Sunday, April 30, 2017

9 New Clips! King Arthur Legend Of the Sword

If I want new footage of King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, all I have to do is start working on a post and they will release new so I am perpetually behind. Here are nine new clips, just released a few hours ago (followed by all the trailers) and this beautiful new poster as well. I should have this post up by Monday (including the poster of Vortigern, trailer two and three which we haven't discussed yet, and new images), so, in the meantime, please enjoy this great clips. We also see David Beckham's cameo role as the Sargent of the guards patrolling the Sword in the Stone. (Do keep in mind, that these clips probably aren't complete, that is, there is more to each scene in the film that that which we are seeing here, so these are just teasers).
I just can't wait!
In the clip where none of the men want to leave, what's happening is, there is one escape route, down the hole, and and there are all those "Black Leg" soldiers trying to get into attack them; they want to protect Arthur and insist that he goes first; Arthur, for his part, refuses to leave his men behind, and is willing to die for them, rather than have them die for him, so that's what they argue about. It's highly possible that this scene references Katniss in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Parts 1 and 2 when everyone is dying for her to save her because she's the face of the resistance, but Ritchie wants to point out to us that a true leader and king will die for his people, not expect his people to die for him. We see this in Excalibur, when none of Arthur's knights can beat Lancelot, so Arthur takes it upon himself to beat him,... and Arthur learns a valuable lesson. If you have time, I sincerely encourage you to watch Excalibur (1981) before you see King Arthur. It's likely the primary source of material Ritchie has drawn upon, and there are a number of things (especially the use of magic and the snake) which can be explained by Excalibur, but not unless you have seen it.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, April 28, 2017

Baywatch: Toxic Masculinity, Toxic Femininity

The Democrats, Progressives, Left and liberals would tell us that these two men--by virtue of their racial identities from birth--hate each other and that the white guy (Zac Effron, right) is oppressing the Oceanic-black man on the left (Dwayne Johnson). In a way, we see Mitch Buchanan (Johnson) oppressing Brody (Effron): Brody wants on the Baywatch team, and Mitch won't let him. It's only through a reversed "affirmative action" that Brody gets to be a lifeguard (the head of Baywatch telling Mitch that Brody would be good PR because he has two gold medals; companies and universities use affirmative action as "good PR" which is why nothing works right nowadays and people have become so lazy). In a capitalist sense, we can see a more hopeful picture: Baywatch is Brody's second chance (the way Dom and his team get a "second chance" in the Fast and Furious franchise, or Batman gets a second chance to make up to dead Superman in Justice League, so second chances are good). In this particular scene pictured above, I have no idea what is going on, however, Mitch--because he is not wearing a shirt--"exposes" himself to the events taking place (that's what nudity symbolizes, "exposure") whereas Brody, wearing the blue shirt, is keeping himself protected (not naked and exposed) because past experience has taught him the price to be paid for participating in this kind of event (whatever it is taking place in this scene); why? We know that blue, the color of Brody's shirt, symbolizes sadness and wisdom (don't forget that Brody refers to his "balls" as "wise" even though they sound like three-year-old girls) and we know that Brody needs a job as a lifeguard because, even though he won two Olympic gold medals, something has happened and he's officially "disgraced" (more on this below). Whatever happened to cause Brody's fall from favor, he's taking precautions so it doesn't happen again (that doesn't mean he's taking the right precautions, or going about it in the right way, but he's trying). Note, also, how he holds onto his flotation device: that would be a "personal statement," in that Brody feels he needs the "flotation" for himself during this situation to help him get through it because he's afraid of drowning in whatever is taking place. Mitch, on the other hand, literally, is wearing that huge wristwatch, and that means he has a sense of history, of what the Baywatch brand really "is" and "means" and how he fits into it and what is expected of him to maintain and uphold that.
We still don't give a fuck
How does the Left define "toxic" masculinity? Anything that is masculine is "toxic." Why? Because if it's masculine, it's standing in the way of feminism and socialism; the Left hasn't even bothered attacking femininity (not really) but Baywatch seems to be leading the counter-attack, and we seriously need to discuss the major themes that are exploding everywhere in these trailers that have been released, because Baywatch is taking on the Left from top to bottom. Now, some of this material is quite raunchy, and I understand that it's even worse in the film, however, it appears that even those moments have a strong foundation in arguing about national politics in a rather genius way.
"Our team is the elite, of the elite." That's a good place to start. "Elitism" is, in a way, the great vehicle of American society: think about all the TV shows and films have you seen over the last decade; how many of them are about mediocrities? Do you want to watch a film about someone who is a loser? Granted, that's the meat and potatoes of comedy, but that's the point: we laugh at those who aren't the best in their field because we want to be inspired by those who are the best in their field, and that's what Baywatch is wanting to immediately tell its potential audience, which leads us to the "Baywatch Brand."
We should probably pay attention for a lot of other films to be referenced; why? Because Baywatch is going to want to link itself up in the public forum of cinematic discourse with films that have said the same things it's wanting to say: for example, The Kingsman: Secret Service. As Eggsy is trying to save the world from Valentine's explosion, Princess Tilde of Sweden offers herself for anal sex with Eggsy and he takes her up on it in exchange for saving her; Mitch, on the other hand, when the girl in the image above offers herself to him, shrugs it off, and--when he tosses her into the water away from the flaming ship--we see her bikini bottom is yellow; why? Yellow is the color of gold, which means it's the color of dignity, and because they are the bottoms covering her genitals, which she just offered to Mitch, we can deduce that Mitch has more respect for her sexual dignity than she does. In the image below, we can see the jump away from the flames possibly referencing that awesome film, Deepwater Horizon (Mark Wahlberg, John Malkovitch); why? I have no idea, but we do know that Deepwater Horizon was poorly managed, which led to the explosion, and it's possible the Baywatch division is being poorly managed as well. So, look for references being made to other films, because I'm sure it's going to be loaded. 
If this team of lifeguards are the "elite of the elite," and they have dedicated themselves to protecting the bay "at all costs," then why has the city council cut off their funding so that they have to "restore the Baywatch brand?" Because the city council consists of mediocrities (politicians, like the ones in Washington) they do not want to continue supporting "the best of the best." This is really bad because look at the ethnic and gender identity of this team: they are all minorities. The city council, if they are Leftists and liberals, should be showering money on them, in accordance with their ethnic identities and what is not in-between their legs. Since the city council doesn't want to fund them, it suggests that the city council doesn't want to help minorities who have all ready helped themselves, who have worked to the top, who have dedicated themselves to being great in their field, rather than being bums and waiting for Democrats to finally live up to their promises. It might be even more sinister than this, however,...
Sure, it's probably really cheesy to have beautiful, healthy people running along a beach, for now reason; except there is a reason, and actually, there are two reasons. First, it's a reference to that classical Chariots Of Fire, the film following young men as they train for the Olympics and push themselves as to what they can accomplish when they put their minds--and bodies--to the job at hand. Baywatch wants us to be thinking about that as we watch the film, which is why it's reminding us of this famous scene. Secondly, which would you prefer to have: a world where people look like the five healthy, beautiful men and women from left to right, or a world where everyone looks like Ronnie (at the far right end, trying to keep up)? We discussed this with Zoolander 2, where someone was killing "the world's most beautiful people" and how it's like wealth redistribution: we think it would be nice not to have the most beautiful people in the world reminding us that we are not the most beautiful people, that they are instead, but it wouldn't take long before everyone in the world looked like Ronnie and we would be without the beautiful, healthy people we see in this image, that hating someone for the way they look is just as bad as hating someone for the wealth they have that we don't. But we also know that in this scene, Brody (Effron) trips and falls; why? Because he's human, too. Just like us, they have their faults and shortcomings, and they are going to get old, and they will age just like us, so we should be thankful that the standards they set for health and beauty "trickle down to" us, and we take some effort to take care of ourselves because of the standard we are fortunate enough to have in them, regardless of how out of each it is for most of us. 
Comedy (which Baywatch definitely fits into) is always a heavily-encoded genre: with a drama, for example, there is encoding (he symbolizes this, she symbolizes that, the struggle symbolizes this other topic, etc.) but with comedy, there is the foundation symbols, and then they introduce the comedy to cover up the symbols even more (musicals also act in this way); why? Because it rips our filters off and exposes to us the raw truth of what is being discussed. The "sinister" aspect of the city council not wanting to fund Baywatch comes when the black police officer tells the lifeguards that their job is to keep "swim-happy white people from drowning,...." if the lifeguards are so good, and they do keep white people from drowning, then this suggests that the city council actually wants white people to drown. Why? So there won't be white people to fight against socialism and the socialists can take all their stuff and keep it for themselves.
Here is the next trailer:
First of all, let's look at "undercover" situation. The first shot we are given when Brody comes out dressed as a woman, is the yellow shoes on his feet; why? For at least two reasons (as usual): first, those are not the types of shoes that men wear; why is this important? Because the feet, as we know, symbolizes our will, so anything put on our feet illustrates the character's will, and men do not have the same will that women have (symbolized by the high heel shoes). Secondly, the shoes are yellow, like the bikini bottoms of the girl rescued in the trailer above, so we can denote that Brody is protecting his dignity, even though he's dressed as a woman; how do we know this? In a clip, which I regrettably couldn't find again, Mitch complains about how Brody looks and Brody responds, "I am legit,... hot!" He doesn't say that him being dressed as a woman is legit, but he thinks that he's legitimately hot, which he's not. This is an excellent example of humor working, because in our society, we would expect Brody to say that it is completely legitimate for him to be dressed as a woman, but he doesn't, because it's not legitimate for him to be dressed as a woman. How can we say that?
"You should look at my face instead of my boobs," Summer (Daddario) tells Brody, "But your boobs are so close to your face," and, actually, he's right. What is the first thing we notice about another person? Whether they are male, female, male and trying to look like a female, or female and trying to pass for a male; our sexual identity (her boobs) is an inherent part of our identity (the face) and Summer telling Brody he should only look at her face while she's wearing only a swim top accentuating her breasts, isn't Brody's fault, it's her fault, and that's exactly what feminists want, because it puts them in a position, just like Summer, of making heterosexual men look bad, when in fact, it's women like Summer who are intentionally tempting men with their immodest dressing.
In the bottom image, we understand the "castration effect" spoken of below (after the next trailer): men with no balls don't stand up and protect anything or question anything, as we see with Brody; this is exactly the kind of men the liberals want in the world, not the Mitch Buchanans who will question everything and protect what they love at all costs. Now, if you think I'm making too much of this, I understand, but please consider that the villain, Victoria Leeds, is a drug dealer; what do drugs do? They alter reality, and what is the left trying to do? Alter reality. The left peddles drugs, so men will castrate themselves, women will be whores and we can all be miserable with just a few corrupt people ruling over us. What stops the altering of reality? Responsibility and sacrifice. When we take responsibility for what we have done, when we make sacrifices for that which we love, we are defying the left and their cheap tricks. 
When Mitch and Brody confront Victoria Leeds about being a drug dealer, she responds with, "Look at me!" and Brody responds, then Victoria says, "Don't even, Brittany," meaning, that just because Brody is dressed as a woman, he's "Brittany"; the truth is the exact opposite. Looks are deceiving, and just as it's deceiving to think that Brody is a woman just because he's dressed as a woman, it would also be deceiving to think Victoria isn't a drug dealer just because she says she doesn't look like one. There is an underlying, fundamental natural law, and then there is also the obvious truth. The next point I want to discuss is the morgue scene, because this is brilliant.
The head of Baywatch asks Mitch, "How many gold medals do you have?" and Mitch doesn't have any, but that doesn't mean that Brody is qualified to be a lifeguard and we see that even in the trailers. On the other hand, we can see Mitch being too obsessive, and not allowing for a expansion of skills and talents.
In the bottom image, the black cop has just used the phrase, "You people," and Brody reacts and Mitch tells him, "Oh, you can't say that. You're just tan." You might remember a similar scene in Zootopia, when Judy Hopps, a bunny, is told by Chester Cheetah that she's such a cute bunny, and Judy tells him that another bunny can call a bunny cute, but another animal can't say that; why not? Censorship of the freedom of speech and the ridiculous elevation of emotions and sensitivity; we have all experienced it, so I don't need to go into it. 
"I'm laying on a dead old lady," he says, and then the fat starts dripping on his face. Yes, this is totally gross, but it's also amazingly accurate: white, heterosexual men like Brody are laying atop the "dead old lady" of what used to be an America that welcomed and championed them and their success; now, that America is dead to them. Why? Because of the "chronic liquid fat," i.e., the "excess" of men who came before him (the exact phrase was in another trailer) that has provided fuel for the socialists in this country and around the world; note that the minorities, Summer Quinn (Alexandra Daddario) and Mitch both chose drawers that were empty; why? Because they don't have as many role models as does Brody who is a white heterosexual male so there is not a "dead body" for them to lay on or have to take responsibility for (in other words, not having as many role models, they can make their own identities). Please also note that some of the excess fat from the man "above" Brody ("above" being a class distinction) lands in Brody's mouth; that's because we are all infected by our "appetites" for the kind of excessive lifestyle of the rich: who doesn't want to have a personal masseuse on call 24/7? While the scene is incredibly gross, it's also brilliant, because the fat lands on Brody's face which is the seat of his identity that's being contaminated by those who came before him. One last trailer, I am mostly interested in just the first part of this, with the sand sculpture:
So, Mitch wants his pecks a little bigger, and not to have his "front bump" covered. First of all, did you notice the trident in the sand sculpture? There is the trident in Pirates of the Caribbean 5, the trident of Aquaman in Justice League, and the trident of Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 and we can throw in other dominant phallic-symbols like Excalibur in King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, and the massive sword carried by Optimus Prime in Transformers: the Last Knight. Why? Exactly as Mitch says: "Don't cover up my front bump," meaning, don't castrate me. The resurgence of phallic symbols is because men have felt--no, they actually have been--castrated, not only by feminists, but by mediocre males who have become feminists and self-castrated themselves (I would put Bruce Jenner into this category, because he didn't become a woman, he became a castrated male with a serious public cross-dressing habit). What does Pete do? Interprets that, because Mitch doesn't want his "front bump" covered, that Mitch must want a "huge dick," but that's not what Mitch said, so Mitch replies, "big dick," as he turns his back; why? turning his back exposes his vulnerability so that means that, in showing that he has not been castrated, Mitch knows he's exposing himself to being vulnerable and people will attack him because he has not accepted being castrated as the "new normal." So, it looks like I am going to have to go see Baywatch.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Movie Quiz

This quiz, linked below, will show you an image like this, and then you choose from four different films, which movie it's from. Good luck!
I am sorry I haven't gotten anything up, but here is a little quiz you might enjoy: they show you a photo, such as the one above, and provide you with four different film titles, then you choose which film it comes from. I missed 10 of them, for a grade of 85%, so see if you can do better than I did (I'm shocked I did that well, actually!) and I'm quite sure that you can and will, you have complete bragging rights!
Here is the link to start the quiz and NO CHEATING!!!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, April 21, 2017

2 New Spots: King Arthur Legend Of the Sword

This image might be one of the most important we have seen in all the trailers, posters and spots combined; why? Arthur voices what his will is, "I'm going to kill him," but we see how he is wounded, and those wounds we are seeing articulate for us the interior of Arthur's character we cannot see. For example, the bandage wound atop Arthur's head likely has two meanings: first, we know that hair and anything on the head symbolizes our thoughts, so, in this scene, it's likely that Arthur has been proven wrong about something or he wasn't thinking correctly (maybe he had a bad idea). This is particularly important because of the second meaning of the head: the "head" of a government. Being the legitimate king, Arthur is, therefore, the head of the resistance government, and that Arthur's own head is wounded, illustrates for us how his position as head of the resistance, and the resistance itself, has taken a literal beating. Why? Look at Arthur's eye: eyes symbolize our deeper, inner-vision, our meditative capabilities and being able to "see" things as they truly are (without delusion or illusion). Arthur has obviously been beaten in his eye and it has turned purple (not blue or black, or even that tinge of green/yellow when it's been healing) and purple, as we know symbolizes suffering and royalty: only the Roman emperor was wealthy enough to afford clothes dyed in purple, so it symbolizes the royalty and wealth, but when the purple cloak was draped over Jesus during His Passion, purple also became associated with the suffering fit for a king to endure for his people, rather than the people having to suffer for the king (which had been the reigning thought up to this time). So, on one hand, Arthur's eye is swollen, suggesting he's not seeing everything (his eye is in the process of swelling shut so he can't see out of it at all) but also, what he does see is being "colored" by his suffering (the purple) and his unique role in being the exiled king (the blanket--I guess that's what it is--around his shoulders is interesting, because it emphasizes his role of kingship, without him being yet crowned).  It's further interesting, although difficult to interpret, that the swelling eye is his right eye, rather than his left eye: the right side of our body (or basically anything in general) is interpreted as being the "correct" or "strong" side (especially morally) whereas the left side of anything is usually interpreted as being corrupt or weak. Knowing that Arthur says, "I'm going to kill him," in this clip (supposedly referring to Vortigern) we might interpret this scene, at this point with the information we have, to be that Arthur's wanting to kill Vortigern is coming from a weakened moral impulse and not from a superior source of Arthur's kingly wisdom; why? His cheek.
In order to discuss Arthur's cheek, let's look at another hero with an interesting cheek mark: Captain Jack Sparrow. If you look at the very bottom of this post, there is a poster for Pirates Of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales, and on Jack's right side of his face, there is an "X" on his cheek; why? The most common interpretation for the cheeks is to "Turn the other cheek," inferring that when someone has wronged you, as Christ taught, we are meant to let them harm us again, rather than to take revenge (because revenge belongs to God). We know that Javier Bardem's Captain Salazar seeks revenge against Sparrow for Salazar's death, so we might interpret the "X" marks the spot (of a pirate's life) as Sparrow being marked for revenge by Salazar. So, back to Arthur, Arthur may not be "turning the other cheek," and feels he is owed revenge for the death of his parents. We have heard, I believe it was in the first teaser which came out just before the second trailer, Arthur saying, "You created me, and for that, I bless you," and that's a sign of Arthur's wisdom, because he recognizes that he had to discipline himself and become a real leader in order to be worthy of Excalibur and the people willing to fight with him. So, at this point in this scene above, Arthur might not be very wise, but he's following in the path of another famous Englishman: James Bond. Remember, in Spectre, Bond says he's going to kill Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) as announces that to Blofeld when he and Madeline arrive at the desert compound, but, when Bond really has the chance to do so, he doesn't (in Batman vs Superman, Batman also has a chance to kill Lex Luthor at the end, but doesn't). We'll have to see if Arthur kills Vortigern, or if Arthur allows the devil to take Vortigern, which is kind of what happened to Blackwood in Sherlock Holmes (and, like Blackwood, Vortigern is certainly in league with the devil). 
I am working on getting the post up for the very amazing Fast and Furious 8, but two new spots have been released for King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword. Here is the first:
It's not that we see very much new material in this teaser, however, we have an interesting new bit of dialogue: "Do we understand each other?" Vortigern says (although we don't know to who he says it: having just seen Fast and Furious 8, I want to be careful to not assume that every little thing in the trailers is going to be just as it is in the film, because there are adjustments made between the two), so even though it looks like Vortigern says it to Arthur, the chances are, he's saying it to someone else; so, for the moment, let's take it at face value: "Do we understand each other?" means that a threat, promise, or some other "implication" has been made without being spoken. This "implication" made without speech, which the person Vortigern speaks to, as well as we, the audience, should, therefore, be on the look-out throughout the film for other "implications" which also are not spoken in the film (where there is one example of a technique or device being used, it's because it's also being used somewhere else); this leads us to our second spot:
This single word deconstructs--in a good way--the entire film: there is the power that comes with being strong enough to take what is not yours; there is power that is yours but that you can't claim; there is the power over people who fear you; there is the power that you don't have to be afraid of anything; there is the power of people following you because they believe in you; there is the power of the wizard, the power of the devil; there is the power of the sword to kill, then there is the power of the sword to,... do magical things, etc. What this rambling list proves is that "power" does not have a single, unified meaning in the film, because there are many different types of power, so the definition of "power" is going to shift throughout the film; why is that important?
Above, we analyze the wounds on Arthur's face to get an idea of what his character is feeling, but not expressing in the scene. Why is this important? Because of these guards/soldiers right here. Basically, we have seen these guys before: the motorcycle riders in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Zoolander 2 motorcycle riders, storm troopers in Star Wars the Force Awakens and also Rogue One, the upcoming gold women in Guardians Of the Galaxy Vol 2 (because they all look alike, they have no individuality), the members of the mafia gang at the start of John Wick Chapter 2, and in The Mummy, think of all the birds that crash into the plane en masse, and then all the rats crawling over Tom Cruise, and all the faceless dead people, and others I'm not going to take the time to look up; the point is, when there is a lack of personality, or individuality, that's a sign of socialism; why? Because socialism doesn't want individuals, because individuals want freedom to express their individuality, and individualism makes us human, but socialists want us to believe we are animals; God gave us individual talents and gifts, but socialists want to deny God, so they will deny your individuality and the gifts God gave you. These soldiers are a perfect example of that. Further, we can see from the scars and bruising Arthur has experienced which he wears on his face that his face shows who he is, and who he is not.  We have all ready discussed how scars on Arthur's face and neck reveal traits he has (not being a good judge of character, and being led by things of the world, rather than spirituality or higher causes). The soldiers in the image above don't have those scars, they have nothing but brute force and the orders they have been given. Now, think real hard: what other soldiers in history would kick in doors in the dead of night and pull people out of their beds and send them off to never be seen again? If you answered the Nazis, you are correct, my friend! From the Nazi-style salute we see in the second trailer to these faceless goons and Vortigern's crushing need for power, we have a film championing the populist wave of anti-politicians and the embracing of "new" leaders to replace them for the sake of the whole world. 
Because what "power" is, and who has it, is the basis of civilization; it's the primary center of all human relations (who is dominant, who is submissive, is it constant or does it change?) and how is that power going to be exercised? For King Arthur, the "good power" is located in the sword, Excalibur; in Transformers: the Last Knight, we see Optimus Prime yielding a huge sword, trying to destroy the world, and in The Mummy, we see Princess Ahmanet with a little knife, she first uses to kill her father, and then everyone else (and yes, her "little, jagged knife" is a little, false phallus she uses in place of the phallus of her father the pharaoh) and then there is also the Trident of Poseidon in Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales (so a trident is like a triple phallus). All these films are employing phallic symbols (the swords, knives and tridents) to discuss power and who has it legitimately and what they are doing with it.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
This is the image with the mark on Sparrow's cheek, in the very upper-left corner, just off to the side of his eye. There is plenty to discuss in this poster, but it will have to wait another time. 

Fast & Furious 8,... was AWESOME!!!

I did see Fast and Furious 8 and I have been trying to get up that post,... you know the drill, family obligations have been in the way, so with all of my heart, I do apologize, but F & F 8 was EVEN BETTER than I was hoping! Hooray! I will try and get that up this weekend. In the meantime, I want to give you a little something, so here is the ever-charming Mr. Tom Hiddleston teaching us how to do accents:
There is so much to post on. F & F 8 gets up first, and then we will discuss trailers!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, April 14, 2017

TRAILER: Star Wars Last Jedi

A most blessed Good Friday to each one of you! So, the first trailer for Star Wars: The Last Jedi has been released; I fully expect that, even in a year with box office records before the summer blockbusters have even been released, that the latest Star Wars will set a record, but I'm not particularly impressed.
You may recall, that I have been dismayed over Mark Hamill (who plays Luke Skywalker) telling reporters that Luke is gay; there is a huge difference between what actors say and do and the official studio design of the film; but Star Wars is a Disney film, and we have seen, from Finding Dory to Beauty and the Beast, Disney introducing gay characters. I haven't heard anything else about it, but I am certainly listening for it.
By the way, for all planning on seeing Fast and Furious 8 this weekend, there is NO post-credits scene. Initially, there was a scene shot, but it was cut from the film. At this point, I plan on seeing the film Saturday (there are too many Sacred Triduum events going on for me to make it before tomorrow) and I have not been well this week, so sorry 😢 Regardless, a happy and blessed Easter to you all, I will be posting this weekend!
May God's Face shed His Light upon you and all you love, now and forever!

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

TRAILERS: Transformers & Detroit

Two important trailers have been released today, Michael Bay's Transformers: the Last Knight and Katherine Bigelow's Detroit; both of these trailers might seem a bit confusing, but they are coming from directors I trust completely. I think it's specifically a nod to Bay that he can--and has--taken years over numerous films to build up an audience bond to a character like Optimus Prime, and then, for the sake of the story and to make his point, Bay then turns that same hero into an ultimate villain.
There's a reason, a very good reason, why two dominant film makers like Michael Bay and Guy Ritchie have both gone back to explore the legend of King Arthur at this time (the knights with their round table and their swords can only be King Arthur are something along those lines). And please, do not forget, in Batman vs Superman, it was to Excalibur that the Wayne family had been to see the night Mr and Mrs Wayne were murdered, not the traditional Legend Of Zorro (meaning, director Zack Synder changed the film for a definite reason). So,... why? Why does Optimus Prime become a villain and want to destroy earth so bad?
Without having seen either Transformers 5 or King Arthur: Legend Of the Sword, I can't say why they are both included in these films, however, we can say that the story of King Arthur and his knights offers a vocabulary for modern film makers, which hasn't been required for public discourse in decades. From information in the trailer, however, we can glean at least two reasons why King Arthur is important: first, as Anthony Hopkins' character tells us, when there are no leaders, there is chaos, and, secondly, they were all men. First, King Arthur is the quintessential leader who brought order amidst the chaos of anarchy and lawlessness sometime in the early Dark Ages. He established order, for all people, to be protected under the law and for those who committed acts deemed unlawful, they would be punished accordingly, and that is a system which largely perseveres unto today. More on this in a moment. Secondly, it was the white men who did this, not the women, not the proletariat uprising, not Black Lives Matter, not the Vagina Monologues, but men who did this, and men who were all white and, as far as we know, heterosexual. They didn't offer law just for themselves, or justice just for themselves, they defended and protected everyone who needed it and especially those who couldn't offer anything in return (the poor). Now, keeping these thoughts in mind, let us turn to the second scene in the bottom image.
If you look below, past the next paragraph to the first image at the top of the next images provided, we see the female robot (the Maker of Optimus Prime who has imprisoned him) asking him if he wants redemption. Back to the images above this caption you are reading at this moment, please look at what happens to Optimus Prime's eyes: they have turned pink. Why? Feminism. Optimus Prime, like Tony Stark in Captain America: Civil War, has become a feminist, and bought-into their narrative that men are bad, and they have done all these terrible things ("You have destroyed your home," meaning, you have been the optimal example of what it means to be the very best in all things, and in doing that, you have ruined the world that feminists want to have for themselves, where no one can do anything good without the government's help; do you want redemption for the horrible crime you have committed in being so good? And Optimus Prime answers, "My Maker, yes"). In this important scene, Prime's eyes turn from blue, to pink; why? The eyes are the windows of the soul (yes, I know, they are machines and don't have souls, but let's say it's the soul but really mean Prime's "program" or "operating system" because this is meant to apply to us the audience who do have souls). Whereas Prime has always been a male, he has now been TRANSFORMED into a female. Yea, it's kind of transgender, he's gone from being a protector of everyone, to being an offensive and aggressive jerk for his female boss who is willing to kill anyone and everyone, even Bumblebee, who was like his son; but because Bumblebee has also been "male," Bumblebee must also die if he won't become a feminist. Please, keep reading below for more.
Because this is exactly what didn't happen.
During Transformers: Age Of Extinction, Optimus Prime gives one of the best speeches I have ever heard in my life; it's a moment full of emotion and heroism, hope and courage, making Optimus Prime one of the greatest heroes ever. And this is exactly why now, he's being targeted: he symbolizes white male power and dominance. "He's a robot, he can't be white," most white people (like myself) would probably say, but the situation is (and I haven't seen the film, just these trailers, so I am deducing here) Optimus Prime thinks like a white person, acts like a white person and speaks like a white person. It's this "white logic" which targets him for being an enemy, even though he's never been before, in other words,...
When, may I ask, have people like Donald Trump, come out and said, in order for my world of billionaires and white men to survive, the world of women, blacks and other minorities must die? They haven't. It is, fundamentally, in nearly every culture, the duty of men to protect other members of their culture and society. We know, however, that it is a fundamental premise of socialism and communism that any socialist state must wage war on non-socialist states, because the non-socialist state will make the socialist state look bad (in terms of quality of living, personal and civil liberties and technological developments, none of which exist in a socialist/communist society). Any socialist country, then, has to wage war on every other country and destroy their way of life in order that socialism might survive (even then it wouldn't survive, but this is the rationale behind all of it). So, when Prime, in the image below, tells the woman, In order for my world to survive, yours must die, he's admitting that, like all the rioters, and the terrorists, and the feminists and other minority groups who have been "protesting" the sane, normal and lawful society in which they have the blessing and great fortune to live in, are trying to tear it down, those protesters are testifying that, in order for their world of chaos to live, they have to destroy the order of the world in which we all live now, so that no one will any longer thrive or have any rights. If you don't believe me, please watch the rioters and protesters in the trailer for Detroit, because it's spelled out quite clearly there. 
When Optimus Prime did everything correctly in the previous films, when he was the best he could be, the shining light and standard of heroism, enemies of those standards and ideological concepts could then accuse Optimus Prime (and every white person in the world, or who has ever lived) of destroying their world, their world built on the perceptions and narratives that white men are oppressive and deserving of death because they can't do anything right and they have basically killed people of every other race and tribe, sexual orientation and destroyed the environment, so they deserve to die; with such a devastating sentence against them, we can then see how Optimus Prime would, to say, "I'm sorry," turn his back on everything he ever stood for and destroy the very world he once would have laid down his life to protect. In still other words, if feminists, social hackivists, the media and lame politicians had their way, white men would start destroying everything they have ever built so women and blacks and mediocrities didn't feel so threatened by greatness. And here, we have Detroit, which is certain to be a masterpiece,....
Detroit, Michigan, is, of course, the largest city to ever declare bankruptcy; why did it have to declare bankruptcy? The city was spending three times more money than it was bringing in, in spite of its large gross profit anyway. Fifty years of Democrats running the city, which should have been a model of capitalist investment and technological ingenuity, instead led to a city that is a by-word for "blight" and "failure," the perfect reality of socialism at work because socialism doesn't work. In the trailer above, we see the group of blacks being asked by the police where the gun is; why don't they tell them? It appears that someone committed a crime, and instead of explaining the situation, they aren't going to tell the police, when that's all they need to do; so they are the ones bringing the situation upon themselves. We see John Boyega's character giving the army men some coffee, and one asks if Boyega's cop has any sugar, and Boyega's character responds, "Don't push it," meaning, I'm giving you coffee, don't ask for more than what I am willing to give you. What we will see happening, is the rioters taking and taking and taking, in spite of what is being offered to them, and the rioters being the cause and authors of their own misery, choosing the situation that would lead to the city declaring bankruptcy decades later.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Still ANOTHER New Trailer For The Mummy

Yes, yet another trailer has been released for The Mummy, this one for China, so there are subtitles in Chinese characters beneath, but the actors are speaking English. Unfortunately, the trailer hasn't been released on YouTube, but you shouldn't have any problem clicking this link and watching it on Vimeo. THIS TRAILER IS DEFINITELY WORTH YOUR TIME. There are numerous important aspects of this new trailer that are awesome, like the "back story" (abbreviated, of course) of why Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is there anyway (and no, it's not the terrorist cell he's looking for like the original synopsis contended last year). So please, take a look at it. In the meantime, a happy and blessed Holy Week to you all! Fast and Furious 8 comes out this weekend and the reviews are very good! It's late when I am writing this, and I have the Chrism Mass to attend tomorrow, so I need to get to bed asap, so we're just going to list these trailers for the moment. The first trailer for Thor: Ragnarok has been released, and I'm not very happy about it.
So, the only part of the trailer I do like is when Hela (Cate Blanchett) explodes Thor's hammer; well, I don't like it in the sense I am glad she does it, but I like it in the sense that I think it accurately illustrates that which has happened in society: white men have had their phallus-power obliterated by feminists like Hela, and Princess Ahmanet in The Mummy. Just as Hela destroys Asgard, and Ahmanet levels London, so we can see the same destruction which happened during the Obama Administration in America, and would have accelerated under Hillary Clinton. What I don't like about it is that it seems to be several un-related films that have been mushed together, for lack of a better story line, for lack of a better screenwriter, for lack of a better director. Here, on the other hand, is a film which looks like it's well-constructed, 7 Witches:
"Witches" have often been linked to socialists/communists in America, consider the "Witch Hunts" of socialists in Hollywood--also called "McCarthyism"--during the late 1940s and early-mid 1950s. The next trailer, Past Life, looks complicated indeed. A young Jewish woman from Israel (Selphie), trying to make a career in music, is confronted by a woman claiming Selphie's father killed her father during the Holocaust in Poland. Selphie--with the help of her rebellious sister--then retraces her father's life during the Holocaust in an attempt to understand the taboo subject of what happened and what he did.
It's my understanding that Nesher himself, the writer and director of the film, is the child of parents who survived the Holocaust. In other news, the 40th anniversary of Star Wars is Tuesday, and a big announcement is being released in honor of the film; Wednesday, a new trailer for Transformers: the Last Knight is coming out and production has started on Mission Impossible 6, but no title has been released. It's also rumored that Felix, the black American CIA agent who forwarded money to Bond in Casino Royale, and told him where he could find Dominic Greene in Quantum Of Solace, is set to return to the next Bond film,... we just still don't know who Bond will be (but I think it'll be Craig).
A most blessed and happy Holy Week to you all!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner
P.S.--I probably won't get to Fast and Furious 8 until Friday afternoon or evening due to Church services, but will post my reactions asap!

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Tom Cruise Possessed! Another Trailer For The Mummy!

Just as I am posting on King Arthur, I am also getting a post up on The Mummy because a ton of information has been released in these two new trailers. 
Another trailer has been released for The Mummy, and this is just as good as the first two!
Two bits of information to add to this: Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and Dr. Henry Jeckyll (Russell Crowe) will come to literal blows in the film; it's uncertain if that's because Nick makes a bad decision, or if Jeckyll's,... "other side" gets control of him, but they don't particularly get along. Also, Ahmanet, the Egyptian princess, murders her father, and that's why she is buried alive. I thought the man she murdered, when Jenny (Annabelle Wallis, who is also appearing in King Arthur) says Ahmanet was destined to be Egypt's next queen, that the man she murdered was her husband, the pharaoh, not the pharaoh her father. That's imperative! Things are being released too quickly for me to be able to get them posted, I am so sorry! But here is one awesome featurette for Transformers: The Last Knight that should really make you want to see it in IMAX!
I would love a home studio like that,...
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, April 3, 2017

Marvel Studios: Diversity Hurting Sales

Riri Williams is the young, black, female teenager who took Iron Man from Tony Stark, a rich, white, heterosexual male who created Iron Man and risked his life many times over to save others. But Stark wasn't good enough any more.
Even saying that it's "DIVERSITY" that is hurting sales, makes comic-book readers sound inherently racist. What's hurting comic book sales is the blatant propaganda at a new and unwelcomed ideological tidal wave telling comic book readers that, if they are male, and especially if they are white, they don't matter in the world and they need to be replaced (i.e., killed and destroyed).
We have discussed this before, that the reason Marvel replaced their core characters with minorities they want to associate themselves with the Democratic Party, is because it's a win-win situation for them: Marvel has destroyed Captain America and Iron Man, so now, American doesn't have their cultural icons who embody--literally--traditional American values, and have replaced them with people who embody the new ideological values being rammed down America's throat day and night. "You're not going to buy the comic books? Okay, we still murdered your Captain America and Iron Man, so we're still ahead of you." The destruction of a culture's and society's identity begins with the destruction of their art; once their art is destroyed, their identity becomes malleable and you can re-create it, which is exactly what they want to do.
This is a good one.
Not Marvel film studios (although they have cautiously followed the same path, just much slower) bu Marvel comic books, have sought to increase diversity over the past couple of years through what I myself labeled as artistic "wealth redistribution," in taking the (white, heterosexual) Tony Stark comic book character, and changing him into a young, black female; Thor was also turned into a female, Spider Man into a bi-racial black teenager and a female Muslim teenager got the role of Ms. Marvel; comics haven't been selling.
This is a "Google Doodle," meant to "inspire" people to be better people, and this particular one shows people who are all "different" in some self-identified way as "getting along": from left to right, the young man in the wheelchair, beside the boy with the rainbow "G" on it (gay), by the Muslim girl, by the Jewish girl, by the transgender,.... "being," (I can't tell if it's male or female), by the Christian, by the atheist (the "e=" references Einstein's "E=mcsquared" equation, which I guess is supposed to make us all "realize" God doesn't exist, but Einstein argued quite differently, anyway,....) with the man in the yellow shirt, I guess, representing the "elderly" population (because of the cane). Now, please look at the background: what do you see in the gray-shadow area? The devil's horns being held up. The sign of the devil's horns is literally Satanic, and the presence in this "advertisement" achieves two things. First, it validates that this kind of "tolerance" is stamped with Satan's mark of approval and, two, it gets us used to seeing the devil's horns so, like everything else, we are brainwashed and just start accepting it. The lousy attempt to make a heart with two hands (above the head of the man at the end with the cane and yellow shirt) is a poor example of what "love" really is, and looks more like the Illuminati triangle celebrities flash all the time, rather than anything resembling what love actually is. But this is more brainwashing, because the New World Order doesn't want us to be diversified, it wants the exact opposite: for us all to be identical and have the exact same, controllable moral codes created by they themselves.
A representative for Marvel retail, David Gabriel, spoke concerning what retailers who sell Marvel comics had communicated to Marvel (I have added some emphasis in places):

 “What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity,” he said. “They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not.”

Sign up to our Bookmarks newsletter
 Read more
He added: “I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales … Any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up.”

Gabriel later issued a clarifying statement, saying that some retailers felt that some core Marvel heroes were being abandoned, but that there was a readership for characters like Ms Marvel and Miles Morales who “ARE excited about these new heroes”. He added: “And let me be clear, our new heroes are not going anywhere! We are proud and excited to keep introducing unique characters that reflect new voices and new experiences into the Marvel universe and pair them with our iconic heroes.
In the upcoming Thor 3: Ragnarok, Tessa Thompson (Dear White People) is not only a black, female super-hero with Thor, but his budding new love interest as well. Yes, Marvel (film) Studios are following, especially with Spider Man: Homecoming, with Peter Parker's (Tom Hollande) love interest, Michelle (portrayed by Zendaya, who is bi-racial) has actually replaced the comic-canon Gwen Stacy (who was portrayed by Emma Stone back when Spider Man was Sony domain and Andrew Garfield was sporting the webs). So, in the case of these two black women, they are replacing white women, who themselves claim to be a minority, which illustrates clearly that Marvel isn't interested in women and supporting women, but, ultimately, increasing bi-racial relationships. Why? Increasing inter-racial relationships by promoting them on-screen (just as homosexuality is also being promoted) is a New World Order agenda item; why? The wealthiest twelve families who own the world have protected their blood lines--according to numerous Illuminati investigators--and those families want to see the rest of the world's blood lines "diluted" and made "impure" so they can rule the world because of their pure blood lines (it doesn't matter if you think this is bunk, THEY believe it and they practice it, and they OWN everything we use 
"Whether we believe that or not," was probably a more telling bit of politics than what Gabriel, or Marvel, wanted people to actually hear in public: in other words, Marvel all ready wrote their narrative they were going to stick to regardless of what sales of the "new" heroes' comics did in terms of sales before any of the changes to core Marvel characters were even announced to the public. So why don't people want "new heroes?" "New" is utterly misleading, because they aren't "NEW" they are replacements, and "replacing" Tony Stark isn't creating a "new" hero, it's erasing the old hero who can be utilized to displace and replace the values and ideology that character was created to establish and propagate: Riri Williams isn't a new hero, she's a political grafting of a new brainwashing program meant to undermine the power, value system and cultural identity of America, including American minorities who did assimilate the values Iron Man stood for, which includes not being racist. Riri is a pawn preparing the United States for a civil war to ultimately end in a white genocide: don't believe me? This university campus offers a space/group where whites can go to feel and express their guilt for being white; and this woman posted on her Facebook page that all white women should be hunted down and killed so they would stop having babies, and Facebook ruled that was NOT hate speech.
It will only get worse if it's not stopped.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Saturday, April 1, 2017


This is purely exquisite!
This is the final trailer released for the film, and while I am still writing about traler #2, they go and release trailer #3; this is why I like the teasers announcing when trailers will drop!
But enough of my sorrow and pain, please, enjoy the trailer!
Discussion for this trailer will be included in the post I am working on right now; King Arthur Legend Of the Sword comes out May 12. As promised, Warner Brothers has also released the first full trailer for Annabelle: Creation, and this looks good:
This film is possibly going to be a mixed bag, that is, there may be some elements of pro-capitalism (coming from the Annabelle scribe Gary Dauberman, and he did the script for It) but I haven't seen Lights Out yet; David F Sandberg, who did that film also directs Annabelle Creation. But, it looks on the terrifying side. So, getting up the post on King Arthur Legend Of the Sword!
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner