Re: Anybody figure out PRIMER ?



Jay@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Lewis Mammel <l.mammel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >Anyway, it works very well in the movie. Except you know, for the
> >idea of the "paradoxes". The box is turned on and just sits there,
> >then they get in, go back in time, and just bust out, like a kid
> >busting out of an old refrigerator carton. Wouldn't this disrupt
> >the original timeline that the continuously functioning box is
> >supposed to establish ? Again, I think the fragmentary editing
> >style glosses over this kind of issue.
>
> Just changing the past doesn't create a paradox.

I'm saying the functioning of the machine is paradoxical.
Suppose they set up the box, waited, got in, went back in
time, and then wrecked the box. Then the box wouldn't be
there for them to get into in the future - a paradox.

But I'm saying that busting out of it the way they do is
tantamount to wrecking it. When they're in the box going
back in time, just before they are about to get out they
would encounter the disruption of the box having just been
opened. They are never even shown closing it back up,
are they? This would merely highlight the conflict.

The genius of the movie is that it embraces this and the other
paradoxes instead of trying to avoid them, and the fragmentary
narrative style lets him get away with it.

Lew Mammel, Jr.
.

Loading