Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> OK. So they're planning an invasion of the past?

No, you can only go back to the point where you start the time machine. Secondly, its Aaron, so its probably his private corporation running the new machine. Aaron is the one who is manipulating the stock market and in it for the profit.

Its the "success" story for Aaron, he rebuilds a bigger time machine, but with the power of a corporation / large money backing him now (probably funded from repeatedly winning in the stock market). Aaron cannot stop the original experiment or otherwise travel to the past, but he can make money in the future.

------

There are roughly 3 machines you need to be aware of.

1. Machine #1 is what the movie is mostly about.

2. Partway through the movie, Machine#2 (failsafe) is revealed. The main character turned on the failsafe simultaneously with Machine #1, so if the time-travel got too confusing, he could always go back to the beginning and turn off Machine #1, cancelling the entire experiment.

3. The other main character, reset Machine #2. Instead of sending you back to the beginning, it now sends you to Day2 or so, preventing the change of the early days.

4. The conclusion, where Machine #3 is revealed. There was no leadup to machine#3, its just a bit of closure for the greedy Aaron.

-------

The movie goes off the rails and really stops making sense. I've put a lot of effort into trying to understand what they were going for... and ultimately came to the conclusion that Stein;s Gate is just a better thought out time travel plot.

I give Primer credit for being a relatively consistent time-travel movie with more thought put into it than the average time-travel timeline. But the ending is still in the "audience's hands", and still leaves ambiguity for the audience to figure out on their own.

A lot of actions in the middle of the movie don't seem to have any relevance to other events. The father (Thomas Granger) randomly coming in through the time machine but unconscious for example. While it is clear that Thomas Granger is from "some future timeline", such an interpretation naturally conflicts with the Primer theory thus far (which has no "multiple timeline", everything should be consistent)

There is also an Aaron clone running around, but it isn't really clear from what time the time-clone is from.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: