The trailer below we have seen before, but there is an important detail from it I would like for us to discuss, and then we will take a look at the newest trailer released today:
As you probably know, this year is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek (which first appeared on television) and the release of Beyond was timed to coincide with the anniversary. Please notice at 0:17 the back of Kirk's shirt. Normally, a detail like a zipper would be something directors and costume designers would try to hide, however, as Kirk walks down this hallway, we notice the zipper on the back of his shirt; is this just bad directing, or is there a reason for it?
At 0:13, we catch a brief glimpse of the very young Chris Hemsworth from Star Trek (the first film in this series) as Kirk compares himself to his father. The moment we are shown is important because it's the moment he has just learned he has a son (Kirk had just been born) and he spends the last few minutes of his wife naming their son; why? He knows the importance of a name because it's going to be a part of Kirk's destiny, and Kirk's father wants to insure that Kirk can have the very best possible destiny he can. What Bones fails to see in his description of Kirk trying to live up to his father is, that's part of Kirk's free will: just as his father gave his life for his crew, so Kirk would give (as we have all ready seen him do in the last episode) his life for his crew and ship. Onto another "father figure" film:
The first film Ouija was written and directed by Styles White; the second film, however, was given to two film makers responsible for Oculus, which was a well-done film, but very pro-socialist and in the scam business we see the mother running, we can say this one will be pro-socialist like Oculus. In the original Ouija film, "Mother" was trying to save the children from her daughter Doris because Doris wanted "out" and to use her power again; in this film, we see Doris trying to contact her father; why? If the original film was about Millennials being haunted by the socialism they had called out for, than a pro-socialist version would be Doris being haunted by the "founding fathers" who put America on the path of being a industrial country (the priest in the film might be a stand-in for "father"). The film takes place in 1965, the year Lyndon B Johnson was sworn in as president and the "War On Poverty" began (welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs meant to increase government dependence). It looks like the film will be good, but I'm confident it will be exactly the opposite of the first. On the other hand, we have a new clip for The Secret Life Of Pets that fully reveals who Snowball the bunny is:
As we have all ready discussed, "Snowball" is an allusion to George Orwell's 1945 political novel Animal Farm wherein animals revolt against a farmer and take over control of the farm for themselves (a metaphor of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution). In The Secret Life Of Pets, we can see Snowball rescuing the "flushed pets," the unwantables, we can see Snowball is meant to be a socialist figure more of the militant kind. There is a part in a trailer we have all ready seen where Max the dog tells Snowball, who is trying to drive a truck, "You drive like an animal!" Why does Max say this? Well, no, probably not to state the obvious, rather, to make another allusion to Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted when the lion says, "Only people and penguins can drive cars!" People can drive cars because we invented them and we understand how they work and what needs to be done; penguins can drive because they work together as a team, each one filling in what needs to be done in order for the end to be achieved; Max telling Snowball that he drives like an animal is a revelation that Snowball doesn't have anything to do with cars and he certainly doesn't know anything about teamwork. And now, someone else who doesn't particularly work well in teams, the first trailer for Jack Reacher 2:
This will definitely go pro-capitalist because only patriots are being set up for charges like "espionage" in today's world. There's a lot going on in this film: the phone ringing, the window of the car breaking, the sheriff being led away in his own handcuffs, all the men wearing the same haircut, etc. So we will discuss this further further down the road. In closing, I think the new version of Ben-Hur, sadly, is going to go pro-socialist. I am heartbroken about this, obviously, but given the group of people who are working on it, it seems there is no chance it will actually be about free will and personal responsibility. You might ask, "Why would they take a classic of Christianity and turn it into a socialist doctrine?" but the truth is, they have everything to gain from doing something like that. For example, if lots of people go to see it, those are people who are going to get the "Gospel according to Karl Marx," and be exposed to socialist indoctrination and perversions of Christianity, so that's a win; if people do not go and see it, Hollywood can say, "See? We made a huge Christian film, no one came to see it, so don 't bother us to make more in the future."
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
|The pro-socialist film opens this week and I will be going to see it; I might go see The Purge Election Year, but I don't want to but I know I need to know what their arguments are,... so we'll see if I go or not. :(|