Are Movies Unwatchable?

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Seneca
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by Seneca » Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:48 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
Seneca wrote:Yesterday I watched "Oblivion" for the second time and I still enjoyed it. Even though it stars Tom Cruise and it enforces the nuke and NASA hoaxes. Even though Alex Jones is promoting it.
There were a few elements that would interest SC readers besides the more obvious mind control elements. Sorry about the following spoilers:
The fake warnings of deadly radiation to restrict people to their respective zones. The aliens use of a simulated model entity to interact with the people.
Was the simulated model entity in some way like a "fake person" that only ever appeared in the media, like the "sims" we talk about here?

Also, what kind of movie would you allow your friends and family to see at this point to help explain the Nuke Hoax and the NA$A hoaxes? Or are you watching this big budget typical fare alone, and/or for your own enjoyment? Isn't there something you feel you can do to help awaken people?

I am not complaining about your post here, merely a question about your strategy for waking people up. Surely it isn't endorsing Hollywooden movies with their terribly unconvincing acting and propaganda elements? :P
My post was meant as a personal answer to the question "are movies unwatchable". For me apparently not and I can (probably) watch a movie like "oblivion" alone for my own entertainment.
I add "probably" because I never watch movies alone, not because they are unwatchable but because there are other things I like more when I am alone. I did indeed watched it with my family, not as pure entertainment but with the idea to help us "wake up" (or "stay awake").
It is about someone that has been brainwashed who is gradually learning to think for himself and discovering that what he is doing in the world is exactly the opposite of what he thinks he is doing.
Was the simulated model entity in some way like a "fake person" that only ever appeared in the media, like the "sims" we talk about here?
Yes, the character named Sally is played by a real actress, Melissa Leo, but in the movie she appears only as a face on a screen. She is for the people involved the only link with "civilization" on the only medium they have.
At the end of the movie we learn that she was alive 70 years ago so the only logical conclusion is that the face on the screen was a digital simulation created by the alien computer from the imagery it intercepted.

It is funny that the actress herself explains her role as follows (off course she isn't allowed to give away the plot) :"there is one human being that those folks can touch base with, that will remind them of their own humanity in a way." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CM7ZiZtRaE. Maybe this is how people in the media want to see themselves.

An interesting fact about the director: "Kosinski, who based the film on the ideas of his unpublished graphic novel, is an expert in 3-D modeling and computer graphics"
Also, what kind of movie would you allow your friends and family to see at this point to help explain the Nuke Hoax and the NA$A hoaxes?
I think every movie that encourages critical thinking or shows how people are manipulated would be helpful. But to really explain it I wouldn't use a movie but prefer to expose them to the original faked imagery like we can find it here on the forum. Like I did with the Nuke hoax (like I explained on http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1716) and the Jewish museum murder hoax (http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1722)
I want to do the same with the NASA hoax and I am looking for a link to the imagery in the NASA archives. For example that laughable video of the launch of some space craft from the moon.
As always sorry about the misspellings, awkward sentences, missing punctuation, etc.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by Seneca » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:50 pm

Another disinfo in the movie "Oblivion" is the idea that a machine can tell if you are lying or not.
At least I think that is disinfo.

ShaneG
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by ShaneG » Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:51 pm

I haven't seen Oblivion so I can't comment on the context regarding machines detecting whether a person is lying or not. Regardless of what that movie is portraying, I will say that pattern recognition has already evolved to the point where computer algorithms can use probability theory in accordance with statistics to compute a mathematical based decision on any given subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition

So I think it's likely that over time, certain theories will continue to evolve and computers will be more equipped to detect a person who is lying through trial and error.

CTGal1011
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:02 pm

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by CTGal1011 » Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:11 pm

Until last night, the last movie I watched was the finale of SAW. The gratuitous violence and gore was actually pretty believable. And no hero? Even better.

Last night, I watched "The Heat" with Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock. Sandy is bullocks. Always made sense to me.
Anyways, the movie, with every police cliche was easy on the brain cells. Naughty renegade cop busting into homes without warrants and pulling their guns out whenever they want? Actually seemed like that was a pretty realistic portrayal of the people bestowed with our "protection". Golf claps all around.
Sometimes the comedies, with their over-acting, pathetic attempts at satire and humour, are actually pretty damn accurate of today's woes. Funny that the populace looks at these movies as totally unrealistic. ;)

That said, the movie WAS unwatchable. But the popcorn needed to be finished, and I had two lazy cats on my lap!

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by lux » Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:20 pm

While I don't endorse the site or even the author, I happen to think this is an excellent article on a particular social engineering product brought to us mainly by Hollywood and especially by Walt Disney Studios. I am speaking of the personification of animals, a seemingly harmless, warm and fuzzy change in attitudes that has appeared in Western culture over the last few decades. It may seem harmless but the underlying implications of this anthropomorphic attitude change are not.

As The Dog Delusion article points out:

“Who’s to say what a pet’s value is (aside from the purchase price)? Shouldn’t people be free to spend whatever they want on things for their dog? What real harm is there in believing one’s schnauzer is a “child who never grows up?” The implications are more ridiculous and far reaching than you might expect. Take the widely held notion that dogs give us unconditional love and nonjudgmental loyalty. Praising dogs for being incapable of acting like bad people is not only junk logic, it turns the animal into an idealized (godlike?) version of ourselves, to be rewarded with all manner of pampering. How can the comparatively complex human being compete with creatures said to exude unwavering faithfulness, forgiveness, trust, love, and innocence? Pets are pegged as more loving, more pure, more giving, more devoted. They are implied to be our moral superiors for not stealing money, starting wars, or judging people by their physical appearance. They accept us for who we are, while we come across as scheming, judgmental malcontents who love on condition only. I have quite a collection of misanthropic utterances from dog lovers, most along the lines of “I’ll take dogs over humans any day,” and “dogs love without having an agenda!” It’s no surprise that many dog lovers would rather be stranded on an island with a dog than with their spouse (or with any other person for that matter). Then there’s the CEO who said he doesn’t trust clients who don’t have pets. How sadly similar to the religious who say they don’t trust nonbelievers.” source

IMO, the end result of all this cutesy Hollywood show biz is that animals are now thought by many in our society to be superior to humans. Or, to look at it another way, humans are now thought to be sub-animal. And, since we are sub-animal then we certainly don't deserve to be treated with any degree of respect or given any rights whatever. Rather a neat way to justify inhuman treatment by governments isn't it?

BTW, I don't hate animals. I have many fond memories of pets over the years and I don't mean to imply there is anything wrong with loving animals. I just think that the manner in which Hollywood portrays a seeming “love of animals” is really just a carefully disguised method of engendering human self-hatred. And, to a large degree it has worked very well in our society.

While Disney is a major source for this propaganda, they are certainly not the only ones pushing it and making cutesy animal flicks is not the only way to get the same idea across.

Back in the early 1960s Alfred Hitchcock shocked us with “The Birds,” a screen tale of animals striking back on the evil humans. Though this film is quite tame by today's standards, it electrified audiences at the time. The “moral” of the film is easy to see in this short clip from the film in which character actress Doreen Lang scolds the film's heroine, played by Tippy Hedren.

I believe the core message of the film lies in the first minute of this clip. The woman stands and speaks directly into the camera – a cinematic device used by Hitchcock that represents a direct communication to the viewer. In this case it is a communication about the viewer as well.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fTXzdHoip8

The woman says:

"Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this? They said when you got here the whole thing started."
"Who are you? What are you? Where did you come from?"
"I think you're the cause of all this. I think you're evil! Evil!!!!!"


We (the human race) are all bad, you see? We are the cause of everything that is anti-nature and now nature is taking its revenge.

This film spawned many others with similar themes of nature getting its revenge on the evil humans and Hollywood continues to pump them out to this day.

I believe that these and may other Hollywood productions all boil down to the same idea: Up with animals, down with humans.

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:02 am

lux wrote:While I don't endorse the site or even the author, I happen to think this is an excellent article on a particular social engineering product brought to us mainly by Hollywood and especially by Walt Disney Studios. I am speaking of the personification of animals, a seemingly harmless, warm and fuzzy change in attitudes that has appeared in Western culture over the last few decades. It may seem harmless but the underlying implications of this anthropomorphic attitude change are not.

As The Dog Delusion article points out:

“Who’s to say what a pet’s value is (aside from the purchase price)? Shouldn’t people be free to spend whatever they want on things for their dog? What real harm is there in believing one’s schnauzer is a “child who never grows up?” The implications are more ridiculous and far reaching than you might expect. Take the widely held notion that dogs give us unconditional love and nonjudgmental loyalty. Praising dogs for being incapable of acting like bad people is not only junk logic, it turns the animal into an idealized (godlike?) version of ourselves, to be rewarded with all manner of pampering. How can the comparatively complex human being compete with creatures said to exude unwavering faithfulness, forgiveness, trust, love, and innocence? Pets are pegged as more loving, more pure, more giving, more devoted. They are implied to be our moral superiors for not stealing money, starting wars, or judging people by their physical appearance. They accept us for who we are, while we come across as scheming, judgmental malcontents who love on condition only. I have quite a collection of misanthropic utterances from dog lovers, most along the lines of “I’ll take dogs over humans any day,” and “dogs love without having an agenda!” It’s no surprise that many dog lovers would rather be stranded on an island with a dog than with their spouse (or with any other person for that matter). Then there’s the CEO who said he doesn’t trust clients who don’t have pets. How sadly similar to the religious who say they don’t trust nonbelievers.” source

IMO, the end result of all this cutesy Hollywood show biz is that animals are now thought by many in our society to be superior to humans. Or, to look at it another way, humans are now thought to be sub-animal. And, since we are sub-animal then we certainly don't deserve to be treated with any degree of respect or given any rights whatever. Rather a neat way to justify inhuman treatment by governments isn't it?

BTW, I don't hate animals. I have many fond memories of pets over the years and I don't mean to imply there is anything wrong with loving animals. I just think that the manner in which Hollywood portrays a seeming “love of animals” is really just a carefully disguised method of engendering human self-hatred. And, to a large degree it has worked very well in our society.

While Disney is a major source for this propaganda, they are certainly not the only ones pushing it and making cutesy animal flicks is not the only way to get the same idea across.

Back in the early 1960s Alfred Hitchcock shocked us with “The Birds,” a screen tale of animals striking back on the evil humans. Though this film is quite tame by today's standards, it electrified audiences at the time. The “moral” of the film is easy to see in this short clip from the film in which character actress Doreen Lang scolds the film's heroine, played by Tippy Hedren.

I believe the core message of the film lies in the first minute of this clip. The woman stands and speaks directly into the camera – a cinematic device used by Hitchcock that represents a direct communication to the viewer. In this case it is a communication about the viewer as well.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fTXzdHoip8

The woman says:

"Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this? They said when you got here the whole thing started."
"Who are you? What are you? Where did you come from?"
"I think you're the cause of all this. I think you're evil! Evil!!!!!"


We (the human race) are all bad, you see? We are the cause of everything that is anti-nature and now nature is taking its revenge.

This film spawned many others with similar themes of nature getting its revenge on the evil humans and Hollywood continues to pump them out to this day.

I believe that these and may other Hollywood productions all boil down to the same idea: Up with animals, down with humans.
Maybe you are onto something Lux. Being a dog lover myself I can't force myself to detest this particular Hollywood's agenda :)

FYI:

"Now when I got to know people, I prefer dogs" - Adolf Hitler ( allegedly) . What can I say Lux? Guy was spot on the money with this one.

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:02 am

lux wrote:While I don't endorse the site or even the author, I happen to think this is an excellent article on a particular social engineering product brought to us mainly by Hollywood and especially by Walt Disney Studios. I am speaking of the personification of animals, a seemingly harmless, warm and fuzzy change in attitudes that has appeared in Western culture over the last few decades. It may seem harmless but the underlying implications of this anthropomorphic attitude change are not.

As The Dog Delusion article points out:

“Who’s to say what a pet’s value is (aside from the purchase price)? Shouldn’t people be free to spend whatever they want on things for their dog? What real harm is there in believing one’s schnauzer is a “child who never grows up?” The implications are more ridiculous and far reaching than you might expect. Take the widely held notion that dogs give us unconditional love and nonjudgmental loyalty. Praising dogs for being incapable of acting like bad people is not only junk logic, it turns the animal into an idealized (godlike?) version of ourselves, to be rewarded with all manner of pampering. How can the comparatively complex human being compete with creatures said to exude unwavering faithfulness, forgiveness, trust, love, and innocence? Pets are pegged as more loving, more pure, more giving, more devoted. They are implied to be our moral superiors for not stealing money, starting wars, or judging people by their physical appearance. They accept us for who we are, while we come across as scheming, judgmental malcontents who love on condition only. I have quite a collection of misanthropic utterances from dog lovers, most along the lines of “I’ll take dogs over humans any day,” and “dogs love without having an agenda!” It’s no surprise that many dog lovers would rather be stranded on an island with a dog than with their spouse (or with any other person for that matter). Then there’s the CEO who said he doesn’t trust clients who don’t have pets. How sadly similar to the religious who say they don’t trust nonbelievers.” source

IMO, the end result of all this cutesy Hollywood show biz is that animals are now thought by many in our society to be superior to humans. Or, to look at it another way, humans are now thought to be sub-animal. And, since we are sub-animal then we certainly don't deserve to be treated with any degree of respect or given any rights whatever. Rather a neat way to justify inhuman treatment by governments isn't it?

BTW, I don't hate animals. I have many fond memories of pets over the years and I don't mean to imply there is anything wrong with loving animals. I just think that the manner in which Hollywood portrays a seeming “love of animals” is really just a carefully disguised method of engendering human self-hatred. And, to a large degree it has worked very well in our society.

While Disney is a major source for this propaganda, they are certainly not the only ones pushing it and making cutesy animal flicks is not the only way to get the same idea across.

Back in the early 1960s Alfred Hitchcock shocked us with “The Birds,” a screen tale of animals striking back on the evil humans. Though this film is quite tame by today's standards, it electrified audiences at the time. The “moral” of the film is easy to see in this short clip from the film in which character actress Doreen Lang scolds the film's heroine, played by Tippy Hedren.

I believe the core message of the film lies in the first minute of this clip. The woman stands and speaks directly into the camera – a cinematic device used by Hitchcock that represents a direct communication to the viewer. In this case it is a communication about the viewer as well.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fTXzdHoip8

The woman says:

"Why are they doing this? Why are they doing this? They said when you got here the whole thing started."
"Who are you? What are you? Where did you come from?"
"I think you're the cause of all this. I think you're evil! Evil!!!!!"


We (the human race) are all bad, you see? We are the cause of everything that is anti-nature and now nature is taking its revenge.

This film spawned many others with similar themes of nature getting its revenge on the evil humans and Hollywood continues to pump them out to this day.

I believe that these and may other Hollywood productions all boil down to the same idea: Up with animals, down with humans.
Maybe you are onto something Lux. Being a dog lover myself I can't force myself to detest this particular Hollywood's agenda :)

FYI:

"Now when I got to know people, I prefer dogs" - Adolf Hitler ( allegedly) . What can I say Lux? Guy was spot on the money with this one.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by lux » Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:09 pm

I like dogs too (friendly ones) and animals in general. I think it's a fine quality to like or admire animals.

Perhaps my age gives me a different perspective but I remember when animals were merely liked and now they are treated by many as higher lifeforms.

Humanized animals are everywhere these days in the products of Hollywood. Thanks to Disney and others the population has been programmed from childhood to think of animals as equals or superiors. For decades children have been “educated” by TV shows like Sesame Street and many others, where their teachers are animal characters. To a child, if you're being taught by an animal doesn't that mean that animals are smarter than you are? And, nearly every children's movie or TV show has animals who talk or otherwise behave like (or better than) humans.

As they grow up I imagine many children today are surprised to learn that real chipmunks can't sing, dogs can't talk and cats can't dance.

Those few who do learn it, I mean. :)

MrSinclair
Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:29 am

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by MrSinclair » Sat Aug 09, 2014 1:59 am

I like dogs too and yet I've seen the standards and conventions of pet ownership change over the years. Going back a number of years, dog owners in my town, including my family, would never let the animals bark incessantly and disturb the neighborhood. Nobody did it.
Now things have changed, seemingly educated people think nothing of leaving their animals out to bark and disturb the neighbors. As I see it the "my dog is my child" meme has joined with the "my child can do no wrong" meme to create the "my dog is my child and can do no wrong" meme.
It is clear that mistreatment of animals will ignite the public ire far quicker than mistreatment of humans.
It seems likely this exalting of animal life and wisdom is all being intentionally directed but more for the purpose of cheapening and weakening the human experience than for any love of the animal world.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:34 am

I find pets to be an organic extension of their owners' most bestial nature.

This choice seems like something people use as a way of coping with their psychosis in a socially accepted way, rather than — for instance — inciting a big bloody revolution against the real problem. Hollywood propaganda would inherently have an interest in this re-direction of people's social frustration. But then again, wouldn't we also?

edgewaters
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:49 am

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by edgewaters » Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:31 am

MrSinclair wrote:I like dogs too and yet I've seen the standards and conventions of pet ownership change over the years. Going back a number of years, dog owners in my town, including my family, would never let the animals bark incessantly and disturb the neighborhood. Nobody did it.
Now things have changed, seemingly educated people think nothing of leaving their animals out to bark and disturb the neighbors. As I see it the "my dog is my child" meme has joined with the "my child can do no wrong" meme to create the "my dog is my child and can do no wrong" meme.
It is clear that mistreatment of animals will ignite the public ire far quicker than mistreatment of humans.
It seems likely this exalting of animal life and wisdom is all being intentionally directed but more for the purpose of cheapening and weakening the human experience than for any love of the animal world.
I don't know ... the human experience is already pretty cheap and weak at this point in history. My parents had a dog at the time I was born, that I grew up with. When I got a bit older, about eight or so, on the weekends the dog and I would head out into the bush after lunch, and come back just before dark. The dog hunted, catching rabbits and groundhogs and things like that, and I would follow and watch. It never inclined me to kill but it was the most genuine and least fake experience I've ever had in my life ... a more true sort of parenting than the comfortable illusions spun by parents and televisions and books. It showed me the real world ... the real process of acquiring food without the sanitary filters to keep you from having to acknowledge the truth of it, that death and suffering is the cost of life every day ... I saw real survival, suffering, triumph, despair, death, victory ... and all conveyed wordlessly. A wee bit more compelling than the Saturday morning cartoons my friends loved, which I always missed in favour of these jaunts ... I am convinced theirs was the cheaper experience.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by lux » Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:20 am

Image

Recognize this dog?

Take a moment to look at the photo. Do you see any special qualities in this dog or is it just an ordinary dog looking at the camera?

Have a good look at the photo. What's your take on this dog?


Now, what if I were to tell you this dog was a great hero? That this dog helped rescue people in a dire circumstance? That this dog risked life and limb to help suffering humans in a horrific catastrophe.

Now, look at the dog photo again. Do you see something you didn't see before in this dog? A certain quality? A certain grandness or nobility perhaps? Does this dog now look heroic to you?


OK, what am I on about?

Well, you can read about this and other similar dogs here.

Take a moment to read the emotional comments below the article.

BTW, I appreciate all your thoughts and comments on this topic and I don't disagree with anything posted above. I just want to illustrate how easily human emotions can be manipulated when it comes to animals simply by providing certain information, even completely false information.

As you now know the dog pictured above is ... well, just a dog. No different than millions of other dogs. But, our minds can cause us to see things that aren't really there and to have an emotional response to those "things" simply by being given information regardless of the falsity of that information.


OK, on another note (and this is only intended as an amusing observation) ...

A comment I often hear about dogs from their owners is, "He's a really good watchdog."

And, when I inquire into this statement I usually find out that the dog basically barks at anything that moves, at anyone who passes by, at any person or animal or thing that approaches the owner's home or property, etc. That would, of course, include friends, family, the postman, the plumber, neighbors, children, etc. This, the owner proudly feels, makes the animal "a good watchdog."

Now, I could inquire further as to the owner's statistics on how many burglars and prowlers the dog has successfully fended off but I'm pretty sure I already know that the owner would have difficulty answering that question.

But, anyway, my point is: If you were to have, say, a loud burglar alarm that went off every time anyone approached or passed by your home regardless of their intentions would you consider this to be "a good burglar alarm"? Or, would it be more of a useless nuisance that no one in their right mind would even consider having?

:)

Cobra Commander
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:45 am

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by Cobra Commander » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:02 am

Speaking of the movie Oblivion, I felt like there was some Flight MH17 foreshadowing in this film. I watched it again after the MH17 hoax, and saw a few things that reminded of MH17. There's a part where the vessel that contains his girlfriend that he saves crashes into sector 17. The explosion from the vessel crash looked very similar to the small mushroom cloud from MH17. Another part, if I recall correctly, he is flying with the girlfriend from the crashed vessel, and he is not supposed to fly into the radiation zone, but he does anyway (like MH17 flying over a no-fly zone), and I don't remember if he crashes. What also happens after this is he runs into his clone. Maybe symbolizing MH17 and it's clone, MH370. I'm not big into this number shit, but I'll point out here that his clone is number 52 (5+2=7).

Spoiler alert* At the end, the main clone Tom Cruise dies, but the clone Tom Cruise 52 is brought to the girlfriend at his little hideaway. Now, if MH370 resurfaces intact in the future, then I will definitely know this was foreshadowing these events.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7017
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by simonshack » Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:39 pm

*
Are movies unwatchable?

Hey, perhaps not ALL of them ! :lol:

Image

(hat tip goes to our forum member Kansas In November)

Cobra Commander
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 5:45 am

Re: Are Movies Unwatchable?

Unread post by Cobra Commander » Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:43 pm

simonshack wrote:*
Are movies unwatchable?

Hey, perhaps not ALL of them ! :lol:

Image

(hat tip goes to our forum member Kansas In November)
Is that a real sign or is it photoshop?

That reminds of a time my friend and I saw one of those signs that said "PUTT PUTT IS OPENED", so we decided we wanted to play putt putt, but they were closed! So I took that sign and threw away the "N" and moved the "D" in front of the "OPE". My masterpiece read "PUTT PUTT IS DOPE". B)

Speaking of that number 52 I saw in Oblivion, I'm starting to see that number all over the place in movies. I saw it in Kick-Ass 2 last night. I wonder what the trend in using 52 in new movies is about???

Post Reply