Cloverfield

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby FourthBase » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:11 pm

orz wrote:ANYWAY it's an interesting idea, that what Hugh suggests sounds totally stupid and ineffective ...therefore it must be true?!


Ugh. Do I really need to?

...that the average consumer is so savvy today, that one of the few remaining reliable ways to get through their guard and into the soft pocket of people's attention spans is a surprise attack of shit way too fucking stupid per our sophisticated standards (but perhaps well-tested by whatever Luntz clones work for whatever agencies involved) for people to take seriously for even a split moment, and so it passes by unnoticed, unbothered, into the seat of our less-than-totally-conscious mind? It's like the Trojans becoming savvy to that big fucking wooden horse on wheels trick, but overlooking the individual Greek soldiers poorly disguised as horses, like this:

Image

"Preposterous, there's no way the Greeks would do something so dumb."

I'm not endorsing Hugh's theory as fact.
I am saying that is how it would be IMO if it was a fact.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby orz » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:14 pm

I could easily say to you that if watching movies and seeing dark shadows behind their creation makes you mad, go find a different hobby.

I wish someone WOULD say that to him.
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Under Siege etc.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:24 pm

Attack Ships on Fire wrote:...You use specific examples of movies in your defense of your theory and are now including individuals as suspects without compelling evidence.


See above. I added Reeves' script for Steven Seigal's galling 1997 movie, 'Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.'

I could easily say to you that if watching movies and seeing dark shadows behind their creation makes you mad, go find a different hobby.


If you work in the movie industry and don't know how movies affect culture....heads up.
You might want to look into it.

And I'm serious. I'm not being snide about this.
This is, as Reeves' title says, "dark territory."
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Under Siege etc.

Postby Attack Ships on Fire » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:51 pm

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
Attack Ships on Fire wrote:...You use specific examples of movies in your defense of your theory and are now including individuals as suspects without compelling evidence.


See above. I added Reeves' script for Steven Seigal's galling 1997 movie, 'Under Siege 2: Dark Territory.'


Irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is about Cloverfield. Guilt by association. Senator McCarthy did the same thing 50 years ago. I hope that you are better than that to follow in his footsteps.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
Attack Ships on Fire wrote:I could easily say to you that if watching movies and seeing dark shadows behind their creation makes you mad, go find a different hobby.


If you work in the movie industry and don't know how movies affect culture....heads up.
You might want to look into it.


You're the one that suggested that I find a different hobby. If your premise cannot stand up to critical evaluation don't attack the messenger.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:And I'm serious. I'm not being snide about this.


Either you are being snide by suggesting to me to find a different hobby or else you are deeming your views superior to all others. Your pick.

Again, my question still stands, the one you avoided: how does it matter to the debate of your theory whether or not I am one of the people who made Cloverfield? You dismiss critical observation of your theory because your critic didn't work on the film? What gives you the superiority to deem Cloverfield as an example of psyop? What experience do you have working in the movie business, or does it all come from watching movies?
Attack Ships on Fire
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:24 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cloverfield's director - Under Siege etc.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:37 pm

ASoF, I can't even tell what you're trying to say anymore.

Between Pan making threads be about me and then trying to blame me for his attacks, IanEye worried about our "masks," you going on about your link to the movie industry and defending the director of Cloverfield for some reason....I'm lost in the interpersonal kerfuffle.

The movie industry and its players have a history, an agenda, techniques,
and the movies have themes, linguistic components, advertising, and cultural context of release time along with numerous mnemonic components.
And these are human elements that exist whether it is
>noble creative art or
>pandering economic product or
>devious psy-ops device
.....or ALL of the above in various proportional distribution.

Like breeding horses and racing them, I've got a pretty strong sense of how a movie functions socio-politically from studying psy-ops media for some years now.

People who went and watched 'Cloverfield', which I have not, confirmed my analysis based on the poster. I've been right about other movies I hadn't seen, too.
I waited to rent the DVD with the remote pause/rewind function and found even more confirmation of my analysis along with even more psy-ops.

You dismiss critical observation of your theory because your critic didn't work on the film? What gives you the superiority to deem Cloverfield as an example of psyop? What experience do you have working in the movie business, or does it all come from watching movies?


I've been reading more hours per day than many people read in a year ever since 9/11.
That's probably a few college degrees worth of reading only applied to many fields.

So my knowledge and views come from having studied and learned in many fields-
>neuroscience
>linguistics
>sociology
>child developmental psychology
>recruiting psychology
>military history
>OSS/CIA history
>movie history
>etc.

Again, my question still stands, the one you avoided: how does it matter to the debate of your theory whether or not I am one of the people who made Cloverfield?


:shock:... :?: I have no idea what you are referring to. You lost me. I'm trying, though.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cloverfield's director - Under Siege etc.

Postby IanEye » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:04 am

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
Between Pan making threads be about me and then trying to blame me for his attacks, IanEye worried about our "masks," you going on about your link to the movie industry and defending the director of Cloverfield for some reason....I'm lost in the interpersonal kerfuffle.
- - -
Like breeding horses and racing them, I've got a pretty strong sense of how a movie functions socio-politically from studying psy-ops media for some years now.
People who went and watched 'Cloverfield', which I have not, confirmed my analysis based on the poster. I've been right about other movies I hadn't seen, too.
I waited to rent the DVD with the remote pause/rewind function and found even more confirmation of my analysis along with even more psy-ops.
- - -
I've been reading more hours per day than many people read in a year ever since 9/11.
That's probably a few college degrees worth of reading only applied to many fields.
- - -
:shock:... :?: I have no idea what you are referring to. You lost me. I'm trying, though.


really cool stuff above Hugh, seriously, let's get to work here, eh?

IanEye worried about our "masks,"
- - -
...I'm lost in the interpersonal kerfuffle.


the "masks" are indeed interpersonal, at the same time, they are exceptional. :shock:... :?:
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: Not Jim Carrey's 'The Mask'

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:30 am

IanEye wrote:....

HMW wrote:IanEye worried about our "masks,"
- - -
...I'm lost in the interpersonal kerfuffle.


the "masks" are indeed interpersonal, at the same time, they are exceptional. :shock:... :?:


Ok, I understand that a stand alone seperate persona is, on the internet, inherently built into choosing a username and then methodically injecting the content of viewpoint, identity, style, persona, etc.

But some people don't make a conscious presentation campaign and just reflect their attributes in analog since the tech is fairly low, scroll-click-type-click...while others are extremely conscious of this presentation and put lots of craft into their writing, even using *gasp* fonts.

Movies, on the otherhand, have an inherent methodical manufacturing of choices built into the assembly process. Almost everything is created or determined to be left in for a reason.
Movies are the result of umpteen judgements and decisions driven by enormous budget and career pressures to 'succeed.'
But not all of them are even made to 'succeed.'
Some are made just to go right onto the rental store shelves as little billboards of message to be scanned by youth every weekend.

Movies are waaaay too important to governance not to be gatekept and managed by a spook overseeing culture, just like the Office of War Information during WWII.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Not Jim Carrey's 'The Mask'

Postby IanEye » Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:47 am

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
IanEye wrote:....

HMW wrote:IanEye worried about our "masks,"
- - -
...I'm lost in the interpersonal kerfuffle.


the "masks" are indeed interpersonal, at the same time, they are exceptional. :shock:... :?:


Ok, I understand that a stand alone seperate persona is, on the internet, inherently built into choosing a username and then methodically injecting the content of viewpoint, identity, style, persona, etc.

But some people don't make a conscious presentation campaign and just reflect their attributes in analog since the tech is fairly low, scroll-click-type-click...while others are extremely conscious of this presentation and put lots of craft into their writing, even using *gasp* fonts.

Movies, on the otherhand, have an inherent methodical manufacturing of choices built into the assembly process. Almost everything is created or determined to be left in for a reason.
Movies are the result of umpteen judgements and decisions driven by enormous budget and career pressures to 'succeed.'
But not all of them are even made to 'succeed.'
Some are made just to go right onto the rental store shelves as little billboards of message to be scanned by youth every weekend.

Movies are waaaay too important to governance not to be gatekept and managed by a spook overseeing culture, just like the Office of War Information during WWII.


Hugh, you yourself post things, and then go back and edit them.

In that latter action, you manipulate the text, and thus, possibly manipulate time. congrats?!?

This needn't be done with malice; in the time you first write it and the time you come back for a second draft, an individual may read it here at RI and craft a response to your first impulses.

If you come back and edit your first post, and don't acknowledge the editing that took place you are engaging in a psy-op. congrats!?!..?
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: Not Jim Carrey's 'The Mask'

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:02 am

IanEye wrote:.....
Hugh, you yourself post things, and then go back and edit them.

In that latter action, you manipulate the text, and thus, possibly manipulate time. congrats?!?

This needn't be done with malice; in the time you first write it and the time you come back for a second draft, an individual may read it here at RI and craft a response to your first impulses.

If you come back and edit your first post, and don't acknowledge the editing that took place you are engaging in a psy-op. congrats!?!..?


Every stone in the pond makes a ripple and so it is with human activity.
Every effort to communicate can be called a "psy-op," just as some say that intent is what makes it art.

Personally, I frequently correct spelling in my posts and, less frequently, resequence paragraphs for clarity when I'm trying to say something complex, not to change meaning.

I agee that we can't always determine intent on the originating end of an entertainment product but we can determine effect on the 'user' end where it really counts.

And the history and logic indicate, I assert after 'wiggling my educated antennae', many more products are psy-ops devices than most people suspect because they have tricky little cognition devices embedded that don't match 'humane creativity' and DO match 'manipulative psy-ops device.'
8)
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Not Jim Carrey's 'The Mask'

Postby IanEye » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:17 am

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
I agree that we can't always determine intent on the originating end of an entertainment product but we can determine effect on the 'user' end.


i do not believe we can universally pre - determine effect on the user end.

every user exposed to this product, or, just as important, the advertising for this product, could exhibit a counter effect.

one can raise a billboard, and achieve a profit from a positive response of about 65% to the billboard's message , but you still generate a negative response of 33% to the same message.

"The business of America is Business."

"The Business of America is business."

do you have a preference in the above two statements?
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: Cloverfield's director - Under Siege etc.

Postby Attack Ships on Fire » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:17 am

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:ASoF, I can't even tell what you're trying to say anymore.


Because you've dodged my question. You're trying on purpose to get lost in the chaos. Here, let me refresh your memory: why do I need to have worked on Cloverfield to call you out on calling its director a liar?

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Between Pan making threads be about me and then trying to blame me for his attacks, IanEye worried about our "masks," you going on about your link to the movie industry and defending the director of Cloverfield for some reason....I'm lost in the interpersonal kerfuffle.


Yes, of course, I have been "going on" about working in the business. That is why I kept my big mouth shut for all these months, being careful to not drag it into our earlier discussions. But you're right, I had enough of the school bully and decided to push you back and defend something that I care about. I'm glad that I did. And now that the teacher is looking closer at us you're putting your hands up in the air and saying "It wasn't me!"

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Like breeding horses and racing them, I've got a pretty strong sense of how a movie functions socio-politically from studying psy-ops media for some years now.


The only thing that you have been capable of showing to me in the latter half of this discussion is how close-minded you are to listening to those who have their inside knowledge to share on the subject and that you are more than willing to lump the efforts of talented creative individuals into your psyop meme.


Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:People who went and watched 'Cloverfield', which I have not, confirmed my analysis based on the poster. I've been right about other movies I hadn't seen, too.
I waited to rent the DVD with the remote pause/rewind function and found even more confirmation of my analysis along with even more psy-ops.


Analysis? You didn't even see the movie! You didn't even do a basic google search to find alternative reasons for the movie's title! And you have been caught making incorrect assumptions about other films in the past and refused to acknowledge your errors!

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:I've been reading more hours per day than many people read in a year ever since 9/11.
That's probably a few college degrees worth of reading only applied to many fields.


Of course. All of that outweighs any firsthand experience that someone working in the actual field might have to contribute to the discussion, or that any of your critics might have also read a fair amount too. This kind of statement from you, in absence of your explanation for calling the cloverfield director a liar, really seals the deal for me. You're a megalomaniac.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:So my knowledge and views come from having studied and learned in many fields-
>neuroscience
>linguistics
>sociology
>child developmental psychology
>recruiting psychology
>military history
>OSS/CIA history
>movie history
>etc.


Great list, but since no one else's experiences, teachings or observations matter to you, why should I give a fuck about yours at this point?

Again, my question still stands, the one you avoided: how does it matter to the debate of your theory whether or not I am one of the people who made Cloverfield?


:shock:... :?: I have no idea what you are referring to. You lost me. I'm trying, though.[/quote]

Yes, it must have been very hard to take the time and scroll back to either my original post where I asked the question or the second time. Either way you're not trying at all (so you're a liar) or all of that past learned history that you say amounts to a couple of degrees isn't worth the imaginary paper that they are printed on.

Anyway, I think that is about enough from me on the subject. I've said all that I need to say and I would just be repeating myself if I continued. And besides, I have to find a way to make all those script changes that the Illuminati representatives asked for this week. I tell you, those people never seem to sleep.
Attack Ships on Fire
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:24 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cloverfield's director - Under Siege etc.

Postby FourthBase » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am

Attack Ships on Fire wrote:The only thing that you have been capable of showing to me in the latter half of this discussion is how close-minded you are to listening to those who have their inside knowledge to share on the subject and that you are more than willing to lump the efforts of talented creative individuals into your psyop meme.


What's even worse is that the kind of talented creative individuals he's willing to casually, prematurely (instantaneously, even) throw under the bus are the kind of people who would be sympathetic to Hugh's more general observations, i.e., allies. Of the many writers and directors he's reflexively accused of being in bed with (unwillingly?) Spook Inc., I'd be shocked if a handful weren't actually in on whatever the fuck is really going on behind-the-behind-the-scenes (and ASoF, there is surely a behind-the-behind-the-scenes in your business, right?), but I'm guessing many of them would just be exactly what they appear to be. Writers. Directors. Artists. Some of them, though, are precisely who Hugh should be researching and interviewing to discover more about the reality he's speculating about, would be researching and interviewing, if Hugh were actually a rigorous investigative journalist. They might tell him that most of his notions about KH are way the fuck off, but that there is something akin to what he's theorizing about in general, that there is an undernoticed intellectual/financial partnership between the entertainment industries and the national security industries (these artists you've casually thrown under the bus Hugh, might occasionally even have funny/curious/frustrating anecdotes about government liasons and whatnot...just guessing, though, imagining out loud). Anyway, what's pathetic and inexcusable is whatever the extent is to which Hugh does his casual blacklisting out of laziness, out of not wanting to actually do the research before issuing declarative statements of fact.

Analysis? You didn't even see the movie! You didn't even do a basic google search to find alternative reasons for the movie's title! And you have been caught making incorrect assumptions about other films in the past and refused to acknowledge your errors!


He did come up with those other three alternative reasons.
You had attempted to present just the street name one as the reason, no?

Hugh rarely acknowledges his errors, which sucks because he makes so many. If Hugh were a baseball player, he'd be a shortstop who hits 30 HR...but commits 100 errors in the field. Improve your mental athleticism, Hugh.

You're a megalomaniac.


He really is. I don't think that should disqualify him from serious consideration, though. I'm probably a clinical megalomaniac, too. A lot of important critical thinkers and important artists have been megalomaniacs. From personal experience, it seems to be a slightly diseased version of this:

MAGNANIM'ITY, n. [L. magnanimitas; magnus, great, and animus, mind.] Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquillity and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects.


Great list, but since no one else's experiences, teachings or observations matter to you, why should I give a fuck about yours at this point?


Great point. Don't forget to listen to people, Hugh.

Yes, it must have been very hard to take the time and scroll back to either my original post where I asked the question or the second time. Either way you're not trying at all (so you're a liar) or all of that past learned history that you say amounts to a couple of degrees isn't worth the imaginary paper that they are printed on.


That kind of zinging, while apt, effectively scorches the earth, I'm beginning to realize. Unless Hugh is some ARG player or some disinfo-spreading troll or whatever, then he is trying to some degree, and the knowledge he has is obviously worth semesters of "conspiracy graduate school" (what his grade would be is another matter, lol).

And besides, I have to find a way to make all those script changes that the Illuminati representatives asked for this week. I tell you, those people never seem to sleep.


Yawn.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cloverfield's director - Under Siege etc.

Postby Attack Ships on Fire » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:23 am

FourthBase wrote:
That kind of zinging, while apt, effectively scorches the earth, I'm beginning to realize. Unless Hugh is some ARG player or some disinfo-spreading troll or whatever, then he is trying to some degree, and the knowledge he has is obviously worth semesters of "conspiracy graduate school" (what his grade would be is another matter, lol).



I am salting the earth between Hugh and I. Why should I play nice with someone who doesn't hold my theories as equally valid and plausible, and who wants to downplay my viewpoint because he assumes that I (or anyone else for that matter) isn't as well-read or researched as he is? I've come to the realization that nothing I say or present changes his viewpoint, even when factual errors are pointed out to him. As you say, he rarely acknowledges when he's in error, and I really don't want to waste any further time debating with someone that is willing to blacklist, as you put it, people without good evidence. Life is too short to waste on follies like this one. Hugh is welcome to view the world any way that he chooses.
Attack Ships on Fire
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:24 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby FourthBase » Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:28 am

Fair enough.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cloverfield's director - Under Siege etc.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:10 pm

Attack Ships on Fire wrote:
FourthBase wrote:
That kind of zinging, while apt, effectively scorches the earth, I'm beginning to realize. Unless Hugh is some ARG player or some disinfo-spreading troll or whatever, then he is trying to some degree, and the knowledge he has is obviously worth semesters of "conspiracy graduate school" (what his grade would be is another matter, lol).



I am salting the earth between Hugh and I. Why should I play nice with someone who doesn't hold my theories as equally valid and plausible, and who wants to downplay my viewpoint because he assumes that I (or anyone else for that matter) isn't as well-read or researched as he is? I've come to the realization that nothing I say or present changes his viewpoint, even when factual errors are pointed out to him. As you say, he rarely acknowledges when he's in error, and I really don't want to waste any further time debating with someone that is willing to blacklist, as you put it, people without good evidence. Life is too short to waste on follies like this one. Hugh is welcome to view the world any way that he chooses.


ASoF, I STILL can't tell what grudge you're nurturing though a few more feet of text referencing things in the past you can't even spell out while you huff that 'HMW just won't listen.'

To WHAT?

Just...say it. But it seems you can't. That's not my fault.

So try talking about something besides you and me. Try it.
Get off the interpersonal kerfuffle, please.

If this helps-
I worked with a guy who had helped make a documentary about racism.
Very socially progressive and activist guy. Birds of a feather we were.

I showed him how Disney is CIA for Kidz! since WWII and intentionally sows racism and sexism to get little military recruitables.

He was transformed by this realization that I was right as I showed him the evidence.
But then he admitted to being now really conflicted because...
...his day job is at Disney-Pixar. That's where he gets the money to make social justice documentaries. Ironic, right?

So most people don't know what the agenda is behind the products they push. Most.
Some do. Like Spielberg and Lucas and all those industry honchos Karl Rove met with after 9/11.

But many many many know they are creating product, not art, in an INDUSTRY that pollutes the collective American mind.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests