#without considerably alienating their core audience

[banefort]

This doesn’t really need to be said but a Valyria spinoff show just Wouldn’t work I’m surprised I still see so many people asking for it. There’s such little detail about it in the texts that the show runners would have to build the entire empire’s history, arts, political and economic systems from scratch, all while marrying it in a satisfying way to the main ASOIAF plot. Besides a scant few Valyrians and dragons, the general culture doesn’t have enough/any presence in the main series for a show based in Valyria to feel familiar or gratifying at all.

Not to mention, I cant see a Valyrian-centered show having the confidence to unpack the politics and machinations of a slave-based empire, let alone frame the ruling Valyrians in any critical light

[hentaiz-a1com]

Safe Boundaries and Fantasy in Hentai Worlds

The realm of hentai is vast, colorful, and often misunderstood. It combines art, storytelling, and intense creativity to create surreal, fantasy-driven worlds that captivate its audience. With its increasing popularity, one aspect that deserves more attention is the concept of safe boundaries within these fantasy universes anime 18+.

While hentai anime 18+ often taps into creative, boundary-pushing ideas, it’s important to acknowledge the need for psychological safety and ethical considerations both in its creation and consumption. For creators, it involves designing content that respects the diverse tastes and boundaries of their audience while steering clear of potentially harmful themes. For viewers, it’s about engaging with content that aligns with their own values and comfort levels.

The Role of Fantasy

Fantasy is at the heart of hentai anime 18+, offering an escape from reality and a chance to explore concepts that may not exist in the real world. These imaginative narratives often intertwine fiction with exaggerated elements, pushing the boundaries of storytelling. However, the freedom that fantasy provides does not mean abandoning accountability. Many fans and creators alike emphasize the importance of separating fantasy from reality, ensuring that these depictions remain fictional and do not influence real-world behaviors or interpersonal ethics.

Why Safe Boundaries Matter

Safe boundaries in hentai anime 18+ worlds go beyond mere content guidelines; they bring a sense of mutual respect between creators and their audiences. Creators who push the envelope too far often risk alienating their fans or miscommunicating their intentions. For instance, incorporating sensitive themes without thoughtful execution may inadvertently harm or offend. On the flip side, fans need spaces where they can openly discuss preferences, share feedback, and voice opinions without facing judgment.

Another point of discussion stems from the major demographic shift in the hentai anime 18+ audience. Studies and reports show that viewership has expanded significantly across different cultures and genders. This broader reach amplifies the importance of responsible storytelling and boundary setting to accommodate a wider, more diverse fanbase.

The Bottom Line

At its core, hentai anime 18+ is a creative expression and a celebration of imaginative worlds. Setting safe boundaries ensures both creators and audiences can engage with this art form respectfully and comfortably. By prioritizing these values, hentai will not only thrive but continue to intrigue and resonate across global audiences in ethical ways.

[unlimitedexposureonline]

Brand Identity Revolution: Transforming Perception through Optimization

In the vast and competitive business landscape, where first impressions can make or break a brand, the power of a name is unparalleled. Strategic naming is not just about choosing words; it's a carefully orchestrated dance that can provide a competitive edge in brand optimization. In this exploration, we delve into the art and science of naming, understanding how a well-crafted name goes beyond mere identification, becoming a key player in brand visibility, memorability, and success.

The Significance of a Name: Beyond Identification

A brand's name is its first point of contact with the world. It's the verbal handshake, the introduction, and the initial glimpse into what a brand represents. While a name is undoubtedly a form of identification, its significance extends far beyond a mere label. It is a powerful tool for communication, differentiation, and establishing a brand's personality.

Communicating Brand Identity

A strategic name is a condensed story encapsulating the essence of a brand's identity. It communicates values, mission, and aspirations in a concise and memorable package. Think of iconic brands like Apple, Google, or Nike – their names convey more than just the products they offer; they embody a lifestyle, a philosophy, and a narrative.

Differentiation in a Crowded Market

A unique and strategic name becomes a beacon that stands out in a sea of competitors. It's not merely a label but a differentiator. Consider the beverage industry – Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper all offer cola-based drinks, but their names evoke distinct emotions, creating individual niches in consumers' minds.

Emotional Resonance

Humans are emotional beings, and a brand's name has the power to evoke emotions. Whether it's trust, excitement, or nostalgia, a well-chosen name can establish an emotional connection with consumers. Starbucks, for example, conjures images of comfort and community, adding a layer of emotional resonance to the coffeehouse experience.

The Art of Strategic Naming

Strategic naming is a delicate art that involves a deep understanding of the brand, its audience, and the competitive landscape. It goes beyond mere creativity; it requires a strategic approach that aligns with the brand's goals and aspirations. Let's explore the key elements that constitute the art of strategic naming.

Clarity and Simplicity

A strategic name should be clear and straightforward, avoiding unnecessary complexity. It should convey the brand's core message without confusing or alienating the audience. Consider Google – a simple, memorable name that reflects the brand's mission to organize the world's information.

Relevance to the Industry

A strategic name should resonate with the industry it belongs to. It should hint at the products, services, or values associated with the brand. Amazon, for instance, suggests a vast and diverse marketplace, aligning perfectly with the e-commerce giant's offerings.

Memorability and Pronounceability

A memorable name is a brand asset. It lingers in the minds of consumers and facilitates word-of-mouth marketing. Additionally, a name that is easy to pronounce ensures that it spreads effortlessly. Brands like Nike, Apple, and McDonald's owe part of their success to memorable and quickly spoken names.

Cultural and Global Considerations

Strategic naming should consider cultural nuances and global reach in an interconnected world. A name that translates well across languages and cultures prevents unintentional missteps. For instance, the name Toyota was chosen for its phonetic appeal and ease of pronunciation in various languages.

Strategic Naming in Action: Success Stories

Apple: An Iconic Identity

The story behind Apple's name is a lesson in simplicity and symbolism. Co-founder Steve Jobs was inspired by the names of fruitarian diets, and the name "Apple" aligned with his vision of a simple, approachable, and innovative brand. The name has become synonymous with cutting-edge technology and design.

Airbnb: A Global Invitation

Airbnb, short for "Air Bed and Breakfast," started as a platform for renting air mattresses in a living room. With its simplicity and inclusivity, the name evolved to represent a global community of hosts and travellers. It's a prime example of a strategic name growing with the brand's expansion and diversification.

Strategic Naming in Brand Optimization

Beyond its role as an identifier, a strategic name is a potent force in brand optimization, influencing various aspects of a brand's digital and physical presence.

Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

In the digital age, a brand's online visibility is crucial. A strategic name that incorporates relevant keywords or is unique enough to dominate search results aids in SEO efforts. Consider how the name "Netflix" dominates online searches for streaming services, creating a digital advantage.

Domain Availability

A strategic name considers domain availability in the realm of websites and online presence. A brand's online home is its domain, and securing a name that aligns with its identity enhances digital accessibility. Google's choice of the domain "google.com" is a straightforward example.

Social Media Presence

A strategic name aligns seamlessly with social media platforms, ensuring consistency across digital channels. It's not just a brand's identity but also its digital handshake with a global audience. Twitter, with its succinct and memorable name, exemplifies this digital harmony.

 Brand Recognition and Recall

A well-crafted name contributes significantly to brand recognition and recall. When consumers encounter a brand name that resonates, they are more likely to remember and recall it when purchasing. Therefore, strategic naming becomes a cornerstone in constructing a brand's mental real estate.

Challenges and Considerations

While strategic naming offers immense potential, it has its challenges. Legal considerations, cultural sensitivity, and the ever-changing nature of industries demand careful consideration. Companies must conduct thorough research and, if necessary, seek legal advice to ensure that their chosen name aligns with trademark laws and does not infringe on existing brands.

The Future of Strategic Naming

As industries evolve, so does the landscape of strategic naming. The future holds exciting possibilities, especially with the integration of technology. Artificial Intelligence (AI) may play a role in generating names that not only align with a brand's identity but also resonate with evolving consumer sentiments. The brands that embrace these advancements will remain at the forefront of consumer consciousness.

Conclusion

In the grand tapestry of business, where every element contributes to the symphony of success, a brand's name stands as a melodic thread. Strategic naming is not just an exercise in creativity; it's a strategic imperative that can shape perceptions, establish connections, and give a brand a competitive edge. As businesses navigate the intricacies of the market, the art and science of naming emerge as a powerful tool capable of propelling a brand from obscurity to prominence. Beyond identification, a strategic name becomes a living entity, resonating with consumers, adapting to cultural nuances, and optimizing a brand's presence in the digital and physical realms. It's not just a label; it's a strategic asset that, when wielded with precision, becomes the cornerstone of brand optimization and success.

“Discover the secrets behind the impact of digital marketing on our everyday existence and acquire a thorough comprehension of its operations through UE's valuable resources.

Regardless of your level of expertise, whether you're a beginner or an experienced veteran, these meticulously selected materials will enrich your understanding and ensure you stay up-to-date with the most recent advancements in the field of digital marketing.

Bio: Unlimited Exposure Online is Brand Optimization company based in Toronto.”

[newsblog12]

Do and Dont of Writing a Logline For Your Video Project

In the world of video production, the logline is your elevator pitch, your hook, and your first impression all rolled into one. Crafting a compelling logline is an essential skill for filmmakers, screenwriters, and content creators alike. In this blog post, we’ll delve deep into the dos and don’ts of writing a logline for your video project, ensuring that your concept shines and captivates your audience from the very beginning.

The Essence of a Logline

Before we dive into the dos and don’ts, let’s understand what a logline is. A logline is a brief, one-to-two-sentence summary of your video project. It should encapsulate the core concept, characters, and conflict, all while sparking curiosity. The goal is to entice potential viewers, investors, or collaborators.

A well-crafted logline can serve as the foundation of your project, guiding your creative decisions and marketing efforts.

Think of your logline as the first impression you make on your audience. It’s the key to piquing their interest and encouraging them to dive into your project.

An effective logline should convey the unique essence of your video while leaving room for curiosity. It’s a delicate balance that requires careful consideration.

The Dos of Writing a Logline

Now that we grasp the importance of a logline, let’s explore the dos to ensure your logline hits the mark and stands out in a crowded field.

Be Clear and Concise

A logline’s primary job is to convey your project’s essence quickly and clearly. Avoid vague or convoluted language that might leave your audience scratching their heads.

Use simple and direct language. Avoid jargon or overly complex terms that may alienate your audience.

Keep your logline concise. Aim for brevity without sacrificing clarity. Every word should serve a purpose.

Read your logline aloud to ensure it flows smoothly and makes immediate sense. If someone can’t understand it on the first read, it might need simplification.

Highlight the Protagonist and Their Goal

In most loglines, the protagonist and their goal take centre stage. Your audience should know who they’re rooting for and what that character is striving to achieve.

Introduce your main character early in the logline. Provide a glimpse of their identity and motivation.

Clearly state the character’s primary goal or objective. This helps establish the central conflict and purpose of the story.

Consider using vivid and descriptive language to paint a picture of your protagonist and their journey. Make the audience care about their mission.

Highlight the Conflict

Conflict is the engine that drives any compelling story. Ensure your logline hints at the challenges and obstacles your protagonist will face.

Include a glimpse of the primary conflict or obstacle that stands in the way of your character’s goal.

Convey a sense of stakes. What’s at risk if the protagonist fails to achieve their goal? This can create a sense of urgency.

Use strong action verbs to describe the conflict. Make it dynamic and engaging.

The Don’ts of Writing a Logline

While the dos are essential, it’s equally important to steer clear of common pitfalls. Let’s explore the don’ts to avoid when crafting your logline.

Avoid Spoilers

A logline should entice, not give away the entire plot. Avoid revealing crucial plot twists or resolutions in your logline.

Resist the temptation to divulge key plot points or surprises. A logline should leave room for discovery.

Instead of revealing the ending, focus on the setup, conflict, and the journey your characters will undertake.

Imagine your logline as the teaser trailer for your video project. It should intrigue without revealing too much.

Don’t Overcomplicate

One common mistake is trying to cram too much into a logline. Keep it simple and focused on the core elements of your story.

Avoid introducing too many characters or subplots. Stick to the central narrative.

Don’t overload your logline with excessive details or backstories. Save those for the actual project.

If your logline feels cluttered, step back and consider what the essential elements are. Trim away anything that doesn’t directly contribute to the core concept.

Steer Clear of Clichés

Clichés can make your logline feel uninspired and unoriginal. Strive for uniqueness and originality in your language and concepts.

Avoid using tired phrases or tropes that have been overused in your genre.

Challenge yourself to find fresh and innovative ways to describe your story and characters.

Seek feedback from others to identify any elements in your logline that might feel clichéd or predictable.

Crafting a Logline for Different Types of Video Projects

Not all video projects are created equal, and loglines can vary depending on the genre and purpose. Let’s explore how to tailor your logline for different types of video projects.

Narrative Films and Short Films

For narrative films, including short films, a logline should capture the essence of the story, characters, and central conflict.

Highlight the protagonist’s name and their primary goal.

Introduce the central conflict or antagonist.

Convey the genre and tone of the film, providing hints of its unique qualities.

Documentaries

Documentary loglines should communicate the subject matter, perspective, and potential impact of the film.

Clearly state the documentary’s subject matter or central theme.

Indicate the perspective or angle from which the documentary explores its subject.

Suggest the potential impact or significance of the documentary’s message.

Web Series and Online Content

Loglines for web series and online content should convey the tone, premise, and audience appeal of the series.

Describe the main premise or concept of the web series.

Highlight the tone or style of the content, whether it’s comedy, drama, or a unique hybrid.

Identify the target audience and what sets the series apart in the online landscape.

Writing and Refining Your Logline

Now that we’ve covered the dos and don’ts, let’s explore the practical steps to writing and refining your logline.

Start with a Draft

Begin by drafting multiple versions of your logline. Don’t worry about perfection at this stage; the goal is to generate ideas and explore different angles.

Write down your initial thoughts and ideas, even if they’re rough or incomplete.

Experiment with different ways to structure your logline, rearranging elements to find the most compelling combination.

Consider seeking input from trusted colleagues or peers to gather diverse perspectives on your logline drafts.

Refine and Revise

Once you have several drafts, it’s time to refine and revise. This stage is where your logline takes shape and becomes more polished.

Review your drafts critically, considering each element’s effectiveness.

Seek clarity and simplicity. Remove any unnecessary words or details that clutter your logline.

Test your logline on a small audience or focus group to gauge their reactions and refine further.

Seek Feedback

Feedback from others is invaluable when perfecting your logline. Don’t hesitate to share your logline with trusted friends, colleagues, or mentors.

Encourage honest and constructive feedback. Ask for specific insights on what works and what could be improved.

Consider joining online forums or communities related to filmmaking or storytelling, where you can receive feedback from a wider audience.

Be open to making adjustments based on the feedback you receive. Remember that a logline’s effectiveness can evolve through iterations.

Your Gateway to Audience Engagement

In the realm of video projects, a logline is your bridge to your audience’s curiosity and engagement. By adhering to the dos and avoiding the don’ts, you can craft a logline that not only encapsulates your project’s essence but also entices viewers to explore further.

Remember that logline creation is both an art and a skill that improves with practice. As you continue to develop your storytelling abilities, you’ll find that crafting the perfect logline becomes second nature gateway to connecting your creative vision with an eager audience.

In this comprehensive guide, we’ve explored the dos and don’ts of writing a logline for your video project. Whether you’re crafting a logline for a narrative film, documentary, web series, or online content, these insights will help you captivate your audience and pitch your idea effectively. Keep these principles in mind as you embark on your journey of logline creation.

Originally published at https://www.alltalent.com.

[excellisit]

The Imperative of Mobile Responsiveness in App Development

In today's digital landscape, where smartphones have become extensions of our lives, the significance of mobile responsiveness in app development cannot be overstated. With mobile devices accounting for the majority of internet traffic, businesses must prioritize creating applications that seamlessly adapt to various screen sizes, orientations, and functionalities. 

Reliable mobile app development services in Kolkata offer mobile responsiveness in app development. In this article, we will delve into the reasons why mobile responsiveness is not just a desirable feature but an essential aspect of app development.

Ubiquity of Mobile Usage

The explosive growth of smartphone usage has transformed the way people interact with technology. Mobile devices are no longer just communication tools; they serve as gateways to the digital world, from social media and shopping to productivity and entertainment. As users increasingly rely on mobile apps to fulfill their needs, developers must ensure that these apps offer an optimal experience across diverse devices.

Global Reach

The mobile revolution has extended to various parts of the world, even in areas with limited access to desktop computers. Mobile devices provide a gateway to the online world for people in diverse regions. A mobile-responsive app ensures accessibility for a broader global audience, enhancing your app's reach and potential impact.

Enhanced User Experience

User experience is at the core of app success. An app that functions seamlessly on a desktop but struggles to navigate on a mobile device will alienate users. Mobile responsiveness ensures that users can access an app's features, content, and functionalities without frustration. This positive experience leads to higher user engagement, longer session times, and increased likelihood of conversion.

Competitive Advantage

In a competitive app market, differentiating your offering can make or break your success. Users gravitate toward apps that provide a seamless experience. A responsive app gives you a competitive edge by demonstrating a commitment to user satisfaction and usability. Trusted mobile app development services in Kolkata include mobile responsiveness in app development. 

SEO and Discoverability

Search engine optimization (SEO) is pivotal for app discoverability. Mobile responsiveness contributes to SEO rankings as search engines prefer mobile-friendly websites and apps. Google's algorithm even considers mobile responsiveness as a ranking factor. A responsive app enhances visibility and encourages higher click-through rates from search engine results, directly impacting user acquisition.

Cross-Device Consistency

In a world where users switch seamlessly between smartphones, tablets, and desktops, maintaining consistency across devices is essential. A responsive app guarantees that users encounter a unified interface and experience, regardless of the device they are using. This consistency builds trust, reinforces brand identity, and minimizes the risk of user confusion.

Adaptability to Different Orientations

Mobile devices can be used in portrait or landscape orientations. A responsive app adapts to these orientations, ensuring that users can comfortably interact with the app regardless of how they hold their device. Ignoring orientation considerations can lead to awkward layouts, distorted content, and an overall subpar experience.

Future-Proofing Your App

Technology evolves rapidly, and new devices with varying screen sizes and form factors continually emerge. A mobile-responsive design is future-proof, accommodating the ever-changing landscape of devices without requiring a complete overhaul. This agility saves time and resources in the long run. Reliable mobile app development services in Kolkata provides mobile responsiveness in app development. 

Improved Conversion Rates

User actions, such as signing up, making purchases, or submitting forms, constitute conversion. A mobile-responsive app facilitates smooth navigation and easy interactions, reducing friction in the conversion process. Users are more likely to complete their intended actions when the app meets their expectations, positively impacting conversion rates.

Reduced Bounce Rates

A non-responsive app often leads to high bounce rates, where users quickly exit the app after encountering usability issues. This negatively affects engagement metrics and undermines the app's potential. Mobile responsiveness minimizes bounce rates by offering a smooth, intuitive experience that encourages users to explore further.

Conclusion

In an age where mobile devices dominate our digital interactions, mobile responsiveness is not merely an option; it's a necessity. App developers must prioritize creating applications that adapt seamlessly to various devices, screen sizes, and orientations. A mobile-responsive app enhances user experience, boosts discoverability, and sets the stage for success in an increasingly mobile-centric world. Trustable mobile app development services in Kolkata provide mobile responsiveness in app development. By embracing mobile responsiveness, developers can ensure their apps provide valuable solutions while catering to the evolving needs and preferences of users worldwide.

[nellie-elizabeth]

Roswell, New Mexico: Follow You Down (4x11)

Y'all, I'm seeing shrimp colors, I'm experiencing shrimp emotions, I don't know what way is up right now. Holy moly. Let's discuss.

Cons:

Let's start with Clyde. He sucks. He's a boring villain and a waste of time! I'm sorry, but it's true! I kept thinking that all of the core emotional beats between our principal characters could have been accomplished without him even existing. Instead of Liz getting literally kidnapped, continue the narrative of her being stolen away by her addiction to the alien mist. She could be trapped in a prison of her own mind, instead of Clyde causing unnecessary extra obstacles with his fanaticism. It's all just such an anticlimax, to have this follower of Jones be our villain for season four, when we already dealt with the man himself last year!

I'm also underwhelmed by Vanessa's inclusion in this story. I think we're meant to see Liz has having gained a mentor and a mentee this year, Shivani and Vanessa respectively, but they didn't do nearly enough to establish Vanessa as a character before using her here as the means of Liz's capture and control. And I'm not advocating for more Vanessa screen time, quite the opposite! Do this story without her. Have Clyde use Kyle as the bait. It works better in every way: it's someone Liz cares about, that the audience has a vested interest in, and then Rosa gets to use her superpowers to save her brother's life, instead of some random woman she doesn't know.

And a quick detour into the realm of "things I wish would have happened"... these aren't exactly problems with what was presented, but more me wishing for more of certain elements. In the Liz-centric plot, we get just one mention of Alex and Michael, when the intervention gang says that Maria is staying to watch the portal entrance. I wish that we could have followed that up with Isobel and Max talking about Michael later in the episode, when Max is giving his sister a pep talk about Kyle. Something about how their brother is trapped and they don't know how to get him back... something about how Max is torn in two, worrying about Liz and Michael, two of the people he loves most in this world... I don't know. Could have used a bit more sibling feels. I hope we get to have a bit more of that in the final two episodes!

Obviously I will be doing considerable Malex-related gushing in a moment, but a quick detour into nitpick land first...

So, a part of me wanted their actual reunion moment to be more dramatic and intense, but ultimately I understand the choice to lean into the joy/relief aspect of it, as that makes the twist hit all the harder. So, fine, they can be all soft and sweet with each other, I can very much get on board with that. My problem is a small one, but pervasive over the course of this season, and even a bit in season three: I find all the shoulder grabbing and squeezing to be kind of... awkward. It's like... okay, Vlamis and Tyler have really good chemistry, obviously, but their scenes this season have I think pointed out to me the importance of good direction/guidance for actors. I love, love, love that Michael's instinct is to always want to be touching Alex, but the way he kind of claps him on the shoulder and squeezes feels like this really self-conscious and unnatural way of going about it? I told you this was a nitpick. I just want them to be more cuddly and affectionate and happy without the same physical gestures of the face touching and shoulder grabbing to get repeated over and over. Also just, generally speaking, it's a travesty that this show doesn't let itself be steamy at all any more. It hardly qualified as anything particularly raunchy even back in season one, but this season in particular has been soooo low on the romance/sexy quota for alll the characters. Think about how little Kybel smooching we actually got to see. And then Michael and Alex just get these little sweet pecks for all their kisses, and don't get me wrong, I love those kisses, but nothing deeper, a little more sustained? Sigh. Let the boys kiss each other! Where's the season one energy up in this joint?

Pros:

Let's start with Kybel, my beloveds! There's this sliver of me that's annoyed at the back and forth: the love declaration, Isobel deciding maybe she does want more, Kyle shutting it down, yadda yadda. But that's kind of par for the course on this show, and honestly I feel like it makes a lot of sense for Kyle and Isobel specifically. Isobel has such a take-charge personality; she's worked so hard to learn what she wants and how to articulate it. I love that with Kyle, the thing she wants is so overwhelming and scary for her that she kind of doesn't know how to deal with it. And Kyle, meanwhile, is doing his best to compartmentalize and preserve their friendship. It's so sweet and awkward and strained. I only hope that we have enough time to give them some sort of hopeful ending, even if we don't get to see the full development of this relationship.

Rosa and Kyle scenes for the win! I couldn't believe we actually got to see them interacting as brother and sister. I've wanted so much more of that, ever since the show started, honestly. I loved how reciprocal they seemed, the way Kyle encouraged Rosa to think about all the growing she's done, and how Rosa picked up on the weirdness with Isobel and encouraged Kyle to communicate. All of it was just so wonderful!

And Rosa and Liz's story had some wonderful beats as well. Liz says some awful things to everyone in the course of her addiction, but she's the worst to Rosa, using Rosa's own addiction and recovery in order to invalidate her attempts to help. As annoyed as I am that Clyde kidnaps Liz, I did really enjoy the way in which Liz is portrayed as still herself, still a loving sister, at the end of the day: she doesn't actually physically assault her sister to get a fix, and when she wakes up in Clyde's clutches, the first thing she does is ask about Rosa. So there's some good tension here, but also some excellent care and love that still shines through despite it all. When Liz is recovering in bed at the end of the episode, she asks Max if Rosa hates her, and I thought that was just such a lovely, sad moment. I hope we get a nice long hug between the sisters in the next episode, we could really use that.

This has been a season of some seriously annoying Liz and Max developments, like, honestly, the two of them have just been exhausting all year in the worst possible ways... but this episode on its own? I kind of liked it! Liz being so single-minded and in this bad place, and Max keeping his shit together, maintaining his cool and focusing on getting Liz the help she needs, it really made him seem like a good man who actually wants what's best for the woman he loves. You've got the wonderfully dramatic moment where he catches Liz as she faints into his arms, and I'm just kind of like... yes, give me alll the cheesy romance, Roswell, that's literally why we're here.

I really liked the time we spent with Dallas and Bonnie this episode, too. It didn't pull focus away from Malex, but it added some important character beats to these two. Bonnie ruminates on the family she always wanted, and Dallas tells her the pod squad is her family now. And Dallas talks about chasing his father's clues, and how that's made him lose sight of other things in his life. I really dig their soft sibling vibes, and Bonnie is such an adorable Malex shipper, she's all on board for Michael and Alex to reunite and then get some quality alone time together... same, girl, same.

Like, okay, the Malex stuff in this episode could be an essay all on its own, but I'll try to keep my gushing to a minimum. Overall, I'm thrilled. As I was watching through their scenes, I was of course enjoying all the gushy romance quite a lot... but personally, my favorite Malex stuff is always going to be the earlier sharper scenes, where things are still so bad between them and their love is obvious even through all the obstacles and anger. Narratively, it feels super earned to me that they're all soft and sweet and gushy with each other now, but as I was watching, this small sliver of my brain was missing the angst... only for Alex to come out of nowhere with "hey by the way I'm DYING." It's like Christmas come early, tbh. I'm prepared to eat my words if the show does something really stupid in the final two episodes and gives us a tragic or even a bittersweet/undefined ending for Malex, but I really don't think that's where they're going. I think we're going to see Michael fight to save Alex, I think they're gonna get a wedding, I think we're going to get the full overwhelmingly sweet conclusion I almost didn't dare to hope for. So ultimately? This was the best of both words for me. All the happy kisses and the call-backs to iconic Malex moments, and then the angst plot twist, where now we get to see Michael fall apart at the thought of Alex's imminent demise... yum. This is some good food.

Despite my somewhat irritated wish that they were allowed to kiss each other a little bit more... deeply... I still adored most of the physicality and intimacy between Michael and Alex in this episode. Michael is just overwhelmingly joyful, his eyes shining, and Alex can't stop touching Michael, putting his hand on his thigh, grabbing his hand, tangling their fingers together, resting his head on Michael's shoulder. I love how relieved they both were, how clear it was that Michael had been holding his breath waiting for this moment. They've only been apart a little over a week or so, but the stress and drama of those days is apparent as we see them finally relax with one another again.

Just to compliment the acting choices that most delighted me and also broke my heart... I love how Michael's voice cracks when he confesses to Alex that he was distracted by the thought of getting to go to Oasis. He just feels so bad and yet the wanting for answers is still such a big part of who he is... and then on the flip side of this, there's this one reaction that Alex gives, when he finishes Michael's sentence, realizing that there's a way for him to go back to his planet. He gets this sad little smile on his face and nods his head, as if trying in that first initial moment of reaction to reassure, to hide any hint of pain Michael might be causing him. It really reminded me of a lot of Malex moments in season two, where Alex had this resigned "it's okay if I'm not happy, as long as you are" energy. And given that Alex believes himself to be dying, it makes sense to me that he'd not be too alarmed at the thought of Michael leaving. It might even comfort him, the thought that Michael will have something new to fight for, once he's gone. Yikes, this is making me so emotional...

Other moments I've got to shout out include: Michael teasing Alex about their supposed first date at the drive-in, the lead-in to the proposal being Alex listing science fiction tropes... and then Michael immediately laughing at the thought of Sanders in a tux, the way he's got a single tear escaping him as he and Alex kiss after he says yes, the way he asks about how far away the trees are, so he knows if they have time for sex, the teasing, joyful way he says "I gotta wait for the honeymoon?" And the line about how he was thinking about wedding vows and now suddenly Alex wants him to write a eulogy... OUCH, that got me good.

I also loved where we left them in this episode. Michael is still in the midst of an initial reaction; he's kind of cold and disbelieving, trying to reconcile his overwhelming happiness at getting engaged, with the horrifying revelation that Alex is dying. And Alex is meanwhile singularly focused on getting to marry Michael before he dies. I can just imagine him, stuck alone in this alternate dimension, realizing that his time is dwindling away. His priorities have sharpened to only what's absolutely essential, and to him, what's essential is spending his life with Michael. It's a lot, y'all. I'm having trouble processing everything I love about this and synthesizing how I really feel.

I'm scared, because god knows I've been hurt in the past (pour one out for my dude Quentin Coldwater; if you know you know), but I honestly do think we'll be okay and we'll get our sappy cheesy happily ever after. Come on, Roswell, don't fuck this up!

Just two more episodes until it's time to say goodbye. It's gonna be a looooongggg couple of weeks.

8.5/10

[twentiethcenturymoviesandtv]

The Goonies: A Product of the Times

Released in 1985, The Goonies came along right smack in the middle of a decade well-known for its movies centered on youth.  While there are plenty of fond memories of the ‘teen oriented’ films like The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Adventures in Babysitting, Hollywood of the 1980s was focused on more than just the teenagers: it was also pretty heavily focused on what it was like to be a kid.

From Flight of the Navigator, The Explorers, and The Monster Squad to E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial, a lot of the films of the 1980s were about the adventures of people under the age of 14: children.  Ranging from sci-fi to comedy, to horror, to adventure, the movies about kids during this decade of the new and untested were getting as big as everything else: more and more impressive as an entire subgenre of children’s movies starring up-and-coming child stars (Drew Barrymore, Fred Savage, River Phoenix, Corey Haim, and plenty more) sprouted up out of the ground, playing the gambit of genres and allowing children to act in ways that hadn’t been deeply explored before.  These weren’t adult films with roles for children: a lot of these were movies about kids.  

Instead of movies like The Champ or Aliens, starring children in side roles, films like The Goonies, Return to Oz, Stand By Me, and Time Bandits starred kids in the main roles, carrying the stories themselves with incredible performances, broadening the horizons for adventure films about kids, for kids.

Such is The Goonies, a film that really could only have been made in the 1980s.

How do I know that?

Simple.

As we’ve discussed before, no film ever made is separate from the culture it was created in.  Every single movie, television show, radio broadcast, book, newspaper, comic or song ever made has been directly impacted by the culture and other pieces of media surrounding it.

This seems pretty obvious: after all, a product made by people living in a certain kind of culture is going to reflect that culture.  No film is an island, and while that seems pretty self-explanatory and without much need for discussion, in an era with more and more pieces of media debated as to their worth to a modern viewpoint, it leaves those of us who enjoy older movies with a very important question:

How ‘dated’ is too dated?

It’s not as easy a question to answer as it might seem.

See, ‘dated’ is an interesting term.

Typically, the word ‘dated’ is used to apply to anything discernibly created in a specific time period.  It’s synonymous with ‘old fashioned’, when applied to a film, it carries the implication that the movie is less understandable by those looking from outside that particular culture or time period, worsened by the cultural drift.  This would be a film that hasn’t ‘aged well’, most often describing contemporary films of the day.  By contrast, a film that’s considered ‘timeless’ is the exact opposite: a film that remains completely understandable following a change in the culture.  This is a film without a cultural footprint or identity, without any actual context, able to be enjoyed no matter how much time has passed.

These are words that get thrown around a lot in the film world.  There are plenty of arguments over which films are timeless, and which are dated, whether Die Hard shows its age too much to be enjoyed, or whether Commando is too ridiculously ‘80s to be watched in any other context, but the fact is, the argument is a lot more complicated than it seems to be boiled down into.

We’ve talked a lot about definitions, but the fact is, by strict definitions, no movie, or any piece of media ever made, is actually ‘timeless’.  Every film is a product of its times, but that does not mean necessarily that they are defined by their times.  With this in mind, films like The Terminator and Predator, while set and made in the 1980s, are not exactly dated, because they are not defined by the 1980s.  Anyone with the slightest understanding of the idea that times change can accept things like hairstyles, music changes, and special effects.  Like I said, a film is considered ‘dated’ if it is less understandable or enjoyable in hindsight, from a place outside of that specific culture, and things like the movie tips and tricks of decades past are fairly easily forgiven.  

Less easily overlooked are ideas.

If a ‘timeless’ film is a movie not defined by its own times, then a ‘dated’ one is a film that is defined by its culture, typically in a negative way.  

So, the question is: which is The Goonies?

Timeless iconic kid’s adventure film, or dated ‘80s flick?

Well, it’s kind of hard to say at first glance.

By externals, there’s no question.  The way the kids are dressed and Mouth’s use of the word ‘gnarly’ pretty clearly set this film in the mid 1980s, as does the fact that nobody has a cell phone to call their parents.  But as we’ve already established, there’s a bit more to it than that.

The cast is fairly typical of its day: all white except for Rosalita, the Spanish-speaking housekeeper, and mostly male.  The two female Goonies do allow for a little more range than is sometimes portrayed in kid adventure films, with a Tomboy and Girly Girl dynamic that normalizes more than a standard Token Female per group, and even Mama Fratelli (although by no means a role model for young girls) balances out by being a memorable villain, bringing the gender ratio a tiny bit closer to even than a lot of contemporary films.  With that said though, there isn’t really anything that I’d argue idea wise in this sense that dates the film terribly badly, aside from a series of fat jokes at Chunk’s expense and a moment where Andy is given the unfortunately expected treatment of having her date try to look up her skirt, which was considerably more shrugged off at the time (although she does get him for it later, offscreen).

And there are other elements too that indicate that this film is from a different time:

A PG in 1985 for a kid’s film was very different from a PG now, and it shows.  The language used by a lot of the kids, as well as the violence, drug jokes, and other material has proven to shock more than one fan who went back to watch The Goonies as an adult.  And that’s not all: the basic concept of kids banding together in this way, while making a resurgence in the form of Stranger Things, hasn’t really stuck around for very long.

After the 1980s, the ‘band of kids’ adventure story somewhat died out.  By the 1990s, the ‘kid’ adventure stories calmed down, with lower stakes and less danger, and while the trope still appears in ‘retro’ nostalgia pieces, for the most part, we simply don’t see it anymore, and the idea still tends to bring to mind stories like Stand By Me, The Monster Squad, and even It.

It’s just a statement of fact, and not nostalgia, to look at this film and remark: “They don’t make them like this anymore.”  Because they don’t.

In most movies today, kids don’t run around in tunnels, having a blast and looking for buried treasure without their parents or any adult supervision, with their lives in danger, all the while quirky, peppy music assures the audience that everything’s going to be okay.  That’s not necessarily good or bad, it just means times have changed, and that the way that The Goonies was made was directly influenced by the types of movies coming out at the time.

However, while that style may bring to mind the 1980s, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s specifically enjoyed in that era.

As a matter of fact, there’s a lot about The Goonies that’s like that.

The basic premise of the story, while not necessarily common anymore, is still understandable to people decades later.  Just because we no longer dress or talk like 1985 anymore doesn’t mean that the core essentials of the film are rendered completely unrelatable.  Kids still become friends and don’t want to move away from them, that much is understandable.  Even though the style of filmmaking has changed, the characters really haven’t: we all know a Data, or a Mouth, or a Chunk, or a Mikey, sometimes we even are one of them.  Kids understand the danger they’re in: not just losing their lives, but their homes, their friendships.  These characters and their story still ring true decades later, even if there are things about it that point to its creation being set in the mid ‘80s.

In short?

No, The Goonies probably couldn’t have been made today.  But that doesn’t mean it can’t still be enjoyed today.

There’s surprisingly little that actually harmfully dates the film itself, and the film is, in many ways, just as exciting and fun as it was when it was first released.  Honestly, there’s the possibility that due to the lack of movies like it made today, the film actually has a larger impact and is more unique and memorable now than it was in 1985.  

And while the quality of the film has not shifted, as the time around it does, I think we’ll find that as the film gets older, more audiences will continue to discover it, forty, fifty, sixty years later and find that the movie still tugs at a nostalgic part of them and makes them feel like children again.  

The Goonies is a fun, exciting, charming story that has remained beloved so long partially due to nostalgia, but also because people genuinely love the story and characters, proving that a film is ‘timeless’, not because you can tell what decade it was made in, but because it has endured, because people still enjoy it after the culture has changed.

If you can watch The Goonies and love these characters and enjoy their adventure, it doesn’t matter that Mouth is wearing parachute pants or that some of the character cliches haven’t been used in thirty years.  In the end, a film’s quality has little to do with how easily we can tell what time the film was made in, and a lot to do with what it’s about, and how well people remember it.  If that’s the criteria, then The Goonies is pretty timeless.

The Goonies has lasted this long as an ‘80s staple, and an adventure movie classic in general because no matter if it’s 1985 or 2085, people can understand it, enjoy it, and relate to the characters and themes.  And that’s the reason it will continue to endure.  

It’s been over thirty years since those kids first trekked into the caves to save the Goondocks, and the audience for this film has done nothing but grow since then.  The characters and the heart of the film have gone unchanged since then, still entertaining and even touching audience members who remember what it was like to be a kid and want ‘their time’, and they will continue to endure for decades.

Thank you guys so much for reading!  If you have something you’d like to add or say, don’t forget that the comment box is always open!  I hope to see you all in the next article.

[lookwhatilost]

I’m going to use this video as something of a case study to prove my point. Some things that are necessary to point about Ben Shapiro: he is an intelligent person, he speaks quickly, and he makes good quips. This makes him very good for the YouTube video “LiBtArD wReCkEd” compilations. He’s also very dishonest and he tends to misrepresent statistics. This is, of course, because Ben is a fascist and fascists don’t care if they’re telling the truth.

So, this is a thirteen minute video, and barely a fraction of what this student is laying out is going to get covered. The reason why Ben is letting him talk as much as he does in the beginning instead of interrupting him the moment he started explaining what socialism is is because he’s looking for something to quote back at him. Usually he’ll let his “debate” opponent talk until he finds something to do this with, and hit them hard on the point he stops them on.

Next we have this “workers or the government” thing Ben comes back at him with: he clearly said “workers owning the means of production”. He even said it twice, I believe, and Ben pretty much says “I know you’re talking about that, but if you said THE GOVERNMENT owning the means of production, that would be very ineffective” and then he rattles off on that. Even though this student never said anything about redistribution – he deliberately stepped away from that point at the very beginning. He acknowledged the fact that Ben will often talk about redistribution without actually engaging with the core points of socialism and, once more, he never said anything about government control and he never said anything about lack of free market enterprise. Socialism and free market enterprise aren’t in any way disparate. Market socialism is a thing.

Hypothetically, what you’d have to do here is let him talk on, and when he’s done, say “That was great and all, Ben, but I pretty clearly said worker owned means of production. Would you mind answering the actual question.” You can’t treat people like this in good faith. Ben knows exactly what he’s doing here with his talking points. No one brought up the Scandinavian countries. No one brought up government owned means of production. Nobody brought up free market enterprise. Nobody brought up being paid $100,000 to dig holes in the ground. No one brought up redistribution policies – unless you count the kid bringing it up to clarify that this wasn’t what he was talking about.

He then brings up that he’s an owner. Ben is smart enough to understand the basic principles of socialism, but he recognizes he isn’t capable of addressing any substantive criticism, so he’s deliberately pretending to misunderstand what this kid is saying. “Freely choose to alienate your labor” as if you have any choice in society these days. That’s like saying you freely choose to shit inside of a toilet. You don’t have many other options in regards to that. You can if you want to, but eventually, you’re going to get in trouble with it. Again, this is a deliberate misinterpretation. The workers owning the means of production gets brought up, and he spends the first two minutes of his response saying “if you meant the government owning it, that’s disastrous, and by the way, Norway is actually capitalist, and socialists won’t tell you this, but they actually have free market enterprise. And I’m a worker, so workers do actually own the means of production. Isn’t Bill Gates a worker?” Aren’t the tens of thousands of people under Bill Gates also workers? We’re talking about all workers, not just the one worker who also happens to own the company.

Him crafting rebuttals that actually take into consideration the tenants of socialism would, at least on some level, give the socialist credence to argue in a reality based sense. If a reactionary defends their belief system by attacking socialism in ways that are actually salient, you’ve set the socialist up to debate in a fact based argument, and that’s not what reactionaries dominate. Reactionaries dominate in a purview of recited dialogue trees, of snooty quips, and emotionally based arguments. This is where they thrive. They do not want to bring the argument into a reality based discussion.

In three minutes, he’s introduced so many stupid misconceptions that the student is going to spend more time arguing against the misconception than he will putting forth his own argument. He could spend a literal hour trying to correct the dumb, deliberate straw men that Ben Shapiro has thrown out here and never will he get a chance to substantively put forth any real advocacy for socialism.

To counter his “criticism” on labor theory of value: what if you spend a lot of time and money digging up diamonds from the ground? There are plenty of diamonds that get dug up that have absolutely no mechanical or industrial purpose. He’s saying “labor theory of value is dumb and bad because the market theory of value is what’s correct” without presenting any sort of argument to support that. Neither of these are holistic theories, both of them have valid places in society as lenses of interpretation, but this is not a substantive criticism. It is, in fact, very stupid.

It also helps that he has all the social capital in this situation. You never, ever want to challenge a reactionary when they have the podium and you don’t, and while they have the audience and you don’t. If they are even slightly intelligent, it is literally impossible for them to lose in the eye of their audience.

When the student brings up Mondragon: this is what reactionaries do. They define capitalism as freedom. Capitalism is when the owners of capital own the means of production and socialism is when the workers own the means of production. Not that we should take much that economic theorists say for granted on the account of most of them being cheerleaders for capitalism, but there are plenty of things that Ben laid forth that many economic theorists would disagree with. For one, he’s laid out the assertion that free markets are somehow absolute to capitalism and antithetical so socialism, that worker owned communes are an example of capitalism, and the degree to which government intervention is present in an economy is deterministic to whether or not it is socialism. Reactionaries operate in a delusory, fantastical land where the characteristics of capitalism are amorphous and capable of being shifted to suit one argument to another. In one instance, capitalism is the liberator of the working class, the distributor of technology, and in another instance, the very real consequences of capitalism are instead a product of corporatism, of government intervention, of “globalist” policy. Not true capitalism, mind, just other things.

And hey, guys, I’ve read the Communist Manifesto. Does anyone remember any segments in there where Karl Marx claimed the government needed to cram down and force people to participate in guild markets? Does anyone remember that part? I don’t.

Anyway, this is why you don’t argue with reactionaries when they have the podium and you don’t. The student got a bunch of time to speak where he laid out a very calm point, Ben got a bunch of time to speak where he then said a bunch of shit that had nothing to do with the kids argument to mislead the audience, and then deliberately interpreted what the kid was saying to present a straw man that the kid would have to correct. Now Ben has got the student in a position where he’s basically saying “I don’t disagree with anything, you’re basically saying capitalism. Worker owned means of production? That just means the people who own it also work at it, right? If Republicans did that, would you vote for them?” The kid is never going to be able to correct all this, not in a million years, and now when he speaks up, Ben is going to keep hammering this in, deliberately interrupting the kid and forcing him to answer misleading questions.

This is how you win a Ben Shapiro debate. This is how you “own libtards”. You get the mic, deliberately misinterpret what they say, you throw straw men at them and force them to defend or respond to that, both of which are impossible, and then, just to keep them off base, you continue to interrupt them when they respond to your point. It’s a very, very simple formula to follow if you are intellectually dishonest and a complete fucking asshole.

But yeah, the free market is not exclusively capitalist. For one, the free market does not have prescriptions. The free market is not a physical entity, it’s a concept that some people aspire to, unfettered trade. And free market socialism is a thing, yet again.

At around the 8 minute mark of this video, the student makes a bit of a mistake because he’s not really harping in on the public vs private ownership of the means of production, but Ben Shapiro’s line there is completely irrelevant: “So companies shouldn’t be able to have investors?” This is a tangential question. This would be like him talking about socialized ownership, and Ben leans into the microphone and asks “well, who’s the CEO then, dummy?” This is to say, it’s tangentially related, but it has nothing to do with the thrust of the argument.

His counter to the pencil factory example is pathetic. No one mentioned doctors. No one mentioned everyone in society getting paid the same amount. This has nothing to do with doctors and pencil factory workers, this has to do with pencil factory workers and pencil factory owners. He thinks this is a “gotcha” but it literally has nothing to do with the argument the kid is making.

It is so, so difficult to maintain your composure when you are around a hostile audience. At least if you were on stage, you would have the positional authority over them. You’d be in a place where, at least physically, you are given credence by the architecture of the room – standing atop something, having the lights on you, being behind the podium, having unfettered control over the mic. These things can lend you a lot of confidence. But if you’re just standing there and someone else is holding your microphone, and the audience claps whenever Ben Shapiro says something… Ugh.

But it comes as no surprise that Ben sees capital and labor as one and the same, because he’s a fucking capitalist and he’s a piece of shit. To him, people and money are just interchangeable cogs in a larger machine that he benefits from, and that is how most capital owners see them. After all, labor is a resource, and capital is a resource, and that’s all you look at them as – resources – there isn’t much of a difference between the two. Now, of course, you’ve got a few more ~libcucky~ takes on it, like how humans are human beings, and we have rights, and should be entitled to happiness and respect, but that doesn’t really factor into that sort of economic, capitalist worldview.

To summarize, this juxtaposition, “you’re a socialist, I’m a free marketer. You’re talking about things that are voluntary, which means they can’t be socialist, because socialism is authoritarianism”, this is the dichotomy that he’s been trying to reenforce this entire conversation. I don’t know how deliberately he’s doing this, but it’s very effective. In the mind of every audience member right now, what Ben is doing right here is destroying this “libtard” right now by saying “Heh, idiot. You think that’s socialism? How can that be socialism if there’s freedom involved?' and that’s basically what he’s going for here. But when the kid gets flustered and struggles to make a coherent point in the face of all this, Ben can just shit on him. And then the people who edit this shit put in airhorns and laugh tracks so the smooth brained dipshits watching this unironically know when to clap and bark like seals at the libcuck getting owned. It’s pathetic and it’s not a real argument. Fin.

[mediagames196]

Intel.Com how to build a gaming pc

Of Wolf's Gaming Blog

It is time to recognize the ideal gaming blogs of the year. EDIT:I applied to watch the Feedback video more than at G4 each and every week, but it's gone down hill the final handful of times I watched it and now that Adam Sessler isn't on it and they have that girl from IGN that absolutely everyone hates in every episode I just cannot be bothered to watch it any additional. Nonetheless worth going back and watching some of the older ones though. Klepic utilised to be on that show and back then in the early days was when it was the greatest. Back when they truly talked about gaming news with some semblance of intellect alternatively of just gushing about what ever game they are told is cool this week.

You are quietly accepting and at peace with your selection to develop into a board gamer for life. Your household knows you really like board games and possibly play them with you. Your friends know appreciate board games, and you have terrific gaming groups. You've committed to assigning aspect of your residence to be a board gaming area. For the very first time, you've started to remove games from your collection. Perhaps you have sold the games, or you just never have space to maintain practically all of them. Mentally you accept that you do not will need to play each and every game, and you have most likely narrowed down a handful of games that you want to play consistently.

I got into action games late but when I did it completely changed how I viewed gaming forever. The game which brought me round was Viewtiful Joe. Right here was a game with a deep and open-ended combat system which seemed to be built as a implies for the player to express creativity. This system is then pitted against opponents and obstacles which had been created from the ground up to interact meaningfully with the core system. The course was fixed, but the process for dealing with that course was absolutely down to the ingenuity, talent and inspiration of the player. You play like you have a big audience watching and the game regularly entices you to strengthen the focus is not merely on getting the player from A to B, the focus is on obtaining the player to play Viewtifully”.

Nowadays is the day! I will be steadily releasing the names of the major ten gaming blogs of 2014. Seeking over this list, I am positively blown away. So quite a few amazing posts this year! If you had been disappointed by the Ennies… if you feel that the true deep thinkers in gaming commentary don't get the interest they deserve… well, people, we are going to fix that.

Green Man Gaming is a global pure play e-commerce and technologies company in the video games industry fuelled by an unhealthy obsession with bringing the magic of games to everybody. The company's geeky information, information and IP sit at the core of the organization and is what drives it to come to be a technology leader in the video games ecosystem.

The way To Instruct GAMING Better Than Anyone Else

CrystalSkull is packed with adequate functions to assist you develop almost any form of gaming site with WordPress. The integrated assessment program implies your content will rival the articles found on the major gaming review internet sites. With CrystalSkull, you'll be in a position to create your personal custom criteria for your evaluations, then add a score for every single item, before awarding a final general rating for the assessment.

The stereotypical image of the geeky gamer, sitting alone in his space, playing video games all night extended, is lengthy gone. Gamers have develop into the genuine stars of social media. No other niche has grown so immensely with the age of social media than the field of gaming. Supported by social media like YouTube and the live-streaming platform Twitch, the numbers of gaming channels boomed. No wonder that brands recognized the potential that these gaming influencers bring with them. We have place with each other a list of some of the greatest gaming influencers you need to know.

Why we like it: It is impossible to develop a list of finest game podcasts and not include this a single. Certainly the greatest retro games podcast about, which is a incredibly exciting and thoughtful exploration of gaming history with some awesome stories. Miracast is advised for watching videos, surfing the web, and using apps. The gaming expertise is nevertheless becoming optimized for latency and smoothness.

Augmented reality games are becoming a front-runners of gaming business. These days, this is not just the fantastical idea. AR games let you to fight aliens, capture fantastical creatures, defend kingdoms in the real globe. And all of this is probable without super pricey headsets - just an AR-enabled smartphone or console is required. Wolf's Gaming Blog is on a run to give you the most accurate and truthful reviews on the top games in Xbox One, Individual Computer system games and Board games. With this website in your bookmarks tab, the weather is often https://anabeii.online/ excellent to get your hands on some on-line games.

We're going to the International Festival for Business enterprise this month and will be hosting a exceptional event Inspiring Entrepreneurs '˜Going Global' where top enterprise persons will tell us the secrets of their good results. One particular of these entrepreneurs is Paul Sulyok, CEO and Founder of Green Man Gaming Green Man Gaming is a pioneering, international eCommerce technologies enterprise that has gone from strength to strength considering that its launch in 2010. We asked him how he did it.

Blogs listed should really be either mainly about board games, or contain adequate relevant content to be thought of a 'gaming blog'. Tech Guided is a technology and gaming community web site that publishes articles on the most effective Computer, CPU, video game cards and other valuable gadget reviews that is needed for a smooth gaming encounter.

Sophisticated technologies energy CrystalSkull, from the most current W3C valid HTML5 code to custom CSS3 styling and animations as effectively as fascinating and awe-inspiring Parallax smooth scrolling and visual effects sections, so your customers will be dazzled by your tech prowess. Under the hood, CrystalSkull is extremely customizable and veritable brimming with options and alternatives for you to just and efficiently deck out your CrystalSkull gaming magazine or weblog web page to your precise specs. With out of the box help for bbPress, beginning and managing your personal complete-fledged on the web gaming forums for any niche, cult or mass market game or audience has never ever been easier, and the highly effective Theme Barracks powers a wealth of customization solutions that will make your CrystalSkull gaming website the belle of the ball.

There is never ever been a much more thrilling time to be a gamer. The variety of experiences provided by today's games is unprecedented, and understanding what you want is the first step in creating your dream gaming getup. Do you want cutting-edge graphics and gameplay that only 4K and HDR supply? Choose to take your game worlds on-the-go? Enjoy revisiting astounding retro games from yesteryear? Consider of Ideal Buy as your nicely-stocked gaming quartermaster, ready at a moment's notice with all of the finest video game deals, gadgets, games, and high-powered consoles to elevate your gaming to the highest level.

Considerably, for many of these men and women, their mobile phone will be their very first personal computer - a so-referred to as ‘mobile-first generation' - so most of the items we do on desktop or laptops, they will be performing on mobiles, again which includes all their gaming. Here is a couple of of the most effectively-recognized gaming sites exactly where you can get the latest news from.

The future of gaming is a world exactly where you are empowered to play the games you want, with the men and women you want, whenever you want, wherever you are, and on any device of your choosing. Our vision for the evolution of gaming is comparable to music and motion pictures — entertainment should really be offered on demand and accessible from any screen. Nowadays, I'm excited to share with you a single of our crucial projects that will take us on an accelerated journey to that future planet: Project xCloud.

[vyasgiannetti]

The Future Of Brands In a WOKE World

A wonderful term originating from a political African-American movement refers to awareness and alertness of social injustices. Popularised by social media in recent times, the term now encompasses a state of being awakened, being conscious.

Our current socio-political environment coupled with ease of communication has led to a worldwide shift towards people expecting not just communities and governments but also large corporations to take a more active role towards environmental and social issues pertaining to them. For brands, this means aligning the brands’ values to those of the consumers’. Because, a 2018 Edelman (a Brand Strategy Consultancy) survey found that 69% of millennials worldwide are belief-driven buyers. Even though first world countries are leading this wave, it is still significant for India.

Enter the concept of ‘woke brands’.

Brands are increasingly tapping into consumer-held social values to build resonance with consumers and make way into their repertoires. We are seeing a rise of woke branding across categories positioning themselves as ‘woke’ through their stance on social issues, environmental responsibility and sustainable practices.

But it’s not always that simple. Cultures are seeing more extreme divisions today within the socio-political context than ever before and offence taking is rampant. The rise of far-right leadership globally is being attributed to the voice of the mass majority whilst leftist ideologies seem to be concentrated towards the younger, urban elite. So where should brands stand? Does taking a stance on issues pertaining beyond your business put you in a position of risking alienation of a certain audience?

Last year, Nike was at the centre of this division of sentiment when it decided to sign Colin Kaepernick on as a brand ambassador, taking a direct shot at NFL and supporters of its response. However, contrary to predictions, the brand’s stock rose and hit a record high in the aftermath. Essentially, the ‘risk’ paid off.

When choosing sides, it has proven to be wiser for brands to lean towards liberal values simply because it is the side with higher spending capacity and social currency.

Ariel’s #sharetheload campaign about gender roles and Whisper’s #likeagirl are some of the many campaigns that were met with great praise for attempting to change the incumbent discourses in these categories. Tata Tea took it a step further with the Jaago Re campaign by extending it to an initiative that pushes the idea of pre-activism in the age of reactive internet activism.

The fashion industry which is quickly waking up to being seen as one of the biggest environmental villains is seeing an exponential rise of brands supporting organic textiles and reviving waning crafts. Even fast-fashion retailer Asos has introduced a sustainability filter for the conscious consumer.

We, at VGC — the best branding agency in India, have had the opportunity to work with a truly ‘woke’ brand, 360Life. In the real estate industry, which suffers from a lack of brand purpose, 360Life breaks the clutter and makes a dent.

Stemming from a foundation of deep knowledge about Vedic practices, natural living, sustainability, and engineering, the intention of the brand is to lead the wave for holistic living. This is provided through curation of vertical forestry to promote living in harmony with nature, architectural planning to harness and optimise the flow of sunlight and wind, access to chemical free organic food, FMCG products and alkalinised water supply as well as employment of ancient Vedic rituals to energise and elevate the physical environment. 360 Life brings to life a proposition of ‘conscious living’.

However, brands need to tread carefully with their attempt to be seen as ‘woke’ as consumers are quick to call out brands seen as gimmicky.

Cadbury’s unity bar was met with mixed responses despite marrying product features with a neat intent. And then there are glaring oversights.

Pepsi was met with great criticism post its ad with Kendall Jenner breaking the tension between protestors and authorities by offering a Pepsi. The brand ultimately took down the ad within 24 hours and issued a public apology for its short-sightedness and commercialization of a serious movement.

Similarly, the successful Gully Boy received slack for trivialising and appropriating the ‘Azadi’ slogan from student protests in Delhi to create a pop culture anthem.

Essentially, ‘woke washing’ does not work. People see through the facade and today, it’s easier to mobilise public disdain than ever before. Between getting it right and trying but missing the mark is a brand’s appetite to take risks. As the best branding agency in India, we believe authenticity has been a buzzword in the branding world for a few years. But its consideration becomes increasingly important with everyone jumping on the ‘woke branding’ wagon. Brands need to go back to their DNA. Instead of looking outward, it’s the time to look inward and be true to one’s own core. In times of high competition and dropping loyalties, brands need to be willing to take risks and mark allegiance with a value-driven consumer base.

Also, limiting one’s ‘wokeness’ to communication without consideration of actions across business operations is rather unauthentic and brands are liable to get exposed. It is important to walk the walk before you talk the talk. And so, the journey to becoming a woke business is inward really. Whilst most businesses are still in step 1, the future belongs to those who evolve from steps 1 to 3.

Take a stance through communication to make a deeper connection with the audience

Integrate responsible actions across your business activities

Develop businesses that stem from a conscious intent — actively play a role in addressing a social or environmental issue

And so, we, a Brand Strategy Consultancy, leave you with 3 questions:

What are issues & social values that your consumers care about?

What are the core values that you stand for?

How can you align yourself with your consumers’ values to form lasting relationships?

[yourfanvivitran]

It should come as no surprise that John Carpenter and Dan O’Bannon were students in the same film class, that they created Dark Star together, and that they both had a great affinity for 1951’s The Thing From Another World. If you put Ridley Scott’s Alien, which O’Bannon wrote, next to Carpenter’s The Thing, the parallels cannot be contended. A group of people, bound together almost exclusively by their careers, are isolated and trapped in their own environment with a murderous monster. One by one, they are picked off by this alien beast and are forced to pull out all the stops just to survive. The tension in both movies is suffocating. The suspense stays well after the credits roll.

So, why did Alien excel and why did The Thing fail?

Alien was heralded as a science fiction-horror masterpiece, raking in over $200 million at the box office. The Thing, although now recognized as one of Carpenter’s best films to rival even the likes of Halloween, barely exceeded its $15 million budget by $4 million. What’s more is that critics panned The Thing almost unanimously after its 1982 release. And to what point?

When you compare the 2 movies, it objectively doesn’t make much sense. When you sit down and watch The Thing, without even thinking of its much more popular predecessor, it still doesn’t quite add up. There is not much I can say about The Thing that hasn’t already been said before. It’s well-known, now - the writing, the acting, the practical effects, the cinematography? Masterfully done. No arguments. So what went wrong?

The most popularly accepted explanation was that it just wasn’t the right year for it. In 1982, The Thing had to contend with the Summer of Spielberg, being critiqued alongside horror giant Poltergeist and science fiction treasure E.T. How could a stark and grim story of distrust and gore stand alongside such beloved classics?

But in tandem with these films and also calling back to the success of Alien, Carpenter cites reception from various focus groups: they hated the ending.

It should be assumed at this point that if you have not yet seen The Thing, you are sorely missing out. All the same, however, be wary of spoilers.

The end of The Thing is bitter, to put it lightly. Childs (Keith David) trudges through Antarctic snow, lit by the burning wreckage of Outpost 31, towards R.J. MacReady (Kurt Russel) who sits alone, already half buried. They observe their inevitable deaths, and drink to the supposed demise of their shapeshifting predator.

A lot is left out to die in the snow.

According to Carpenter, this ending was seen by test audiences as too dismal. And rightfully so, when you take into consideration the other popular releases of 1982. Carol Anne is ultimately saved, along with the rest of her family, at the end of Poltergeist. Elliot embraces E.T. before he finally returns home. And going further back, even Ripley is able to escape the xenomorph by the skin of her teeth and secure herself the title as one of the greatest “Final Girls” ever put to the silver screen.

And what of MacReady and Childs?

Well, that’s up to your imagination, Carpenter told a test audience member who asked who the final host was at the end of the movie.

“Oh, god. I hate that,” they responded.

As a writer, this loose ends style of concluding a story is almost expected from a lot of modern works. It’s written this way in order to haunt the reader, to linger and adhere itself to the real world in the most sardonic of ways. Think Joyce Carol Oates’s ���Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” or Flannery O’Connor’s “A Good Man Is Hard to Find.” This almost anticlimactic close of the curtain arrived in the literary world long before it found its place in film, but it’s a big point of contention in mainstream criticism.

Dark or incomplete conclusions have been met with the most scathing of responses. Beware the black cutaway of Sopranos fame. Or the near-universal outcry against the third Mass Effect game that grew so much, the developers created a morsel of DLC content that maybe kind of confirmed a more optimistic fate for our dear Shepard.

But even for the horror genre, The Thing seemed unprecedented. The only fate darker to fall upon a mainstream protagonist was Ben’s untimely death in Night of the Living Dead. The tragedy of both movies is palpable - all this trouble to survive against inhuman killers, all this trouble to outlive something gruesome and maybe even make the world a better place, and what was left to show for it?

In short, Carpenter’s science fiction terror was too much of a bummer.

I personally did not take much of a liking to horror until much later in life. My parents didn’t filter the media I consumed as much as they probably should have, and I was scarred early on by movies as cheesy and entertaining as The Lost Boys and Blade. It wasn’t until late adolescence and into college that I set out to catch up.

My roommate at the time of this resolution had been a fan of horror her whole life, her favorites being Halloween, Candyman, and The Thing. Having already known a good deal about the former two, I decided to strap in for The Thing for the first time ever.

These days, I always have several soap boxes on retainer, just waiting for the next unwitting recipient of my usually-beer-induced rants. Brian Jones was killed, Jaws single handedly endangered sharks, banning books is a stupid practice, representation in media is important, etc. Predictably, one of these soap boxes is the general lack of appreciation of The Thing, both at the time of its release and today (it does not even make the top 100 on Rotten Tomatoes’s highest rated horror movies).

And yet, at the same time, if The Thing had achieved the credit it deserved upon release, I may not like it as much as I do today.

I make a point to not read too much about movies I am feverishly anticipating, and revel in the feeling of going into a well-known movie knowing as little as possible. Most of the time, it makes for the best viewing experience, but I’m sure I don’t even have to point this out.

This was my experience seeing The Thing for the first time. I was on winter break, staying at my parents’ house for the holidays. Everyone else had gone to bed, and I stayed up late in the living room, curled up under layers of blankets, content in perfect darkness save for the television.

I had no idea what to expect, as I had not been spoiled by any TV show making any blatant references and had not done any prior reading into the film itself. And I was absolutely delighted from beginning to end.

What stays with me the most is the special effects. It’s true what they say - that practical effects hold up better than CGI alone. And the production team didn’t cut any corners in this department. Stan Winston and his team, who were later responsible for the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, helped construct one of the best animatronics in the movie. Rob Bottin, who brought this constantly-morphing creature to life from conception to every last slimy detail, went on to be hailed as a genius in his special effects career. And there is definitely something to be said for the work of cinematographer Dean Cundey whose masterful control of lighting and framing is best seen in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

The extent of my knowledge of the titular creature was that it was an alien. That it was an alien who could consume multiple life forms and take on their shapes was both exciting and terrifying. There’s creative genius in this premise that thrills the science fiction lover in me, and also fascinates the bookworm in me. I had been a fan of Agatha Christie novels as a teenager, and to see a new and outrageous take on the And Then There Were None structure was incredibly novel to me.

The appeal wasn’t just that there was something out there, lying in wait to torturously pick off it’s victims one-by-one. It was that it could have been anyone.

At its core, horror as we know it has deep roots in whodunnit style murder mystery. With the rise of the giallo and the sensation of the slasher, horror movies of this nature are far from uncommon and can be seen as late as 1996 with the Scream franchise. Carpenter himself spurned a new kind of fear with his breakout success with Halloween by refusing to give a bodily face to its main antagonist. Here, with The Thing, he takes the eponymous killer character to the next level by giving it the genetically inherent function of deceiving its prey. Not knowing the true face of your murderer has proven to be inherently bone-chilling.

Even now, hundreds of horror movies under my belt later and still constantly learning, I keep coming back to The Thing. I really cannot think of another movie in my wide array of favorites that I love more than The Thing, and I truly believe it has everything to do with me not knowing anything about it upon my first viewing. Every other movie I can name on my (similar to the subject) constantly changing top 10 list of most beloved horror flicks was, at some point, spoiled for me in some capacity.

Think of how often the twins in The Shining are referenced in cartoons, of all the head spinning jokes made in reference to The Exorcist. Anthony Hopkins’s portrayal of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs has become so infamous, that I knew his dialogue (and Buffalo Bill’s) long before I ever saw the movie in full.

I don’t blame these references for ruining these movies. As a super fan, I understand that compulsion to pay tribute. It’s no one’s fault and to their credit that these films take lives of their own. But the repercussions don’t age well in terms of initial viewing experiences.

All that being said, I truly cherish how much I was not exposed to this movie. The unpredictability of the creature and the quiet, looming despair that comes with it create a horror unlike any other.

Although it was a box office flop, The Thing is now a welcome and praised name in both science fiction and horror. Even Quentin Tarantino made it known that The Hateful Eight was primarily inspired on several fronts by Carpenter’s underrated work. However, it has not pervaded pop culture like so many other horror classics have left their indelible mark on film vernacular. And to that end, I hope it remains in that slight shadow of anonymity for all future enthusiasts.

[nathanneedsausername]

Most Overlooked Movies in Oscar History

Well guys, its official, Green Book was awarded the highest honour a single film can be given. Best Picture. If you spent any time on Twitter the day after the 91st Academy Awards you will have noticed that film nerds were not exactly thrilled by the decision, film Twitter immediately erupted into a discussion about all the films that didn’t receive the nomination that may have been more worthy winners than Green Book. Films like Eighth Grade, The Miseducation of Cameron Post and If Beale Street Could Talk appear to have benefited far more in regard to free publicity than any of the actual nominees. Of course, this isn’t the first time that the academy has failed to acknowledge the real best of the year and it certainly won’t be the last. So, in the spirit of being mad at the Academy let’s take a look at some of the worst historical snubs of all time.Well guys, its official, Green Book was awarded the highest honour a single film can be given. Best Picture. If you spent any time on Twitter the day after the 91st Academy Awards you will have noticed that film nerds were not exactly thrilled by the decision, film Twitter immediately erupted into a discussion about all the films that didn’t receive the nomination that may have been more worthy winners than Green Book. Films like Eighth Grade, The Miseducation of Cameron Post and If Beale Street Could Talk appear to have benefited far more in regard to free publicity than any of the actual nominees. Of course, this isn’t the first time that the academy has failed to acknowledge the real best of the year and it certainly won’t be the last. So, in the spirit of being mad at the Academy let’s take a look at some of the worst historical snubs of all time.

The Avengers (2012)

Actual nominations: Argo, Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Misérables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty.

The Academy has historically looked down on superhero films with no comic book adaptation receiving a Best Picture nod before Black Panther earlier this year. While The Avengers may not have been the most artistic or dramatic film of 2012 it is hard to deny it’s impact. When future generations look back on the films of the 2010s The Avengers will likely stand out as one of the most important releases. With the Marvel Cinematic Universe feeling like a part of everyday life it can be hard to remember just how big a risk this movie was at the time. Think pieces were all over the internet about how the film would ultimately end up as an unwatchable, convoluted mess of ideas that would end Joss Wheadon’s career. How wrong they were.

If the Best Picture award is supposed to honour the greatest and most important achievements in modern cinema then The Avengers absolutely deserved to end up on the ballot, but we don’t live in the universe where The Academy does cool stuff like that.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Actual nominations: Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray, Sideways.

How on earth did this happen? It truly amazes me that more members of the academy felt that Finding Neverland deserved more acclaim than Eternal Sunshine. Going of the assumption that the ‘best picture’ should be the film with all its filmmaking elements working perfectly together then Eternal Sunshine should win every year. Charlie Kaufman won the award for original screenplay and Kate Winslet received the only other nomination for lead actress, this film didn’t even receive a nomination in any of the technical categories. The treatment of Michel Gondry’s masterpiece by the Academy should be seen as a permanent black spot on the ceremony’s reputation.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

Actual Nominations: Rain Man, The Accidental Tourist, Dangerous Liaisons, Mississippi Burning, Working Girl

Hear me out on this one. Roger Rabbit is one of my all-time favourite movies and for that, I’ll admit, I’m a little bias. That being said I truly believe that this is one of the finest achievements in cinema history from a purely technical level. The nominees for the 61st Acadamy Awards are solid (for the most part wtf is going with The Accidental Tourist?) but none of these films are as impressive as what Robert Zemeckis and his team were able to achieve by mixing live action film with 2D animation. Roger Rabbit is more than just a gimmick however, this a very entertaining and genuinely compelling detective story at its core. Once again, the term ‘Best Picture’ feels perfectly defined while discussing this film, a film that wasn’t even considered for the award.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Actual Nominees: A Beautiful Mind, Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Moulin Rouge

Excuse my language but Donnie Darko is a fucking great movie. Here is another year where the nominees were pretty solid but come on you can’t tell me that Donnie Darko was too weird and abstract when you nominated Moulin bloody Rouge! Donnie Darko is the sort of film that is still being discussed to this day with so many incredibly well thought out details both in the direction and the screenplay. When you ask a film lover what is so special about the medium it is films like this that they will point to, with an excellent score, great performances, hypnotically simple editing and masterful direction it doesn’t put a foot wrong. Do I really have to spell out what the words ‘Best Picture’ mean again?

WALL.E (2008)

Actual Nominees: Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader

Let’s talk about animation for a bit. Only three animated films have ever been nominated for top prize (Beauty and the Beast, Up and Toy Story 3) considering the amount for excellent animated film are not those three I had a lot to choose from. With the likes of My Neighbour Totoro, Toy Story, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Princess Mononoke and The Nightmare Before Christmas going completely unnoticed the academy has found a way to further segregate the medium of animation from live-action film by introducing the ‘best animated feature’ award at the 2002 ceremony. This addition has led to films like Spirited Away, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Frozen, Inside Out and most recently Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse receiving an award without having to let them compete with live action films. There are no academy rules that state animation cannot be considered for Best Picture it just doesn’t happen. I have singled out WALL.E because I think it showcases exactly what modern animation has achieved. WALL.E is a largely silent film with gorgeous visuals and a strong environmental message that is still accessible to general audiences, including children. Surly one of Pixar’s finest achievements deserves to be held in just as high regard as David Fancher’s 8th best film.

 Ps. You will notice a distinct lack of The Dark Knight in the 2008 nominations as well.

Psycho (1960)

Actual Nominees: The Apartment, The Alamo, Elmer Gantry, Sons and Lovers, The Sundowners

Another genre historically left out of the running is horror. Only 6 horror films have ever been up for the award (The Exorcist, Jaws, The Silence of the lambs, The Sixth Sense, Black Swan and Get Out). Horror is a genre that is often looked down upon in the film community for being ‘low-brow’ and not as artistic, a similar struggled as the one faced by the superhero genre. With important releases such as: Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Suspiria, Halloween, Alien, The Shining, Let he Right One In, Night of the Living Dead and perhaps most surprising, Psycho going unnoticed by the academy it is clear to see that there is a bias against the genre somewhere in Hollywood. Psycho is also emblematic of another problem with historic best picture nominations. What on earth is the academy’s issue with Alfred Hitchcock? Psycho is not the only of Hitchcock’s classic films not to receive the nomination, in fact North by Northwest, Vertigo, Rear Window and Dial M for Murder were all snubbed.

On a related note despite being nominated 5 times Hitchcock never received the Oscar for best director putting him in the prestigious company of: David Lynch, Terry Gilliam, Ridley Scott, Wes Anderson Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, Edgar Wright, Spike Lee, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Wells and Stanley Kubrick. So, I guess you could say that it isn’t just the Best Picture category that doesn’t make sense.

 These were 6 examples I felt I could make a point out of, it is important to remember that many more examples are out there of revolutionary masterworks that went unrecognised come awards season. People don’t take into consideration what happens behind the scenes at the Oscars. The ceremony needs good ratings, The Academy needs to honour films with progressive messages that are easily digestible, and everyone has an agenda and wants to see their friends win. The Oscars are a lot of fun, it gives people like as a chance to talk about the films we loved that year hopefully see our favourites given some well-deserved recognition but let’s not take it more seriously than we should. Next year when the Academy inevitably choses to honour mediocrity remind yourself that The Third Man wasn’t nominated in 1950 or you could remind yourself that Singin’ in the Rain wasn’t nominated in 1953, alternatively mention that 2001: A Space Odyssey was snubbed in 1969, The Matrix in 2000, Back to the Future in 1986, Pan’s Labyrinth in 2007, Cool Hand Luke in 1968. Or if you want your could run into the street and shout about how, Duck Soup, Modern Times, His Girl Friday, Night of the Living Dead, The Shining, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Oldboy, Reservoir Dogs and The Big Lebowski all weren’t nominated for god dammed thing.

Nathan Needs A Username’s Must See Movies: https://letterboxd.com/nathan_r_l/list/nathan-needs-a-usernames-must-see-movies/

Nathan Needs A Username’s Avoid At All Cost Movies: https://letterboxd.com/nathan_r_l/list/nathan-needs-a-usernames-avoid-at-all-cost/

[ouchmaster6000]

RE that zim/anpanman post - while Anpanman doesn't get as dark in tone, Baikinman regularly tries to kill people and has done things like tear pages out of an anthropomorphic book and make food-based characters spoil and rot. Not as gruesome as doing it to "real people" characters but that's not the point really; the idea behind it is still there, so Japanese kids are just very accustomed to an alien being that sadistic within the context of their series

First of all, I should point out I agree that Japanese kids are probably used to seeing more intense stuff on TV than american ones. Alot of shows like Yu-Gi-Oh, One Piece, Digimon and even Pokemon occasionally are known for having stuff edited out of the english dub. A pretty decent number of shonen series just flat out get marketed to an older audience in the states (stuff for kids in japan being aimed at middle schoolers here, stuff for teens being aimed at adults etc.)

Hell, I’m fairly certain Dragon Ball Z and Tenchi Muyo probably would have been marketed to adults in the US if it came out today too (Former for the violence, latter for the sexual stuff) and only got away with as much they did because they were on cable, and the idea that kids anime could appeal to adults simply hadn’t occurred to most western producers at that point.

I just…. Dont really think Anpanman is a good example of this? I also dont agree with the original poster’s Zim comparison. Granted, I suppose I probably should watch the show, but from everything I have seen of it, such as discussions on Bogleech’s website, it doesn’t seem that much edgier than standard kids show? Definitely a bit weirder and more violent than most preschool shows in the states, but overall, I doesn’t sound like Baikinman is much worse the your average kids cartoon villain.

I mean for starters, its pretty standard in kids media for killing and mutilating for non-human characters to be allowed, especially if said characters don’t have blood or flesh.

The obvious example is robots. Star Wars, Transformers, Doctor Who, Superman, Green Lantern, Teen Titans, Xiaolin Showdown, Age of Ultron,  - There are way too many shows, comics and movies to list that eithor aimed at kids or families, that have robots and cyborgs being torn apart in ways that would be pretty graphic if it happened to humans or animals.

Digimon is a related example - The only reason the franchise is allowed to have as much death as it does is because 99% of the fatalities happen to digital lifeforms that dissolve into pixels upon death.

Hell one of my favorite movies as a child was the original Toy Story, and all the scenes where Sid was mutilating and blowing up his toys would have gotten a hard R rating if he was doing it to people. I’ve heard a lot of people compare Sid to Dr. Frankenstein, but with toys, but at least Dr. Frankenstein used parts that were already dead (as opposed to tearing/cutting apart still living people) and put them together in a shape roughly resembling a human. Really, Sid’s toys are less Frankenstein and more human centipede.

I also remember Fosters Home for Imaginary friends having a similar reoccuring theme of “food friends” meeting a worse fate than Anpanman. This included half eaten, traumatized anthropomorphic food dreamed up by kids in stuck in fat camp, or a talking pizza dreamed up by the bully character and eaten and killed just seconds after being “born”

So, although obviously dark comedy, Baikinman doing those things isn’t really anything new for childrens media. Neither, is trying to kill someone, since a lot of cartoon villains have made serious attempts to kill people, they just never succeed.

But Zim successfully mutilating and removing the organs and body parts of human children is definitely not normal for a kids show.

Another issue I took with Revretch’s post was that she wasn’t just talking about Zim the character, she seemed to me to be claiming that “Invader Zim” the TV series wouldn’t be seen as edgy just because the main character is similar to Baikenman… but thats not really how it works? You can’t necessarily tell the tone of a show, just from the nature of its protagnist.

Like, by that logic, Courage the Cowardly Dog should be one of the most light hearted and kid friendly shows out there, but in actuality the world he inhabits is much, much darker, scarier and more surreal than Courage himself is.

Its true that, though the writers/network let Zim do much worse stuff on screen, there are plenty of other childrens cartoon characters whose personality is pretty similar to Zim, or whom are a lot creepier and more threatening. Mojo Jojo and HIM from the powerpuff girls are good examples of both of these, respectively. 

In fact, Powerpuff Girls, Xiaolin Showdown, Codename: Kids Next Door, Danny Phantom and plenty of other childrens cartoons all have both villains that are similar to Zim, and villains that are considerably more evil, creepy or serious than Zim ever was, but the tone of these shows, overall, is a relatively more optimistic one, where the main protagonists have more or less happy lives and good always triumphs over evil in the end.

Hell, even Gravity Falls, with its use of creepy horror imagery, occasional forays into adult humor, and having one of the most infamous big bads in childrens animation (and easily my favorite from the last 10 years) remains a fairly optimistic show at its core, about family and summer adventures.

This is not the case with Invader Zim, which is a show where humans as a species are portrayed as so comically stupid and mean spirited that, even if Zim somehow successfully killed or enslaved them all, it probably wouldn’t come across as a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

A show where the Irkens are depicted both commiting genocide, and electrocuting a disobedient slave on screen, and whose society is such a dystopia they are forced to udergo intense military training from birth and generally assigned roles for life based on genetics.

A show where the elementary skool is portrayed as a collection of all the absolute worst aspects of public school, both in terms of how its run, and how the kids treat each other, exaggerated to an absurd degree.

A show where a reoccurring joke character is a homeless man, who got taken advantage by a fast food chain, paid in free pizza and a room in the back of a resturant, became morbidly obese (Yes, this is Bloaty’s canon origin story) and was last seen in the original show sobbing uncontrollably because he hates his life.

Also, although this was obviously changed significantly in the comics and the Enter the Florpus special, in regards to what was portrayed in the original show, its really not difficult to make the argument Dib’s own dad and sister don’t give a shit whether or not he lives or dies.

Of course, this was all done for very dark laughs, as well as to create a setting that was just the right balance of humor and nihilism that the viewer could choose to either root for, laugh at or sympathize with either Zim or Dib without really worrying about the actual moral implications of either sides goals.

I’m not saying Zim is the edgiest show out there, comedic or otherwise. With stuff like Warhammer, Berserk, Venture Bros, Metalocalypse and all manner of gritty 90s anihero comics, Zims pretty light hearted and goofy in comparison.

But for childrens animation? Aside from some of the 90’s “grossout” cartoons like Ren & Stimpy and Cow & Chicken (which varied a lot in quality, imo) I can’t really think of any others that come close (Maaaaybe Billy & Mandy, but I think its too tonally inconsistant, with a lot of episodes being pretty standard cartoon slapstick.)

Wow, I sure did type a lot. Sorry about that. But Invader Zim is one of my all time favorite shows, and fictional villains one of my favorite topics, so I feel like I have a lot to say about them.

[metaphoreala]

  Most of the online population window-shops Wikipedia for their information, but if you happen to be interested in psi (or any anomalous phenomena), its accounting of facts and history can be outrageously selective revisionism. The entries would be laughable if their writers weren’t so blatantly dishonest.

Anyone who’s spent time researching psi on Wikipedia can discern in seconds the editors’ bias in favor of anydebunking explanation. Look up pretty much any paranormal subject and you’ll find the same pattern: an insultingly cursory outline of the anomaly, followed by sometimes ludicrous “explanations” that demonstrate the editor(s) did virtually no work in investigating the original reports and probably nutshelled what little information is presented only from books written by pseudoskeptics—who themselves have cherry-picked aspects of the cases to bolster their perspective.

The trashing of a particular phenomenon or character assassination of a psi-talented individual very often revolves around a core of “celebrity” debunkers associated with the Committee for Skeptical Investigation (CSI)[1] such as Joe Nickell, Martin Gardner, Susan Blackmore, Elizabeth Loftus, James Alcock, and Paul Kurtz. When an appeal to authority is needed, there will often be offered a quote from superstars Carl Sagan (despite Sagan’s professed openness to investigating telepathy and reincarnation), Michael Shermer, Alcock, or the “Amazing” Randi to snark upon the poor, “deluded,” and long-dead psi researchers of yestercentury and today.

Of these debunking sources, only a few are genuine scientists—and even a fewer number than that are still active in CSI. Bill Nye isn’t a scientist. The Amusing Randi isn’t a scientist. In fact, in the early years a group of “hard” scientist members bailed on the organization because of its dogmatic, anti-scientific attitude.[2]

Meanwhile, the number of academically credentialed paranormal investigators increases by the day.

In addressing the thousands of psi studies and the meta-analyses of these studies, references to “methodological faults” come up quite often—conveniently footnoted to articles by Joe Nickell, Martin Gardner, James Alcock, or even the non-scientist Randi. How wide-ranging in sources! As Craig Weiler points out:

“Since alternative sciences are mostly shut out from mainstream consideration, the evidence isn’t examined closely in many mainstream scientific discussions.  In other words, there are very, very few solid scientific sources for skeptics to work with. There are no sources that sufficiently support statements about parapsychology or many other frontier science such as “this is pseudoscience” “rejected by the scientific community” or “negatively impacts the public understanding of science.”  No one has ever gone to the trouble to try to prove these things scientifically.  And it’s very doubtful that it’s even possible.

So skeptics have to resort a lot of the time to sources that are created “in house” so to speak.  These come in the form of skeptics being interviewed, skeptical articles, newsletters, blogs by notable skeptics, etc.  This is especially true on Wikipedia when it comes to psychics.  It is very tough to make the case that any of them are frauds or deluded without resorting to opinion or (the failure of James Randi Foundation’s) Million Dollar Challenge. (To award a psychic for genuine psi abilities). Mainstream sources generally stay away from landing on one side or the other of this debate because of either liability issues or fear of losing audience by being too skeptical.

This is undoubtedly why the Guerrilla Skeptics work so closely with CSI and JREF.  Without the sourcing from these two reactionary organizations or their fellows and other skeptical organizations, many of their assertions would be just about impossible to make.”

Further, the rebuttals by the original psi investigators to these criticisms—who often clearly enumerate the mistakes, mischaracterizations, or outright falsehoods made by these pseudoskeptics—are never mentioned in the Wikipedia entries.

The use of this small core debunking crowd as final authorities is akin to having the Wikipedia entries for Impressionist movement and artists referencing a core of ten or so Impressionist-hating critics, when there in fact have been thousands of art critics.

Again, the references and “further reading” sections at the articles’ ends rarely contain the primary references/reports on the phenomena or the work of paranormal researchers. It’s inevitably debunking books or articles you’ll find…Almost as if they want to short-circuit your interest; as if they don’t want you to do independent research and make up your own mind.

Thus, Rule 1: Try to avoid reference primary sources, that is, the lengthy investigations by the persons who initially researched and often witnessed the anomalous activity. Always reference only the debunking material, or the opinion of some member of CSI. You’ll know this is so if the book referenced is published by Prometheus Books, the house organ of CSI.[3] 

I don’t have any problem with giving skeptical, non-paranormal explanations the primary place in an article—if the explanations offered were honest and credible in the mechanical-physical specifics of their explanations—but Wikipedia entries don’t exhibit this equality, because the debunkers’ explanations usually don’t.

That’s because there is a “mafia” of pseudoskeptics controlling the editing process of Wikipedia entries on anything paranormal. CSI and Guerrilla Skeptics have pages devoted to how one should debunk anything they deem “non-science,” both in real life and in online contexts.[4]

First, the “RationalWiki” (the pseudoskeptic’s safe space) entry covering the Society for Psychical Research is a shambles. The Guerilla Skeptics unfairly downplays the first generation of SPR. Richard Hodgson, Edmund Gurney, Henry and Nora Sidgwick, Frank Podmore, and (on the American side) William James all busted dozens upon dozens of fraudulent mediums. Hodgson exposed Theosophy founder Madame Blavatsky of several types of imposture in 1885. Podmore worked on collating the accounts contained in Hodgson and Myers’s massive Phantasms of the Living (1886) yet himself remained unconvinced of mediumship and postmortem survival (he concluded telepathy was probably responsible for mediums’ “hits”). But Podmore didn’t stop trying to find the evidence. William James revealed many spiritualist seances as conjuring feats (which alienated the original Spiritualist contingent within the ASPR into rejecting that organization, ironically, as a bunch of debunkers). The wiki entry doesn’t mention the SPR’s in-depth and failed attempts to disprove the mediumship of Leonora Piper.

Yet the Guerillas reveal little to none of these facts in their trite account—because these Victorian searchers professed and applied what the mafia don’t practice: a skeptical yet open-minded commitment to discovering the truth. Truth cannot be “absolutely settled” in science—that is what makes it unique in human intellectual history. As William James said, “Science means, first of all, a certain dispassionate method. To suppose that it means a certain set of results that one should pin one’s faith upon and hug forever is sadly to mistake its genius and degrade the scientific body to the status of a cult.”

This is the deeper truth about the role of science the Guerilla Skeptics cannot bear to face, but was foundational to the SPR pioneers, because the latter were philosophers and philologists and lawyers unburdened with a worship of a materialism that can be as corrosively dogmatic as Baptist literalism.

Next, take the subject of poltergeists. The Wiki mafia editors are very selective as to which cases to debunk by granting them a dedicated page. The Amityville, Enfield, and Borley Rectory cases get the longest Wiki pages by far—and they were deemed fraudulent by investigators from the Society for Psychical Research as well as the committed debunkers.[5]On the SPR’s investigation of poltergeists, the wiki prominently mentions Lambert’s discredited hypothesis that the phenomenon was caused wholesale by underground seismic or liquid vibrations and weather factors. This conjecture was soundly disproven by the SPR’s Alan Gauld and Tony Cornell.[6] Is Gauld and Cornell’s scientific experimentation to prove or disprove Lambert’s hypothesis even mentioned? No.

The Wiki entry for the well-documented 1967 Rosenheim poltergeist is a particularly decrepit specimen of attempted ledgermain. There are no mentions of the 1967 Tropication Arts poltergeist in Miami (exhaustively investigated as it occurred by Roll and Pratt), the Stratford, Connecticut poltergeist of 1850 (witnessed by thousands of persons over seven months, detailed in diary form by Rev. Eliakim Phelps, owner of the house, and investigated by skeptical scientists, journalists, and clergy who came away convinced the phenomenon was paranormal), or the Sauchie, Scotland poltergeist of 1960 (investigated by A.R. Owen and witnessed by a clergyman, three medical doctors, and a teacher). These three cases are conspicuous absences in the Wiki data, due either to their impeccable documentation or, relatedly, the fact that no close to credible debunking explanations exist by the “experts.”

Rule 2: Always highly emphasize the crudely-produced frauds, then tar the entire phenomenon with these selected instances—and try not to use the debunking work of genuine skeptics who busted the frauds, such as SPR investigators Frank Podmore, Henry Sidgwick, William James, Nora Sidgwick, Alan Gauld, Richard Hodgson, or E. J. Dingwall. Mentioning their work only gives them respectability, and no dispassionate psi investigator should ever be tolerated in a Wikipedia article on the subject.

The 1967 Zeitoun, Egypt Marian apparition entry is apparently a fluke in that the descriptive entry about it is surprisingly longer and more detailed than the “mass hysteria” explanation made by the skeptics further down the page (meaning: we have no idea how so many people could see and even photographed repeatedly an identical apparition, therefore here’s an unproved accounting for it)…Which brings us to the core of their mindset: they often suggest “natural” explanations that beggar belief in their convoluted, pseudoscientific chutzpah.

According to these “rational” authorities, multiple witnesses to apparitions like Zeitoun can be primed to suffer simultaneous and identical hallucinations of Mother Mary, levitating bedsheets, candlesticks, and even phantom people, the lack of scientific/psychological evidence for “group hallucinations” be damned…The mafia would prefer us to believe women mediums merely fake trances during which they surreptitiously manipulate unseen but necessarily present “concealed ropes” that can pull 50-pound bureaus a foot and a half across the floor and back again in seconds…And did you know that 10-year-olds can easily fool professional magicians and a dozen trained observers during a poltergeist outbreak? And that these kids obviously place dozens of stones into their houses’ walls to disgorge themselves by means of invisible networks of threads (that are never found)—and then float across rooms and land with no contact sound?

These are remarkable feats for untrained, pre-adolescent conjurers—many of whom had never actually seen a stage magic act in their life.

Rule 3: Use anything within the realms of standard, cause-and-effect Newtonian physics, psychology, cognitive science, or sociology, even if unproven, obsolete, or just plain pseudoscience (like “mass hysteria”), to explain away the phenomenon in an ad hoc manner.

We’ll take a look at mediums. The Wiki editors’ bias is most easily demonstrated by the amount of page space given over to the rationalizations which always outweigh the compressed anecdotes on the mediums’ feats (the latter which, a curious individual’s further scrutiny will find, are told through often highly detailed accounts that what was experienced clearly violates physics as we know it).

Again, the entries for individual mediums such as Leonora Piper all consist of very short summaries (or outright omission) of the prodigious examples of their talents and the laborious screening-out processes for fraud undertaken by investigators. The debunking “explanations” amount to a hand-wave mention of “conjuring tricks” and one of two instances of witnessed fraud meant to negate the psi they exhibited.

A jury would inevitably find the grounds of these debunkings as weak hearsay compared to the oft-mountains of evidence in favor of the abilities’ existence. Thus

Rule 4: Always refer to case studies as sets of anecdotes or anecdotal. This is supposed to insulate them entirely from consideration as evidence, and it applies doubly to case studies of the careers of individual psychics or trance mediums; in this case, one can then proceed to Wikifraud! them further and attack the person as a charlatan. As in Rule 2, if one instance of anything ambiguously fraudulent is found in a medium’s career—in other words, an anecdote of fraud—raise this one anecdote to the status of unimpeachable truth and tar the person’s entire career with fraud, despite any contrary evidence from investigators and reliable witnesses. This is an example of the double-standard fallacy many pseudoskeptics use. Fraud discovered=true fact; Psi demonstration that is far beyond what chance would predict= “non-evidential.”

SHORT CUTS:

Lourdes: In 1858, 14 year-old Bernadette Soubirous spoke with a “white lady” at an ancient grotto in southern France. The apparition told her to dig in the ground near the cave and Bernadette did, causing a spring to appear whose waters have become a potable shrine to millions. Both the Vatican and independent medical authorities have verified 69 medically inexplicable healings.

The Wiki response: the placebo effect, natch…But have the debunkers any clue how an idea or a suggestion in the mind can induce the near-instantaneous healing of fractured bones, cancer-eaten tissue, or blindness (all medically documented)? Nope. No one does. Move along. It seems the editor stopped short. The less said about this one the better.

vicka 011.jpg The six young visionaries having an apparition in 1981 L to R: Vicka Ivankovic, Jakov Colo, Mirjana Dragicevic, Ivanka Ivankovic, Marija Pavolic, Ivan Dragicevic Medjugorje Early apparition Chris Rogers Mobile:+447808913186 Skype: chris.johnrogers http://www.blackandwhitetv.net

Fátima & Medjugorje: Well, there are no Guerilla Skeptic interpolations in the Fatima entry at all—no section on possible alternate explanations, nothing but a sentence offering possible “retinal effects” due to looking at the sky near the sun, natural meteorological optical effects, or the “suggestibility” of the huge (30-50,000) crowd during the “Miracle of the Sun” on October 13, 1917. Apparently, even a Guerilla Skeptic doesn’t (or rather, isn’t allowed to) mess with canonical Catholic beliefs.

The papal blessing on Fatiman Lucia Santos as a saint and the authentication of the mass visions probably explains the different treatment the mafia offers in the Medjugorje entry (and the fact that it occurred 51 years closer to the present, 1971, when we should know better about these things, right?). The Medjugorje visions were never given Roman official seal of authenticity, nor were the young women involved ever canonized. Open season, then! In the skeptic section, there are two references by Joe Nickell, one to a CSI’s Skeptical Inquirer magazine article, and a skeptical weighing-in by Pope Francis.

The difference in treatment between the Fatima and Medjugorje events is striking. One wonders if the mafia would have been given a hands-off if the Bosnian events had been recognized as genuine and the primary “seers” beatified or even canonized.

Padre Pio: Like Saint Lucia Santos, Saint Pio of Pietrelcina has been canonized, so there’s minimal interference by the mafia. As far as the accounts of his stigmata go: The skeptic attempt to use an ad hoc that Pio bought carbolic acid to fake the wounds is immediately countered by the admission that Pio and his monastery brother Paolinopurchased the chemical to sterilize needles for Spanish Flu immunizations. No evidence at all is offered that the stigmata could have been caused by the acid.

Geraldine Cummins: The entry on automatic writing medium Geraldine Cummins actually quotes psychical researcher Harry Price, of all people, as debunking her voluminous writings as “products of her subconscious.” Now go over to Wikipedia’s Harry Price page to see how his character and career fare as a whole in the mafia’s eyes; they do not note the many times he credulously boosted his “star” psychics. The man was very protective of his test subjects. Using Price’s opinion of Cummins in the entry is blatant cherry-picking, in other words. Cummins herself is on record as being skeptical of her own channeling’s sources, which is in fact mentioned in passing in the “reception” entry. Then go to other sources on Harry Price’s career as a psi researcher and you’ll find a firm believer in the anomalous abilities, but only when it suited him. He was, if nothing else, a promoter for the abilities of Harry Price.

Gladys Osborne Leonard: The Gladys Osborne Leonard entry goes into no detail whatsoever about the many spontaneous “hits” the trance medium Leonard/her control “Feda” made that neither Leonard nor her sitters could possibly have known—because they were proxy sitters two (or sometimes three) times removed from the actual questioner.[7] How could Leonard have known who the real sitters’ identities were asking the questions? It would seem impossible, yet “Feda” was accurate in names, times, descriptions, and life-events of these thrice-removed sitters more than half the time. If fraud is ruled out (and on testimony of the SPR investigators, who had Leonard trailed by detectives, she was of impeccable character vouched for by all her friends) the only alternative for the mafia is telepathy or even super-psi—but they can never use those explanations, of course…So the mafia cites only attempts at explanation from skeptics wielding the usual techniques (fishing, cold reading, fraud). Explaining away “Feda” as a “second personality” of Leonard’s, as some of the referenced skeptics do, explains nothing, for this second personality apparently was either telepathically gifted or in fact a disincarnate intelligence.

Eileen Garrett: Trance medium Eileen Garrett was more curious about and flummoxed by the source of her abilities than perhaps any other medium, and tried for decades to understand it, enlisting psychologists, psychiatrists, and scientists. Of all people, the wiki entry on her clairvoyance uses the opinion of parapsychology’s worst fraud-perpetrator Samuel Soal to dismiss her ability to replicate J.B. Rhine’s experimental successes with him, Soal. Thus—

Rule 2b: anyone’s opinion is apparently permitted, as long as it debunks with extreme prejudice, and

Rule 2c: researchers who believe(d) in the existence one type of paranormal phenomena are occasionally 100% okay to use as sources of authority as long as they are debunking another paranormal phenomenon.

In the Garrett wiki writer’s case this is ironic, in that Soal was known to be deeply envious of Rhine’s experimental work and, when could not replicate his famous telepathy studies, Soal produced them fraudulently by altering score cards.

In 1930, Garrett was “spontaneously contacted” by the consciousness of Herbert Irwin, captain of the R101 airship that had crashed two days before, killing Irwin and 47 others.

CSI house organ Prometheus Books’ two authors John Booth and Melvin Harris both get ample quotes from their books explaining the results of her R101 sittings by not explaining them at all as fraudulent, trivial, non-evidential. No rebuttals by direct witnesses or other parapsychologists are permitted; the “final word” by Booth and Harris is she was a fraud.

DEEP DIVES:

I’m going to take four examples of Wikipedia’s blindered approach and look at them in-depth.

Stefan Ossowiecki

Polish industrialist and remote-viewer/psychometrist Stefan Ossowiecki was nationally famous in Europe for his ability to not only read multiply-sealed letters but often tell the investigator what occurred while the letter was written (the writer’s gender, age, appearance, health condition, describe the room or house where it was composed, etc.) His “hits” at reading the contents of envelopes far outweighed his misses, and there is no way short of “hot reading” (extensive detective work done on the target material beforehand) that he could have known about the writers’ lives—but in many cases neither Ossowiecki nor even the investigator knew they would be performing an experiment on the spur-of-the-moment. Many times, someone Ossowiecki did not know (a Parisian, say) who had written a letter that was given to someone else and then given at the last moment to the investigator to test him. How could he possibly have known what was written (or drawn) in the letter? He would then not only describe what was written or drawn inside, but spontaneously describe the writer. Furthermore, he several times told the investigator personal details about the writer and the people through whom the letter passed to his hand, who he also didn’t personally know, or even had an idea existed.

This led researchers Charles Richet, Gustav Geley, and Eugene Osty to conclude Ossowiecki was a not only a “superpsi”-level clairvoyant (remote viewer) but an astounding psychometrist: by touching the envelopes, he could see into the past and somehow watch the person write the note/drawing, and sense the scene.

For this one, the Wiki editors roll out psychologist C.E.M. Hansel for the inevitable “conjuring trick” claim with no further elaboration, then hit us with this: “Psychologist E. F. O’Doherty wrote that the clairvoyance experiments with Ossowiecki were not scientific.”[8] This is a strictly true criticism; but still, triple-blinded tests of the man’s ability while he is being closely watched by the experimenters for fraud (dozens upon dozens of times) makes for compelling anecdotes that he possessed an extraordinary talent.

The editors’ omission of the preparations the investigators made to test Ossowiecki is a refusal to wrestle with the details, as is usually the case in their entries. It serves to demonstrate their bedrock faiththat there is literally no possible test debunkers would call scientific with regard to psi abilities. Which is exactly their intended program: it doesn’t exist, simply because it can’t, therefore there is no way to test it.

Leonora Piper

In the first stub, we have Mrs. Piper characterized as a cold reader, a fisher for information, and muscle reader. None of the authors cited for these statements sat with Leonora for a reading, nor did they interview any of the persons who did; it appears they simply came to the subject with these explanations based upon the SPR reports. With complete disingenuousness, it ignores the fact that A/SPR members William James, Richard Hodgson, Frederic Myers, James Hyslop, and Oliver Lodge conducted strenuous measures against cold reading, hot reading, and muscle reading. These trained philosophers and scientists weren’t stupid and gullible as the pseudoskeptics would like you to think. Richard Hodgson was so flummoxed by her abilities that he hired private detectives to secretly trail Mrs. Piper and her family for several months, watching them for meetings with “cut-outs” between their friends and the SPR who might be feeding her any information (the “hot reading”). They turned up absolutely no evidence of fraud, which impressed Hodgson and the other investigators. Over the years Hodgson continued to periodically monitor as closely as he could Piper’s social activities but again came up with no evidence at all for hot reading. They even paid for she and her daughters to travel to England for strenuous examination by the British SPR and use dozens of random strangers as sitters, where there was no possibility of her gaining a hot reading.

These facts go conveniently unmentioned anywhere in the article.

While it is true that Mrs. Piper often had the sitters hold her hands or place their hands against her forehead, which could open her to charges of muscle reading in gauging how close her answers were, the quality of double or triple-blinded information she on occasion gave—ostensibly evidential of either spirit communication or omniclairvoyance (superpsi)—would lead one to think that even if she did use muscle reading, it was irrelevant to her results, because the information would have to have been conveyed via unconscious telepathy by the sitters themselves to Mrs. Piper; even the sitters were often unaware of the information she provided, which was found later by them to be true.

This is a possibility the Wiki editors never consider. And she did fish, but the sitters were for the most part told to remain silent and poker-faced as her controls sought for names, dates, or concepts.

The biography section says she “made a fortune” from her readings. It doesn’t make clear that this money was paid to her by the SPR to keep her exclusively their subject, with an investigator and stenographer/note-taker present at every sitting. She was essentially a salaried test subject for some 15 years.

Two examples of Piper’s sittings amongst many serve to demonstrate what sort of inexplicable talent they found themselves compelled to explain:

For a period of several years, Mrs. Piper’s main “spirit control” was the coarse-speaking French physician “Phinuit.” A man named John Hart had a sitting with Leonora which was suddenly interrupted by the “spirit” of George Pellew, (GP), who was a recently deceased friend of Hodgson and Hart both whom Piper did not know about. GP successfully spelled out his name for the two surprised men (Hodgson sat in on the sessions most of the time). Pellew, speaking through Phinuit, described a specific pair of shoes he was wearing that had been originally given to Hart by Pellew’s parents (a true past event). This of course would count towards nothing but possible telepathy. GP then asked Hart to get in touch with Pellew’s friends Jim and Mary Howard to have a sitting with Mrs. Piper, and described a specific conversation on metaphysics he once had with the Howards’ 15 year-old daughter Katharine—another event that turned out to have occurred (but neither Hodgson nor Hart knew about at the time). GP mentioned a specific book he had failed to finish reading when he died which Hodgson knew to be true.

The Howards then came in for a sitting (pseudonymously, at Hodgson’s ever-skeptical insistence). This time GP communicated directly, bypassing Phinuit. GP corrected Jim Howard’s wayward assertion that a mutual friend (Rogers) was writing a novel by telling him that Rogers was actually working on a memorial to him, GP. This was correct. GP described Rogers’s deceased daughter as being nearby (that is, “on the other side”) as she still fretted over her condition during her final days, in which she had to be fed with a tube. GP then mentioned “Berwick” and “Orenberg,” more friends of the Howards. Mrs. Piper knew of none of these persons, and all the information and connections given were true.

At their next sitting the Howards brought their daughter Katharine. GP joked about her terrible violin playing, to which Mrs. Howard took offense but Katharine later clarified was a running joke between she and GP—his spirit was apparently attempting to establish “bona fides” with the teenager. Mrs. Piper passed out of trance then back in as Phinuit returned and carried on a conversation in French with Katharine, which the girl knew fluently from living in France. Mrs. Piper consciously knew no French.

The GP control apparently exhibited either remote viewing (clairvoyance) or “retroactive” telepathy on one occasion. With the Howards at home, Hodgson asked GP to visit their house and give a report on what he perceived. Mrs. Howard was writing letters to GP’s mother and someone named Tyson. GP also perceived her holding one of his own books as she wondered if his spirit were around her at that moment. When Hodgson checked with Mrs. Howard he discovered that the events as seen were true but had occurred on the previous day. Hodgson conjectured that Mrs. Piper was either retroactively remote viewed the past or telepathically accessed Mrs. Howard’s mind in real time as she thought of the previous day’s activities. Either way, this is a possible astounding feat of superpsi.[9]

Next, Sir Oliver Lodge wanted to eliminate the possibility of telepathy in Piper’s sittings. So he in effect double-blinded himself by means of an object gotten from an elderly uncle he with whom he was not close. It was a gold watch owned originally by the uncle’s twin brother, who had died decades ago. Lodge handed it to Mrs. Piper, whose control immediately declared it was once owned by the physicist’s uncle. The control, Phinuit, said that this uncle was very fond of another uncle whose name was Robert—another hit; it was true, the living uncle’s name was Robert. Her voice then changed from Phinuit’s to the dead twin, who called himself Jerry (third hit).

Lodge then asked for something only Jerry and Robert would know between them. Phinuit spoke of the two nearly drowning in a dangerous creek while young, killing a cat in “Smith’s field” with a rifle, and that Jerry treasured a “skin” that he’d found. Robert, it turned out, still possessed his brother’s beloved snakeskin, and they did swim in a perilous creek.

This wasn’t enough for Lodge, so he wrote to his younger uncle asking for any memories involving a creek and a cat in the twins’ youth. The third uncle recalled it all: the dangerous creek and the poor cat they shot in the field. They were so mortified of their behavior they’d all kept it secret, but it got out, to their shame.

Despite the true statements around the pocket watch—handed to Piper with no contextual information at all about it—Lodge still insisted on sending detectives to the town where his three uncles grew up to find out if recent enquiries had been made about the family. The detectives reported back: no, and not even any evidence that the shameful activities of the brothers long ago had been documented in public records in any way.[10]

These are two examples of Piper’s mediumship, and there several more of equal power, which we need not go into—and the Guerilla Skeptics would really prefer you didn’t. You might catch curiosity that there’s something to these strange things.

The Wiki entry on Piper emphasizes repeatedly the disagreements between members of the A/SPR over the nature of her talent, as if their clashes in toto negate her authenticity, when in fact James, Hyslop, and even skeptic Frank Podmore simply favored a belief that it was due to telepathy—but even this professional consensus on a paranormal explanation is a no-no that the Wikivigilantes cannot dare mention.

Out of thousands of quotes that could’ve be chosen to characterize the ever-cautious Hodgson’s strenuous work with Piper, we are offered Morton Prince’s observation that her mediumship “wrecked his mind” after Hodgson began to favor the spirit hypothesis over telepathy. In the editors’ selective reading, Frank Podmore is said to have concluded that “Hyslop’s séance sittings with Piper ‘do not obviously call for any supernormal explanation’ and ‘I cannot point to a single instance in which a precise and unambiguous piece of information has been furnished of a kind which could not have proceeded from the medium’s own mind, working upon the materials provided and the hints let drop by the sitter.’”[11]

Podmore’s is an incredibly poor assessment of the evidence, as the Howards and Lodge episodes above reveal; both sittings exhibited precise and unambiguous pieces of information that could not have proceeded only from Mrs. Piper’s mind. According to Ghost Hunters author Deborah Blum, Podmore concluded that “…Leonora Piper was a woman with some telepathic skills and an excellent memory for facts shared casually by her sitters. He had no proof of the latter…but her overall record, although impressive, failed to convince…Perhaps this was too cynical, Podmore allowed: ‘The accurate appreciation of evidence of this kind is almost an impossible task,’ (Podmore) wrote in his book Modern Spiritualism. ‘Mrs. Piper would be a much more convincing apparition if she could have come to us out of the blue, instead of trailing behind her a nebulous ancestry of magnetic somnambules, witchridden children, and ecstatic nuns.’[12] (emphasis added)

To be clear: There was no proof at all for her possessing “an excellent memory for facts shared by her sitters” that in turn fooled investigators. This says it all as far as using Podmore as a credible source on Leonora Piper. Again, the Guerilla squad makes no mention of his ambivalent conclusion on telepathy. And his lumping her together with the hundreds of fraudulent “show” mediums is insulting.

After a cherry-picked tally of her failures and sprinklings of dismissive evaluations in her bio and career, were given a lengthy “skeptical reception” section. As if it were needed.

Few of her many hundreds of “hits” are mentioned. When Piper accurately described the recently deceased daughter of a Reverend Sutton to he and his wife during an 1893 sitting, then gave her cause of death, her nickname and the nicknames of the girl’s brother and sister, “ John G. Taylor suggested that the information Piper gave could naturally be explained if she had read an obituary notice in the local newspaper. Taylor also suggested Piper may have picked up clues from the sitters about the girl’s nickname.” (emphasis added)

Read that closely again. There is no proof here, just “what ifs,” nor any evidence of how Piper could have gleaned clues from the grieving Suttons to declare specific information.

Her “miss” rate was openly acknowledged by James, Hodgson, Hyslop, and others as a problem. The nuanced (yet unfalsifiable) explanation for this is that a person in trance would have difficulty gaining any instantly coherent information from a “widened” or “higher�� source while in an unconscious state. As Piper’s own controls explained the problem, the deceased individual to whom the sitter wishes to speak sometimes has to have their own control “on the other side,” and it becomes extremely difficult to convey information across three barriers to the living.

This gross equivocation, even if it were entirely false, still doesn’t explain her consistent hit rate. Podmore and James tended to believe Mrs. Piper had very strong secondary personalities, but as James and Myers would point out, these personalities, emanations of the Subliminal Self as Myers called it, can do impossible things.

DANIEL DUNGLAS HOME

Home gets much Wiki debunkery upside his head simply because his feats were witnessed by many hundreds of people, including scientists, skeptics, and heads of state and, it’s been claimed, that “every attempt to bust him as a fraud failed.” No soup for you.

Quote from the page:

Gordon Stein has noted that “While the statement that Home was never caught in fraud has been made many times, it simply is not true… It is simply that Home was never publicly exposed in fraud. Privately, he was caught in fraud several times. In addition, there are natural explanations both possible and likely for each of his phenomena.”

Does the page give specific examples of Home being busted by any individuals? Nope. Here, Michael Prescott goes into James Randi’s attempted dismissal of Home with regard to Sir William Crookes’s thorough investigations of him, and Randi’s devious (yes, devious) “revisions”:

https://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2015/10/blast-from-the-past-under-the-table.html

The Wikibunkers explain away the most spectacular Home levitation, wherein he allegedly floated out a three-story window and back in another, as their wide brush to tar his other levitations.

And their story goes like this: the feat was done in near-darkness, and Home could have been standing on those four-inch ledges outside the window…Therefore he did stand on those ledges. Nothing more to it! Here’s another gem:

“Science historian Sherrie Lynne Lyons has stated that a possible explanation for Home’s alleged levitation phenomena was revealed in the twentieth century by Clarence E. Willard (1882–1962). Willard revealed his technique in 1958 to members of the Society of American Magicians. He demonstrated how he could add two inches to his height by stretching. According to Lyons “it is quite likely that [Home] used a similar technique to the one that Willard used decades later.”

Two inches? One problem with that: Home was witnessed levitating three to five feet off the ground during his trips, by at least a dozen people.

And again: “Historian Simon During has suggested the levitation of Home was a magic trick, influenced by Robert-Houdin.”

Do they take the time going into During’s specific details (if he even had them) of exactly how this was accomplished by Home or Robert-Houdin?

Nope. Didn’t think he would. It’s a trade secret. And Houdini never replicated any of Home’s feats.

INDRIDI INDRIDASON

So weak. Perhaps the lamest debunking attempt of all Wikiskeptic antics.

Prior to Indridason, a “simple farm boy,” there were no spiritualists let alone physical mediums in Iceland.[13] The 22-year-old happened to be asked to sit in on a séance in early 1905 and immediately produced tremors and rattling in the table before which they sat. It is noted that Indridi had never before seen a conjuring act, which were extremely rare in the country.[14]

The first psychical research society in Iceland was set up in 1905 to study Indridason and kept him on retainer, much like the SPR paid Leonora Piper as a subject for 17 years. Most of his manifestations occurred while he was in a trance. They included multiple direct voices, wind gusts, instrument playing, the levitation of objects and the medium himself, light phenomena of various types, materialization, rappings, and, most bizarrely, the dematerialization of his arm. These events were witnessed at times by upwards of 80 persons in the “experimental house” space, specially constructed by the psychical society, in which he lived from 1906 to 1909.[15] In this space, Indridason was usually held by investigators or strapped down in a chair that sat behind a wire mesh-barrier that could be examined for signs of tampering during his sessions. Some of these manifestations took place in plain light.

Indridason’s primary control, at first, was his paternal grand-uncle Konrad Gislason. While in trance he was repeatedly tested with needle pokes to no reaction, as if in a depicted hypnotic state. In November 1905, four persons testified that tables levitated as high as 7 feet several times during Indridi’s trance. All attempts to pull them down failed. It also occurred spontaneously while he was in a full waking state. A seance on November 24, 1905 was interrupted at roughly 9pm by a personality named “Emil Jensen,” a “manufacturer,” who spoke of a fire burning at that moment in a Copenhagen factory. It was brought under control within an hour. Three accounts of this particular séance were written down, one of them immediate, but many more people were present.[16]

The next issues of the leading Danish newspaper Politiken were delivered to the island four weeks later, at Christmas, 1905, and “Jensen’s” declarations had been true: a large fire at a lamp and chandelier factory in Copenhagen had occurred on the late night of November 24. Of the four fires that had occurred in Copenhagen within a month’s period, this was the only to befall a factory. There were no telephones or even telegraph service between Iceland and Denmark. In 2009, researcher Erlendur Haraldsson searched Copenhagen’s city records and found a manufacturer and coffee merchant Thomas Emil Jensen who had lived two doors down from the burnt lamp factory and had died at 50 in 1898; on further research it was discovered that the man had lived his entire life within two blocks of the site of the fire.[17]

In December 1907 to early 1908, an interloping spirit named Jon Einarsson caused very destructive poltergeist activity while Indridi was both in and out of trance, but was pacified somehow by a group of “ministering” spirits who insulated Indridi from Jon’s anger by anointing the medium’s forehead. Afterward Jon became a primary control. Two other “spirits” controlled Indridason: a Spanish-French opera diva (possibly Maria Felicia Malibran) who often sang from within the room, and a Norwegian doctor who later was tentatively identified as leprosy expert Daniel Cornelius Danielssen.

In late 1908, Dr. Gudmundur Hannesson became involved. Hannesson was a professor of medicine at the University of Iceland, an anthropologist, a Reykjavik city councilman, an honorary member of the Icelandic and Danish Association of Physicians, and served as President of the University of Iceland for two terms. This was no woo-woo guy and he was determined to debunk Indridi’s exhibitions, which were causing uproars in the press (Indridason had become the most famous person in Iceland).

Hannesson witnessed the near full array of Indridason’s talents—apart from levitation, which occurred a few times but in darkness. To confound the possibility of Indridi or an accomplice moving objects outside the mesh barrier, he placed newfangled glow-in-the-dark tape on the musical instruments and objects about the room. He saw a zither fly about high as the ceiling and dart at incredible speeds as it played snatches of tunes whose acoustics followed the location of the instrument at every second. He heard two disembodied voices, an accomplished female singer and a low male voice sing a duet in harmony, separated in space by eight to ten feet from one another in the hall with only five people (and no women) present at the seance. Many separate voices had been already witnessed in the surrounding space of the hall by hundreds of seance-goers over the years. With this personal witness Hannesson completely ruled out ventriloquism, which was a consistent charge leveled against the medium by skeptics (nearly all of whom had never attended one of Indridi’s seances).

While the Wiki summary of his career is unusually detailed and even-handed, all of the further “rational criticism” is just opinions at second and third hand and beyond, mostly from the contemporary Icelandic press (who were incredibly hostile towards him for religious reasons) with not a single eyewitness account in the lot. The remainder are tired pseudoskeptical takes on what possibly could have accounted for the events: the usual ventriloquism, conjuring tricks, confidence schemes amongst his assistants. This is utterly disingenuous, for the firsthand witnesses and Indridi’s assistants were of high standing. A quote by an Antonio da Silva Mello claims the sittings weren’t “scientific.” For this, as mentioned above, Indridason was the first trance medium in Iceland’s history; the country had no formal “parapsychology labs,” nor were they aware of the SPR’s protocols for testing mediums. In any case, Dr. Hannesson’s strict settings for testing Indridason were very close to those used by the SPR: Indridi was physically restrained and isolated by thick mesh netting from the areas where the majority of the PK activity took place. The experimental house was thoroughly examined three times before each seance and one successful seance took place at Dr. Hannesson’s own house in a room he chose at the last moment.

EPISTEMOLOGY

The psi of the laboratory and psi of the medium are obviously of different character. Lab telepathy has been shown to exist but is weak-to-moderate in effect…But quantifying the likelihood of someone like Mrs Piper correctly guessingthousands of items about the sitters present before her, or about the proxy sitters substituting for them, and evidential facts about the deceased surely beats the lab numbers by several orders of magnitude beyond chance.

In short, telepathy, superpsi, and survival communication are three entirely different things, although the mechanism by which they utilize the brain may be similar or even the same, as elusive as it presently is.

By the 1930s, the medium of information delivery for the existence of psi largely changed from individual case studies to laboratory reports—and that wasn’t enough for the mainstream scientists to pick up the ball. Even design protocols for psi experiments that would garner little to no criticism if new pharma drugs were their subject are claimed by pseudoskeptics to be compromised by “file drawer problems,” “selective reporting,” and “confirmation biases.”

These are bullshit wavings-away of evidence. Facts are adduced indirectly in science all the time, and their existence is assumed to hold until more firm evidence backs up the experimental assays. And this is certainly the case with forms of psi. It has been indirectly proven; that is, what is displayed in thousands of lab experiments, after all confounding factors are eliminated, calls for the most parsimonious explanation: that a form of anomalous cognition that entirely bypasses the physical senses exists. This may be called evidence type 2.

Debunkers ask for direct evidence (evidence type 1, as is displayed by a physics or chemistry experiment) and think poorly of non-supportive of indirect evidence (evidence 2). I suppose the only acceptable direct evidence is…well, as I’ve pointed out above, the pseudoskeptics have consistently moved the goalpost for at least a century and a half, so I suppose we can’t expect there can’t be any in the near future.

The Wikipedia entry on telepathy leads off with this:

“There is no convincing evidence that telepathy exists, and the topic is generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience.” (emphasis added).

The first clause is patently false, and the second is true—yet are any of those outlier members of the “scientific community” who don’t consider it pseudoscience mentioned in the ensuing article, much less given an airing of why or how they consider it possible? No.

Then there’s this curious statement: “Psychical researcher Eric Dingwall criticized SPR founding members Frederic W. H. Myers and William F. Barrett for trying to ‘prove’ telepathy rather than objectively analyze whether or not it existed.”

Now, doesn’t the phrase “trying to ‘prove’ telepathy” semantically equate with demonstrating it exists? That’s some bad equivocation there. How can “objective analysis” occur without instances showing strong correlation or uncorrelation between the states and contents of two minds?

And the insistence on “objective” analysis is disingenuous. The onus is on the stub writer to outline what would constitute such analysis; no doubt some form of instrumentation would be involved, and not the exacting experimental conditions used by J.B. Rhine, Helmut Schmidt, Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne, and Daryl Bem.

The “Scientific Reception” subheading kicks off with there is “no scientific evidence that it exists,” without elaboration. Does this mean there have never been results in any methodologically solid telepathy experiment that are statistically beyond chance? This raises the nagging question: roughly (or exactly) how many demonstrations of beyond-chance anomalous cognition would it take for the scientific community to recognize telepathy as real?Just as the soundness of a theory depends on the non-falsification of projected effects of that theory, to my knowledge no scientist has come forward to explain what exactly the conditions for accepting telepathy as real would be.

Anyway, here’s part of the first footnote supporting this blanket statement:

“One reason for this difference between the scientist and the non-scientist is that the former relies on his own experiences and anecdotal reports of psi phenomena, whereas the scientist at least officially requires replicable results from well controlled experiments to believe in such phenomena—results which according to the prevailing view among scientists, do not exist.”

Apart from there being some error in the quote’s construction (former should read latter), it nicely smooths over all the complexities and problems that real telepathy investigators have encountered in the lab.

For one, it’s rare that telepathy can be induced on demand in lab settings. But apparently on demand is a part of the debunkers’ definition, and this shows ignorance of what has been observed of the phenomenon. Their conception, apparently, is a garbled fantasy version of telepathy that has been internalized and projected from fictional depictions.

Two, it’s been found that a researcher’s lack of attention while setting up a comfortable lab situation, and even the experiment design, can actually inhibit demonstrations of telepathy.

Three, in many instances, telepathy has strongly occurred during life-threatening situations in which the purported “sender” is in physical or extreme emotional trouble and the “receiver” in a relaxed or abstracted state of mind. Experiments that have simulated threats to the “sending” party have shown results.[18]

Four, results beyond chance have been demonstrated in the lab in experiments whose design and assays are beyond reproach.

The “thought reading” section in the telepathy wiki is completely irrelevant. It’s composed of two examples, and both are claimed to be the result of readings of ideomotor bodily cues by stage magicians. “Cold” and “hot” readings have nothing to do with real, spontaneous telepathy, as anyone who has steeped themselves in the 150-years of psychic literature can tell you…Again, like depictions in paranormal fiction, the wiki writer-editors’ conception of telepathy is entirely modeled on images that merely ape the real thing, in this case what stage magicians can do, and it is apparent the wiki writers either have no familiarity with the real-world conditions under which it occurs. Either that, or they are being disingenuous or dishonest.

Debunkers and skeptics alike are ever ready to point out the “file drawer effect” when evaluating the results of psi experiments—but a better example of it contra telepathy can’t be found than the contents of the “case studies” section; this stub is itself victim of file drawer effect. It’s risible: Four instances of admitted frauds, two instances of discovered fraud, three examples of tests with “negative results,” and explanations such as hyperaesthesia (acute hearing on the part of the “receiver”) and coincidence to explain the rest. Louisa and J.B. Rhine’s many thousands of trial runs with Zener cards showing above-chance levels are waved away as the result of “sensory leakage,” meaning conscious or unconscious fraud.[19] The academically published experiments of the SRI remote viewers 1974-1996, Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne at Princeton, Helmut Schmidt, Dean Radin, and Daryl Bem—all which showed positive results—are not mentioned in the wiki. Nor is psi researchers’ rebuttals to the above “explanations.”

The Ganzfeld section actually contains a detailed description of only one side of the debate between Charles Honorton and Ray Hyman to determine whether telepathy was shown during a series of tests; of course, it is Hyman’s attempts to debunk the meta-analyses conducted by the both of them that is highlighted. Honorton’s rebuttals are nowhere to be found. Conveniently unmentioned is the fact that Hyman and Honorton jointly wrote a statementafter years of sparring that concedes that, even were their file drawer effects and some of the studies were ruled out, the results in favor of telepathic demonstration were still above chance and there was no credible alterative explanation. Here’s an excerpt from that statement on the Psi Encyclopedia website:

 ‘There is an overall significant effect that cannot be reasonably explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis. We continue to differ over the degree to which the effect constitutes evidence for psi, but we agree the final version awaits the outcome of future experiments conducted by a broader range of investigators and according to more stringent standards.’

We may conduct further psi trials and gather more experimental material supporting the previous conclusions that telepathy, remote viewing, precognition, and retrocognition exist. The pseudoskeptic asserts these phenomena are impossible; the other side maintains not only that they are possible but do happen. Both views depend upon axioms what is possible and probable about the world—but one advocate’s position is open-descriptive (the “believers,” neutrals, and true skeptics), and the others’ is closed-prescriptive (the debunkers’). This means the former’s views are open to be refuted by evidence, the latter’s impossible to be refuted due to a priori assumptions about the world.

The axioms of cause and effect are at the heart of the dispute. Here is Mary Barrington’s precis of how a believer might characterize a reality in which the anomalous occurs:

The one overriding law that unifies is normal and paranormal under one system is the law of probability.

Probability is the default mode of the observable cosmos.

What is the relationship between information (something anomalous, say) and its

probability?

Mechanistic sequentiality, the default mode, is the usual way in which successive events unfold, indeed, so usual as to seem universal and inevitable. But it is not either. It is just very, very probable, almost certain—almost.

So while sequential causality is nearly universal, it is not inevitable because while a law of nature (probability) is absolute, a directive (sequential causality) can be overridden. If the basic law is probability, then while most events will be highly probable—normal—a few will be highly improbable, and the more improbable the event, the less rigorous will be its relationship with causality. A manifestly paranormal event is one that occurs at this extreme end of the probability curve, a curve that drops from a very high point close to certainty and plunges down to trail off in a very long tail.[20] (emphasis added)

When one considers that the quantum world as we currently understand it operates entirely by probability, why is so difficult to conceive that the macroscopic world may operate using the same default mode and its occasional outlier, as she suggests? For debunkers, this may is a never.

The information collected through public surveys or questionnaires/solicitations, such as that of the SPR, Alister Hardy’s studies on spiritual experiences, Kenneth Ring’s studies of Near-Death Experiences, is usually quite voluminous. The original SPR’s investigations resulted in two massive books of anecdotes and analysis. Its members were able to contact the persons they solicited in public queries and verify the details of their paranormal accounts as well as gather character references on the witnesses. The sheer number of these accounts cannot be dismissed. There is always the temptation to ascribe to them the neuropathological turn or some other variants of explaining-away by means of physicalism: hallucinations, seizures, temporal lobe transients, etc. But contemporary narratives of NDEs or encounters with deceased relatives and “spirits” and “aliens” tally with James McClenon’s studies of the concrete and universal yet extraordinary experiences of people that he ties to the origins of religions.[21] Thus does physicalism belittle and seek to erase some of the most meaningful human experiences.

Tens of millions of firsthand accounts of extraordinary spiritual phenomena cannot simply be brushed aside. It’s no secret that editor-fact wars have been going on for years in hundreds of Wikipedia entries since its inception. Some involve famous persons (George W. Bush) and some less so famous (Rupert Sheldrake).[22] There are only a handful of Internet articles criticizing the Guerrilla Skeptics’ takeover of the “paranormal” subject entries, and one book by Craig Weiler, so I’ve joined a small chorus.

But the fact that, like clockwork, founder Jimmy Wales begs for dollars on every Wikipedia page to keep it going despite solvency can only be a good thing. Personally, I would contribute to keep Wikipedia going—but only if there were a way of sending a direct email to a complaints department about its one-sided treatment of psi topics and addressing their toleration of a small groups’ takeover of an entire subject. But of course there is no complaints department, because it’s a deliberate anarchive. Consider this blog posting my rebuttal, and some words towards addressing Wikipedia’s absence of integrity.

—————————

[1] Until 2006, it was called CSICOP, Committee for the Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

[2] CSI doesn’t do scientific experiments debunking paranormal phenomena—because in their early years they tried and failed. Back in 1975, a group of CSI debunkers attempted to provide an “objective way for unambiguous corroboration or disconfirmation” of a study showing an unusually high number of exceptional European athletes had been born during the planet Mars’s rising or transiting (the “Mars effect”). The effect itself had been noted by a pair of French skeptics trying to disprove astrological influence. The French study had shown that 22% of these athletes had been born during these periods when a 17% chance rate should be expected. The sample size was 2,088, so the odds against this being chance were millions to one. CSI challenged the French duo to do a control experiment: find an additional data pool of random people and determine if they had been born during the same short periods, expecting the random non-athlete group to be distributed at the same 22%. Two years later (!) CSI released their analysis of the report. The results weren’t as predicted; the non-athletes were born 17% of the time during those intervals, as chance predicts. Instead of accepting a possible Mars effect, the debunkers instead chose to criticize the original French study by breaking down the raw data into categories and eliminating sets of athletes (female athletes, by geographical locales, etc.) to dilute the numbers and lower the 22% figure.

CSI astronomer Dennis Rawlins resigned the organization in protest of the disingenuous methodology. He revealed in 1981 that when the analysis of the new data went south, CSI founder Kurtz, statistician Paul Zelin, and astronomer George Abell stonewalled (hence the publication delay from receiving the data from the new challenge) and decided to try to dilute the original French statistics instead. Rawlins’s appeals and alerts to his fellow debunkers such as Randi, Gardner, and Philip Klass fell on deaf ears; they had no interest in supporting the truth. An independent investigation found that Rawlins’s belief in the French team’s sound method and analysis of the original data, the new data, and their conclusion, were all justified. A group of genuinely skeptical scientists within CSI resigned as a result of the attempted fudging—and coverup. In short, CSI demonstrated it was no good at disinterested science, and consequently swore off formally investigating any paranormal claims to this day. See Carter, Chris. Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics, Inner Traditions, 2012, pgs. 28-37.

[3] Here’s an article demonstrating a variation of this practice of circular source attribution (the Wikipedia problem of ‘citogenesis’) but in the context of pharma claims that utilize corporate-sponsored studies that in turn cite Wikipedia for supporting evidence.

[4] Hint: If one needs instruction in how to debunk something (since you’ve become a cub atheist or newly minted woo-killer) maybe you’ve already got a problem with understanding logic and critical thinking/rhetorical skills and need to take a step back from your new obsession…Why do both debunkers and open-minded persons like myself get so angry at each other? I admit that my blood pressure jumps whenever I encounter an evidence-free yet arrogant dismissal of any “paranormal” event by some message board junior master of the universe who’s just discovered atheism and SCIENCEã. Some of us “psi defenders” are just as emotionally volatile as religious fundamentalists when it comes these matters. An impassive, intelligent observer might think that both camps are defending unfalsifiable theses—and this may be true, not just because we weren’t present to witness these things firsthand, but because metaphysical positions are involved in how we characterize these events, whether we want to admit it or not. Most debunkers, however, think metaphysics is bunk to begin with, and will deny that they operate from any fundamental “axioms” other than those the hard sciences such as “normal physics” provide.

[5] The tiresome CSICOP stage magician Joe Nickell, who inevitably gets more citations in the Enfield Wiki entry than anyone else, “examined the reports” and concluded the girls in the case must have been using ventriloquism. He offers no evidence for this assertion.

[6] See their book Poltergeists, White Crow Books, 2018, pgs. 330-37.

[7] See Heywood, Rosalind. The Sixth Sense, Chatto and Windus Ltd., 1959, pgs. 112-127; Beloff, John. Parapsychology: A Concise History, pgs. 120-24; Haynes, Renee. The Society for Psychical Research 1882-1982: A History, McDonald & Co. Ltd., 1982, pgs. 83-88; Carter, Chris. Science and the Afterlife Experience, Inner Traditions, 2012, pgs. 145-50, 151-53, 166-69, 177-78, 183-85.

[8] What personal psychology leads one to become a stage magician in the first place? There are many within the field of pseudoskeptics, and this has held from the 19th century beginnings of psychical research. But prevarication can work both ways: misdirection can be used upon the skeptic and “believer” alike. The psychological tactic behind debunking is similar to a stage trick, and simple: generally, one should direct the reader’s attention to the frauds or “rationally amenable” fraudulent techniques that have been used in different instances than that which is the subject of the article, and apply them as the only possible explanation. Direct the reader’s attention away from their immediate experience that something anomalous may have happened. This skews the mind’s repertoire of activities from the holistically perceptive right hemisphere to the “part-focused,” linear, and logic-oriented left. See Iain McGilchrist’s The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, Yale University Press, 2012, pgs.

[9] Tymn, Michael. Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife, White Crow Books, 2013. 65-71.

[10] Blum, Deborah. Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death, The Penguin Press, 2006. Pgs. 165-67; Tymn (2013), pgs. 41-44.

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonora_Piper

[12] Blum, 2006. pg 311.

[13] Haraldsson, Erlendur and Gissurarson, Loftur R., Indridi Indridason: The Icelandic Physical Medium, White Crow Books, 2015, pgs. 2, 7-9.

[14] Ibid, pg. 8.

[15] Ibid, pgs. 3, 12, 22.

[16] Ibid, pgs. 29-34.

[17] Ibid, pgs. 32-46.

[18] See the works of Guy Lyon Playfair: Twin Telepathy; If this Be Magic; and The Indefinite Boundary.  

[19] The linked wiki entry on “sensory leakage” helpfully informs us, “Due to the methodological problems, parapsychologists no longer utilize card-guessing studies.” It doesn’t follow up with any kind of description of what replaced the Zener cards, such as the autoganzfeld test with randomized images generated by computer, and the fact that the senders and receivers may be in soundproofed rooms or even a thousand miles away from each other and still often show statistically significant results.

[20] Barrington, Mary Rose. JOTT: when things disappear…and come back or relocate–and why it really happens, Anomalist Books, 2018.

[21] McClenon, James. Wondrous Events: Foundations of Religious Belief, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994; Wondrous Healing: Shamanism, Human Evolution, and the Origin of Religion, Northern Illinois University Press, 2001; The Entity Letters: A Sociologist on the Trail of a Supernatural Mystery, Anomalist Books, 2018.

[22] See this also on the Guerilla Skeptics’ attack on Sheldrake.

Wikipedia’s Anti-Psi Mafia & the Revenge of the Damned Most of the online population window-shops Wikipedia for their information, but if you happen to be interested in psi (or any anomalous phenomena), its accounting of facts and history can be outrageously selective revisionism.

[physical-manifestation-of-spite]

Jam - a Doctor Who Fanfiction

 Rating: General Audiences (but it has some bad words in it)

Warnings: Cursing and jam violence (they’ll see me in court)

Categories: F/M, Gen 

Relationships: Tenth Doctor/Rose Tyler, Tenth Doctor & Rose Tyler 

Genre: Humor

Chapters: 1/1

Words: 5947

Summary: In the unfortunate circumstances of the universe, all the Doctor had to be was the Doctor--which was to say, absolutely bleeding Mad--and the rest would follow. “The rest” being a chemical reaction resulting in fizzling, sticky goo, the distinct smell of sulfur, trioxygen, and cherries, and Rose Tyler’s infamous Look. Or: The Doctor smears himself with jam, and Rose suffers.

Read on Ao3 (advised, because I really didn’t want to have to re-italicize everything I wrote, and so I didn’t.)

--

The Doctor was an odd one.

It didn’t have to take long to know this. In fact, it didn’t have to take more than a second to know this. All it took was one look.

It wasn’t that the Doctor was particularly unfashionable. In fact, one could argue that his wardrobe, all tucked safely away in the many storage rooms of the TARDIS, contained the costumery needed to infiltrate the Buckingham Palace to look like the guards, the ministers, or the royal family themselves. No, no, the Doctor was quite alright with fashion, pinstriped suit and long-coat a frequent favorite of his, the slowly-browning converse betraying the clothing’s formality. And it wasn’t any unusual shade of skin color, like a blue or mauve, that suggested his non-nativeness to Planet Earth (the Doctor often enunciated “Puh-lanet” with a pop of his lips and a cheery grin). In fact, nothing really was odd about his appearance. (Well, save for perhaps his wild hair.)

Except the eyes.

Such glee in those eyes, such a wild fascination with the unknown--or perhaps known to him, but forgotten. They glinted at the most inappropriate moments, barrel of a gun (the shape, the material, and Earthly--or unEarthly--manufacturer varied daily) pointed at his head, or spinning razor heading toward the belly of one of his companions. Their respective aggressors would say something--and they always did --and the Doctor’s eyes would gleam with a sort of unbridled excitement. Then, he’d open his mouth.

Cheers to you if you could understand even a word of it, aside from the “ands” and “buts,” and those he didn’t use often. He spoke science, physics (still a part of science), various forms of molecular theory, space-travel--the works, really. No one, not even his companions, quite knew if he was doing it as a tactic to distract their assailants or if he really couldn’t help himself, like a child reaching for a sugar cookie. If you were to ask his companions afterwards, they would comfortably say he was doing both, and if you stared at them long enough, a bead of sweat would form on their temple and they’d ask you to please leave, yes thank you, take some biscuits on the way out.

Point is, the man was Mad. So Mad, in fact, that it was principle to capitalize the M to prove that he was the chief of it, or at least to make sure people got the hint. It’s just that they didn’t realize he was the sort of unEarthly Mad reserved only for Gallifreyans (but since we have no other Gallifreyans to look toward for reference, perhaps just for the Doctor) and it took them a while after meeting the Doctor to realize he was less Earthly mad and more a sort of alien Mad. The eyes, coupled with that unnatural grin, often helped get that idea along faster, though.

Rose Tyler was used to his Madness. Well, she’d say “used to,” but a better term would be better-to-adapt-to-it-in-a-high-stress-situation-instead-of-stare-at-him-blankly. Was there a word for that? (The answer is yes, and the word would be “acclimated.” Or “conformed.” Or maybe just “patient.” If you’re not reading this in the Doctor’s voice, you should be. In the same way his Madness is a part of him, so is his wise-assery.)

Rose wasn’t particularly immune to his Madness, but she had managed to develop what they both agreed upon (nonverbally, and without any prior conversation, consideration, or even hand-gesture) as The Look--a sort of defense mechanism. The Look was rather versatile in its meanings, adapted to the many changes in mood to her dear Doctor and the many situations that they had been in, which had become so repetitive during their travels that she could almost pinpoint when their assailants would pull out the death-ray (“It’s a figure of speech , Doctor, I know they’re not all death-rays.”) and never get a chance to actually do anything with it because the Doctor would either physically or metaphorically tear it out of their grasp.

The Look meant whatever Rose needed it to mean. A selection of her most frequent translations went as followed:

“Doctor,” (and they always started with “Doctor,” in an exhausted sort of sigh,) ”I’m sure this is fascinatin’ and all that (to you and only you), but if you don’t shut your mouth and start doing that thing you said you’d do to get us out of this mess, we’re all going to die a horrible death, and when we’re in Hell, if there is a Hell, I’ll tell you what I meant to say at the start: Shut up.”

“Doctor, this person’s parent/lover/child/close-friend and or relative just passed away and it’s probably for the best if you stopped talking about the marvelous way in which they died by a long-lost technology that you’ve never seen but would much like to piece apart. Insensitive is the word, yeah.”

“Doctor, you are the last living Time Lord in existence, and this act that you have performed not only threatens your life but my own as well, not because I was in physical danger, but because I don’t think I could bear living in a universe where you’re dead and I’m alive, so if you ever want to see me again, you better start treating this with the appropriate level of gravity it deserves to be given.”

and

“Doctor, take that out of your mouth.”

Respectively, these translations were ordered in the frequency that they were used.

And whilst today was supposed to be quiet, a sort of “off-day,” by the Doctor’s description, the universe had a sort of nature to it. Drop a rock in a vat of water, the water will ripple. Flip on a switch and watch a light turn on. Eat Jackie Tyler’s homemade haslet, get sick at exactly midnight.

In the unfortunate circumstances of the universe, all the Doctor had to be was the Doctor--which was to say, absolutely bleeding Mad --and the rest would follow. “The rest” being a chemical reaction resulting in fizzling, sticky goo, the distinct smell of sulfur, trioxygen, and cherries, and Rose Tyler’s infamous Look, being a variant of both the third and fourth regularity.

Because, while the Doctor was considered one of the most brilliant beings in the Universe, coupled with his Madness, Rose Tyler found him, on more occasions than not, utterly daft.

--

Presently, the Doctor smearing himself with jam.

Fourteen jars of it, sold for two pounds each at the local market down William Street*. Small glass containers, three hundred seventy grams each, all stacked together and rattling haphazardly on the metal-grated floor, compact with enough pectin to maintain structural integrity and hold the London Bridge together (not naturally, of course--otherwise the architects would be using blueberry jam instead of solid concrete--but the sonic screwdriver was handy in many situations, and strengthening the pectin bonds was no difference).

It was cherry jam (only because they were out of blueberry), and when he had gotten to the register, balancing all fourteen jars in his arms, the clerk had noted unhelpfully that there were trolleys at the entrance, before she began scanning the jars. Fittingly, because of the unusual number, and because it was one of the rules in the Unofficial Clerk Handbook to ask customers questions that the clerks didn’t honestly care about, she had asked, “Wot you doin’ with all these jams?”

The Doctor had perked up. “Well,” he began conspiratorially, “if you really want to know, I’m collecting enough pectin-laden adhesives to counteract the electric flow of my ship and redirect the pulsive energy centralized on the main control panel--since, well, the central control panel sits directly above the main engine--out and back into the capacitor--that’s broken, you see, the whole thing is broken, just ca-poot--and hopefully dissolve and/or store the excess energy that leaked from three of the central components. Well, that’s for seven of the jars.” He paused to take in a great gasp of air, scratch his chin, and point to the jars. “The other seven is for me and my companion--Rose Tyler, lovely girl, likes jackets a lot--to cover ourselves in during the process so that the propulsive energy doesn’t enter into our bodies and fry the very core of us from the inside out while the TARDIS is rebooting.”

He finished it off with a sniff and a smile. He waited, not particularly for applause, but for something, maybe that sort of daunted surprise that a lot of his past companions made their first several conversations with him. The clerk didn’t give him any of that. In fact, now that he thought of it, she had that distinct look of a divorced great-aunt whose love and affection was reserved only for her cat, Fransis, while she watched the rest of the world with slitted, vengeful eyes. Not that the Doctor ever had an aunt like that, or had seen one before, but some conclusions are easier to reach than others. Besides, you couldn’t trust anyone who named their cat Fransis.

“I’m making pies for a friend’s party,” he had said.

The clerk lady had nodded. “‘Ave fun with your pies.”

The Doctor took his bag of jams, suitably subdued from the conversation.

Which led to the now, where the Doctor was smearing himself with jam in the privacy of his own TARDIS. Which, to a human, sounded odd--even to a Timelord, it sounded odd (and this time, we do not need another Timelord to compare their feelings with). But for your information, he was fully clothed, thank you--didn’t want Rose running into the main room with the Doctor in such an embarrassing, ah, disposition, even if it meant smearing his pristine pin-striped pants with jam. To be fair, however, he was in a bit of a hurry--the sharp, bitter scent of burnt insulars, for one, can invigorate one’s adrenaline levels if you had enough knowledge to know where the scent was coming from, and that it was bad --and hadn’t the time to change, so when the Doctor saw the clouds of steam (and other things, most of which humans should not breathe in) coming from all the wrong places, he all but threw the bag of jams onto the ground, several shattering in the process, and began smearing the contents onto himself, internally weeping as the sticky ooze touched his suit. He didn’t have dry-cleaning on the TARDIS.

Rose was gone. This was not particularly unusual, and he did wish that she’d leave him a note sometimes, you know, so he didn’t have to wonder about her general safety during another alien invasion that would happen in the foreseeable future (it always happened when he was around, didn’t know why), but at the moment, she was placed in the back of his mind. Alarms were blaring. The TARDIS was informing him, with the clarity of a wailing banshee, that it was eleven minutes away from exploding. Well, metaphorically. Well, the TARDIS didn’t talk in metaphorics. Well, sort of with him it did. Or he just exaggerated the stakes a bit. The TARDIS was only going to explode a little bit. The three components he had mentioned to the clerk and the capacitor (which was already broken, but he supposed it would break some more, to an unfixable state) would shatter and likely rain sparks, fire, and pulsive energy which would effectively poison him, if the sheer heat didn’t burn him alive, and then to death. Or regeneration. Which would result in another explosion.

He rammed his entire fist into another jar and scooped the contents out like an over-eager toddler, spilling half of the red jam onto the grates below. He grumbled to himself, under the din of a dozen shrieking sirens. He’d never get the smell out.

The Doctor had estimated that it would take roughly 8 minutes to arrange the jam in its suitable position, which gave him an extra three to check and double-check and triple-check the positions. In the end, it took the Doctor exactly one minute to smear himself with jam, and four to cover half of the console and two of the components before the TARDIS gave a sort of ungodly wail. The Doctor looked up in a frenzy, stared at the monitor above him, before his face become suitably pale. “Oh,” he said, as if he’d found out his sushi had eel in it when he asked for crab. He fumbled for his sonic screwdriver.

Let it be said that, when under high-pressure situations, Timelords were especially good at manipulating time to their whims. There was no actual evidence for this, but the general public assumed that there was a sort of magical--or scientific--quality to the Timelords that allowed them to live up to their names, and, if they had the will, they could freeze time itself to accompany their needs.

The Doctor felt that this was a load of bollocks. It was adrenaline, nothing more, that forced the body to work at an intense pace. And he was running on so much at the moment that he made a sort of Mad titter as he cranked several dials and sent jam flying into the Unknowns of the TARDIS (not to be discovered until perhaps three decades from now, by which the little sliver of jam will have cultivated a generous colony of rare fungus, which the Doctor won’t have the heart to disinfect). The ship gave a resounding moan, and sparks began to fly. The Doctor busied himself with throwing the rest of the jam onto the necessary components, not caring anymore about the pristine arrangement. The sonic screwdriver whirred in his hand.

Another minute. That was all he got before the TARDIS made a sound like no other, and sparks became flames. His screwdriver had gone from a wild whir to a chaotic screaming, and the Doctor made a noise that could have been intended as a curse but was drowned out by metal roaring above him. The floor rattled. The last of the jars shattered into glass. The steam was building. It was getting hard to breathe.

As Mad as the Doctor was, as much of a clever, ancient genius he acted to be, even a Timelord, living for centuries upon centuries and building his experience with humans and aliens alike, surviving unusual occurrence and unexplainable oddity, always found one constant in all his travels: he couldn’t account for all of the variables.

The TARDIS exploded.

--

Rose Tyler was currently walking down Queens Road, on the complete opposite side of town. She wore a pink-lace dress, white jean-jacket, and her high heels--dangling from her two hooked fingers--clacked against each other as she walked down the road. She had a half-eaten muffin in her other hand.

She looked rather peeved for a shoeless girl at 1 o’clock in the afternoon. Perhaps the shoelessness was what made her peeved, if any fellow pedestrians were to speculate. High-heels had a strange power of doing two simultaneous things: making a woman look exceptionally powerful in almost all situations, and making the woman Lord Beezlebub, the spawn of Hell that all should avoid, directly an hour later. It probably had something to do with the swollen ankles. As Rose passed by, local shopkeepers wisely strayed away. (Let’s call someone else in, they mused. I don’t think I’m ready to atone for my sins just yet.)

The truth was that Rose Tyler wasn’t angry at any of the shopkeepers, or at her shoes, or even at her muffin, even though it made an ugly brown smudge at the hem of her dress when she nearly dropped it. She was angry at the one thing that  had been consistently the source of her frustration, her exhaustion, and her swollen ankles, which would often lead to her tearing her hair out of shear strain or her falling asleep for twelve hours straight, on a weekly--and more often than not daily --basis: the Doctor.

It probably had something to do with their last conversation, which was less of a conversation and more of the Doctor talking at himself and then made a sort of noise when Rose asked a question. The TARDIS had apparently done something irregular, which was hard to discern for a human since all of the sounds the TARDIS made triggered that innate human instinct that said that the TARDIS was unusual and dangerous and that meant bad and Rose should very much get out to prevent her innards from exploding. But this was part of the thrill of travelling inside the police-box-shaped spaceship. Among other things. Such as the Doctor practically leaping from beyond the control panels and surveying the symbols on the monitor (which all looked like… well, it looked like alien language to her) with the excitement of a schoolboy child just recently gone out for recess.

“Oh, remarkable!” he cried, and the TARDIS made another noise that did not sound remarkable. “‘S never done that before.”

Rose felt a reasonable amount of alarm. “What’cha mean?”

“The capacitor!” The Doctor cried, still looking at the monitor as he fished inside his suit for his screwdriver. Rose wasn’t sure if that was supposed to be an explanation or if the Doctor was just talking to himself. “It’s broken.”

“ Broken ?”

At this point Rose knew that the Doctor was pointedly ignoring her. He began to scan the control panel. “Oh, dear,” he said when one of the buttons shined a color Rose had never seen before. As in a color she never knew existed. Her human mind, which could only contain so many impossible oddities, decided that this phenomenon was not something it was willing to comprehend, and she promptly forgot that the color ever existed. The Doctor sped past her.

“Doctor, what’s wrong?” Thankfully, the TARDIS wasn’t moving, so they were under no threat of crashing and being thrown around the main control room like a sack of potatoes. But the alarms were still blaring, and Rose’s ears were starting to hurt.

The Doctor disappeared beyond the grated floor down into the winding tubes and glowing lights below, and looking more greasy by the second. Rose could hear the sonic screwdriver whirring in between the pauses of the alarms, and the Doctor said something that Rose couldn’t understand. He stared unhappily at something that was blocking Rose’s vision.

“Doctor?” she urged, a tad irritably. The Doctor’s head popped back up, hair completely wild.

“Blueberries,” he said as an explanation. He vaulted himself back up and over the railing, onto the metal floor. He was shrugging on his jacket before Rose could blink. “I’ll be right back, don’t worry. Just gonna--- market, yes, probably has the most jars-- S’no problem.” He twirled his screwdriver into the air and caught it with one hand before slipping it back into his suit. His face split into that cheeky grin that always made Rose’s chest twist, and coupled with the wild hair and soft brown eyes, she couldn’t get a word out. “I’ll be right back,” he said again, and made his way toward the door. He paused and pointed to her. “Don’t go anywhere. It’ll only take a minute.”

Rose was going to tell him that his perception of time was skewed, and what would be a “minute” for a Timelord would be more of an hour to a human, and that she wanted to know what was going on, and why she couldn’t come. What she managed to get out, however, was, “Wha--” and then the door slammed shut.

In hindsight, she should have run after him, but she didn’t. She instead stood there in the still-wailing TARDIS and waited, just like he had told her to.

It had definitely taken longer than a minute. It had definitely taken longer than five. And ten. Fifteen as well. She made a strangled sort of sound in the back of her throat by the twentieth minute, fumbled for her phone, remembered that the Doctor didn’t carry a mobile on him, and made another strangled sort of sound albeit more passionately. She stormed out of the TARDIS and decided to search for him.

This had been a poor decision because she had gone (unknowingly) the complete opposite direction that the Doctor had gone. She found herself on the other side of Bristol after thirty minutes without seeing any sign, or even a trail of the Doctor (and there was often a trail, at least of several people who looked dazed and uncomfortable and obviously pretending like there had been nothing wrong). She came to the conclusion that she had gone the wrong way and mourned her loss by buying a small chocolate muffin from a local shop. She then spun around, shoes clacking against each other (she had taken them off sometime after buying the muffin, feet throbbing and on her half-way transformation into Lord Beezlebub), and made her way back.

On a whim, she called the Doctor on the TARDIS.

He didn’t pick up.

--

A white cloud clung to the ceiling. Sparks were slowly dying down, sputtering and coughing out from the wires with a sigh. The alarms, once shrieking and grating against the walls, were dead. The central control panel looked scorched along its lights and buttons, covered in a sort of blackened sticky soot that smelled like charcoal and something bitter. There was a coat, thrown over the metal railings, that was edging dangerously down into the abyss of wires and engines below. On the grated floor above the humming murmurs lied a figure, more still than the machine itself, legs crookedly folded over the metal, steam still trailing from the shoes. Beyond him, a strange thin tube, small enough to hold, fizzled in the dark, its round blue stone cracked.

Inside the TARDIS, it smelled sweet.

--

Rose was craving candy. Specifically cherry candy, the sort that you only find on Halloween night that were given by the odd old women who were missing an eye or a finger. (They weren’t actually missing any fingers or eyes, but a child’s imagination should never be challenged, and Mrs. Thompson did have a tendency to squint a lot.) The ones that you would find in grocery stores, that had the same brand and same wrappings, tasted like cough drops. Rose had privately wondered, when she was younger, if there had been a mischievous spirit that danced along the aisles and cursed the candy into sickly-sweet medication, else the candy be too powerful and become a new form of currency.

With this, she felt a bit self-consciousness, seeing as she just finished her muffin and shouldn’t feel the slightest bit peckish. She sniffed and regarded her stomach with a frown, and then sniffed some more. She raised her head.

Something was wrong. She couldn’t quite place it, with the wind rustling her hair and throwing dust and leaves and old-Bristol air into her face, but she felt suddenly cold. Uneasy. That sort of nervous sickness that settled in your gut and stewed a hot, sweaty chill in your bones.

The Doctor had emphasized, years ago, that those feelings were good, that they were built-in sensors, much like the alarms in his TARDIS, that all humans should listen to. The mind subconsciously gathered data from all surrounding sources, calculating various patterns from both the living and unliving to form a sense of normalcy, of safety, and that twist in your gut was your mind sensing that one of those patterns was off. “Listen to it, Rose,” he had said. Not that Rose ever didn’t. It was just pinpointing the what was the difficult part. What was causing the annoying twisting and churning and chilling?

When she turned around the corner, back to the empty park, and saw the blue TARDIS with its door cracked open and the trickle of smoke, she knew.

--

The door rattled against the hull when Rose burst in. She sucked in the air to shout for the Doctor, but there was smoke and mist and a horrible smell, and she choked halfway through before her eyes started streaming. Nearly tripping over her feet, she ran back and threw the other door open to let the cloud of smog out, lungs burning as she tried to cough out the muck. She staggered back inside, up the railing.

“Doctor!” she tried again. She heard a faint sizzling, a sort of hissing noise beneath her feet, beyond the railing and into the tubes and electrical wires and engines. The twist in her gut twisted more. She didn’t have to be the Doctor who know something was broken. Things that were broken tended to do things like hiss and sputter and groan, so Rose took an educated guess and assumed that the pattern wouldn’t be broken amongst universes, even in a craft that transcended space and time. She surveyed the clearing fog, heart pounding in her throat, hoping.

She felt sick when she saw something dark crumpled on the ground.

“Oh my god.”

She ran for the Doctor. He was lying on his back, bits of glass scattered around him--his head, his arms, some of it in his hair--and his legs were crooked as they were splayed haphazardly on the floor. His eyes were closed, his face covered in soot, and his clothes were covered in…

“Oh my god .”

A deep red soaked his clothes, stretched along his suit in streaks. It was along his neck, thick clumps of it dotting the skin, streaked over his cheeks and crusting over bits of stubble where he had missed when shaving that morning ( “Rose, have you seen the shaving cream?” he had asked that morning. “This one smells funny, like vanilla…” God, it was just a few hours ago. She should have told him, should have said something; the TARDIS had been making weird noises ages ago and she had thought it was all a part of the design, but she should have made a fuss, should have told him sooner, maybe if he had known-- ). The red was on his hands, like paint that smelled rotten and sweet , and oh God the TARDIS was spinning from underneath her. His fingers had made a trail, bright and glittering red, grotesquely dazzling against the dull metal, and she followed it along the floor and up the control panel. Her head throbbed when she saw fingerprints smeared over the buttons and lights, strips of red in the shape of claws. He had tried to stop it. Something was wrong with the TARDIS, and he had tried to stop it.

She couldn’t get her hands to stop shaking. The floor swayed beneath her and she tumbled down, right beside the Doctor, as her head sagged down and down and down. She covered her mouth with her hands. She was going to throw up.

“Doctor?” She reached out to touch him.

The Doctor’s eyes snapped open.

Rose screamed.

“Oh. Hullo, Rose.” said the Doctor, who was covered in red and soot and smelt like burnt fruit but was clearly and obviously staring at her, awake and not possessed by a zombie parasite (or, at least Rose hoped). He sat up, which apparently wasn’t a good idea, and immediately swayed, squeezing his eyes shut. “Sorry, sorry, excess thermal energy still coursing through. Makes me woozy.” His face twisted in a sort of exaggerated concentration and sniffed. He stayed there for a second, sniffed again, before snapping his eyes back open. “There we are.” He smiled and leapt back onto his feet. He surveyed the TARDIS, dimly lit and smog still clearing out, with an apparently satisfied conviction. “Damage not so bad, I suppose, and conveyors suitably sealed.” He leaned over the railing to stare below them. “Let’s see, one, two… and…. Three! Three components all properly contained, just in the nick of time, with some sugary sweetness to boot. I might just say…” He bent over and retrieved his screwdriver, ignoring the cracked gem as he gave it a spin in the air and caught it with a wink “An unequivocal success.” He frowned at his companion. “What’re you doing on the ground?”

Rose’s head was still spinning. “You’re covered in blood.”

“Blood? No, no, no . Not blood.” He smeared a bit of the red off of his suit and popped it into his mouth. “Jam! Not blueberry, sadly; the market didn’t have it. Which, by the way, what market doesn’t have blueberry jam? They had blueberries, of course, but not blueberry jam. Would have helped to even have some apple jam, though mind you, I don’t really expect a market to have apple jam** , sounds almost weird, apples-- You know, I don’t think the human race much likes apples. What with the story of Eden, and that one American who chopped down the apple trees, and with students bringing their teachers apples, hoping they choke--and don’t you act like I don’t know that, you can tell in their eyes-- Anyways, ” the Doctor took a breath. “Cherries! They had cherry jam, which wouldn’t be my first choice what with their lower pectin concentration, but it’s not like any of the human markets have pure pectin tubes that sit on a rack, so I had to do with the cherry jam and just aggravate the chemical bonds to--”

“It looks like blood,” Rose said.

The Doctor stared at her.“Well. Yeah. It probably does.” He scooped another swab of jelly with his fingers and examined it. “Must’ve gotten darker when it absorbed the smoke. And the pulsive energy must have unraveled the pectin bonds and… well, made it more watery to make it look… oh yes, strikingly similar to blood, yeah. But!” He popped his fingers back in his mouth, giving the jam another lick, before shrugging off his suit jacket, still smothered in sticky red, and tossed it aside to reveal his unblemished shirt. “Perfectly fine! See? No holes, no burns. My face feels a bit sticky and I think some of the residue energy is gonna settle into my calves for the next couple hours, but nothing a good bath won’t solve--”

“I thought you were dead,” Rose said.

The Doctor’s smile wavered. He glanced at the controls and poked at a few switches, the TARDIS humming around them, before he swiveled back with forced cheeriness.  “Oh, you don’t need to worry about me! My biology is different from yours; blast was completely harmless--could only give me a little sizzle, like a bug bite.” His teeth clacked together, and he fiddled with the jam still on the control panel, all burnt and filled with soot. “This helped. Not just fruit preservatives. A small container filled to the brim with sugar molecules that sort of stick together, like cement--but not actually cement--that helps with not only with binding the components together and preventing the leakage of poisonous gas the TARDIS typically keeps filtered, but to also direct the pulsive energy into the jam and not me. So,” his voice light and squeaky, “I’m fine.” He licked his fingers a third time.

Rose hated this. This pretend little game the Doctor did, acting like nothing was wrong. It burned something deep inside her, something that made her teeth itch and skin crawl. His insistent independence, the unwillingness to tell her when something was wrong, drove her mad. One could even say Mad.

And as the Doctor continued to lick the jam, Rose fitted all her malcontent into the Look, and stared at his finger.

Maybe she burned it. She hoped she did, because the Doctor retracted his finger as quickly as he had popped it in. “Right,” he said. “Sorry.” He had the sense to look ashamed.

The good thing about the Look is that it was silent, and the Doctor was a smart man. All of the things Rose would struggle to say verbally was translated properly into the Look, and the Doctor understood, or at least deduced, as much as Rose intended. As said in the beginning, this time it was a version of the third and fourth variation (Don’t put yourself in stupid danger, and Don’t stick that in your mouth),*** and it seemed that the Doctor had gotten it. Slowly, the Doctor extended his arms as a hesitant invitation. Rose, never one to refuse the offer of a hug, fitted herself into the Doctor’s arms. They stayed there for some time, Rose listening to the Doctor’s double heartbeat, and silently choked on the scent of burnt cherries.

When they parted, Rose rubbed irritably at her nose. “Just,” she huffed. “ Tell me when you do stuff like that.”

The Doctor frowned. “I did.”

“No, you said ‘blueberries.’”

The Doctor made a face that said that “blueberries” had sufficed as a proper explanation, and when Rose made a Face of her own (one terrible enough to earn its own capital F), he stepped back. They both heard a crunch.

“Aw,” the Doctor whined, and looked forlornly at his feet. The remains of a small glass jar rattled against his sole, the red mush staining his converse. “That was lunch.”

They settled for a small cafe at the edge of Bristol an hour later, and after a couple of glasses of wine, they completely forgot about the jam.****

--

* The market in question is called plainly the Fruit Market, located on William Street in Bristol, UK. It was a bit difficult to find a proper market that had inside cashiers in Bristol, especially when all you have is Google and absolutely no knowledge of the UK. (I might have just chosen a supplier and not a legitimate grocery store.) I embarrassingly discovered later that markets and grocery stores were not the same thing and almost changed the store. But then I got too attached to the idea of a rumbustious Doctor entering a homey fruit market, looking deranged with grease smeared all over his face, complaining over the fact that they didn’t have blueberry jam, and doing a general job-well-done of disturbing the peace in this little market.

** Blueberry jam and apple jam have the highest level of pectin content, which is why the Doctor would have preferred either of them to use as a sort of glue for his capacitor and other broken things. If you couldn’t tell already, I am making up 90% of this, but within reason. I did a bit of research about the chemical bonds and makeup of jams, and how pectin are sugar-based bonds that hold the molecules together and make a jam harder or softer. If you’re actually a biologist, please don’t ruin this for me; I have a vague sense of knowing this would never work, but I’m proud of my bullshitting nonetheless.

*** After this incident, the fourth version of the Look (Don’t put that in your mouth) moved up the hierarchy to become the third version, because she had to repeat it several times afterwards. The TARDIS smelled like cherries for weeks.

**** Not because of the wine, but because another spaceship had crash landed three kilometers away from their cafe (remember what the Doctor had said about invasions happening near his vicinity? Must be another force of nature, like gravity.), and later in the day they discovered that the alcohol content was a good form of camouflage, and they had to douse themselves in several extra glasses. It was a poor day for both of their wardrobes. It was also a blessing nothing flammable was on board.

[twentiethcenturymoviesandtv]

Star Trek: A Product of the Times

Miniskirts, beehives and bowlcuts, goodness gracious, is there any time that Star Trek could have been made but the 1960s?

The short answer?  Not really.

Star Trek was made at quite an interesting time.  The Civil Rights Movement, the space race, Vietnam, the Cold War, the hippie movement, and the new wave of feminism was all coming in a wave that swept the nation, turning the country on its head and plunging its people into turmoil.  The 1960s were an uncertain time: President John F. Kennedy was assassinated at the beginning of the decade after dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, Martin Luthor King Jr. was assassinated near the end, just in time to see the Civil Rights and Voting Act of the mid-’60s come to pass, ensuring equal rights for all.  In 1969, America put a man on the moon, Nixon won the election of 1968, and Woodstock closed out the summer of ‘69 with a bang.

This was the world Star Trek was born into: a world full of hope and fear.

You may be wondering why I’m telling you all this, why this all matters.

The answer is extremely simple: to help contextualize, and therefore understand, Star Trek, we have to understand the 1960s.

See, no piece of media is an island.  Every movie, every book, tv show and song, is a product of people living in the times, therefore, a product of the times itself.  Everything, no matter how much of a ‘classic’, exists as a product of those who created it, people whose thoughts and actions are influenced very heavily by the world they live in, and the culture around them, ‘dating’ them to future viewers.

That’s to be expected.

It makes sense that our culture shapes who we are and what we think, and therefore the kinds of things we create.  This, in and of itself, is far from a problem.  However, it does leave those of us who enjoy older films with a rather interesting question:

How dated is too dated?

Can we as an audience still enjoy a film that is discernibly made in a time before our own?  Is it possible to relate to the content created in a time of different technology, clothes, and, most importantly, a different political and social climate than the one we currently live in?

The fact is, there is nobody and nothing in existence that can stop any piece of media from being ‘dated’ in the sense that, no matter what, whatever is being made will have the impact of the culture it is made in.  It simply can’t be avoided.  Even films set in the future will feature the hairstyles of the decade it was created in, or use the special effects of the time.  This, although sometimes a little odd, does not negatively impact the films that we watch.  These things are mere trimming, the external demonstration of the culture of the times.  We can watch The Breakfast Club or The Terminator and notice the ‘80s clothes, slang, trends and references, but it does not hurt the core essence of the movie.

So what does?

Ideas.

In my opinion, it is not the styles of a film, but the ideas, the themes, how the world is viewed, that dates a film, more than any beehive or mullet ever could.  It is these elements that cause modern viewers to cringe at offensive lines or words, to wince at blatant displays of sexism or prejudice, and sometimes, turn away from older movies forever.

However, ignoring it, and refusing to watch it, doesn’t make anything better.  After all, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and although movies and television aren’t quite history, they’re a picture of it.

Looking at the context in which a film was created can help us figure out why decisions were made, and understand how the culture has changed.  By looking at where we’ve been, we can better appreciate where we are now, and look to where we are going to be.  We can, and indeed, we should look back at older films, and recognize what doesn’t hold up and what is considerably Not Okay, without ignoring what does hold up.

That’s what we’re doing now.  Today, we’re answering the question:

How dated is Star Trek?

Let’s take a look.

To be honest, at first glance, it seems like it is.  Very much so.

Between very on-the-nose storylines facing off against hippies, racism and the Vietnam war, Uhura’s miniskirt, Yeoman Rand’s beehive, and Chekov’s bowl cut, it seems utterly impossible that this show can exist and hold up in a time period past the 1960s.  The special effects are sometimes cheesy, the acting can be hammy, and the moments of ‘progressiveness’ that are so often praised seem rather small.

Uhura was a black woman on the bridge, sure, but she was horrendously underutilized.  Female characters regularly wore skimpy outfits and threw themselves at male members of the crew, serving as props, seducers, innocents, and rarely holding any real power.  The final episode of the series is about an insane woman who swaps bodies with Captain Kirk because she claimed women weren’t allowed to be starship captains.  Evil Kirk’s assault of Janice Rand is brushed off.  The main characters are all white, and every minority character is in a supporting role.

It’s easy to look back from the twenty-first century with uncomfortably raised eyebrows and ask: “This was progress?”

All in all, it seems impossible to modern audiences that this show could possibly be as revolutionary as it is often said to be.  How can this show be a television game changer, the show that inspired so many and so much good?  How can Star Trek be considered so progressive?

Honestly, it’s all dependent on the time.

Looking back, it’s very easy to judge, to turn our backs on a show that is, in a lot of ways, clearly dated.  There’s no saving the reputation of the bowl cuts, the campy acting, or the tinfoil bikinis, but, if you will, allow me to contextualize, not just the show, but the culture as well.

The year is 1966, and Star Trek’s first pilot has failed, accused of being ‘too cerebral’, (among other things) and having a woman as the second in command on the ship.  The new show, considerably retooled with a whole new crew except for a mixed-race half extra-terrestrial, is set to air, and your crew includes two white American men, the aforementioned half alien, a Scotsman, an Asian man, and a black woman, all in positions of authority on a military ship designed for exploration in deep space.

An Asian man with no stereotypically Asian accent, hobbies, or background was the helmsman for the Enterprise.  A black woman was a lieutenant commander, the chief communications officer.  They were positioned in such a way that they were unmissable for viewers, and regularly took part in landing parties and missions.  They were very smart and very capable.

Now, that’s nothing.  Then?

In 1966, that was huge.

While to modern eyes, the show’s claim to progressiveness seemed like the bare minimum, in the time that the show was produced, it was a big deal.  The equality on the bridge of the Enterprise, (unquestioned, undiscussed equality) changed television, and subtly forced viewers to question their own prejudices.  The idea of a perfect future was one with no prejudice, no distinction among humans.

To quote Kirk himself:

“Leave any bigotry in your quarters; there’s no room for it on the bridge.”

On Star Trek, especially in the Federation, everyone was an equal.  No member of the crew was worth more, or treated differently, than any other.  Multiple characters (non male, non white) characters are portrayed as high ranking, deserving of equal respect.  Sure, now it doesn’t look like a big deal, but in the end, that’s a good thing.

It means that times have changed, and that even in the 1960s, people knew they should change.

In the end, Star Trek remains a good look at a utopian future where everyone is deserving of equal respect and care.  Is it perfect?  No.

But it was about as good as we can expect: Fair For Its Day.

To quote the TVTropes definition of this specific phrase:

“Something from the past that seems like a huge load of Values Dissonance. It seems laden with, say, a Rose-Tinted Narrative or a Historical Hero or Villain Upgrade.

Only… it turns out it was comparatively Fair for Its Day. Maybe the Historical Hero Upgrade or Historical Villain Upgrade wasn’t that unfair a reflection on the person’s views. Maybe the Rose-Tinted Narrative just wasn’t rose-tinted enough for its original audience. Maybe it was even ripped apart in its own time for being downright insurrectionist, and was brave to go as far as it did. It might even completely agree with modern attitudes, but not do so Anviliciously enough for today’s audiences.”

Such is Star Trek.

The miniskirts?  A demonstration of freedom and fashion in the late 1960s.  Uhura’s job?  As a black woman in the ‘60s in a position of authority, it was groundbreaking.  A non-stereotyped Asian man and a non-evil Russian?  Unthinkable.  Khan, one of the show’s most memorable and well-loved villains?  Played by Ricardo Montalbán, a Mexican.  Kirk reported to higher-ranking non-white officers.

Does that fix the fact that Janice Rand’s assault was largely brushed off?

No.

But it’s a start.

Star Trek’s legacy is, not in its perfection, but in the fact that it was a product of the times that saw the need for change.  It’s impact, it’s importance lies in its guts to push the boundaries of what was acceptable at the time, to be a product of the times that was looking for a better future.

Yes, times have changed, and Star Trek no longer looks as groundbreaking as it did at the time.  That’s good.  It shouldn’t.  But that does not mean that it loses its importance.

Star Trek remains a titan among game-changers in the history of pop-culture, and rightfully so.  Very few franchises have the scope of influence and inspiration that Star Trek lays claim to having, and in a true test of its values, continued to expand on them and grow and change with the culture with each version, continuing to strive for the best.

All that leads us to our final question.

Is Star Trek dated?

In some ways, yes.  Some of those stories could only have been created in the 1960s.  Some interactions were only possible in a bygone era.

In others?

Star Trek’s general concept, and indeed, a lot of its execution, actually does hold up very well.  The stories are often just as interesting and compelling as they were when they were first released, and the characters remain as gripping and entertaining, over fifty years later.  In terms of storytelling and characters, for the most part, Star Trek is not dated.

After all, the idea of equality, and a better future, is never dated.

Yes, Star Trek is a product of its times.  Very much so.  However, that fact makes the series no less enjoyable.  It was influenced by its culture and its times just as much as it would go on to influence, and even today, it still casts a long shadow on television, and the culture at large. Star Trek stands the test of time, serving as a reminder of times past, while at the same time looking to the future.

In 1966, Star Trek was a visionary concept that ended up changing the world.  Just because we’ve seen progress since then doesn’t take away any of its punch, it just shows us that it was on the right track.

Fifty years later, Star Trek is still boldly going, and it will continue to do so as long as people still look for a better, brighter future.

Thanks so much for reading!  Don’t forget to use that ask box if you have your own ideas or thoughts that you’d like to share.  I hope to see you in the next article.