Doctor Who & Call of Duty Twilight Language: Predictive Programming
February 15, 2012 1 Comment
8 Examples of Unusually, Overly Specific Typecasting in Hollywood Movies
February 15, 2012 3 Comments
"I, ugh, I ugh, I'm I'm stroking my chin now, right now, as a proper Jeff Goldblum should do, and I, I, I, um, am about to tell you some, some, um, disturbing FUBAR event that we will marginally escape..."
By: Peter Parker
Most movie goers are familiar with the phenomenon of typecasting, where a certain actor, be it by his or her own efforts or by the capricious whims of some Hollywood Executive, ends up playing the same basic role over and over again. Examples include John Wayne’s myriad performances as Cowboys, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s frequent portrayal of guys who’ll “be back” and Shia Labeouf’s endless depictions of people I want to repeatedly punch in the face. However, what has gone largely unnoticed by folks with so-called “real lives” is what I have labeled “U.O.S.T.” or Unusually Overly Specific Typecasting. U.O.S.T is often so bizarre that it seems more like some wonky Synchro-Mystic reincarnation across an actor’s career history rather than a reflection of the utter unoriginality of Hollywood casting directors but perhaps we should just let the examples of it speak for themselves.
Mary Steenburgen: The Girlfriend, Turned Wife of Guys Who Travel Between the Late 19th and Late 20th Centuries.
Other than playing Bride of Frankenstein to giant foreheaded hubby Ted Danson, Mary Steenburgen is probably best known for playing the part of Clara Clayton, a schoolmarm romanced by nutty scientists Emmett “Doc” Brown, when he travels back to the year 1885 in the third Back to the Future movie. After contemplating destroying his time machine on the grounds that it might fuck shit up on a galactic scale, Doc eventually says “screw the laws of causality,” marries Clara and returns with her to his own era.
"We named our kids Jules & Verne, so basically, we’re one of those annoying yuppie couples that makes you wanna barf! But at least, be thankful we didn’t pull a Will & Jada Smith & call em Clemet & Emra."
What’s less remembered, however, is Mary played almost this exact same part ten years earlier, with only one slight inversion. In the 1979 film Time After Time, Mary plays Amy Robbins a late 20th century woman who is romanced by a time traveler from the year 1893, specifically the pimp-daddy of time travel himself, H.G Wells, who came through time to pursue none other than Jack the Ripper. After saving Amy from “Saucy Jack” Wells decides he must return to his own time and destroy the machine. Proving the old adage “time machines are the ultimate pussy wagons,” Amy begs Wells to take her with him. They return to 1893 with the ending credits telling us that they later married.
Hell, both movies even feature scenes where Mary gets all pissy when her respective beaus, reveal that they are time travelers. Apparently, she believes “I’m a time traveling scientists” to be a sleazy con to get up under her hoop skirt and as we’ve already established, it’s definitely an angle that works!
Speaking of perfectly executed segues; our next example of U.O.S.T also involves another actress from Back to the Future.
Maybe this movie traveled through time to become “Back to the Future 3.”
Lea Thompson: Young Women in Sci-Fi Related, Deeply Disturbing, Sexual Relationships.
If you weren’t creeped out by the Steenburgen/Danson pairing, then this next segment probably won’t phase you one bit, however if your disturbo-threshold is that of a normal human, prepare to go “eeww!”
The lovely Lea Thompson has twice played parts that combine sci-fi and totally wrong sexual relationships. Many of us remember, mostly in therapy sessions, the scene in Back to the Future where Lea plays 1950s chick Lorrain Baines, who through the miracle of time travel, tries to get it on with her own son, Marty.
Hell, both movies even feature scenes where Mary gets all pissy when her respective beaus, reveal that they are time travelers. Apparently, she believes “I’m a time traveling scientists” to be a sleazy con to get up under her hoop skirt and as we’ve already established, it’s definitely an angle that works! Read more of this post
Psychological Warfare and Media
May 18, 2011 2 Comments
Who is Number 1? "You are Number Six"
By: Jay
The study of conspiracy leads directly to the study of covert operations and intelligence agencies. As one reads about the plots and intrigues of secret societies, one is quickly led to the topic of intelligence due to the fact that both have one central aspect in common—knowledge of secrets. Combined with this is the ability to hide that knowledge and rule men accordingly, and if you don’t think the modern world is run by the military industrial intelligence complex, you know nothing of the world. The result of this knowledge and secrecy is a modicum of power.
The use of this type of power is thus utilized by governments in the form of psychological warfare. In older manuals around the time of World War II, the assumption is that psychological warfare is the use and application of “propaganda against an enemy, together with such other operational measures of military, economic, or political nature as may be required to supplement propaganda.”1 In our day, these principles, borrowed from psychology, are combined with scientific precision and notions from Edward Bernays’ theories of mass advertising, as well as mass media studies and social engineering, and has resulted in a world wherein we are daily adrift in a sea of psychological warfare. The privatization of intelligence is thus connected with the private, corporate control of entities like the mainstream media and film, as well as a heavy dose of privatized influence and control of government from behind the scenes. By this I mean that Lockheed-Martin, for example, can have a much greater influence over governmental policy and regulations than a senator. This is the reality of the present situation, regardless of anyone’s feelings on the matter. Read more of this post
The Knowing Predicts Gulf Oil Disaster
June 23, 2010 5 Comments
Last year, our friend Peter Parker wrote an excellent analysis of The Knowing. It’s a must-read. All the more relevant, then, that The Knowing presaged the gulf oil distaster. The only discrepancy is that the date is 5 days off in the film – but still – a year ahead of time, the Knowing predicts a gulf oil disaster almost to the tee. Take a gander at Parker’s analysis, and you’ll see why this is.
