#1  
Old 07-11-2012, 11:39 PM
Darren Aronofsky's NOAH

Darren Aronofsky tweeted the first image of the Arc being built, and it looks insane.

Cast

Russell Crowe - Noah
Jennifer Connolly - Noah's wife
Emma Watson - young woman who falls for one of Noah's son
Logan Lerman - Noah son
Douglas Booth - Noah son
Ray Winstone - villain
Anthony Hopkins - Methuselah


Pictures and story - http://t.co/cAfRK3xK

This is going to be amazing.

First Look - Russell Crowe in Noah - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-1yz

Last edited by P1NSTR1PEZ; 08-10-2012 at 09:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-12-2012, 10:23 PM
I'm wondering how he's going to tackle the mythological tale. Will he go The Fountain route and make it more 'realistic' with splashes of fantasy or will he pull some Del Toro move and have it set in a complete fantasty world.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-13-2012, 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I'm wondering how he's going to tackle the mythological tale. Will he go The Fountain route and make it more 'realistic' with splashes of fantasy or will he pull some Del Toro move and have it set in a complete fantasty world.
I was thinking something similar. The supposed $130 million budget would seem to indicate a stronger possibility for the latter. I guess he's been given more of a leash after the box office success of Black Swan. What happened to the good old days of $60,000 for Pi and a relatively paltry $4.5 million for Requiem for a Dream? Noah could be interesting though. Maybe some sort of resignation of Job vs. curse the skies misotheism could make for some compelling drama within the flood context.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-13-2012, 09:21 PM

This will be so fucking awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-13-2012, 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bengt Ekerot View Post
I was thinking something similar. The supposed $130 million budget would seem to indicate a stronger possibility for the latter. I guess he's been given more of a leash after the box office success of Black Swan. What happened to the good old days of $60,000 for Pi and a relatively paltry $4.5 million for Requiem for a Dream? Noah could be interesting though. Maybe some sort of resignation of Job vs. curse the skies misotheism could make for some compelling drama within the flood context.
Aronofsky is notorious for showing character's descent into madness and/or their addiction. He discussed how he'll tackle Noah's alcoholism. I also suspect, or at least I'm hoping, we don't really see the animals a lot even though I know we probably will.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-14-2012, 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Aronofsky is notorious for showing character's descent into madness and/or their addiction. He discussed how he'll tackle Noah's alcoholism. I also suspect, or at least I'm hoping, we don't really see the animals a lot even though I know we probably will.
The alcohol angle could be interesting in relation to Noah being conflicted about the divine genocide. Lot's of potential there. Didn't think of that.

I don't think the animals will dominate the movie like an animated children's version of the story, but they are a good way of exploring the depths of god's depravity in slaughtering life.

The Watchers, or fallen angels, thing caught my eye in the article. I've had some interesting discussions over the years with bible thumpers about the "ethics" of the flood and it's relation to The Watchers. They make Hitler apologists look mild!

I wonder if Aronofsky's atheism will have anything to do with influencing Noah, developing a possible theme of Noah not even knowing if god actually exists. From what I've read he's directing but not writing the script, so who knows. The big budget probably doesn't bode well for the type of plot and character development I would ultimately prefer. I read that the movie adaptation of Paradise Lost was cancelled earlier this year because of budget issues. Considering Alex Proyas was set to direct and given his subtlely anti-religious Knowing and Dark City combined with the potential for anti-religious sentiment inherent to Milton's story, maybe there was more than just budget issues involved. Antichrist got a lot of negative attention in 2009, The Master by PTA has been hounded by Scientologists, but Passion of the Christ was a huge hit. Such are the ways of big business...

2014's a long way off. Lot's of time for cancellations between now and then.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-14-2012, 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bengt Ekerot View Post
The alcohol angle could be interesting in relation to Noah being conflicted about the divine genocide. Lot's of potential there. Didn't think of that.

I don't think the animals will dominate the movie like an animated children's version of the story, but they are a good way of exploring the depths of god's depravity in slaughtering life.

The Watchers, or fallen angels, thing caught my eye in the article. I've had some interesting discussions over the years with bible thumpers about the "ethics" of the flood and it's relation to The Watchers. They make Hitler apologists look mild!
I'm thinking the selection processes will be something of a challenge--especially when viewers see the fictional tale wasn't as magnificent as people imagined it being. And I like the fallen angels aspect, it should be interesting to see how they appear to Noah, whether they appear as a figment of his alcoholism or as real entities should be ambiguous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bengt Ekerot View Post
I wonder if Aronofsky's atheism will have anything to do with influencing Noah, developing a possible theme of Noah not even knowing if god actually exists. From what I've read he's directing but not writing the script, so who knows. The big budget probably doesn't bode well for the type of plot and character development I would ultimately prefer. I read that the movie adaptation of Paradise Lost was cancelled earlier this year because of budget issues. Considering Alex Proyas was set to direct and given his subtlely anti-religious Knowing and Dark City combined with the potential for anti-religious sentiment inherent to Milton's story, maybe there was more than just budget issues involved. Antichrist got a lot of negative attention in 2009, The Master by PTA has been hounded by Scientologists, but Passion of the Christ was a huge hit. Such are the ways of big business...
I had no idea Aronofsky was an atheist, now I'm a bigger fan of his work. It's just strange that he is when he directed Pi which played heavily of Judaic numerology, The Fountain relied heavily on the Christian Tree of Life (although there were some Buddhist elements as well), and now he's directing Noah.

In regards to Paradise Lost, it'll be one of those things that gets made, eventually. But will divide viewers, of course, as well as cause mass controversy. And regarding Antichrist, that received negative attention because people didn't understand it. It's currently one of my favorite films.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-14-2012, 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
This will be so fucking awesome.
I agree


I actually wonder how many people intrested in this movie have actually read the story of Noah?..I know many people have heard the story as a child and have always thought of it as a cute little tale about Noah and his family escaping on a cheery little boat with cute fuzzy animals..In reality the story of Noah (Genesis 6-9) is a very dark and disturbing tale..I persoanlly cannot wait to see how Aronofsky pulls this off..I have a feeling that it will remain very close to the original biblical tale considering I have read numerious times of his Jewish upbring and love for the story of Noah.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-14-2012, 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I had no idea Aronofsky was an atheist, now I'm a bigger fan of his work. It's just strange that he is when he directed Pi which played heavily of Judaic numerology, The Fountain relied heavily on the Christian Tree of Life (although there were some Buddhist elements as well), and now he's directing Noah.
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Darren_Aronofsky
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-14-2012, 04:32 PM
I wish he woulda got to do his vision of a Wolverine movie but oh well, definitely gonna be keeping an eye on this production.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-15-2012, 12:15 PM
As awesome as his version of "The Wolverine" would've been, I'm glad this is his next film. It's a project he's been wanting to get off the ground for quite some time (and from his tweet - seems like it's been swimming in his head since he was 13). I consider "The Fountain" to be a marvelous work, but I always wonder what the epic, fully realized version he was initially working on would've looked like. Aronofsky doing something of this size has all kinds of potential. Not to mention, the personal side of Noah fits into his obsessive-psychological style.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-10-2012, 09:11 AM
First Look - Russell Crowe in Noah - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-1yz
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-12-2012, 07:39 AM
With any luck it'll be as epic as the '99 miniseries with Jon Voight.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-12-2012, 12:14 PM
Surely I'm not the only one who thinks there is no way this is going to be good?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-12-2012, 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolanar View Post
Surely I'm not the only one who thinks there is no way this is going to be good?
Yup, you're probably one of the only ones. Aronofsky has never made a bad film. People often criticize his need to deconstruct the human psyche, but that's part of his style and it's what makes him special. His films, in my opinion, are cinematic thesis. He's taking a biblical mythological story and most likely grounding it in a tangible way. I have no doubt in my mind that this won't be good, and I'm an atheist for goodness sakes
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-12-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Yup, you're probably one of the only ones. Aronofsky has never made a bad film. People often criticize his need to deconstruct the human psyche, but that's part of his style and it's what makes him special. His films, in my opinion, are cinematic thesis. He's taking a biblical mythological story and most likely grounding it in a tangible way. I have no doubt in my mind that this won't be good, and I'm an atheist for goodness sakes
Good post dude.

Personally I think this will be epic. Something out of this world. And while I initially wanted Bale as Noah, Crowe also looks the part and is a great actor.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-12-2012, 09:35 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with the story, especially because he's an atheist.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-12-2012, 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred760 View Post
I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with the story, especially because he's an atheist.
I think we're going to get more The Last Temptation of Christ than The Passion of Christ, whereas Aronofsky will focus on the message behind the character--not the mystical aspects that a lot of people solely think about when discussing Noah's Ark.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-13-2012, 07:33 AM
Great another remake






J/K - I am actually interested in this one. Crowe never lets down.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-13-2012, 10:45 AM
In Aronofsky we trust.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-13-2012, 09:50 PM
Here's an a tidbit morsel of some interest. Some of you may or may not have known this, but the character of Methusela, portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins in this film, according to the Bible, lived to over 800 years of age. I know it's almost impossible to even grasp, but you look it up. He was the oldest living person ever recorded in known human history. Staggering when you think about it. I think they cast his part perfectly. As for the actual film, it will be very interesting to see how it plays out. I do hope it isn't altered much if any. But I know that it will be. The documented, and very well known story of Noah and the ark is epic enough as it is, and needs no extra dramatization. It's an amazing story. We shall see how it goes. I am liking what I've seen so far though. and I think the project is in good hands. I also find it somewhat ironic that (as already pointed out by bigred) that he's an athiest. Interesting.

Last edited by God of War; 08-13-2012 at 10:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-13-2012, 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
Here's an a tidbit morsel of some interest. Some of you may or may not have known this, but the character of Methusela, portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins in this film, according to the Bible, lived to over 800 years of age. I know it's almost impossible to even grasp, but you look it up. He was the oldest living person ever recorded in known human history. Staggering when you think about it. I think they cast his part perfectly. As for the actual film, it will be very interesting to see how it plays out. I do hope it isn't altered much if any. But I know that it will be. The documented, and very well known story of Noah and the ark is epic enough as it is, and needs no extra dramatization. It's an amazing story. We shall see how it goes. I am liking what I've seen so far though. and I think the project is in good hands. I also find it somewhat ironic that (as already pointed out by bigred) that he's an athiest. Interesting.
Now, by human history, you mean the Bible as a mythological book filled with stories and metaphors. Because he doesn't appear in any history book. And, if you look more into his character, scholars say there's a possibility they meant he lived for 969 lunar months which is equivalent to 78 1/2 years--this is more believable especially given the time the Bible was written (there weren't high mortality rates). And I agree, I love the irony. He did so wonderfully with The Fountain, I can only imagine what he'd do here.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-18-2012, 01:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
Now, by human history, you mean the Bible as a mythological book filled with stories and metaphors. Because he doesn't appear in any history book. And, if you look more into his character, scholars say there's a possibility they meant he lived for 969 lunar months which is equivalent to 78 1/2 years--this is more believable especially given the time the Bible was written (there weren't high mortality rates). And I agree, I love the irony. He did so wonderfully with The Fountain, I can only imagine what he'd do here.
No. By human history I mean the Bible as an accurate written document based on facts. The Bible is not a showcase, nor is it filled with mythological fantastical writings of any kind. But rather, as already stated above, it is an accurate historical account of past events, people, and other things that actually came to pass on Earth, as written by scribes under influence by God himself.

Methuselah does appear in the Bible, and in historical books. There's no possibility in question here, my friend. Years, Not lunar months as you stated. His very first born son arrived when he was 187 years of age. Methuselah, whose name means “when he dies it shall be sent,” was the longest living man on record. He died, at the age of 969, 1656 AM, the Lord sent the judgment of a worldwide Flood. I guess this will be seen in the film.

And in regards to no high mortality rates in biblical times. Here is a short list of people who actually lived well beyond a century. Yes, I know it's almost impossible for us as mere everyday imperfect mortals to even grasp this kind of longevity. But they existed. And what's more, there were plenty of men who lived for centuries and more. Take a look here. You will note that Adam lived to 930 years of age. In God's eyes, 1000 years is a day. Pretty staggering when you contemplate this.

1. Methuselah - 969 (Genesis 5:27)
2. Jared - 962 (Genesis 5:20)
3. Noah - 950 (Genesis 9:29)
4. Adam - 930 (Genesis 5:5)
5. Seth - 912 (Genesis 5:8)
6. Kenan - 910 (Genesis 5:14)
7. Enosh - 905 (Genesis 5:11)
8. Mahalalel - 895 (Genesis 5:17)
9. Lamech - 777 (Genesis 5:31)

Enoch lived 365 years walking with God and then disappeared. Could possibly still be living. Maybe taken away by God like Elijah but not noted. (Genesis 5:23 & 24)

I apologise for the side tracking here. But it is relevant to the film in the respect that Methuselah is portrayed in Noah.

Last edited by God of War; 08-18-2012 at 01:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-18-2012, 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
No. By human history I mean the Bible as an accurate written document based on facts. The Bible is not a showcase, nor is it filled with mythological fantastical writings of any kind. But rather, as already stated above, it is an accurate historical account of past events, people, and other things that actually came to pass on Earth, as written by scribes under influence by God himself.

Methuselah does appear in the Bible, and in historical books. There's no possibility in question here, my friend. Years, Not lunar months as you stated. His very first born son arrived when he was 187 years of age. Methuselah, whose name means “when he dies it shall be sent,” was the longest living man on record. He died, at the age of 969, 1656 AM, the Lord sent the judgment of a worldwide Flood. I guess this will be seen in the film.

And in regards to no high mortality rates in biblical times. Here is a short list of people who actually lived well beyond a century. Yes, I know it's almost impossible for us as mere everyday imperfect mortals to even grasp this kind of longevity. But they existed. And what's more, there were plenty of men who lived for centuries and more. Take a look here. You will note that Adam lived to 930 years of age. In God's eyes, 1000 years is a day. Pretty staggering when you contemplate this.

1. Methuselah - 969 (Genesis 5:27)
2. Jared - 962 (Genesis 5:20)
3. Noah - 950 (Genesis 9:29)
4. Adam - 930 (Genesis 5:5)
5. Seth - 912 (Genesis 5:8)
6. Kenan - 910 (Genesis 5:14)
7. Enosh - 905 (Genesis 5:11)
8. Mahalalel - 895 (Genesis 5:17)
9. Lamech - 777 (Genesis 5:31)

Enoch lived 365 years walking with God and then disappeared. Could possibly still be living. Maybe taken away by God like Elijah but not noted. (Genesis 5:23 & 24)

I apologise for the side tracking here. But it is relevant to the film in the respect that Methuselah is portrayed in Noah.
Trolling again, are we?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-18-2012, 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
Trolling again, are we?
If anyone is trolling, it's you. Why don't you either grow up or just leave. Actually, both would be ideal from my point of view. But I guess you did do one thing right in your pathetic attempt at trying to rile me. And that is you at least made semi-intelligent use of the quote tags. A big step forward for you, no. And in doing so, you quoted some useful information. Unfortunately, on the other hand. Your singular-minded, and childish attempt at trying to make me out to be a fool was in vain. When I want to troll a topic, I know how to do so. And consequently, everybody involved knows about it. This was not one of those times. So, that's another strike against you for not recognizing the discernible difference between the two. Lastly, Maybe you should read the above information. That is if you're capable of doing so without being a jackass. Because that is what you are. Whoopsy, too late. That's three strikes against the guy who likes ugly manly females. Guess what? You're out...


Last edited by God of War; 08-18-2012 at 08:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-18-2012, 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
He did so wonderfully with The Fountain, I can only imagine what he'd do here.
Yes. I agree with this totally, dude.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-18-2012, 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
But I guess you did do one thing right in your pathetic attempt at trying to rile me.
I wasn't trying to rile you (though it looks like I succeeded anyway). I was genuinely curious. You don't strike me as the Bible-thumping type. I mean, that avatar of yours doesn't look like something the Lord would approve of. But if you really are a fundagelical, then your bigotry and misogyny has certainly been put into perspective.

Last edited by Squid Vicious; 08-18-2012 at 11:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-19-2012, 12:08 AM
Alright, shake your dicks...this pissing contest is over!

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-19-2012, 12:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
I wasn't trying to rile you (though it looks like I succeeded anyway). I was genuinely curious. You don't strike me as the Bible-thumping type. I mean, that avatar of yours doesn't look like something the Lord would approve of. But if you really are a fundagelical, then your bigotry and misogyny has certainly been put into perspective.
Hahaha... Nice try
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-20-2012, 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
No. By human history I mean the Bible as an accurate written document based on facts. The Bible is not a showcase, nor is it filled with mythological fantastical writings of any kind. But rather, as already stated above, it is an accurate historical account of past events, people, and other things that actually came to pass on Earth, as written by scribes under influence by God himself.

Methuselah does appear in the Bible, and in historical books. There's no possibility in question here, my friend. Years, Not lunar months as you stated. His very first born son arrived when he was 187 years of age. Methuselah, whose name means “when he dies it shall be sent,” was the longest living man on record. He died, at the age of 969, 1656 AM, the Lord sent the judgment of a worldwide Flood. I guess this will be seen in the film.

And in regards to no high mortality rates in biblical times. Here is a short list of people who actually lived well beyond a century. Yes, I know it's almost impossible for us as mere everyday imperfect mortals to even grasp this kind of longevity. But they existed. And what's more, there were plenty of men who lived for centuries and more. Take a look here. You will note that Adam lived to 930 years of age. In God's eyes, 1000 years is a day. Pretty staggering when you contemplate this.

1. Methuselah - 969 (Genesis 5:27)
2. Jared - 962 (Genesis 5:20)
3. Noah - 950 (Genesis 9:29)
4. Adam - 930 (Genesis 5:5)
5. Seth - 912 (Genesis 5:8)
6. Kenan - 910 (Genesis 5:14)
7. Enosh - 905 (Genesis 5:11)
8. Mahalalel - 895 (Genesis 5:17)
9. Lamech - 777 (Genesis 5:31)

Enoch lived 365 years walking with God and then disappeared. Could possibly still be living. Maybe taken away by God like Elijah but not noted. (Genesis 5:23 & 24)

I apologise for the side tracking here. But it is relevant to the film in the respect that Methuselah is portrayed in Noah.
I don't want to get into a religious debate, but I'll just say this, no one lived that long, ever! And quoting the age of death for all those biblical figures doesn't really provide any validation that they ever existed anymore than the Harry Potter novels providing years of characters' birth.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-21-2012, 01:02 AM
I don't get why people are getting attacked for their religious beliefs on this board kind of ridiculous if you ask me, but back to what we should be talking about I am interested to see how this movie turns especially because of Russel Crowe's involvement.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:25 PM
Have to admit that I'm extremely surprised to read that this project is actually being filmed, not only because of its scale but also because of the accompanying religious landmines. The cast looks great, and even though I am not really a fan of Aranofsky, his work with Black Swan sold me on his talent.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-22-2012, 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
No. By human history I mean the Bible as an accurate written document based on facts. The Bible is not a showcase, nor is it filled with mythological fantastical writings of any kind. But rather, as already stated above, it is an accurate historical account of past events, people, and other things that actually came to pass on Earth, as written by scribes under influence by God himself.

Methuselah does appear in the Bible, and in historical books. There's no possibility in question here, my friend. Years, Not lunar months as you stated. His very first born son arrived when he was 187 years of age. Methuselah, whose name means “when he dies it shall be sent,” was the longest living man on record. He died, at the age of 969, 1656 AM, the Lord sent the judgment of a worldwide Flood. I guess this will be seen in the film.

And in regards to no high mortality rates in biblical times. Here is a short list of people who actually lived well beyond a century. Yes, I know it's almost impossible for us as mere everyday imperfect mortals to even grasp this kind of longevity. But they existed. And what's more, there were plenty of men who lived for centuries and more. Take a look here. You will note that Adam lived to 930 years of age. In God's eyes, 1000 years is a day. Pretty staggering when you contemplate this.

1. Methuselah - 969 (Genesis 5:27)
2. Jared - 962 (Genesis 5:20)
3. Noah - 950 (Genesis 9:29)
4. Adam - 930 (Genesis 5:5)
5. Seth - 912 (Genesis 5:8)
6. Kenan - 910 (Genesis 5:14)
7. Enosh - 905 (Genesis 5:11)
8. Mahalalel - 895 (Genesis 5:17)
9. Lamech - 777 (Genesis 5:31)

Enoch lived 365 years walking with God and then disappeared. Could possibly still be living. Maybe taken away by God like Elijah but not noted. (Genesis 5:23 & 24)

I apologise for the side tracking here. But it is relevant to the film in the respect that Methuselah is portrayed in Noah.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-23-2012, 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I'll just say this, no one lived that long, ever!
Yes, but how do you know that? You can no more prove they they didn't than you can prove that they did.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-23-2012, 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xseanymacx View Post
And then some...
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-23-2012, 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderStorm View Post
I don't get why people are getting attacked for their religious beliefs on this board kind of ridiculous if you ask me,

Because on a liberally run board you are allowed to mock others religions but you are not allowed to mock homosexuality, race (unless it is white), or Barack Obama.


Considering this movie deals with an extremely religious story, there will be mocking of those who see it as fact based.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-23-2012, 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
Yes, but how do you know that? You can no more prove they they didn't than you can prove that they did.
I'm sorry, but the burden of proof must come from you. I could make the argument that there are fairies in my backyard and you can't prove that they're not there.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-23-2012, 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
Because on a liberally run board you are allowed to mock others religions but you are not allowed to mock homosexuality, race (unless it is white), or Barack Obama.


Considering this movie deals with an extremely religious story, there will be mocking of those who see it as fact based.
Ahh gotcha should have realized that.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-23-2012, 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jig Saw 123 View Post
I'm sorry, but the burden of proof must come from you. I could make the argument that there are fairies in my backyard and you can't prove that they're not there.
John Travolta is on his way over to check out that claim....in the name of science of course.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-23-2012, 09:56 PM
Aww... I have both Faeries and Gremlins living in my back yard. Not to mention, Trolls
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump