Two hilarious comments. One theorist says it's about faking the moon landing. The other is that you truly don't understand the symbiology (ref:boondock saints) of a film until you've seen it 100 or 1000 times.

I'm not sure I've seen ANY film 100 times.

Interestingly enough, I probably saw Master of the Flying Guillotine 100 times when I was a kid--which incidentally so did Quentin Tarantino.

haha....love grantland

Greg, what do you get out of it by the 70th or 80th time?

After watching "Finding Nemo" about the 50th time, I was still seeing things in the background that the artists put in for visual effect, sounds, dialog, etc. You are freed from having to focus on the urgent attention getters and can focus on the other things.

It's like reading subtitles for a movie. You get too caught up in reading and you miss the visual aspects of what's going on. When I watch subtitle movies, I have my finger on the pause button all the time.

I see. It's about the little details, and a lot of movie makers like to put in a lot of details.

I think the article started from the premise that you assume the director is a genius, so you look for signs. Not sure finding Nemo fits in that category, but I really enjoyed it probably for reasons having nothing to do with the movie by itself (the kids liked it and they weren't crying!)

It's like my old friend said about having a phd, you say just as much stupid stuff as everyone else (if not more) but people don't razz you as much as they give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't.