Hypothetical...

I'm reading a book at the moment, which I'll talk about later (and can't mention yet, without giving away the point). However, it raises some very interesting issues, which made me curious about public perceptions. So, I want to pose you a hypothetical question...

Case One
(First, let me just state, that I have not aimed for or pretended any authenticity in the courtroom examples below. They're merely used for the illustration of a specific point, so please forgive any 'legal' inaccuracies.)
Imagine you're in court on jury duty. Not a show-boating exciting event, like the court cases in the films or on TV. No, this is in one of those standard everyday courts that you read about in the Newspapers.

The first case arrives. It's a strange one, because the prosecution doesn't want to accuse anybody of a terrible crime. They don't want to sue a faceless corporation for millions. Very humbly, all they ask, is to show that they have enough evidence for a matter to be taken seriously and investigated further.

You try and hide a yawn from where you sit, wondering if the whole day is going to be so boring. Then things take an interesting turn, as the prosecution outline their case. The issue they want taken seriously and investigated, is the existence of a mystery weapon and for the court to accept that an event revealing it, actually happened as witnessed.

So far so good, you think. But the defence argues that the case has no merit. Where is the prosecution's proof?

The prosecution then outlines the event. It occurred in a shopping centre car-park. A man ran into the crowded area, waving a gun around and firing it into the sky madly, before escaping. His motivations were unknown. The individual's possible reckless endangerment of lives, and use of a mystery weapon to intimidate and frighten a large number of civilians, drew the attention of several police officers who clearly saw and chased the culprit, without capturing him.

Straight forward, you think, as you wonder why the Defence rolls his eyes.

The Prosecution then proceeds to give his evidence to a distracted and barely listening judge.
Exhibit a) CCTV footage that proves the perpetrator was at the scene of the crime and acting suspiciously, even though it does not show the weapon.
Exhibit b) Photographs. Ten or more witnesses of the event managed to snap admittedly blurred photographs on their mobile phones.
Exhibit c) Video Footage. Two of the witnesses had their phones set to record video, and shot footage of the event in low quality. The perpetrator was waving his weapon around a lot, sometimes moving behind cars and people, showing it was clearly in his hands, but never sharply enough to see in great detail. It was clear enough, however, to establish that it was unusual and definitely not of normal design.

Witnesses? The Prosecution provides sworn statements from twenty to thirty witnesses, including those who took photographs and video. They then provide a further two highly reputable witnesses. On duty policemen who chased the offender from the scene, but were unable to catch him. They all clearly saw the weapon the man was holding. They also testify that he fired the weapon into the air, firing some kind of unusual rounds that didn't sound like normal gunfire. However, the weapon was clearly functional and not a toy or replica.

Then the prosecution provides expert testimony from several weapon's experts, who swear they have heard such weapons exist, and some have even seen them.

The Prosecution rests his case, giving the Defence a chance to speak. The Defence promptly pleads with amusement to the weary judge, stating that all of the evidence and witness testimony proves nothing. There is no weapon physically on display here in the court. It's just a load of silly nonsense, where the Prosecution lacks even a clear photograph of the weapon.

The judge agrees with a sigh at his wasted time, and throws the case out of court.

You go home, wondering what happened. When you relax in front of your TV with a drink, you turn on the news to see a report on the case. After a long piece about a drunken pop-star, they dedicate little over a minute to reporting the court case. The reporter laughs and jokes about toy guns and Star Trek phasers, implying it's a cheery piece of amusing news to round off the day, before moving on to the sport's scores.

The First Question
Before you read any further, I want you to ask yourself. Do you think the case should have at least been given credence, and investigated further? How much proof do you think should be required before something is taken seriously?

Now, read a duplicate of the case above, with a slightly different subject matter. Except in this case, while the example may be hypothetical, similar real-world events of this nature have repeatedly occurred around the world for decades (perhaps much longer), with similar levels of evidence (Though of course without representation in the courts).

Case Two
Imagine you're in court on jury duty. Not a show-boating exciting event, like the court cases in the films or on TV. No, this is in one of those standard everyday courts that you read about in the Newspapers.

The first case arrives. It's a strange one, because the prosecution doesn't want to accuse anybody of a terrible crime. They don't want to sue a faceless corporation for millions. Very humbly, all they ask, is to show that they have enough evidence for a matter to be taken seriously and investigated further.

You try and hide a yawn from where you sit, wondering if the whole day is going to be so boring. Then things take an interesting turn, as the prosecution outline their case. The issue they want taken seriously and investigated, is the existence of a mystery flying object and for the court to accept that an event revealing it, actually happened as witnessed.

So far so good, you think. But the defence argues that the case has no merit. Where is the prosecution's proof?

The prosecution then outlines the event. It occurred in a shopping centre car-park near an airport. An unidentified flying object hovered for several minutes over the crowded area, moving around quickly and erratically, before dashing into the sky, and escaping. Its motivations were unknown. The vehicle's possible reckless endangerment of lives in heavily trafficked airspace, and use of a mystery propulsion system witnessed by a large number of civilians, drew the attention of several nearby airforce pilots on routine manoeuvres, who clearly saw and chased the mystery object, without capturing it.

Straight forward, you think, as you wonder why the Defence rolls his eyes.

The Prosecution then proceeds to give his evidence to a distracted and barely listening judge.
Exhibit a) Radar records. These prove the object was at the scene and acting suspiciously, even though it does not show further details.
Exhibit b) Photographs. Ten or more witnesses of the event managed to snap admittedly blurred photographs on their mobile phones.
Exhibit c) Video Footage. Two of the witnesses had their phones set to record video, and shot footage of the event in low quality. The object was moving around a lot, sometimes moving behind buildings and clouds, showing it was clearly there and real, but never sharply enough to see in great detail. It was clear enough, however, to establish that it was unusual and definitely not of normal design.

Witnesses? The Prosecution provides sworn statements from twenty to thirty witnesses, including those who took photographs and video. They then provide a further two highly reputable witnesses. On duty airforce pilots who chased the object from the scene, but were unable to catch it. They all clearly saw the mystery object. They also testify that it flew in an unusual way that didn't match any normal aircraft. However, the unidentified flying object was clearly functional and not a toy, replica or normal aircraft of conventional design.

Then the prosecution provides expert testimony from several aviation experts, who swear they have heard such vehicles exist, and some have even seen them.

The Prosecution rests his case, giving the Defence a chance to speak. The Defence promptly pleads with amusement to the weary judge, stating that all of the evidence and witness testimony proves nothing. There is no 'UFO' physically on display here in the court. It's just a load of silly nonsense, where the Prosecution lacks even a clear photograph of the object.

The judge agrees with a sigh at his wasted time, and throws the case out of court.

You go home, wondering what happened. When you relax in front of your TV with a drink, you turn on the news to see a report on the case. After a long piece about a drunken pop-star, they dedicate little over a minute to reporting the court case. The reporter laughs and jokes about mars and little green men, implying it's a cheery piece of amusing news to round off the day, before moving on to the sport's scores.

Why the Hypothetical Scenarios?

I'm currently reading "A.D. - After Disclosure", a book about the possible repercussions to our world and society, in the event that U.F.O.s are revealed to the public at large, through an event of enough global magnitude, that governments no longer have the ability or credibility to hide facts, and must instead reveal them (Assuming you believe in U.F.O.s, and their possible associated cover-up).

In reading the book, it made me think that perhaps the greatest obstacle to any such 'truth' (I'm reasonably convinced, but I won't presume you are) being revealed, is the utter ridicule and condescension in which it is held. When you look at the evidence of U.F.O.s, and the credibility-stretching 'proofs' from the skeptics (both of which are topics for other books and discussions, so I won't go into them here), you realise that even if they turned out to be of the most mundane and natural source, they do not deserve to be viewed with such casual contempt and dismissal.

I'm not talking about unquestioning belief, but simply that the subject deserves credible investigation and consideration by authorities and the media. Records show that in the past, such as World War II, they have been taken very seriously. However, they are now viewed with not only condescension, but outright ridicule and dismissal.

Even if the most convincing cases all turned out to be top-secret human aircraft projects, it still implies that their dismissal by the public and media is at best, a case of utterly missing and ignoring events of considerable significance, purely because of their perceived nature and associated levity.

The Final Question
So to repeat, ask yourself, do you think the case should have at least been given credence, and the chance to investigate further? Or has your opinion changed, in light of the commonly accepted public perceptions and dismissal?

Thanks for certain stock images:
silver-stock.deviantart.com
vera-stock.deviantart.com
eteria-stockphoto.deviantart.com
lunanyxstock.deviantart.com
fantasystock.deviantart.com

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.

Most Annoying Hollywood Trailer Catchphrases

I was recently reminded of something that I find increasingly annoying in the current crop of Hollywood movies, so I thought I would share it with you all (aren't you lucky!). Catchphrases specifically designed as perfect trailer material. Lines that just don't seem natural, but are instead shoe-horned into the script for dramatic effect.

As far as I can tell, there are three leading candidates, which I've list below in no particular order:

Ratatouille - guilty of "Let's do this thing!"

“Let's do this!” (Or words to that effect) - How often have we all heard this statement in films recently? I don't know about you, but imagining characters in dramatic, usually life-threatening scenarios, this doesn't sound like a natural sentence. But it's great for dramatic effect, isn't it? (note my sarcasm) Usually used in the moment before a big action scene, where characters are about to plunge into battle, or do something incredibly dangerous to save the world, and clearly intended to underscore that 'rollercoaster' moment of just hitting the quiet motionless peak, before plummeting into dramatic action with lots of fast movement and screaming. It's also perfect in trailers, to emphasise the big battles/action/excitement you will see, without showing all of the actual action itself.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire -
guilty of "Everything's going to change now, isn't it?"

“Everything's different now...” (Or words to that effect) - This line appears to be perfectly suited to sequels. Want to up the impact, and imply that your new movie is more serious, dark and dramatic than its predecessor(s)? Drop it somewhere in the movie, then use that sequence in the trailer! Just get some unwitting character to drop the line anywhere during a half-serious scene. Who cares that it doesn't seem natural. It tells us that we should all go “oooooh!” at how this movie is going to make everything before it seem trivial and light-hearted in comparison.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice - guilty of "Let's end this!"

“Let's end this!” (Or words to that effect) - Either the antagonist or protagonist has to say this before their final battle. This works in the same way as “Let's do this!”, only more so (not unlike Rick's manliness in Casablanca). It emphasises the moment where we're all supposed to tense with anticipation of the big explosive effects extravaganza finale (Or dramatic finale, it's not limited to mindless blockbusters). Again, great for trailers, to imply how 'dramatic' the film's denouement will be without having to show too much of the event itself.

I can just see the script writers shaking their heads in despair (hopefully they don't think of these lines themselves), as the 'suits' tell them to squeeze them into the script somewhere. No doubt with the aid of various graphs and charts and statistics, that show how much effect they have on the 'mindless' public when viewing the trailer or even the film itself.

The problem with these lines, is that they scream: “This is here for maximum effect in the trailer, or cheap dramatic effect in the film!” (with plenty of exclamation marks). While it could be argued that they work from a marketing perspective in the trailers, I can't help feeling that they detract from the film overall. Mainly because they jarringly take you out of the story and characters because they don't feel natural.

Hopefully this trend will end soon, as it becomes over-used. Unfortunately, I can't help thinking that the executives are already on the lookout for the next trailer-bait catchphrase...

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.