Subliminal manipulation in the movie business?

[Owledge]

I've read many movie reviews. I've seen the trend of "viral marketing". ( I don't mean in the swine flu case. )

I've seen the variety of perception of movie-watchers. I've learned about the huge marketing budget.

 

So I am wondering how much manipulation is going on. If you know a thing or two about psychology and perception, you know the many different ways of cheating ourselves, of perceiving things with bias, and this can be exploited, and there are many other methods of manipulation. You have to expect big marketing companies to know the latest tricks and to use them.

 

Maybe many times when you comment a difference in reviewer rating with "taste is different", in fact what happens is that some people are manipulated by themselves or others. OK, the former is maybe the essence of different tastes, this might become too philosophical, but why shouldn't incompetent directors boost the popularity of their crappy movies with psycho-tricks?

 

I could go deeply into this matter, but I will only mention one example for now.

 

Star Trek (11) / Trek Wars / Star Dreck / JJ. Abrams' Space Wars

 

Abrams really loves his ingenious idea of shining a flashlight into the camera lens to cause intense flickering from an often unidentifiable light source. Well, it is kinda classic that you can use flickering to enhance receptibility for mind control. This is one detail. One more general example might be the whole thing with flickering, shaking camera ... the bombardment of the mind with superficiality and empty effects.

 

An example for marketing messing with your brain might be this: It has been proven in experiments that when something is hyped, your judgement might be positively influenced.

 

An example for yourself messing with your brain: You are a hardcore trekkie and when you watch Star Trek 11, you are so fundamentally apalled that you fall into a kind of shock or denial and you have to say the movie was great for the protection of your own sanity, because if you admitted that your years-long trekkieness has just been shattered, you would go bonkers. (This general mechanism is also classic in psychology.)

 

You know how you learn to appreciate some movies the more often you watch them? Well, I watched Star Trek 11 and thought is was pretty OK as an action movie, adequately entertaining. Then I let it sink for two days, watched it again ... and was shocked what a piece of crap it is.

After some self-analysis, I think what had happened is that all that superficial SFX-annoyance made my brain switch to a numbed-down mode to protect me from intellectual pain. I didn't even realize all the annoying effects. Most of the details of what happened in the movie, including logical connections and basically everything that normally makes you think, was not taken in by me. But the second time it was.

 

The so-called MTV-generation might be used to mad flickering, short attention span and sensual chaos and thus these perceptions were satisfied, making them say the movies was exciting, great.

And from a marketing perspective, when a movie is really good, you don't have to advertise it much. I mean, look at Avatar: People telling others to go and see it are all over the place. BUT... there's something that damages the credibility of all the hype and really should make you think and question yourself: Avatar cost $400 million, and $150 million of that was used for marketing!

 

You see what I mean?

 

And if you don't believe that marketing can be that powerful... I recently have seen someone mention Derren Brown here. He can overwrite a dearest birthday wish with something new of his choice. He can buy a diamond ring in a shop and pay with blank paper. Fancy that.

 

Movies are business, and if you are a movie director, it is really easy enough to fall into the mindset that it is much easier to make money by tricking people than by delivering quality.

 

 

EDIT:

Oh, I just remembered another possible reason why some reviews are so extremely positive and get best votes: If you think that marketing firms don't create fake reviews by paid agents ... think again. There are many documented precedents by now. And I don't confuse this with secret services. I know that their methods are sometimes similar.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Hardyg

[Guest winpro07]

..

Edited January 17, 2010 by winpro07

[Owledge]

..

Fascinating! Please tell me more!

[Marblehead]

Hi Hardyg,

 

Yes, there is a vast amount of marketing in nearly all movies. Yes, they used to do it subliminally. There are laws that are supposed to prohibit that now.

 

I don't know if it is still happening but for sure, overt marketing is going on all the time. You mentioned MTV. Yeah, they do that big time! And so do the kids cartoon channels although that is monitored closely and strictly limited.

 

I dout that it will ever stop. It is just another way for producers to advertise their products.

 

Peace & Love!

[Owledge]

By the way... very funny website in case you didn't know it, and the text from the link below is an examination of advertising efficiency in regards to product quality. ( )

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=owned

[DalTheJigsaw123]

I'm bumin' this thread!

[~jK~]

Oh No !!!

Chubby Checker & Elvis & The Beatles were a commercial !?!

 

Magic is only a Distraction?

 

If an Elephant can be made to float by distraction - what else can be slipped in?

 

Remember the electric church of TV with Jim Baker & Tammy and Jimmy Swaggart? They were the tools that made money while experimenting with Subliminal Suggestion for ... Hmm, why can't I remember for who...

 

Well anyway - it seems to be that Subliminal Suggestion AKA manipulation IS hypnosis.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Escape (The Pina Colada Song) - Rupert Holmes

 

Please Don't Go - KC and the Sunshine Band

 

Rock With You - Michael Jackson

 

Do That To Me One More Time - Captain & Tennille

 

Crazy Little Thing Called Love - Queen

 

March 22 - April 18: Another Brick in the Wall (Part II) - Pink Floyd

 

Call Me - Blondie

 

Sailing - Christopher Cross

 

Another One Bites the Dust - Queen

 

Lady - Kenny Rogers

 

(Just Like) Starting Over - John Lennon

 

(Just Like) Starting Over John Lennon

 

9 to 5 Dolly Parton

 

Bette Davis Eyes - Kim Carnes

 

The One That You Love - Air Supply

 

Endless Love - Diana Ross & Lionel Richie

 

Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do) - Christopher Cross

 

Private Eyes - Hall & Oates

 

 

Physical - Olivia Newton-John

 

I Can't Go for That (No Can Do) - Daryl Hall & John Oates

 

 

I Love Rock n' Roll - Joan Jett and the Blackhearts

 

Chariots of Fire theme Vangelis

 

Ebony and Ivory - Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder

 

Eye of the Tiger - Survivor

 

Hard to Say I'm Sorry - Chicago

 

 

Who Can It Be Now? - Men at Work

 

Up Where We Belong - Joe Cocker & Jennifer Warnes

 

Truly - Lionel Richie

 

 

Maneater - Hall & Oates

 

Down Under - Men at Work

 

Billie Jean - Michael Jackson

 

 

Beat It - Michael Jackson

 

Let's Dance - David Bowie

 

Flashdance... What A Feeling - Irene Cara

 

Every Breath You Take - The Police

September 3 - September 9:

Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) - Eurythmics

 

Tell Her About It - Billy Joel

 

 

Islands In the Stream - Kenny Rogers with Dolly Parton

 

Say Say Say - Paul McCartney featuring Michael Jackson

 

Say Say Say - Paul McCartney featuring Michael Jackson

 

Owner of a Lonely Heart - Yes

 

Karma Chameleon - Culture Club

 

Jump - Van Halen

 

Footloose - Kenny Loggins

 

Against All Odds (Take A Look At Me Now) - Phil Collins

 

Hello - Lionel Richie

 

Time After Time - Cyndi Lauper

 

When Doves Cry - Prince

 

I Just Called To Say I Love You - Stevie Wonder

 

Like a Virgin - Madonna

 

December 22, 1984 - February 1, 1985:

Like a Virgin- Madonna

I Want to Know What Love Is - Foreigner

 

Can't Fight This Feeling - REO Speedwagon

 

One More Night - Phil Collins

April 13 - May 10:

We Are The World - USA For Africa

 

Sussudio - Phil Collins

July 13 - July 26:

A View to a Kill - Duran Duran

 

The Power of Love- Huey Lewis & The News

 

 

 

 

Miami Vice Theme - Jan Hammer

 

We Built This City - Starship

 

Separate Lives - Phil Collins & Marilyn Martin

 

Broken Wings- Mr. Mister

 

Say You, Say Me - Lionel Richie

 

Say You, Say Me - Lionel Richie

 

That's What Friends Are For - Dionne Warwick featuring Elton John, Gladys Knight and Stevie Wonder

 

How Will I Know - Whitney Houston

 

Kyrie - Mr. Mister

 

Sara - Starship

 

These Dreams - Heart

 

Rock Me Amadeus - Falco

 

 

Addicted to Love - Robert Palmer

 

West End Girls - Pet Shop Boys

 

Greatest Love of All - Whitney Houston

 

Live to Tell - Madonna

 

On My Own - Patti LaBelle & Michael McDonald

 

There'll Be Sad Songs (to Make You Cry) - Billy Ocean

 

Holding Back the Years - Simply Red

 

Invisible Touch - Genesis

 

Sledgehammer - Peter Gabriel

 

Glory of Love - Peter Cetera

 

 

 

Papa Don't Preach - Madonna

 

 

Higher Love - Steve Winwood

 

September 6 - September 12:

Venus - Bananarama

 

September 13 - September 19:

Take My Breath Away - Berlin

September 20 - October 10:

Stuck with You Huey Lewis & the News

October 11 - October 24:

When I Think of You - Janet Jackson

October 25 - November 7:

 

True Colors - Cyndi Lauper

November 8 - November 21:

 

Amanda - Boston

November 22 - November 28:

Human - Human League

November 29 - December 5:

You Give Love a Bad Name - Bon Jovi

December 6 - December 12:

The Next Time I Fall - Peter Cetera featuring Amy Grant

December 13 - December 19:

The Way It Is - Bruce Hornsby & the Range

December 20, 1986 - January 16, 1987:

Walk Like an Egyptian - The Bangles

[Owledge]

I mentioned the new Star Trek before, so a sarcastic piece that came to my mind might fit in here.

 

 

If you thought Star Trek 11 was a disgrace, wait for Star Trek 12 when the Enterprise encounters a Borg tube.

[Guest paul walter]

I mentioned the new Star Trek before, so a sarcastic piece that came to my mind might fit in here.

 

 

If you thought Star Trek 11 was a disgrace, wait for Star Trek 12 when the Enterprise encounters a Borg tube.

 

 

Hardyg, the cinema is indeed a pernicious influence on the mind. Most all things are in our contemporary world. The whole 'spectacle'of society is designed to mesh and support what is essentially an excercise in population control. This can be proved by the fact that our dreams fail to materialise everyday--why? Because they are not allowed. The film industry has had a profound homogenising influence on cultures in the 20th C and it has essentially dominated the biological imperative to use the senses in different ways, instead replacing the mind/sense matrix with a data base that renders the afflicted as a drone of sorts. The cinema was always mobilised as an explicit mind control device in times where the population needed to be curtailed in some way--WW1...Great Depression...WW2...Post-War...Vietnam....Nazi Germany....Fascist Italy...Soviets...post-'communist'/pro-capitalist world view (NWO)...The Fascists, the Nazi's, the 'Communists', and the Capitalists all agreed that the moving picture is the most potent tool for influencing public opinion (read: mind control). I wouldn't worry about 'product placement' and the like--they are merely ways of selling products/influencing opinion in a system that is already controlled--it's the outer layers you need to focus on. Since the birth of cinema there has been an understanding of its power to colonise (control) our senses and therefore our mind/habits. When the first public screenings of films happened people jumped out of their seats cause they thought the train or the water on screen would hit them--and this is before 3-D! This in itself shows how susceptable we are to illusions of various sorts--especially visual ones, which take up a large part of modern peoples' brain activity.

 

In the teens a Russian filmmaker called Lev Kuleshov 'discovered' the 'Kuleshov effect', meaning he articulated theoretically the effect of putting two shots (or pictures) 'side by side'. They could be of anything , for example a shot of a dog and a shot of a mans face. Most viewers would 'see' a man looking at a dog when these two shots were played in the cinema. But the dog and man could have been filmed in different countries etc. The mind of the viewer 'joined' them into a narrative--and this with only TWO shots from a film. You can put any two things together and you will get a reaction in the mind of the willing, uncritical viewer--they create their own meaning out of something totally disconnected. This sort of stuff along with the exploitation of the findings in the fields like behavioural psychology has had profound implications for the modern mind. All popular film at least works on this principle and advertising is the thing that totally exploits this idea EVERYWHERE. As the moving image has colonised the world, then t.v., then computers/internet, youtube, I-phone, things have become more saturating and total in their influence. I think this generation (or perhaps it was the last gen?) will be the last of the 'civilised' Anglo-Europeans to know themselves in any meaningful way-it's pretty much game-set-match when you can get a persons attention 24/7. There has also been a study done on the effects of television signals on the brain--we essentially think we are watching the outside world when we watch the tube, it convinces our nervous system that we are 'participating' in something real. All this applies to art, ideas and words, thought as well--just that the saturation value of images and us being trained to 'rely' on our sight at the expense of other ways of knowing the world has been exploited to such an insane degree there seems to be little 'breathing space' left for an honest appraisal of the situation and for a winding of the clock back. Paul.

[Owledge]

Yes, I am aware of that. Also, I think the vast majority in the film business for example have no clue, i.e. they create a narrative for a film and don't realize how much they are recycling things that are already there, and not doing something really creative. And that is also kept in check by the monetary control factor: Making a movie that is really envisioning how a more positive future (intellectually, not technologically) could be would be a financial risk because most people are incapable of enjoying it. And so, science fiction, too, is heavily based on the present. Movies are preaching a behavior of the future placed in the present, which of course is conflicting. A truly inspiring, change-inducing movie probably needs a director with an intellect of tomorrow, who can perceive of a 'realistic' better future.

The best I can see in science fiction is the exploration of ideas that expand the intellectual horizon, but their implementation is usually very crude, because they have to fit into a present-based environment.

 

Personally, I can imagine a future where people might smile about Star Trek because it's so extremely plain ... I mean, the whole navy genre transferred to starships. Non-homing photon torpedos and other crude stuff that has simply received a polish. Placing a black woman in the crew to demonstrate the vision of racial equality ... quite in-your-face-symbolism - wow, how inspiring. I couldn't possibly have gotten the idea without Lt. Uhura.

... You know what I mean? Where's the intellectual progress? As long as we tell ourselves the illusion of being more intellectually advanced than in the past, we stay in a cage that we made for ourselves.

 

Summarily, one could say that the 'divine' influence is outside of the system and thus a potential for real advancement, and the control structures are so powerful that progress can't be significant. And the controllers don't stand still in time either. They refine their methods. It seems pointless to perpetuate a struggle where ALWAYS the bad guys are more powerful. If people were more advanced today, then shouldn't they think about meta-strategies? What I see is just regular warfare in the box. Both sides try to gain ground, both sides evolve, one side is always more powerful.

 

Maybe we need quantum-leaps in thinking.

Maybe currently I'm not in the best mood to write something more positive.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Hardyg

[Guest paul walter]

Yes, I am aware of that. Also, I think the vast majority in the film business for example have no clue, i.e. they create a narrative for a film and don't realize how much they are recycling things that are already there, and not doing something really creative. And that is also kept in check by the monetary control factor: Making a movie that is really envisioning how a more positive future (intellectually, not technologically) could be would be a financial risk because most people are incapable of enjoying it.

 

Well it has never been the entertainment business' idea to free the minds of its consumers. 'Avatar' is the most people can hope for--that's why most rave about it, cause it gave about as much hope as Obama in its promise of a 'new deal' in a 'new' package---he being black, 'Avatar' being 3-D/digital. And the film people completely have control over the process from beginning to end--believe me they know what they're doing. No film stands alone-it is simply part of a mass-packaging campaign to flog a dead horse, squeeze blood from a stone etc. The most famous 'guru' of scriptwriting says there are only a dozen stories or so in the world that just keep getting re-packaged. and people believe him. I'm surprised he is claiming there are that many too--look around! Unfortunately the films you want have been made by others in styles that are not for public consumption--they have been marginalised by the film industries around the world to the extent that if you watched the films you probably would say they were invalid as film .

 

Here's some: Stan Brakhage--American independant filmmaker exploring his life and concsiousness through his films.

Andrei Tarkovski-- Russian filmmaker, made a few 'spiritual' takes on the sci-fi genre--'Stalker' and 'Solaris'. His other films explore the inner turmoil of mans' search for meaning.

Carl Theodore Dreyer-- Old Danish filmmaker. His 'Ordet' deals with death and resurrection (literally) through faith.

 

 

Various truly independant filmmakers, mostly American, now forgotten thanks to the whole Sundance Hollywoodisation of so-called 'independant' cinema.

 

There's not really any point in talking about these styles of films cause most peoples' brains are full of Hollywood (drugs) and there's just no room left for other things. If you're looking for sci-fi validation of your preferences in film go back to the 50's--at least they had a subtext sometimes that 'dealt' with 'issues' i.e. war and nuclear issues in 'Day the Earth Stood Still'-- individual and society and commies in 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'--mans treatment/fear of his natural inclinations/wildside in 'Forbidden Planet' (based on Shakespeares 'The Tempest')... nuclear fears in 'Them'...fear of the unknown in 'The Thing' etc etc.

 

Yeah, reading your post again I see what you are getting at and can only tell you that through studying film history there has never been a trend in thinking outside the box ever--it's the wrong medium. There have been individuals who sometimes have 'something to say' but never could that take hold ina general way--the world would be quite a different place if that was the case. Unless you explore some of those films i mentioned i can't see you getting an answer to your desires. We all have to grow up sometime. ...Paul.

Edited February 17, 2010 by paul walter

[Owledge]

The Day The Earth Stood Still was pretty good. (BTW there was some lobbyist tinkering - you can read it up in the IMDB trivia)

The Forbidden Planet sounds very interesting.

 

Another sarcastic joke came to my mind:

 

When a movie director is asked what he does for a living, the correct answer would be: "I'm in the recycling business."

 

 

Paul, here's a riddle for you (and others of course):

What is the common underlying somewhat subversive message in the movies "Live Free or Die Hard" and "Next"?

Edited February 17, 2010 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

By the way... very funny website in case you didn't know it, and the text from the link below is an examination of advertising efficiency in regards to product quality. ( )

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=owned

that dude's pretty funny. love the whacked out shit he comes up with. (hopefully the quasi-caricature of a mass murder was also in jest, too many people think that person actually did some sort of good on this earth.)

 

like this gem here: My immune system is so strong that I have to get AIDS just to be normal. ROFL...in the context of his post about why worry so much about swine flu... (This contest is real. Email me if you have swine flu and are willing to fly me out to sneeze in my face.)

 

sorry, that was just damn funny

 

hm, so to correlate to just having read the laughter bit on dial a meow, I think surprise is a crucial element in funniness.

 

by all means, carry on

Edited February 17, 2010 by joeblast

[Owledge]

(hopefully the quasi-caricature of a mass murder was also in jest, too many people think that person actually did some sort of good on this earth.)

If you mean Che Guevara, very likely it's a case of a mixture of good intentions and weaknesses, influence of enemy and circumstances, foolishness and all that. But I still have some videos about him that I need to watch. There are so many other topics I gave preference to.

 

like this gem here: My immune system is so strong that I have to get AIDS just to be normal. ROFL...in the context of his post about why worry so much about swine flu... (This contest is real. Email me if you have swine flu and are willing to fly me out to sneeze in my face.)

And like swine flu, HIV/AIDS is a huge fraud.

 

hm, so to correlate to just having read the laughter bit on dial a meow, I think surprise is a crucial element in funniness.

Yes, I thought about the nature of humor a lot and it doesn't seem as mysterious as it is always depicted. Humor induces a surprise that widens the intellectual horizon, which has several benefits, like enabling you to find new solutions to problems. Also, laughter could be a form of paying tribute to a superior intellect (demonstrated by creative spontaneity for example).

Edited February 17, 2010 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

he actually does have a statement of irony regarding the che av. appears that he knows what sort of person che was.

[Owledge]

To wander even more off-topic...

 

Every time I see your avatar picture, I am reminded of Babylon 4.

 

Also, I noticed a cool wordplay: The station or show is occasionally abbreviated, (B5 for Babylon 5). For Babylon 4, this would be B4, and Babylon 4 came B-4 Babylon 5.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Hardyg

[Guest paul walter]

The Day The Earth Stood Still was pretty good. (BTW there was some lobbyist tinkering - you can read it up in the IMDB trivia)

The Forbidden Planet sounds very interesting.

 

That's the original'Day...' 1951.

 

 

Another sarcastic joke came to my mind:

 

When a movie director is asked what he does for a living, the correct answer would be: "I'm in the recycling business."

 

 

Or the pimping business...or whoring....

 

 

Paul, here's a riddle for you (and others of course):

What is the common underlying somewhat subversive message in the movies "Live Free or Die Hard" and "Next"?

 

 

Don't know--no longer watch movies, have't seen them. But an educated guess would be: 'it doesn't matter how old you are there is always room for another sequel/installment' for the first one, and ' you can never escape the establishment cause they will find some way of convincing you you are needed for their greater survival and your own?' for the second .

[Owledge]

, and ' you can never escape the establishment cause they will find some way of convincing you you are needed for their greater survival and your own?

That's it! Both movies tell you that when you cooperate with a small evil in order to fight a great evil, you are a hero. This while the one telling you that is the self-proclaimed small evil.

This pattern is so popular in recent movies that I'm wondering whether it's just the latest fashion or a hidden agenda of getting people used to the establishment's evil.

[Owledge]

@joeblast

I wouldn't say Che didn't do anything good. Much of his picture depends on whether you see him in relation to the rest of the world. While he of course was a militant revolutionary, also ordering the execution of people (who committed atrocities though), he also deeply believed AND practiced principles of equality and all that is the opposite of inhumane imperialism.

 

I often wonder how the efficiency of something like a militant revolution could be combined with the avoidance of being negatively influenced by adversaries ... or whether they exclude each other.

[joeblast]

you're missing some che history. atrocities? dont go along with the socialist revolution and that's an atrocity? che was a sick f*k that took pleasure in killing. we call 'em mass murderers these days.

[Owledge]

you're missing some che history. atrocities? dont go along with the socialist revolution and that's an atrocity? che was a sick f*k that took pleasure in killing. we call 'em mass murderers these days.

Either this side wasn't covered in what I know so far, or there speaks the U.S.'s Communism trauma* or maybe just misinformation. Can you please give me a text link or a name of a documentary that covers that?

One video I've seen so far is "El Che - Investigating a Legend", and there they mentioned that when they overthrew the oppressive US-backed government in Cuba, they executed government employees who worked as prison torturers/killers. That video wasn't very exhaustive, but from the personality outline given there, what you say really sounds extremely polarized.

 

*) The U.S.-American people suffer from something quite similar to what the German people suffer from in regards to Jews. And I think in both cases there might be strong support for its perpetuation by manipulators behind the curtains, because it is creating division.