Cloverfield

[FourthBase]

Well, that's pretty fucking humid.
I'm not automatically discounting it.
But...I'm not buying it, either.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Well, that's pretty fucking humid.
I'm not automatically discounting it.
But...I'm not buying it, either.

You use critical thought most of the time, more than many others do.
You just showed this again in the thread about the UPI journo and the 'stoner' which didn't really make sense.

Consider how this tendency to look right at things critically can actually inhibit you from believing that stupid little things can have any effect on anyone.

What a perfect way to prevent the 'know-somethings' from figuring out how the 'know-nothings' could believe what they do.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/dual.htm

ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DUAL PROCESS APPROACH
The dual process approach is quite simple and based on four assumptions about people and influence. In this section, we will explain and give examples of the four assumptions. Later, we will put it all together.

Assumption 1: There are two relatively distinct modes of thinking that a person may employ.

One mode is called the "systematic" mode and the other is called the "heuristic" mode. The systematic mode refers to a person who is carefully and effortfully thinking. The thought process is active, creative, and alert. The heuristic mode, by contrast, is at the other extreme of thinking. Here the person is not really thinking very carefully and instead is skimming along the surface of ideas. They are thinking enough to be aware of the situation, but they are not thinking carefully enough to catch flaws, errors, and inconsistencies in the situation.

Assumption 2: Situational and personality variables affect which mode of thinking a person will employ.

People are flexible in their thinking and can move back and forth between the two modes. Sometimes we are systematic and other times we are heuristic. The mode we use depends on situational and personality factors.
.....
People also have strong individual preferences for particular modes of thinking. Some people have a high need for cognition and typically think carefully about things most of the time. By contrast some people have a low need for cognition and typically think as little as possible about a situation. In between are most people who are more sensitive to situational factors.

Thus, our mode of thought can be driven by the situation or our personality predispositions. Note that even people who prefer to be heuristic thinkers can still shift into the systematic mode when the situation calls for it.

Assumption 3: Persuasion variables will have different effects depending upon the mode of thinking employed.

When people are in the systematic mode, certain things will be very important and influential to them. While reading that editorial on Senior Comprehensives, the systematic thinker will be looking for facts, evidence, examples, reasoning, and logic. We will call these things, "arguments."

By contrast, when people are in the heuristic mode, other things will be important. Since arguments (facts, evidence, reasoning, etc.) require a lot of cognitive effort and energy, the heuristic thinker won't use them very much. Instead, easier to process information will be employed. Things like the attractiveness, friendliness, or expertise of the source will be more influential for the heuristic thinker. We will call these things, "cues."

This assumption is very important, because it suggests that there is no single factor (or list of factors) that is a surefire path to success. Depending upon the receiver's mode of thinking, some variables will work and others won't.

Assumption 4: Influence achieved through the systematic mode is more persistent over time, more resistant to change, and more predictive of behavior than influence from the heuristic mode.

When people are thinking systematically, if they are influenced, it is more likely to stick precisely because they thought about it more carefully, fully, and deeply. For heuristic thinkers, however, any influence is likely to be rather short lived, simply because they did not really think that much.

One of the crutches the smarty-pants psy-operators must use to influence people who don't think critically as they themselves do is to fall back on deploying methods by the book, like a recipe book, when they construct a product.( And I'd love to see it. Decades of honed 'lessons learned.') Because all psy-ops really is is product constructed for specific mnemonic effect, like a meal.

There are only so many techniques of propaganda and subliminal perception and they can be applied quite formulaicly.

I just asked a college-age guy if he knew who Oliver Stone was.
"Maybe. I haven't seen any of his movies."
And so the new PBS disinfo documentary called 'Oswald's Ghost' and
made by...Robert Stone...has a good chance of displacing Oliver Stone's 'JFK' from 1991 in the minds of today's younger generation.

That's keyword hijacking counterpropaganda.

The lying documentary itself uses every trick in the book from that
list of "How They Slant TV - From A to Z," especially omission and lying.

Despite showing the Zapruder film which proves JFK was shot from the front, most of the film is negative framing of Oswald with spooky music so heuristic thinkers will probably accept the lying cover story of the Warren Commission.

[FourthBase]

I just asked a college-age guy if he knew who Oliver Stone was.
"Sort of. I haven't seen any of his movies."
And so the new PBS disinfo documentary called 'Oswald's Ghost' and
made by...Robert Stone...has a good chance of displacing Oliver Stone's 'JFK' from 1991 in the minds of today's younger generation.

That's keyword hijacking counterpropaganda.

But how is that possible when in some ways Oliver Stone's JFK was itself a propaganda product? Or...wasn't it? I don't understand how one comes to differentiate which movies contain propaganda and which don't.

Also, most new things generally displace most older things in today's younger generation. That's usually going to happen regardless, keywording or not, CIA or not. It's just a fact of modern life, courtesy of progress and TV's guiding hand.

And also, isn't there a new Oswald-did-it or Oswald-mostly-did-it propaganda piece on network television or cable every other year? None of them have displaced Stone's JFK to any youth who spends 5 minutes (that crucial first five minutes) thinking about the JFK assassination and decides to google it or netflix a movie about it. I don't think the confluence of "Stone" is going to render much if any displacement, dude.

So basically, I'm also not buying that example. It's lame. Crap.

You should really devote a bigger percentage of your time and effort to researching the other forms of manipulation slipped/hammered into entertainment media. Keyword hijacking may well exist, but even if it does, it can't possibly be as important to the elite perps as the other forms. I totally understand what you're saying here:

You use critical thought most of the time, more than many others do.
You just showed this again in the thread about the UPI journo and the 'stoner' which didn't really make sense.

Consider how this tendency to look right at things critically can actually inhibit you from believing that stupid little things can have any effect on anyone.

What a perfect way to prevent the 'know-somethings' from figuring out how the 'know-nothings' could believe what they do.

One of the crutches the smarty-pants psy-operators must use to influence people who don't think critically as they themselves do is to fall back on deploying methods by the book, like a recipe book, when they construct a product.( And I'd love to see it. Decades of honed 'lessons learned.') Because all psy-ops really is is product constructed for specific mnemonic effect, like a meal.

There are only so many techniques of propaganda and subliminal perception and they can be applied quite formulaicly.

But...I don't know Hugh, your examples suck, but I do really think your KH theory is very plausible, and at least indirectly supported by evidence. I just think there are other more pertinent ways that movies contain propagandistic hijacking: Concept hijacking, character hijacking, race hijacking, argument hijacking. It's called appropriation, co-option. Right? Don't you think those forms of manipulation would be far more potent? There's more meat on those memes. The A-Z book you linked to features manipulation tactics far more potent and widespread and detectable than KH.

And can you at least for once acknowledge that a lot of confluences in pop culture are probably really just sloppy random coincidental overlaps, or artistic misunderstandings, or whatever? I think if Pan could admit that some "anti-CIA" movies are actually pro-CIA-agenda, and you could admit the above, this board would actually be getting somewhere a little.

[8bitagent]

Im wondering, Hugh...

do you ever just sit back and enjoy a movie?

They may be full of "psyops", but I loved the theatre experience of Transformers, Manchurian Candidate, The Good Shepard, and Cloverfield.

[FourthBase]

Im wondering, Hugh...

do you ever just sit back and enjoy a movie?

They may be full of "psyops", but I loved the theatre experience of Transformers, Manchurian Candidate, The Good Shepard, and Cloverfield.

What is the point of a "theater experience"?

[Attack Ships on Fire]

Yah, I already read that pile of tap dance dust. I don't believe a word.

What a load of nonsense. "It's always been Cloverfield."

My homonym explanation makes much more sense related to the poster image of Miss Liberty who is a-hurtin.' Homonyms are all over the place so worth examining.

cLOVERfield. "Love her."

There may even be a second homonym that goes with the 9/11 image and horror-coaster ride.

cLOVER...FEELd. "Lover her...feel."

Also goes with the girl rescue device in the actual movie.

Or.....it could be the street near to movie's production office. http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/07/09/we- ... overfield/

[FourthBase]

Hugh just got pwned.
He asked for it, with the phonetical stuff.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Yah, I already read that pile of tap dance dust. I don't believe a word.

What a load of nonsense. "It's always been Cloverfield."

My homonym explanation makes much more sense related to the poster image of Miss Liberty who is a-hurtin.' Homonyms are all over the place so worth examining.

cLOVERfield. "Love her."

There may even be a second homonym that goes with the 9/11 image and horror-coaster ride.

cLOVER...FEELd. "Lover her...feel."

Also goes with the girl rescue device in the actual movie.

Or.....it could be the street near to movie's production office. http://www.slashfilm.com/2007/07/09/we- ... overfield/

Yes, it could be. That doesn't mean that homonyms aren't used or weren't here.
This is a single example. I don't extrapolate based on single examples.

I found out that the cop show, 'Hill Street Blues,' had a real street name basis related to the name of TV's then-most-honest-cop-in-America, Captain Frank Furillo which was a hijacking of Andy Furillo, son of famous sports writer dad with high LA visibility. Andy Furillo covered the police beat for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner (on Hill Street) in 1980 when the TV show started. LAPD had plenty of reasons to want a pure TV role model out there: RFK, CIA's "cocaine importation agency", etc. Getting out from under helping off RFK and covering it up is much of what is behind the OJ Simpson spectacle and echoes.

Funny, the interviewed guy wouldn't say anything about Cloverfield.
Possibly just a marketing hook, curiosity+viral etc.

It may be that the local street ended up working really well as the homonym device, too.

So don't get simplistic about 'answers' even though some think I am. Nunh-unh.
There are multiple tactics that have multiple justifications that overlap, "just like in real life."

The link above has even more possible reasons for 'Cloverfield' including one that apparently is in the film, the camera used for the 'you-are-there' effect---

lamd491 Says:

December 23rd, 2007 at 6:26 am

has no-one payed close attention to the trailer for this film

cloverfield is the make of handheld camera the film is shot on

a character from the film explains this

Or how about--

jessie Says:

January 9th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

yes there is/was an airport in california named clover field. They were not only an airport but also manufactured warplanes pre world war II.

“With World War II raging in Europe, Douglas realized well before Pearl Harbor that his plant was a sitting duck for an air attack. He didn’t wait for the government to protect him; he took the controls. Douglas asked his chief engineer and test pilot, Frank Collbohm, and a renowned architect, H. Roy Kelley, to devise a way to camouflage the plant. (Later, Collbohm would found Rand Corp. and Kelley would design its headquarters.)

Together with Warner Bros. studio set designers, they made the plant and airstrip disappear–at least from the air.

Almost 5 million square feet of chicken wire, stretched across 400 tall poles, canopied the terminal, hangars, assorted buildings and parking lots. Atop the mesh stood lightweight wood-frame houses with attached garages, fences, clotheslines, even “trees” made of twisted wire and chicken feathers spray-painted to look like leaves.”

quoted from http://www.militarymuseum.org/CloverField.html

or even---

CGI minion Says:

January 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 am

cloverfield was shell company formed within paramont to keep the film secret ..but the name stuck …simple

[FourthBase]

cloverfield is the make of handheld camera the film is shot on

a character from the film explains this

yes there is/was an airport in california named clover field. They were not only an airport but also manufactured warplanes pre world war II.

...Together with Warner Bros. studio set designers, they made the plant and airstrip disappear–at least from the air.

cloverfield was shell company formed within paramont to keep the film secret

Oh shit, un-pwned! Nice! Forgive me if I treat the Hugh-lympics as a competitive sport, with each side alternately scoring on the other, but it really is entertaining.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

So there are multiple reasons why the film is called Cloverfield, from the nearby street to the kind of camera the picture was shot on. Yet you were quick to say "My homonym explanation makes much more sense related to the poster image of Miss Liberty who is a-hurtin.'"

No, it doesn't.

[IanEye]

Forgive me if I treat the Hugh-lympics as a competitive sport, with each side alternately scoring on the other, but it really is entertaining.

indeed, I have often wondered if, right before Bush leaves office there will be a new "9/11" type attack, only on the West Coast. As a sort of pair of psychological book ends for the symet-dys-lexicon of the W era.

Santa Monica Airport was also originally called Clover Field.

if these attacks originate from the Santa Monica Airport, i will remember this thread.

I used to think that years from now the history books would refer to this era as "a Slick Willie between two Bushes". But now I think it will be known as "Bc-bC"

GHW - 1 term
Willie - 2 terms
GW - 2 terms
Hillie - 1 term ( but, oh what a term!)

[FourthBase]

The camerawork in this movie is making people physically ill?????

[Gouda]

The camerawork in this movie is making people physically ill?????

Something is.

Scary movie making viewers sick

Myself, I had to walk out of the post-apocalyptic horror film 28 Weeks Later due to the jarring onslaught of violence, jagged camerawork and the skull-shattering soundtrack. I was dizzy and disturbed. Is this the new trend in extreme film? I have a very, very bad feeling about it.

[IanEye]

The camerawork in this movie is making people physically ill?????

Something is.

Scary movie making viewers sick

Myself, I had to walk out of the post-apocalyptic horror film 28 Weeks Later due to the jarring onslaught of violence, jagged camerawork and the skull-shattering soundtrack. I was dizzy and disturbed. Is this the new trend in extreme film? I have a very, very bad feeling about it.

Then you would have a very bad feeling about Noe’s film “Irreversible”.

[Gouda]

Irreversible, according to a bullet point at IMBD:

# The first 30 minutes of the film has a background noise with a frequency of 28Hz (low frequency, almost inaudible), similar to the noise produced by an earthquake. In humans, it causes nausea, sickness and vertigo. It was the main cause of people walking out of the theaters during the first part of the film in places like Cannes and San Sebastian. In fact, it was added with the purpose of getting this reaction.