Hollywood Scripting

[Simulist]

OMG, you just googled "howard CIA" and posted the first return. How very scientifically methodological of you.

Uh, no. Gettting hard-up for refutations of all those 'coincidences?'

It isn't necessary to "refute" nonsense.

And, Hugh, even a non-mod can see that you are disrupting this thread.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Discuss Hollywood scripting, peartreed. You're still slinging ad-hominem about wackos and paranoids etc.
Sure, I can make mistakes. duh.

But I've put data on the table, scripts with contextual dates implying logical agendas. They remain unrefuted.
Are they mistakes? How so?

I'll offer you question(s) that you can discuss if you'd really like to discuss.
Because there is a real history of Hollywood that goes way back.

Do you think the World War Two model of the Office of War Information's Bureau of Motion Picture guidelines are relevant today?
Why or why not?
Do you think the system of crafting entertainment with covert persuasion grew or contracted over the last 70 years?
Why or why not?
What are those methods of covert persuasion?
Since children watch videos quite a lot, is this an important topic to examine?
Who would want to influence children's minds?

etc.
...feel free to bag the alliteration and go for content.

[Wombaticus Rex]

"Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our eyes and ears and nerves, we don't really have any rights left. Leasing our eyes and ears and nerves to commercial interests is like handing over the common speech to a private corporation, or like giving the earth's atmosphere to a company as a monopoly."

--Marshall McLuhan

[jingofever]

Howard the Duck was released August 1, 1986. Tropical Storm Howard formed fifteen days later. Psyop? Coincidence?

[peartreed]

Much like I don’t suffer fools well, I don’t engage in eliciting intelligent input from idiots, nor do I expect any educational exchanges with extremists to be edifying.

It would be like trying to peruse the pleasures of Protestantism with the Pope.

You’d get a lot of belligerent browbeating and dogma, but not much discussion and a lot less learning.

Those who are unprepared to compromise their convictions, having also invested their considerable ego and imagined reputation in the preoccupying crusade for their cause, are not great candidates for any give and take conversation.

They are probably prepared to proselytize, proclaim and pontificate on their perspective.

Besides, when the content of said fanatical fixations have already been firmly formulated and fomented all over a discussion board, ad nauseum, invited or not, there’s really nothing new or relevant to reveal.

Except more rib-splitting radical rote and ridiculous rebuttal of rational reasoning.

So, I’ll take a pass.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

uh-huh. Must invest in a the-sore-us....

Much like I don’t suffer fools well, I don’t engage in eliciting intelligent input from idiots, nor do I expect any educational exchanges with extremists to be edifying.

It would be like trying to peruse the pleasures of Protestantism with the Pope.

You’d get a lot of belligerent browbeating and dogma, but not much discussion and a lot less learning.

Those who are unprepared to compromise their convictions, having also invested their considerable ego and imagined reputation in the preoccupying crusade for their cause, are not great candidates for any give and take conversation.

They are probably prepared to proselytize, proclaim and pontificate on their perspective.

Besides, when the content of said fanatical fixations have already been firmly formulated and fomented all over a discussion board, ad nauseum, invited or not, there’s really nothing new or relevant to reveal.

Except more rib-splitting radical rote and ridiculous rebuttal of rational reasoning.

So, I’ll take a pass.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... 8957883477

The Domestic Motion Picture Work of the Office of War Information
Cedric Larson
Hollywood Quarterly
Vol. 3, No. 4 (Summer, 1948), pp. 434-443

...partial transcription for when page image does not show...link will work...

"Perhaps no phase of work of the Office of War Information is of greater significance than its work in the realm of motion pictures."

[Joe Hillshoist]

I don't have IMDbPro to get the start of production date for Brave, but it's most likely been in production for a while, right? And Ms. Brooks just hit the news...so how could Brave have been conceived of as a distraction from her? That's been my question about a lot of the movies you cite, Hugh--it seems as though it would take a reliable psychic (in which I don't think you believe) to time these things. If I'm just too thick to see some obvious explanation for this, please set me straight. I'm not trying to be snarky, either, so please don't flame me--I've just wondered about this for years.

LilyPat

Back to the scripts right in front of our eyes for contextual analysis to discern agendas.

Today's New York Times front page has a banner ad for Disney-Pixar's 'Brave' animation.
The image is a long red-haired girl with yet another bow-and-arrow, just like the recent 'Hunger Games' movie.


By yet another remarkable coincidence, this photo is at the top of the news cycle for the last 24 hours-


That's Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive, being indicted.

Think there's a psyop timing coordination here? I do. Both the design of the movie and the timing of the ad.

Well actually Ms Brooks arrest has been on the cards for years. This story broke this year but its been rumbling around for a while.

Not that I claim there is a direct link between the two. However in this case I dunno. Its plausible, especially if the mob that made brave are connected to Murdoch.

Its highly unlikely imo, but the is a possibility of it being accurate there.

BTW Little orphan Annie - Daddy Warbucks. Cos he was an industrialist who made his money during WW1 (I believe - I only ever read the mad magazine version of the story actually).

Yet he's a nice guy at heart and sticks for the little guy er girl? Is that right.

Daddy Warbucks the industrialist with a good heart is definitely some subliminal framing sort of thing.

[JackRiddler]

Everything peartreed said, including unfortunately this:

And therein lies the rub. Extremists are here, driving a drove of deflated and discouraged departures. I used to limit myself to lurking because of it, and may return to that loftier lookout simply to sever the stress of fencing with fanatics.

I don’t suffer fools well. And continuity of conversation, while often curiously comedic when kooks cut in, is still being consistently diverted by disruptors.

This is a great thread, if you can jump around to follow the conversation with which it started.

Hugh makes it impossible to discuss this subject without him being the main show. I hope he gets that insight.

[JackRiddler]

Much like I don’t suffer fools well, I don’t engage in eliciting intelligent input from idiots, nor do I expect any educational exchanges with extremists to be edifying.

It would be like trying to peruse the pleasures of Protestantism with the Pope.

You’d get a lot of belligerent browbeating and dogma, but not much discussion and a lot less learning.

Those who are unprepared to compromise their convictions, having also invested their considerable ego and imagined reputation in the preoccupying crusade for their cause, are not great candidates for any give and take conversation.

They are probably prepared to proselytize, proclaim and pontificate on their perspective.

Besides, when the content of said fanatical fixations have already been firmly formulated and fomented all over a discussion board, ad nauseum, invited or not, there’s really nothing new or relevant to reveal.

Except more rib-splitting radical rote and ridiculous rebuttal of rational reasoning.

So, I’ll take a pass.

That sucks. Are you willing to first try the ignore function? I value what you've contributed here.

[lupercal]

peartreed I also value what you've contributed but why on earth are you getting all upset? Hugh clearly isn't a fool and he isn't disrupting your thread, which is supposed to be about Hollywood psyops scripting, right? Okay maybe you're skeptical, and you've either ignored or not noticed the patterns Hugh is pointing out, no shame in that, but once they've been brought to your attention you'd have to be blind, imbalanced or just plain dishonest not to notice that this stuff is all over the place. For example:



Do you really expect anyone here to believe that's not a covert recruiting message? Heck even the Guardian admits there are spooks in Hollywood and the Guardian is run by spooks so they should know.

Overflowing with action, humor and a bag full of bonus features, Spooky Buddies is a spooktacular adventure that treats you to a celebration of friendship and teamwork your whole family will enjoy.

http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/livea ... ies/spooky

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Yikes Jackriddler. Did you look at the data on the table? Are you a coincidence theorist?

2006, 2011 - dates of Rongelap and decoy media campaigns including movies line up perfectly. Both years.

The ad-hominem that peartreed and jingofever are throwing around instead of discussing anything but me is their doing, not mine.
You don't get that? Really?

Data on the table vs ad-hominem.
Repeating-
Data on the table vs ad-hominem.

And you choose...look...closely.

[jingofever]

The ad-hominem that peartreed and jingofever are throwing around instead of discussing anything but me is their doing, not mine.

Ad-hominem? We weren't even posting near-hominem.

[bardobailey]

Peartreed is obviously the next iteration of Cleverbot. All of that alliteration just ain't humanly possible. Very entertaining, however.

[Searcher08]

Discuss Hollywood scripting, peartreed. You're still slinging ad-hominem about wackos and paranoids etc.
Sure, I can make mistakes. duh.

But I've put data on the table, scripts with contextual dates implying logical agendas. They remain unrefuted.
Are they mistakes? How so?

I'll offer you question(s) that you can discuss if you'd really like to discuss.
Because there is a real history of Hollywood that goes way back.

Do you think the World War Two model of the Office of War Information's Bureau of Motion Picture guidelines are relevant today?
Why or why not?
Do you think the system of crafting entertainment with covert persuasion grew or contracted over the last 70 years?
Why or why not?
What are those methods of covert persuasion?
Since children watch videos quite a lot, is this an important topic to examine?
Who would want to influence children's minds?

etc.
...feel free to bag the alliteration and go for content.

Hugh, given that if peartreed DID do all of that, you would not get back to it.

Do you remember the exchange years ago where you said of ESP investigator Dean Radin that (paraphrasing) 'it was all WOO, had no science behind it, no empirical base' etc etc

So at the time I did some on line searching and came across an area Radin was researching - intentionality - and whether there could be a transfer of intentional energy into a physical object. In this experiment, identical chocolate was given to multiple sets of people: Tibetan Buddhists, a faith healer, a shamanic practitioner, a control - and then various experiments done.
At the time IIRC I was helping a friend with their degree study, part of which involved designing randomised control trials and we would be shown lots of flaws in designs by the lecturer - FWIW I went through Radin's process in the paper he published and to my enthusiastic amateur eyes, well as they say in Yorkshire, 'It wert tighter thant duck's arse'.
You didn't want to know. IIRC it got to be a good humoured tease rather than anything unpleasant.
Would a person, Hugh, who loves science (both spirit and letter) not seek to chase down counter-examples to their own ideas, which would then lead to a richer theory?

One of the things you do is present theoretical analysis - however your analysis has not been informed by actually either participating in or observing the film production process.
To give a simile (software development), it's like saying
"All software is bugged and spies on you!!! The CIA has always had all software injected with undetectable trojans that report back on you!!"

The very universality of the above claim - which if you have ever been involved in Open Source software development would be greeted with fists pounding on the floor in hilarity - acts as a distraction from the facts that there are (for hypothetical illustration) might actually may be only TWO pieces of software which act in this way - Android and iOS. It diverts peoples resources of time and attention into areas where nothing is happening, away from fewer but much more important instances.

For example (I'll revisit) you still have not given a single example of the use of deliberate use of Ericksonian approaches in film. You ignore the most basic tenet of Erickson's approach which is that
EVERY PERSON IS INDIVIDUAL
Erickson would basically assume NOTHING when a new person came in his office. Do you know to what extent? Have a guess of the FIRST thing he looked for when a new person came in?
Whether they had an Adam's Apple
Why? because he didn't even take it for granted that because a person was called John or Jane on the appointment card, that that was their gender....
Erickson and the body of work he created grew out of primary ideas that every one is going in and out of trance many times during the course of a day - and the therapist is too - and gets into rapport with the client and goes themselves into a trance.
Have you ever done that, Hugh? Have you ever used Ericksonian hypnosis? because when you are learning and practicing it, quite often the trance inductor can... fall asleep. It is an extremely individual process.

Let's revisit Johnny Was. The title of the movie was from a Bob Marley song via
Stiff Little Fingers. The song is about a decent person being caught in the cross fire and killed.
Johnny, in the story, is a former IRA person who wanted out. He is living in poverty in Brixton (which at the time was a bit like the South Bronx)He represent both the person who killed the Johnny in the song (in his former IRA life) and someone wanting to change.
His life gets crashed into by the past, in the form of his psychopathic now splinter-IRA colleague who has just escaped from Brixton jail, who sees it all as 'a game'.
That is one arc of the story. The other is seeing drug dealing in the local community and the players involved with that and how it intersects with the Irish plot. One thing about the film is that it doesn't insult black or Irish. You know of course that there are loads of Irish with English accents? and black people with Irish accents?
The story was actually something that could have been an arc of The Wire. And the values of the writer are very similar to those of David Simon.
As for the bass comments - which do you think is more feasible?

A) "OK I have a film now... but Im waiting to see what's in the news...Ahh Robin Cook and The Base meme. Right. I'll hire a music producer to create a sound track with... lots of bass!"
or
my anecdotal report of witnessing how it was done and being a small part in the process
B) "How many non-exploitative (ie authentic rather than ersatz) film soundtracks are there about the intersections of West Indian and Irish cultures? Because we have lots of similarities AND lots of differences.... So I have £x and three months, so I'll ask advise of Adrian Sherwood who is one of the most established respected dub artists...."

IMHO The universality by which you assert statements of type A)
and ignore, reject, refuse to consider statements of type B)
really demeans your model.

Jacques Ellul observes in Propaganda: When dialogue begins, propaganda ends. His theme, that propaganda is not this or that ideology but rather the action and coexistence of all media at once, explains why propaganda is environmental and invisible. The total life of any culture tends to be "propaganda", for this reason. It blankets perception and suppresses awareness, making the counter environments created by the artist indispensable to survival and freedom. (p.77)

[IanEye]

As for the bass comments - which do you think is more feasible?

A) "OK I have a film now... but Im waiting to see what's in the news...Ahh Robin Cook and The Base meme. Right. I'll hire a music producer to create a sound track with... lots of bass!"
or
my anecdotal report of witnessing how it was done and being a small part in the process
B) "How many non-exploitative (ie authentic rather than ersatz) film soundtracks are there about the intersections of West Indian and Irish cultures? Because we have lots of similarities AND lots of differences.... So I have £x and three months, so I'll ask advise of Adrian Sherwood who is one of the most established respected dub artists...."

IMHO The universality by which you assert statements of type A)
and ignore, reject, refuse to consider statements of type B)
really demeans your model.

viewtopic.php?p=292208#p292208

sorry! I couldn't resist.

The cavernous bass, the DeLorean references, the sniffing, that song has it all.



Athletes rejected - governors corrected
Gangsters, thugs and smugglers are thoroughly respected
The money gets divided - The women get excited
Now I'm broke and it's no joke
It's hard as hell to fight it, don't buy it!