About the movie "S1m0ne"

[nonhocapito]

The movie S1m0ne (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258153/) was briefly previously discussed on this thread. But I thought I should share a couple of things I noticed about it.

Synopsis: Based as it is on the idea that the whole world can be conned by a digital simulation and by sim-people, plus the fact that it came out just around the time of 9/11, the movie is yet another commentary on the ability of Hollywood & the media to forge artificial reality, just like "Wag the dog". Sorry for summarizing the obvious.

In any case, I was skipping through it (I don't intend to waste two hours of my life to watch it) and I happened to stumble on this scene:



transcript "look, even her name is fake! It's not Simone. It's "sim" "one", see? "Simulation" "One".

I find it remarkable how Pacino says these words looking directly at the camera, rather than interacting with the other actors (no the scene does not justify it). As in a classical Hollywood cliché, the good guy here is trying to warn the world, except the "authority" (the guy in a gray suit, just like in "the matrix") is there to prevent this from happening.

(You will say this is a bit stretched but, although you can't see it in the gif above, I can't help but notice how the pieces of films hanging from that wire next to Pacino seem to be accidentally composing "IX" and "11")



How the movie ends? The simulated girl is made to come back announcing her decision to enter politics. Happy ending.

[lux]

He also tears the photo into 2 side-by-side, narrow vertical shapes and holds them up. Hint, hint.



Having done darkroom work myself, there are a number of "mistakes" in this scene. The way the film is hung is a bit unreal. You don't hang film to dry so that it touches anything, especially other film. Wet film in contact with another surface will likely stick together when it dries, ruining the images in the contact area. There's also some film hanging in contact with magazines? No way.

And, with 35mm film (as depicted) hung like that you would have to attach small weights to the bottom of the film strips, otherwise they would curl up.I also don't get what the blue light is for. Darkroom safelights are amber or red and you don't need to dry film with a safelight anyway because processed film is not light sensitive. I suppose these are minor points but it's still odd as darkroom environments are usually shown correctly in films.

S1mone was released in August 2002. Typically major Hollywood films are shot the year prior to release but, in some cases, two or more years prior.

[HonestlyNow]

He also tears the photo into 2 side-by-side, narrow vertical shapes and holds them up. Hint, hint.

the film strips forming "IX 11" = yes!
+ clipped to the wire = 9/11 film clips on the commercial newswire

ripped apart = blown up, torn to pieces

create two portraits out of same original image

hanging magazine covers = name/picture/info fliers hung covering the city

Anything else?

[lux]

The blue light may be a visual cue for the blue sky background seen in so many 9/11 photos:



Also the word "HOT" is visible on the magazine.

[simonshack]

*

Augghhh!

I'll never be able to utter my name again - without thinking it sounds like "keep simulating" (Sim on)....*Sob!*

(In Norwegian/Swedish, my name is phonetically pronounced "Seemon")

[nonhocapito]

*

Augghhh!

I'll never be able to utter my name again - without thinking it sounds like "keep simulating" (Sim on)....*Sob!*

(In Norwegian/Swedish, my name is phonetically pronounced "Seemon")

[Maat]

S1mone was released in August 2002. Typically major Hollywood films are shot the year prior to release but, in some cases, two or more years prior.

True, and the scripts of some reportedly written years before even making it to film as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S1m0ne :

Production
The film's producers considered using an actual computer-generated character to play the part of Simone, but eventually decided to use a live actress in the role and make her look slightly less realistic in post-production. Pre-release publicity issued to news media actually did suggest that a completely computer-generated actress would be used. Rachel Roberts, the Canadian fashion model who played the role, was not initially credited in the film: she worked under the pseudonym "Anna Green" during production, and in the theatrical release "Simone" was credited as "herself". Her credit was added for the home video release.[citation needed]

Most of the names in the film are chosen for their link with computers. The title itself is shown to be a contraction of simulation number one, and it includes both numbers of the binary number system. Other characters in the film are named after computer companies: Corel, Claris, Dell, Hewlett, Mac and Lotus. Simone's co-star (Jay Mohr) is named Hal Sinclair, after the computer HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey and Sir Clive Sinclair, the inventor of several early commercial computers. Viktor Taransky is named after the Victor 9000. Simone is shown, near the end, to have a son named Chip (named after memory-expansion chips used in many computers for years) as she is described as contemplating a change of career to politics.

Interesting that Andrew Niccol, the New Zealand writer-director of S1m0ne, who wrote & directed Gattaca, In Time, and Lord of War — also wrote and co-produced The Truman Show.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh but Seemon dahling, we know you are not a 'simulation'!

[I_am_onlive]

*

Augghhh!

I'll never be able to utter my name again - without thinking it sounds like "keep simulating" (Sim on)....*Sob!*

(In Norwegian/Swedish, my name is phonetically pronounced "Seemon")

Simon Shack I have another video for you to examine. It this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVoU0f9g ... re=related. This was the one where I thought the 2nd plane was real until I saw something disturbing, Just when the plane went past the 1st Tower it's tail was showing unrealistic behaviour. It's animation without a doubt because as it goes past the 1st tower it's tail first stops at the corner of the 2nd tower and disappears in a flash. Check it out and tell me what you think. P.S. you are perhaps the only person to have ever convinced me about the 9/11 fakery than any other source ever. THANK YOU

[simonshack]

Simon Shack I have another video for you to examine. P.S. you are perhaps the only person to have ever convinced me about the 9/11 fakery than any other source ever. THANK YOU

You are welcome
http://septemberclues.org/wtc_airplanes.htm

[Equinox]

*

Augghhh!

I'll never be able to utter my name again - without thinking it sounds like "keep simulating" (Sim on)....*Sob!*

(In Norwegian/Swedish, my name is phonetically pronounced "Seemon")

Hey mate there is a video out there, called VicSim...on. Where they have a the pics of you and compare them to your other pics. And in a manner to imitate you they in comedy style of imitating you they go on to try n say that you are a Vicsim... VicSim...on With using yellow pointy Arrows and saying stuff like " All the perps have done in this pic is give him some extra side burns".

It was a piss take , but to be honest I thought it was funny. All in good jest. I cant seem to find it. Havnt seen it on youtube L8tley

*

Augghhh!

I'll never be able to utter my name again - without thinking it sounds like "keep simulating" (Sim on)....*Sob!*

(In Norwegian/Swedish, my name is phonetically pronounced "Seemon")

Simon Shack I have another video for you to examine. It this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVoU0f9g ... re=related. This was the one where I thought the 2nd plane was real until I saw something disturbing, Just when the plane went past the 1st Tower it's tail was showing unrealistic behaviour. It's animation without a doubt because as it goes past the 1st tower it's tail first stops at the corner of the 2nd tower and disappears in a flash. Check it out and tell me what you think. P.S. you are perhaps the only person to have ever convinced me about the 9/11 fakery than any other source ever. THANK YOU

Hello and welcome to the forum,


The shot you are talking about is owned by CNN it is alleged to have been shot by a Michael Hezarkhani. Who then supposedly gave it too CNN.. Lol is this Michael Hezz guy even real ? doubt it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_iKnwZ2Fq4


From 3.33 on this video you can learn some findings on this video.





-----------1-------------------------------2-----------------------------------3---------
(NOTE: Now, if the discrepancy between 1 and 2 (355ft versus 279) could be explained away with video aspect-ratio issues or/and vantage point perspectives, the discrepancy between 1 and 3 (355ft versus 520ft) is only explainable as a monstrous cock up on the part of the 9/11 goons.)



NO entry hole!!

Source- Jennifer Spell
Almost the entire Fuselage, wings, and engines. Have pierced the nth tower, yet not a single sign of an entry hole!



Cartoon physics right?





Source- Michael Hezarkhani (CNN)
(In between the fuselage and left engine the plane has pierced the building yet has not yet made the hole.
This is of course is representative of a pixel crash.)

Look no hole.. The plane has entered the WTC...and the fuselage has not made any hole!

Source- Luc Courchesne

The World Trade Centre is supposed to have an even 59 columns on the side… why are we looking at an incorrectly shaded, featureless wall of the WTC?

[HonestlyNow]

Just finished watching Simone.
This IS a must-see for anyone who's into the fakery research.
At the end, 'she' is 'interviewed' and tells how she now wants to get into politics (!)
Gabby, anyone?