Movie Conspiracy?

The_Adventurer · Post by **The_Adventurer** » June 20th, 2011, 7:59 pm

If entertainment exists as a means of social conditioning and programming the masses, does this mean that all entertainment falls into this category? What about independents?

In the "good old days", men like Edison and Eastman, the founders of GE and Kodak respectively, gave the world the motion picture camera and film. One might be tempted to use the word "created", but often times these things are the products of other inventors and large corporations screw them over and make millions, or start wars, from and with their inventions. That, however, is another conspiracy thread. In any case, Edison and Eastman took their respective technologies and create The Motion Picture Patents Group.

The purpose of this group was to control the motion picture industry. Cameras were available only for rental, as is still the case today with Panavision cameras and lenses, and for an exorbitant fee. Only the rich could afford to make movies, and even then, only if the Motion Picture Patents Group approved your script. It was also the case that Kodak controlled who could and could not buy film. Basically this group insured that the only movies that would get made, were those they wanted to get made.

Along came four brothers bearing the last name Warner. One of the biggest developments under their watch was the addition of sound to film. They formed a great studio, and many others followed suit. Thus the studio system was born. Actors, writers and directors were under contract with a particular studio, and could not work for any other. If you didn't know someone, you didn't get in. People on the outside were destined to remain so.

With the advent of unions and guilds, the studio system eventually broke down to some degree, but it is still there. Now, however, the guilds also exert control. If you're not in the guild, you can't play. You can't work on a film with guild members. This caused some people to move to Texas where these rules don't apply. The problem is, they might be able to make what they want, but will they ever get it distributed? There is some measure of control at every step in the process.

Today we have cameras costing as little as $1000 that can shoot quality approaching what the big studios are using. There are cameras like the Red One, which still probably costs less than your car, which can beat the quality of the cameras used on most 35mm academy films. Someone could, with the technology today, including these cameras, low cost editing and special software and great sound equipment, now all cheap enough for many to afford, shoot and edit a film that is every bit is technically competitive with anything the majors can put out. In fact, some have. So why aren't we seeing these films? Where are they? Why aren't they make hundreds of millions at the box office?

The internet was supposed to open the doors to allow independents direct access to their market. No more gatekeepers, no more Motion Picture Patents Group, no more barriers to distribution. This did happen, I guess, but the majors quickly jumped in with sites and systems like Hulu, iTunes, Myspace and others, drowning out any independent voices with their vast libraries of mainstream content and hundreds of millions in advertising. The things is, they're not making any money! So what is the point? The point is, they don't want you to have your audience. They don't want you to have your voice. They are willing to make sacrifices, even their precious money, to make sure that the only content is their content.

They can't stop you from making it anymore. They can't stop people from watching it anymore. They can, however, make sure no one finds out about it, by being bigger, louder and very well advertised!

odbo · Post by **odbo** » June 20th, 2011, 8:40 pm

No not all entertainment is conditioning, but there is very little originality these days. They don't have to infiltrate every distributor of film to have 99% carry their agenda. Some conclude technology and television itself is "Satan". Well without making philosophical conclusions, the television we are given IS satan. The flicker rate was specifically designed to put you in a sleep state where you would be easily downloaded with brainwash. If there was any independent technology like a different kind of computer not using the architecture big brother gave us, perhaps that would not be evil.

Even porn is dictated and lower budget stuff simply copies the trend. If they don't, makes no difference, the very existence of porn helps their agenda. That's what they call being caught in the net. Kind of like our language. Even if we stop talking like idiots and improve our vocabulary and intellect, guess what, we're still speaking a sodomite's tongue DESIGNED to program us.

Film/Television is the greatest weapon every devised, because it affects you in so many ways! There is really nothing like it that even comes close. Before any child sees a film or watches any amount of tv, they should be given a 1000 page book on how it will manipulate them. That would be better than any Bible.

odbo · Post by **odbo** » July 12th, 2011, 2:23 am

transhumanism predictive programming, dehumanizing eugenics through pseudo-life/2nd life

Post by **Winston** » July 12th, 2011, 5:01 am

Why do movies always use the same cliches over and over again, including the dumbest ones? There are tons of original scripts out there. Why don't directors just use them for more original stories? Even comic book series have some great stories in them that could be used instead of the same stupid predictable plots.

Did any of you see Transformers 3? It was the WORST of the three. The first one was the best. Every single stupid cheesy cliche was used in it. The plot made no sense either. The teen protagonist in it should have died about 20 times, yet he still survived for no reason other than that he was the protagonist. Really dumb.

MrPeabody · Post by **MrPeabody** » July 12th, 2011, 5:22 am

Movies and Television are becoming more sadistic every day. Movies are showing more sadistic and weird ways to kill people, and show it in details made possible by advanced technology. You can now see a bullet rip into flesh in slow motion with stereophonic sound effects. You have Mel Gibson showing the story of Christ in full graphic detail, a movie script obviously written by a sadist who needed a platform to show sexually gratifying violence. The gospels omitted the graphic details for a reason, because it wasn't the central message and not necessary to tell the story. The violence generated by the mass media is over the top and cultivates the morbid tendencies of a human mind. And people actually believe this is just entertainment and it has no effect on people. And then you have the long drawn out trials of murderers made popular by FOX News, which gives the talking heads the excuse to give the graphic details of a murder. Of course, this isn't affecting your children. Yes, words like "satanic" and "evil" may be one way to describe it. Or you could consider it as the noxious results of immoral capitalism and a vicious competitive system that puts profits ahead of morals. When you take off the blinders, you can see what filth the world really is. It's too overwhelming for most people to look at for too long.

FreeYourMind · Post by **FreeYourMind** » July 12th, 2011, 10:45 am

I haven't watched prime time TV shows for decades, and I'm amazed at the explicit violence and images shown just in commercials for the CSI series and other shows. Movies of course are far far worse. Even cartoons have become sick and twisted. I remember when bare boobs could be seen even in PG movies. Now bare boobs are pretty much relegated to porn, but everything else goes as far as mainstreaming violence, sex, and homosexuality. The media controllers are demented anti-humans.

odbo · Post by **odbo** » July 12th, 2011, 3:51 pm

Winston wrote:Why do movies always use the same cliches over and over again, including the dumbest ones? There are tons of original scripts out there. Why don't directors just use them for more original stories? Even comic book series have some great stories in them that could be used instead of the same stupid predictable plots.

Did any of you see Transformers 3? It was the WORST of the three. The first one was the best. Every single stupid cheesy cliche was used in it. The plot made no sense either. The teen protagonist in it should have died about 20 times, yet he still survived for no reason other than that he was the protagonist. Really dumb.

That's because the sole purpose of hollywood films is to program and "upgrade" you. The enjoyment aspect is just to get you to watch. But since idiots like yourself will watch regardless of how bad the enjoyment value is, they don't have to bother even trying on that aspect anymore.

momopi · Post by **momopi** » July 13th, 2011, 11:09 pm

Winston wrote:Why do movies always use the same cliches over and over again, including the dumbest ones? There are tons of original scripts out there. Why don't directors just use them for more original stories? Even comic book series have some great stories in them that could be used instead of the same stupid predictable plots.

Did any of you see Transformers 3? It was the WORST of the three. The first one was the best. Every single stupid cheesy cliche was used in it. The plot made no sense either. The teen protagonist in it should have died about 20 times, yet he still survived for no reason other than that he was the protagonist. Really dumb.

Expand your selection to foreign films. I recommend "Old Boy"