most entertaining documentaries of all time (Man on Wire), and it’s likely that he could also give us an equally entertaining blockbuster of some kind. His best gateway would be a big deal crime caper, along the lines of Soderbergh’s Ocean’s series or even the more modestly priced The Bank Job. He pretty much already showed he could shoot a riveting heist film with his re-enactment scenes in Man on Wire. Maybe he can also hold on to the French angle by helming one of those Melville or Dassin films that are always being announced and never actually being made. Marsh’s follow-up to Man on Wire will be a relatively small British crime drama (one-third of Channel 4’s series of David Peace adaptations), but afterward he needs to be heavily wooed by the American studios. Larry Fessenden (Wendigo; The Last Winter) He makes some of the most interesting “horror” films around (people sometimes call them “art horror”), but they’d be even better with a little extra cash to spend on special effects. His last two films kind of lose their heat in their third acts, when the cheaply constructed monsters and ghosts appear. But had The Last Winter cost $5 million instead of $50,000, it might have grossed $33 million domestically rather than $33,000. And its not like Hollywood wouldn’t be into Fessenden’s pro-nature plots. If they can give Roland Emmerich more than a hundred million for The Day After Tomorrow, they can give a guy like Fessenden less than $10 and actually get a smarter, more entertaining genre flick. Shane Carruth (Primer) He gave us one of the biggest mindf*cks in the history of cinema with his 2004 Sundance-winning sci-fi film Primer, but he hasn’t really been heard from since. According to Wikipedia, he’s been planning his follow-up for the past two years and is ready to start on the financing, so here’s an idea: Hollywood should get on that. If this former engineer has spent that long working out the details of his next project, it’s likely to be smarter than most of the speedily scripted science fiction released by the studios. And it’s certainly time for an intelligent blockbuster dealing with time travel or space travel or something else in that vein. Sure, Darren Aronofsky went from math-nerd sci-fi (Pi) to a big-budget disappointment (The Fountain), but now he’s coming back strong with The Wrestler and is set to helm a RoboCop remake next. Carruth could have a similar career without the bomb in the middle if one studio hands him just a fraction of what they gave Aronofsky. Anything’s going to be an increase over Primer’s $7,000 budget. Gregg Araki (The Doom Generation; Mysterious Skin; Smiley Face) His most recent movie, the stoner comedy Smiley Face, should have been given the same size push as The Pineapple Express, which interestingly enough proved that indie darling David Gordon Green could be trusted with bigger budgets. Unfortunately, Araki continues to be a mere cult favorite. But he’s not necessarily a Hal Hartley or John Waters; he can break out if given the chance to. The world is just waiting for him to become the missing link between Judd Apatow and Gus Van Sant. Or is a bisexual filmmaker not the most perfect person to handle the ever-increasing-in-popularity bromantic comedies? Helen Hunt (Then She Found Me) This actress-turned-filmmaker could be the 21st century Nora Ephron if only Hollywood believed that women could want something a little less cheesy than Sleepless in Seattle. Too bad movies like Sex and the City and Twilight are showing us female audiences actually prefer things even cheesier. But even a slight increase on Then She Found Me’s $3.5 million budget could give Hunt the ability to deliver a thoughtful cross between romantic comedy and Hallmark melodrama that might just elevate the tastes of moviegoers, or at least attract more intelligent women to the multiplex. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/unclefestering/archive/2008/5/14/29205.aspx Post By: unclefestering
Post To: unclefestering Blog
Post Date: 5/14/2008 10:49:43 PM
Body: Primer isn't a movie that tries to reach the lowest common denominator in terms of audience. It expects you to meet its concepts. And for those that do there is a great payoff. Four engineers in a tiny startup realize that they have built something amazing, but don't quite know what they have. Two of them figure out they have built a time machine and manage to buy out the others. At that point they start going back in time to make money on the stock market, always careful to avoid interfering with themselves or anyone they know. But eventually the temptation to interfere in their own lives becomes too great and the repercussions grow greater and greater. This harkens back to when science fiction movies were about ideas and not just explosions. There is a lot of tech talk, but is easy to follow and actually has meaning, unlike the techobabble in most science fiction movies. It isn't boring, but the deliberate pace of this movie may put some people off if they are expecting and action adventure movie. That pace is important because it gives you a chance to catch up with some of the moral and ethical dilemmas this movie sets up. This is one of those movies that calls for multiple viewings. Each time you can see new implications of the ideas explored in this movie. Although distinct from Pi, this movie has a very similar feel.
]]>Thu, 15 May 2008 02:49:43 GMTunclefesteringunclefestering Blog5/14/2008 10:49:43 PMPrimer isn't a movie that tries to reach the lowest common denominator in terms of audience. It expects you to meet its concepts. And for those that do there is a great payoff. Four engineers in a tiny startup realize that they have built something amazing, but don't quite know what they have. Two of them figure out they have built a time machine and manage to buy out the others. At that point they start going back in time to make money on the stock market, always careful to avoid interfering with themselves or anyone they know. But eventually the temptation to interfere in their own lives becomes too great and the repercussions grow greater and greater. This harkens back to when science fiction movies were about ideas and not just explosions. There is a lot of tech talk, but is easy to follow and actually has meaning, unlike the techobabble in most science fiction movies. It isn't boring, but the deliberate pace of this movie may put some people off if they are expecting and action adventure movie. That pace is important because it gives you a chance to catch up with some of the moral and ethical dilemmas this movie sets up. This is one of those movies that calls for multiple viewings. Each time you can see new implications of the ideas explored in this movie. Although distinct from Pi, this movie has a very similar feel. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_5_Films_That_You_Had_to_Research_Afterwards_in/190/27259/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/13/2008 3:52:20 AM
Body: Something that seems to happen more and more these days are movies in which people see them, leave the theater going "Huh," or "Umm," or "That was interesting," and then go home and spend hours reading up on the motivation behind the film and what exactly the filmmakers were trying to convey with it. I'm torn on this (shouldn't a good film need no explanation?) but acknowledge that I am myself guilty of this.Here we go:1.) Mulholland Drive - Not that I was completely oblivious to most of the films goings-ons (this undoubtedly being what everyone says when justifying their love for it), I was just so in awe of it all that I wanted to find out what the film was born out of (it was originally going to be a television show that never got anywhere so Lynch turned it into a film).2.) The Hours - Having just read Mrs. Dalloway the year before and loving it, I felt inclined to research how much of the film was actually based on Virginia Woolfs life and how much was just exaggerated.3.) Waking Life - Basically self-explanatory, the plethora of philosophical ideas discussed throughout the film was just too much of an overload for my tiny head that I needed some clarity afterwards.4.) I Heart Huckabees - Again, being a novice of existential theories, I needed some explanation.5.) Primer - Mathematics + Physics + Me = Incompatible. Needed to buff up on most of the concepts involved and pay extra special attention the next time I watched it.
]]>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:52:20 GMTmercurialTop 54/13/2008 3:52:20 AMSomething that seems to happen more and more these days are movies in which people see them, leave the theater going "Huh," or "Umm," or "That was interesting," and then go home and spend hours reading up on the motivation behind the film and what exactly the filmmakers were trying to convey with it. I'm torn on this (shouldn't a good film need no explanation?) but acknowledge that I am myself guilty of this.Here we go:1.) Mulholland Drive - Not that I was completely oblivious to most of the films goings-ons (this undoubtedly being what everyone says when justifying their love for it), I was just so in awe of it all that I wanted to find out what the film was born out of (it was originally going to be a television show that never got anywhere so Lynch turned it into a film).2.) The Hours - Having just read Mrs. Dalloway the year before and loving it, I felt inclined to research how much of the film was actually based on Virginia Woolfs life and how much was just exaggerated.3.) Waking Life - Basically self-explanatory, the plethora of philosophical ideas discussed throughout the film was just too much of an overload for my tiny head that I needed some clarity afterwards.4.) I Heart Huckabees - Again, being a novice of existential theories, I needed some explanation.5.) Primer - Mathematics + Physics + Me = Incompatible. Needed to buff up on most of the concepts involved and pay extra special attention the next time I watched it. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_Five_Movies_with_Budgets_under_10_million/190/27230/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/11/2008 9:42:46 PM
Body: I'm not sure what the budget was for these films but I'm sure it was low. I can't really explain why but I was a pretty big fan of the latest two Polish Bros films, Twin Falls Idaho and Northfork. It's wierd because I've never been a big fan of David Lynch and these guys' film are so obviously similar to his work. I loved The Elephant Man, but other than that, I've never really cared too much for his work.Also, just to chime in, I loved Primer and I think it's because I had never seen a time-travel film tackle the obvious conflicts of time-travel before. (exept for possibly Donnie Darko, in a different way.) Such as what happens when your cell phone rings and what do you do with all the extras.
]]>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:42:46 GMTleeroy711Top 54/11/2008 9:42:46 PMI'm not sure what the budget was for these films but I'm sure it was low. I can't really explain why but I was a pretty big fan of the latest two Polish Bros films, Twin Falls Idaho and Northfork. It's wierd because I've never been a big fan of David Lynch and these guys' film are so obviously similar to his work. I loved The Elephant Man, but other than that, I've never really cared too much for his work.Also, just to chime in, I loved Primer and I think it's because I had never seen a time-travel film tackle the obvious conflicts of time-travel before. (exept for possibly Donnie Darko, in a different way.) Such as what happens when your cell phone rings and what do you do with all the extras. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/time/MemberTagFilms.aspxtime
Number of films tagged: 310

Number of people who tagged: 79

Number of times used: 101

]]>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:27:45 GMT31079101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/timetravel/MemberTagFilms.aspxtimetravel
Number of films tagged: 449

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 114

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT44955114Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/travel/MemberTagFilms.aspxtravel
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 91

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:40 GMT465491Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/money/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoney
Number of films tagged: 508

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 145

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:03:25 GMT50846145Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scifi/MemberTagFilms.aspxscifi
Number of films tagged: 56

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 101

]]>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:07:43 GMT5636101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Indie/MemberTagFilms.aspxIndie
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 59

]]>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:22:28 GMT492859Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Sundance/MemberTagFilms.aspxSundance
Number of films tagged: 154

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 161

]]>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:57:41 GMT15424161Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/inventor/MemberTagFilms.aspxinventor
Number of films tagged: 623

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 33

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:41:17 GMT6231733Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Christian/MemberTagFilms.aspxChristian
Number of films tagged: 21

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 25

]]>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:52:28 GMT211525Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/trust/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrust
Number of films tagged: 129

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 23

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:23 GMT1291423Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/indy/MemberTagFilms.aspxindy
Number of films tagged: 4

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 8

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT478Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/discovery/MemberTagFilms.aspxdiscovery
Number of films tagged: 235

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 13

]]>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:03:13 GMT235613Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lowbudget/MemberTagFilms.aspxlowbudget
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 6

]]>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:44:01 GMT656Tag