jaredmith

http://jaredmithrandirolorin.blogspot.com/2017/04/im-supporter-of-fan-films.html

Fans making their own non-profit works based on what they love.

I first learned of the idea via Batman. Stumbling upon Dead End and Death of Batman via IMDB back when Batman begins wasn't quite out yet. A good Website for these classic Batman Fan Films would be BatmanFanFilms.com it still exists but it's forum seems basically dead. I like films like Patient J and Law & Order Gotham.

That website doesn't include a lot of YouTube projects. Like best of all The Joker Blogs. Which seemed dead but just made a comeback.

But going outside Batman. last year I really loved Sailor Moon The Movie. It's a American set Adaptation of the first Season of the old Anime. It uses the old DiC dub names but avoids it's most problematic plot changes (Zoscite and Kunzite are both Male and a couple). And does a few creative new things.

Only nitpick is I would switch the names of the character called Jadite and Nephrite, and replace the name Jay with Max.

Last one I want to comment on hear is OtaKing's TIE Fighter. He's a YouTube obsessed with 80s OVA and their shading, and wanted to animate a Star Wars project in that style.

My opinion on the video is it looks great, awesome in fact. The decision to have no dialogue is fine, doesn't suite my preferences but is a valid artistic choice. And the Sound Effects are good, they sound like right out or a Star Wars film.

But what bugs me is the Music. He uses a random song instead of the Williams Score, or something evocative of it. Maybe he wanted it to be like 80s OVA Music, but then he shouldn't make his project a Star Wars one. Much of what I love about Star Wars is it's Music. And if animators in Japan in the 80s got the chance to do a legit Star Wars project, they would have wanted to use to the Music.

My current recommended order for watching the Star Wars films goes like this.

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of The Clones
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars Episode VI: Return of The Jedi
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

You may be surprised by that order. My long advocacy for viewing the Prequel Trilogy first is not because of some unconditional principle that everything should be watched in Chronological order. It's because I view the SW Prequels as being distinct from (most) other Prequels, they can work as their own independent Trilogy. And cause what I like about the OT mostly comes from watching them knowing the PT story.

The Chronicles of Narnia I think should be read in the order Lewis wrote them. I don't know what order I consider ideal for reading Paul Feval's Blackcoats series. But like Digibro I think the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya should be, on it's first viewing at least, watched in it's original broadcast order.

And in the case Fate/Zero, the main reason I think it can make a better entry point into that saga then any version of Fate/Stay Night, isn't even that it's Chronologically before, or even really the fact that explains the rules and lore up front better. It's the fact that it lacks the High School Harem Visual Novel aspects which might turn off many interested in that kind of story. They weren't a problem for me, but I'm a Otaku, I'm used to it. Many others who might be interested in a story about Hermetic Magick, the Holy Grail and a female King Arthur, are not.

I keep hearing people say that Rogue One was the first true stand alone Star Wars film. I find that amusing, because A New Hope was the only one that might have had no choice but to stand alone. While I personally feel The Phantom Menace still works best of all the SW movies as a stand alone.

While the Prequel Trilogy works great as Prequels if watched as such. It's Rogue One that works only as a Prequel, I really would not recommend anyone view it as their first SW film. So much about it, especially it's end, is predicated as us seeing things we recognize. And the ending would clearly be read by such a person as a sequel hook.

And I really would not recommend cramming it in-between Episodes III and IV. While it's Rogue One that timeline wise ended right where ANH begins. ROTS ended there thematically and narratively, and so I always want to go right to Luke and Leia's story after finishing it, Rogue One would be a diversion.

I feel like Rogue One relates to the Original Trilogy similar to a Satyr play.

However I can also say that I would NOT recommend in the future when we have the entire New Trilogy having Rogue One interrupt it's viewing order either.

This is taken from my Prophecy Blog
http://Daniel 11:36-45 is about Octavian Caesar Augustus

I'm a Futurist on Bible Prophecy because there is no ambiguity to me what so ever that Matthew 24, I Thessalonians 4, II Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 6-22:5 are still yet future. And others I think are too but those are what defines ones views on Eschatology. Anything that indisputably depicts the second Coming is in the future.

But too many Futurists are determined to not let any Prophecies besides the first Advent and a few other obvious ones be already fulfilled. And I feel this is a mistake. We should rejoice in showing the World those Bible prophecies that have been fulfilled to prove the reliability of God's Word and demonstrate that they should take seriously what remains to be fulfilled.

Now the part of Daniel I'm going to discus today I had in the past assumed like most futurists to be about The Antichrist, in many posts on this blog, plenty of which are archived on the Revived Roman Empire page. What I'm going to express here however only further backs up that Rome is indeed the Fourth Beast.

I even cited Hippolytus of Rome as ancient precedent for viewing this as still yet future. But on my other Blog I've explored a lot recently how even the pre-Constantine Church Fathers were already having doctrinal Problems and becoming proto-Catholics. Hippoystus's "On Christ and Antichrist" I think lies at the root of what I feel has gone wrong with the Antichrist Doctrine. Some Christians want to see the Antichrist in Scripture almost as much as Jesus. I've come to grow concerned that that is a dangerous unhealthy attitude, but one I've also been a victim of in the past.

Chris White shares a healthy skepticism of some passages assumed to be Antichrist or End Times relevant that maybe aren't. But on this passage he has to some extent come to see it rather then anything in the New Testament as the defining Antichrist passage. To him no Antichrist suspect should be taken seriously till they fight wars that match Daniel 11:40. I think that is a horrible misdirection.

Now I still don't consider it impossible that via double fulfillment and typology that the Antichrist will manage to match this passage also. In fact if he is indeed creating a revived Roman Empire then Augustus is someone he's going to want to view as a role model he wants to emulate. But the core of the Antichrist doctrine needs to be based on what Jesus, John and Paul told us about the End Times, and everything else supplemental. Especially since I suspect there will be likely be a decoy Antichrist before the Abomination of Desolation.

II Thessalonians 2 is the only Antichrist prophecy that will be indisputably obvious when it happens. I'm sure White would not deny it when it does if the person that does it never did anything like Daniel 11:40 first. But what he may be is completely unprepared for it, or suspecting the wrong person if someone does fight wars with Egypt and Syria.

I'm aware that others have argued for Augustus fulfilling this prophecy before. They are usually Preterists in general though. My approach will be different. And in all honestly the idea did enter my head before and looked and saw others had drawn the same conclusion.

Now to begin.

When I argued against those who say Rome isn't the Forth Kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7. I mentioned Daniel 11:4 hints at the Hellenistic Kingdoms falling to another Empire. Since the rest of the Chapter is an elaboration on the last part of Daniel 11:4. I have come to feel how that happens should be part of the Prophecy. I had also mentioned other hints of Rome's rise. And I see 11:33 as foretelling both the Maccabees revolt and the Hasmonean kingdom latter falling to Rome under Pompey in 63 BC, the same year Octavian was born interestingly. Rome further finished the Hasmoneans off in 37 BC when Antigonus was defeated by Anthony and beheaded.

I will cover 40-45 first because that's the specific events, and get into how the primarily spiritual details of 36-39 apply latter.

First I want to says terms like "Time of the end" also occur earlier during what few deny was fulfilled in the Hellenistic age. So selectively using as proof we're in the full End Times here is rather shady. What is notable is that Augustus lifetime overlaps into the New Testament era. In fact he was younger then the Prophetess Anna.

Daniel 11:40
And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
The Naval aspect of this battle is usually not emphasized when trying to interpret it in a modern context. Since Naval warfare hasn't really been as important as it used to be since WWII. These ships could still be Aircraft Carriers, but those are just glorified launching pads.

Chris White's argument for the "he" here being separate from the King of The North is very good in his commentary on this. People generally do not note that the King of The South has the leadership role here. Even how this is tied into the Mahdi theory with Sufyani needs to consider the North more important.

You can probably guess where I'm going here is that this is Actium, and the the two "kings" of north and south are Anthony and Cleopatra. You may be thinking "but wouldn't it be the Queen of the South then?" The Prophetic sense simply means the King as synonymous with Nation more of less in these kinds of verses. But I could also point out that Antony and Cleopatra were more or less officially ruling in the names of Cleopatra's children.

The main one was was Ptolemy Caesarion who she had by Julius Caesar, who was Pharaoh of Egypt. Then there was her and Anthony's youngest son Ptolemy Philadelhus who at the Donations of Alexandria was proclaimed King of Syria and other core Seleucid lands. Alexander Helios was mostly given Kingdoms they didn't actually control yet, Parthia, Media and Armenia. And Cleopatra Selene was given the usual Ptolemaic lands peeled off for younger brothers and sons to rule.

Now the movies about Anthony and Cleopatra and Octavian usually skip right from Actium to the fall of Alexandria. But in fact plenty happened in-between, You could learn about it by reading ancient historians like Josephus. Or you could just read Daniel 11:41
He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
Yes Augustus did enter the Biblical Promised land during this time. Herod switched sides over to him and he confirmed his kingship increasing his power. A number of local governments were overthrown at this time. However Biblical Edom, Moab and most of Ammon was part of the Nabatean Kingdom that Rome never conquered till the reign of Trajan. What little of Ammon wasn't part of Nabatea was part of the Decapolis, independent city states. The Nabatean kingdom was a thorn in Rome's side all through the Julio-Claudian period.

Them in Daniel 11:42-43 is the fall of Alexandria.
He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.
This is when the Fourth Beast fully replaced the Third. I talked in another post of mine about his visit to Alexander's Tomb.

Augustus gave Egypt a special status among Roman Provinces. It was treated as his personal Possession. Which is why it's Governors were appointed by him rather then the Senate even though it wasn't a Military Province. Egypt became his gold mine basically.

Libya (Phut in the Hebrew) in the Bible doesn't really correlate well to modern Libya or what would become the Roman province of Libya, it's more like the rest of North Africa west of Libya and Cyrene. What Rome controlled of the rest of North Africa was only ever the very northern Mediterranean coast-lands. And even then right after Egypt fell Mauritania remained a client kingdom.

Also there were wars fought between Rome and Nubia during Augustus reign, but Rome never conquered them. It annoys me that people want to make Cleopatra black when there was a black Abrican Queen contemporary with her who unlike her could keep her nation independent from Rome.

Daniel 11:44
But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
The east here no doubt means east of the Euphrates, Parthia and it's client Kingdoms. The north here must be further north then the Seleucid lands already conquered, probably other nations that were proxies between Rome and Parthia like Armenia. Alluding to the sort of cold war between Rome and Parthia. But it could also have in mind Rome's ongoing wars with the northern Celts and Germans.

The earlier part of Daniel 11 sometimes moves to a successor without it being obvious it was doing so. So it could be carrying over into Tiberius here, or even latter Julio-Claudians. But both this and the next verse I feel can remain in the time of Augustus.

Daniel 11:45
And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
I've talked about this verse elsewhere. The word for "tabernacles" here means tents. Preterists who want to make everything about 70 AD say this refers to the Tents Roman soldiers camped in in Jerusalem then. Similar Roman encampments could have happened earlier during anytime Romans soldiers had to take Jerusalem from rebels. Including the rebellions that broke out after Herod died, or when Arhcleaus was removed in 6 AD.

The word translated "palace" was not even a Hebrew word but a Persian one. So it's not an allusion to The Temple or anyone deifying themselves in The Temple. It's probably the Antonia Fortress finished by Herod in 19 BC which was where the Dome of The Rock is now.

Augustus died in 14 AD, many scholars now are skeptical of the rumor that Livia poisoned him. Either way it fits this fine in my opinion.

Herod had a Kingdom that was prey sizable, all of modern Israel and chunks of Jordan and Syria. After he died Augustus divided it into four Teterarchies. Archelaus got Judea, Idumea and Samaria, Antipas got Galilee and Perea, Philip got what's in Syria and northwestern Jordan. And Herod's sister got the Gaza strip. So that is probably what "shall divide the land for gain" means.

Now to get into the spiritual aspects of 36-39.

Augustus did not deify himself in the obvious insane way latter Emperors like Caligula would. It was considered perfectly acceptable for him to be worshiped as a god by the conquered people. He didn't force it on the Jews, but the other people around Israel worshiped him as a god, in Egypt he basically took over the traditional Pharonic worship.

In Rome, he was not openly worshiped as a god while he lived. But there was a lot of quasi deification going on. Augustus effectively meant Divine, and he was given the name the same year his adopted father Julius Caesar was official deified, so he officially became the son of a god. More of his deification of himself will become relevant latter.

I still interpret what "the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women" means the same as I have before. But I believe Rome had an Edomite heritage. So he did descend from the Patriarchs of Genesis.

Now "the God of forces" sounds like a war god. Rome identified their local deities with Greek ones, but Ares was never a favored deity among the Greek. To Rome he was their Patron, the father of Romulus and Remus. They defined themselves by their military nature. This is part of what America has inherited from Rome, and Christians sadly take part in it.

The word for "Strange" mean foreign. Apollo was the only Olympian the Romans didn't have their own deity to identify with. So even in Latin he is just worshiped as Apollo. But Apollo was not a very poplar deity in Rome before Augustus. In fact Apollo was almost unheard of to Romans before Augustus. A number of articles have been written on how greatly Augustus popularized Apollo.

A rumor circulated that Augustus was actually fathered by Apollo. Augustus's birthday because Apollo's national holiday. Virgil's fourth Ecolouge contained a pseudo Prophecy from the Cumea Sybil of Augustus as an incarnation of Apollo.

It may be that the extent to which this is topological of The Antichrist is more about 36-39, his deification, then 40-45. Just as we see The Antichrist in the first part of Ezekiel 28 because that Nagyim of Tyre sees himself as a god, but no one thinks The Antichrist will be a ruler of Lebanon specifically.

Due to the DSS manuscripts of Daniel skeptics are limited in how late they can get away with late dating Daniel. Generally they can't allow it past the death of Epiphanes. The fact that it describes Augustus as accurately as it did Epiphanes is a major problem for them.

You may think "there were no chapter divisions originally, Daniel 12 says "at that time" referring to what just happened", 10-12 is all one revelation. I think Daniel 12 has a definite second application to Revelation 12 and the eschatological 70th Week. But I have also argued that the 70th Week can be seen as fulfilled already. Because I definitely see a double fulfillment there.

Could Michael standing up apply to the first Advent of Jesus? Maybe, what is Michael standing up linked to? The word for "delivered" means saved, it could be simply referring to the Age of Grace.

12:2 says "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake", in the past I've argued the Resurrection that is part of the Rapture is meant here. And that I still think is it's second fulfillment. But there is only one other Bible verse on the subject of Resurrection that says "many" were raised as opposed to all. Matthew 27:52-53
The graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Some see the reference to Michael in Jude as being linked to when Moses was Resurrected at this time.

Matthew only seems to refer to saved people being risen though, but the Rapture is the same way, the general resurrection of the unsaved isn't till after the Millennium.

Scholars complain about the accounts of Judas death allegedly contradicting each other, but I notice that neither actually refers to him as dead. Acts 1 describes something he couldn't possibly have survived however. Maybe he was resurrected for the second resurrection early and then "taken to his own place" the Abyss. And maybe it's the same with whoever of the first five kings turns out to be the Eight King. And now they're sealed away till Revelation 9.

Hebrew Daniel's applications to the End Times are mostly typological. But Daniel 7 definitely had the End Times in view. The Little Horn is the Eight King.

http://Comparing The Sign of The Cross to Quo Vadis

Besides just being set in the same historical context, both involved a high ranking Roman Soldier falling in love with a Christian slave girl, and Poppaea is interested in him to further complicate things. And both are films I like.

Mercia and Lygia

Comparing the females leads, I find Lygia was stale and two dimensional, she's a common example of how Christian good girls in these kinds of films often lack any real depth, she also comes off ridiculously naive at times, and the actress I didn't find to compelling either.

Mercia however while having some of those tendencies still comes off as a much more real character, I really felt for her watching the film, the Lesbian dance scene is not just there to make the film "Sexier" it's an important scene, as I haven't seen the censored version I can't even imagine how the movie could have gotten around it. You can see in the scene that Mercia is being tempted, she is struggling, melting a little to use their words, then she draws strength from the other Christians singing and it's a very powerful scene, and my favorite of the film.

If only it didn't reinforce negative perceptions of Homsoexuality it'd be perfect. It is worth noting however that the most extreme Ant-Gay Christians tend to believe it not even possible for a truly saved person to even be tempted by homosexuality. That having that inclination at all is a sign of being no longer even eligible for Salvation.

I suppose there is room in my head canon to see Mercia is someone who in-spite of her revulsion to this obscene pagan display, would not disapprove of loving intimacy between two loving believers of the same sex.

I just noticed both male leads are named Marcus? Names sometimes escape me.

Now it's reversed, Fredric March's performance seems not very well fleshed out, going from admirable to a total dick from scene to scene without much warning, and at the end I didn't buy his conversion at all, it just seemed to come out of nowhere.

In Quo Vadis Robert Taylor's character is far from the most brilliantly written male lead, but at least I buy his character development, we see his view of the Christians slowly growing so his finale conversion scene seems very believable, and it makes a nice ending.

Nero Caesar

Charles Laughten was a great actor, but h didn't get to do much here, what he does is very good but I'd still have liked more.

Peter Ustinov gives a very compelling performance despite my historical objections to how Nero's depicted (He was a Tyrant but a component one, mentally unstable but not completely irrational) I still loved the performance a great deal, and it makes the film very entertaining.

Poppaea

I don't agree with this historical view of her, most of the bad things said about come from historians of the senatorial class much latter. Josephus actually knew her and paints a very different picture, and there is no basis in any early Christian traditions for suggesting she was like a Herodias or Jezebel putting the idea for the persecution in Nero's head.

But putting that aside I do enjoy a good Femme Fatale, but frankly Patricia did not make a good one in my opinion. I didn't find her very attractive and nothing in her performance is very compelling.

But Claudette Colbert was awesome, she was Sexy and conniving and vindictive but not without depth either, she does rather steal the show.

The cast lacks in direct parallels after that, surprisingly The Sign of The Cross has neither Peter nor Paul, but Titus and another old dude who's name escapes me. I don't know if that Titus was meant to be the one to whom Paul's Epistle is addressed. At any rate they play their role adequately.

In Quo Vadis, Paul's' role is smaller, already gone from Rome when the Fire happens. Truth is, based on the traditional sources it should be the opposite, The apocryphal Acts of Peter has Paul on his way to Rome when Peter is killed. They again play their role adequately, but not to compellingly, Peter's Crucifixion should have included some preaching from the cross, as is it feels kind of tacked on. And why are Peter and Paul so far apart in Age? I actually always assumed they'd be the same age.

No one else in SOTC really stands out after that. Quo Vadis has an again very undeveloped Acte (I find Acte's story fascinating, and don't really buy how it's handled here). And the Spanish slave girl is easily the most beautiful woman in the film, and gives a very passionate captivating performance but again doesn't feel to real to me, rather a little overdone.

The best character in Quo Vadis is probably Petronius, he's the character who's wise and noble despite not being a Christian at any point, "A heathen conceivably, but not an unenlightened one", providing the opposing voice when the discussion of scapegoating the Christians comes up. Leo Genn's performance is very good. Thing is, I would have given that role to Seneca, Seneca is in this film just is just another Roman senator, what makes him intriguing is lost, he was a Stoic philosopher, so Monotheism wouldn't have been unheard of to him. I could see him tolerating Christianity in a similar vain to Gamaliel in Acts.

Taking the comparison beyond just stacking up the characters. Like with Mercia SOTC in general shows more humanity and depth from the Christians. The Torture scene is very well done, and the kid being so frighted at martyrdom makes the film feel more real.

But Quo Vadis is longer, which especially for this genre I prefer. And with a bigger budget it's grander and has a more Epic/Theatrical/Operatic feel. The scenes of Nero and his entourage back at the palace during the fire, with Nero fiddling and then the Mob storming. And then the scene I mentioned earlier the debating whether to Scapegoat the Christians is very well done, my favorite part of the movie, I love how Petronius's whole argument is very well delivered.

So in general I'd have to say Quo Vadis comes off the more re-watchable film. Though a professional film critic would probably call SOTC the more well made film. I wish DeMille had gotten to remake more of his old Black and White films like he did The Ten Commandments.

However one thing I notice quite interestingly looking at my review is that The Sign of The Cross handles it's female characters better while Quo Vadis handled the male characters better. Not what you'd expect at all, an older film having the better written female leads then the younger one. And connecting to another observation of mine, I think DeMille was probably a more conservative person then the creative team behind Quo Vadis.