My First Kiss [9/18/06]

ogami1972 · Post by **ogami1972** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:45 pm

Burn wrote:
ravensgrace wrote:
Burn wrote:
heh wrote:She's wearing her hair up and wearing a cute, less mature top, and less (no?) makeup than in the last vid, as I suggested should be done, and there's every indication that, as I predicted, the whole occult thing has been utterly destroyed and won't ever be referred to again, as if it never happened.
The "whole occult thing" never did happen. It was pure speculation based upon a picture and mention of a ceremony.
Oh, and don't forget the way she freaked out when daniel tried to light one of the candles in front of it. Pure speculation!
exactly, you make a great example of my point. Anyone who assumes that "freaking out" over candle lighting is akin to cultish assoication.

thanks for the great example of speculation!

i disagree. i refer to the lonesomeoctober (whom i believe to be the creators) 'press conference' vid which states the pic of crowley was a pic of satan, but that was changed when the vids became popular andthey did not want people to catch on 'too quickly'.

katty02 · Post by **katty02** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:47 pm

Love to see Daniel sneak in. Screw the ban!!!...I like when their together, they are really funny.

Burn · Post by **Burn** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:53 pm

ogami1972 wrote:
Burn wrote:
ravensgrace wrote:
Burn wrote:
heh wrote:She's wearing her hair up and wearing a cute, less mature top, and less (no?) makeup than in the last vid, as I suggested should be done, and there's every indication that, as I predicted, the whole occult thing has been utterly destroyed and won't ever be referred to again, as if it never happened.
The "whole occult thing" never did happen. It was pure speculation based upon a picture and mention of a ceremony.
Oh, and don't forget the way she freaked out when daniel tried to light one of the candles in front of it. Pure speculation!
exactly, you make a great example of my point. Anyone who assumes that "freaking out" over candle lighting is akin to cultish assoication.

thanks for the great example of speculation!
i disagree. i refer to the lonesomeoctober (whom i believe to be the creators) 'press conference' vid which states the pic of crowley was a pic of satan, but that was changed when the vids became popular andthey did not want people to catch on 'too quickly'.

You realize that was satire, correct? There really wasn't a press conference. It isn't part of the story.

ogami1972 · Post by **ogami1972** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:57 pm

no, i think it was funny, and satirical, but i do think it is connected, and i think there is some small truth in it and the cthulu interview vid- i might be crazy though. until it's all over (what do y'all think? will it end on 10/12, kinda like Y2k, all anti-climatic?), it's kinda like arguing which god is the true god.

aria · Post by **aria** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:59 pm

my hand pu---errrr purple monkey (she doesn't like to be reminded she's a puppet! <_<) is better than your purple monkey!!

</vaaaague carlin reference>

PushedButton · Post by **PushedButton** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:59 pm

ogami1972 wrote:
Burn wrote:
ravensgrace wrote:
Burn wrote:
heh wrote:She's wearing her hair up and wearing a cute, less mature top, and less (no?) makeup than in the last vid, as I suggested should be done, and there's every indication that, as I predicted, the whole occult thing has been utterly destroyed and won't ever be referred to again, as if it never happened.
The "whole occult thing" never did happen. It was pure speculation based upon a picture and mention of a ceremony.
Oh, and don't forget the way she freaked out when daniel tried to light one of the candles in front of it. Pure speculation!
exactly, you make a great example of my point. Anyone who assumes that "freaking out" over candle lighting is akin to cultish assoication.

thanks for the great example of speculation!
i disagree. i refer to the lonesomeoctober (whom i believe to be the creators) 'press conference' vid which states the pic of crowley was a pic of satan, but that was changed when the vids became popular andthey did not want people to catch on 'too quickly'.

I'm with you. if there was no significance to those candles there would be no reason for her to freak out. Which normal 16 year old girl has a picture of a notorious founder of srveral religious cults in her bedroom anyway? - She's not exactly a goth is she?

Kasdeja · Post by **Kasdeja** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:01 pm

I have to agree. I mean, it wasn't the picture originally in that place, anyway. There's a reason to include it and then draw attention to it. Daniel had lit other candles. The significance? Well...yet to see that.

heh · Post by **heh** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:13 pm

Kasdeja wrote: I admit I don't know why I originally started watching these...but I was interested before I suspected them being staged and before they came 'out'.

You watched because of Jessica Rose. She is an excellent actress. She's cute and the vids were edited nicely with music to display her skills as an actress. She's the only reason this series became popular.

Burn · Post by **Burn** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:14 pm

Kasdeja wrote:I have to agree. I mean, it wasn't the picture originally in that place, anyway. There's a reason to include it and then draw attention to it. Daniel had lit other candles. The significance? Well...yet to see that.

Exactly! All I am saying is that this significance is yet to be seen. However, if you read many posts, it is spoken as it is fact. It is simple speculation that may or may not be correct.

ravensgrace · Post by **ravensgrace** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:16 pm

PushedButton wrote:Which normal 16 year old girl has a picture of a notorious founder of srveral religious cults in her bedroom anyway? - She's not exactly a goth is she?

Exactly. The juxtaposition there is mind-boggling! Now, if her room was dark and goth then it wouldn't seem out of place... However, instead we have this bright and cheerful room, with a naive and bubbly teenager, who has a fully garbed ceremonial picture of someone who infamously named himself "The Beast" in reference to satan.

canary · Post by **canary** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:17 pm

So does anyone else notice that the Napoleon Dynamite poster is missing? Or was it missing last time too and I'm late to the stunning revelation party?

Nevermind I'm late for the party, however it's been missing!

Kasdeja · Post by **Kasdeja** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:21 pm

I only noticed hanging there once..thought that was odd for someone so sheltered that they only liked old TV shows and didn't watch TV, etc...to have a Napoleon poster.

heh · Post by **heh** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:21 pm

PushedButton wrote:
I'm with you. if there was no significance to those candles there would be no reason for her to freak out. Which normal 16 year old girl has a picture of a notorious founder of srveral religious cults in her bedroom anyway? - She's not exactly a goth is she?

Well, that was the point. The Creators wanted people to feel like they knew this girl and that the girl they knew was as wholesome and innocent as they come. But, they were tricking us-- teaching us a lesson about judging books by their covers. They stuck in various foreshadowing bits to inform us that Bree isn't as wholesome and innocent as she appears. The "reveal" is much more dramatic the less obvious it is. She has to wear pastels and giggle and act silly in order to sell the twist. The "girl next door" is in a cult! Surprise!

Kalamitye · Post by **Kalamitye** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:22 pm

The picture was mentioned in Yousef's MTV interview. He said that was one of his favorite times filming when they introduced the Crowley picture onto the set. Based on that, I'm sure it was an intentional placement.

heh · Post by **heh** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:23 pm

ogami1972 wrote:no it wasn't just youmirage- hey everyone! also keep in mind...bree and daniel are on this arc because WE put them there; to an extent we guide this story- so say what you like about it and what you don't and then keep watching-

Is it this board that has the ears of the Creators?