Hey guys,
We're the filmmaking team behind CIRCLE and figured we'd start a thread to chat with people who had seen the movie and wanted to share theories or ask questions. Assume this will have spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film yet, read at your own risk!
Thanks,
Team Circle
Hey guys!
Loved the movie however the ending bugged me so much because the poor kid sacrificed herself for a complete scumbag!! I thought the whole thing was a trick and they weren't really dead, they were just knocked out, and the aliens were trying to see who was greedy and selfish.
It would also be cool if there was a follow up movie where we find out what happens to the survivors or what the aliens motives were. Maybe they have to play the circle again?
The movie reminded me of cube/human race/hunger games. Good job :)
hey guys loved the movie just one comment on the film
Personally I found the ending in regard to killing off the pregnant woman only to have the child still be alive a bit anti-climactic. The second Eric kills off the pregnant woman and the child the film already told me he was willing to do whatever it took to survive so having him kill an unborn child that had no concept of the game pretty much already told me he would have no issue killing that child as well.
What I would have thought would have been a cooler take on this idea is that at the early point in the film when the vote was split between the girl and the pregnant woman, have the Pregnant woman be killed but have her land on an empty space. Then have the movie play out the same sort of way down to the final 3 (eric, unborn baby, kid) and at this point one of them willingly goes only for the other person to go against their word and kill the unborn kid)
Personally I would have liked to see Eric appear to be good right to the last moment when the kid decides to trust that after Eric votes her off that Eric will step off willingly only for him to go against his word and kill the unborn baby. then you see the flashback of him manipulating the game to his end.
All in all loved the movie just thought if the pregnant woman was killed and the unborn kid was put in play earlier it would have made the divide to save the most innocent more compelling as the collective would think they failed in not protecting the pregnant woman in the first place and this was their chance to do the right thing by trying to save the most innocent of them all.
What I would have thought would have been a cooler take on this idea is that at the early point in the film when the vote was split between the girl and the pregnant woman, have the Pregnant woman be killed but have her land on an empty space. Then have the movie play out the same sort of way down to the final 3 (eric, unborn baby, kid) and at this point one of them willingly goes only for the other person to go against their word and kill the unborn kid)Wow. share
Personally I would have liked to see Eric appear to be good right to the last moment when the kid decides to trust that after Eric votes her off that Eric will step off willingly only for him to go against his word and kill the unborn baby. then you see the flashback of him manipulating the game to his end.
Thank you! We're big fans of endings that make the viewer uncomfortable or emotional, so for us having the scumbag win was the way to go!
We don't know what the future holds for this universe, but you never know!
Thanks again!
-Mario
I really enjoyed the film, and it's awesome that you guys are willing to respond to questions. I just read the full topic. So for my questions:
1) We saw that the baby registered on a different circle when it landed there. Would it have been possible for any other participant to jump to a vacant circle as long as they didn't touch the ground between?
2) If #1 is possible, would it have been possible to get 2+ survivors out by having them share one space? The spaces look like they'd be able to fit two people if they used the space appropriately. So would it have been possible for the little girl to jump on Eric's back, and Eric & the pregnant woman cram onto one space to save all three of them? We already know the system is ok with multiple life signs on one space (pregnant winners), so would this work?
Thank you!
Good questions. I think it's safe to say people jumping between empty spaces would be killed.
The machine actually warns against crossing into the vertical space above another circle/touching another player. This is something that's demonstrated in practice when the scared man tries to push the two girls off their spots during a tie. He's killed before he can even touch them, just by entering their personal space.
In theory, jumping into empty spaces doesn't have that problem, because there's no player but I think this is a game whose creators have considered many different ways of cheating and built in fail-safes against it. If we had this scenario in the movie, I think the players would have found that if the machine senses life leaving a circle, it kills that player, because jumping suggests cheating/exploitation. It's not even clear that jumping in place is allowed, no one in our circle dared to try it! Teenage girl says don't take your feet off the floor and everyone follows suit.
I also wonder what the point of jumping circles would be, because you can't outrun a blast if the machine decides it's your turn. So I think it's safe to say that if someone living tried to jump spaces, it would kill them.
This brings me to the pregnant girl. What happened with her is that the machine thought it killed her, and it did. It fired and considered that circle eliminated and is resetting. The blast did NOT kill her baby (it is unclear if this is a fluke or if the blast is just not designed for pregnant women) so when her body slid onto another space, suddenly it's as though there are two players left again. The machine doesn't keep track of who should and should not be there, or who is worthy of living. It doesn't think "wait, that's not right." It's not aware or sentient.
It only logs which spaces are "on" and "off", and even if it did register an error, I don't think it can just shoot indiscriminately. It's designed to be an arm of the players and its creators. The creators specifically designed it so that it followed a strict set of rules to allow the HUMANS to make the decisions. So it just continues working as it has for the past 48 rounds and starts counting down. It's a glitch. An exploit the creators hadn't accounted for.
IF jumping spaces was possible, though, I don't think two people could survive by sharing a space. There's virtually no way two people could stay on a single spot without touching, and as soon as someone jumped into an occupied space, they'd be blasted, probably knocking out the other inhabitant out of the circle in the process!
Thanks!
Mario
Hi Circle team and thanks for an awesome unexpected movie i stumbled upon on Netflix. I have a couple of questions if you are still answering :)
1. It's been established that Eric was playing the long game, and that the old man who started to describe his abduction before being voted off was actually telling the truth (i think! this is a long thread so i might be wrong with old man). But assuming these are both correct, when the old man looks at Eric to confirm that he saw him - Wouldn't this mean that this is the other person that Eric mentions he saw? Wouldn't it have been valuable to Eric also to have 2 people that both remember their abductions? Though if Eric was playing the long game that early, i can see how having someone else of value would actually not be in Eric's best interests.
2. When they decide to start talking about themselves, and the woman who starts a monologue about her life and is then zapped straight away - Is this meant to be intentionally funny? I'm not sure, but i did laugh out loud (bad me). Straight away it felt like being on an excruciating blind date, and then she starts talking about her cats (good god let this date end), then BANG. Not sure if this was intentional humour or not, but thanks for the giggle!
3. I understand the budget was very low, and the only real "name" was Julie Benz (great work by her and adorable as always). But how did you acquire her on such a small budget. Most of the speaking actors have comparitvely starring roles per se except for Eric who is the real lead and are all pretty much "unknowns". But Julie is quite well known and I assume her appearance must've cut into the budget more than the other actors? Was she a luxury casting or did she just really like the script? Plus, with having Julie Benz on board, were you ever tempted to fatten up her role to help reach a wider audience with her name?
4. Are there any nuances hidden in the background that movie buffs like me enjoy spotting? On the second watch, i tried to spot a hint of a secret conversation between fake husband and wife but i couldn't. I'd like to watch it again if there is!
I'm a recent fan of this movie and have listened to the commentary by Mario and Michael (the actor who played Eric), and might be able to answer a few of tinasparklesau's questions:
1. It's been established that Eric was playing the long game, and that the old man who started to describe his abduction before being voted off was actually telling the truth (i think! this is a long thread so i might be wrong with old man). But assuming these are both correct, when the old man looks at Eric to confirm that he saw him - Wouldn't this mean that this is the other person that Eric mentions he saw? Wouldn't it have been valuable to Eric also to have 2 people that both remember their abductions? Though if Eric was playing the long game that early, i can see how having someone else of value would actually not be in Eric's best interests.
2. When they decide to start talking about themselves, and the woman who starts a monologue about her life and is then zapped straight away - Is this meant to be intentionally funny? I'm not sure, but i did laugh out loud (bad me). Straight away it felt like being on an excruciating blind date, and then she starts talking about her cats (good god let this date end), then BANG. Not sure if this was intentional humour or not, but thanks for the giggle!
3. I understand the budget was very low, and the only real "name" was Julie Benz (great work by her and adorable as always). But how did you acquire her on such a small budget. Most of the speaking actors have comparitvely starring roles per se except for Eric who is the real lead and are all pretty much "unknowns". But Julie is quite well known and I assume her appearance must've cut into the budget more than the other actors? Was she a luxury casting or did she just really like the script? Plus, with having Julie Benz on board, were you ever tempted to fatten up her role to help reach a wider audience with her name?
4. Are there any nuances hidden in the background that movie buffs like me enjoy spotting? On the second watch, i tried to spot a hint of a secret conversation between fake husband and wife but i couldn't. I'd like to watch it again if there is!
The movie was just released on Netflix France.
Quite interresting and opens up many debates. Very nice of you to share your views here.
I only disagree on one point. The Aliens are the killers.
The humans didn't stand a chance. Maybe the last one will be set free, but they aren't sure about that. There is no option to save everyone.
Aliens had designed a machine that kills 49 or 50 people (hadn't have the time to really think if any other option was possible, but likely not).
After it's a matter of survival. (Maybe the most innocent man was the one
Who never voted). Like trapped under a rain of fire, or surrounded by lions, it's survival with a machine that they try to understand. They are not killers, Aliens are.
Just like on Saw, some people were kidnapped, put together in a deadly game and they tried to survive. You wouldn't say that these people on Saw were killers because of what they did to survive. Brave or coward you could say. The cold blooder murderer was the one outside the cage, whose twisted mind invented the deadly traps, machines.
At least from what I remember, in Saw, there was one way to save everyone. Here no, at least 49 deaths each time. No way out.
I'd love to know the budget of this film and as many of the technical aspects of the production (cameras used, number of cameras, editing/fx software, location, etc.) thanks in advance!
shareI liked the psychology of the movie. At one point the student said she's studying philosophy and I figured that was sort of a hint to what's the point of the movie itself. Psychology.
However, I'm not sure if I liked the ending. I couldn't help, but to think how are you going to end this movie? What's going to happen? And I was constantly hoping it wouldn't be some easy decision. Unfortunately, if it was what it seemed like, the ending felt too lazy. Felt like all the build up was for nothing.
I get that the movie wasn't necessarily about the ending and the build up was good, interesting stuff to see. However, I do believe, if you wanted to make us feel like it was rather about the psychology than the story, then some other type of ending would've been better.
Ending is always very important, regardless of what's going on in the movie.
Question: are you going to make a real film next time?
shareAt the end, the pregnant woman's unborn baby triggers a circle, and that causes a tie between the unborn baby and Eric. Here's the thing I don't understand. During one of the rounds, no one voted and a random person was eliminated. I find it difficult to believe that the unborn baby was able to vote for Eric, and Eric didn't vote for anyone during that actual final round. So, wouldn't the machine eliminate a random person, either Eric or the unborn child?
shareThere's a shot of Eric reaching out to vote for the unborn baby, but it cuts before you can see what happened. I think the shot is meant to imply that Eric did vote for the unborn baby, but to also that there's a chance that he changed his mind (feeling guilty about betraying the girl and the mother), did not vote, and let the machine choose randomly (and, randomly, winning). Just watched the movie a second time, it's my favorite film so far this year.
"I am trapped in this body and can't get out" - Radiohead
have to be honest. never thought this looked interesting but i will be watching this tonight.
The fact that youre answering the viewers on the board speaks volumes about the company, and thats definitely a good thing, great way to involve your viewers, good job there.
And some of the spoilers i have read (primarily from you guys haha!!) have made me want to watch this to the point im at work on this message board talking about how im gonna rush home after work and watch it.
:)
I'm glad that I've had some role in encouraging you to watch it, as I hugely enjoyed it! Hope too much wasn't spoiled for you.
You should know, though, that while the filmmakers have been answering many questions on this thread, I am not one of them - I'm just a viewer who liked the movie!
"I am trapped in this body and can't get out" - Radiohead
I find it difficult to believe that the unborn baby was able to vote for Eric
Hello Circle team! First let me say thank you for the great movie and taking the time to answer the questions we have regarding the movie.
When I first saw the ending the quick cuts had a focus on the children and pregnant woman from all the groups. So I thought at first "oh most of the other groups were full of good people that saved the kid/pregnant woman of their group."
However, I went back and paused that scene. I saw that out of 14 people only 6 were children or pregnant. Out of the other 8 there were 6 adults and 2 young teenage girls (not pregnant). If we count our antagonist then that's 9 groups that did not save their pregnant woman or kid.
So my question is:
1. Was the ending alluding to the fact that most groups were comprised of enough evil people so they killed off the kid/ pregnant woman of their groups?
Hello. I liked the movies and i understand the ending with other survivors and half kids and pregnant women.
But why Ithere a flashback where he repeats again there is only one survivor and why he look the long haired man in the eyes ? It looks like there is something important i dont get.
thanks