I can't comment on those two films because I have not seen them.
What a sheer co-incidence
that Obama & Bob Graham etc repeatedly pointing out threat of a nuclear attack by Pakistani trained terrorists comes in combo with sudden surge
in movies on "massive-destruction"
kind of topics........ Some of these depicting only "chosen-ppl-being-saved"
I think you have cause and effect mixed up. Disaster movies have always been popular. The end of the world
has always been popular, in literature, movies and even video games. Now that computer effects can convincingly portray massive scale destruction, the movie industry makes films on such a scale. It's for spectacle. It's fun to watch. It sells tickets.
Also, the state of geopolitics being the way they are, I'm not surprised at the quantity of apocalyptic movies - which is to say, the movie industry, taking advantage of public fear or paranoia
, capitalises upon it by producing films that can exploit that fear or paranoia, milking it for all the money it is worth.
Not seen it.
Not seen it. However, disaster movies are director Roland Emmerich’s stock in trade. Why isolate this and exclude Independence Day or The Day After Tomorrow?
Based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, which was published in 2006, and in any case is a variant of the traditional post-apocalyptic science fiction stories popularised in the sixties as a result of public fear of nuclear attack during the Cold War.
Today, that fear survives through the fear of terrorism and rogue states, and so such stories have popular resonance and consequently can potentially turn a decent profit. As long as nuclear weapons exist, so will stories cautioning against their use.
Haven't seen any of those films, but if the end of the world is the only thing connecting them, why not chuck Ghostbusters onto that list as well? Or Terminator 1 and 2 (and 3, and 4). Even The Matrix fits there, technically. And possibly Wall-E.
Apocalyptic fiction (stories about the end or destruction of the world) has existed as long as humans.
Freemasons/illuminati etc use "Kabala" the jewish magic, to invoke jinns
(the supernatural beings)***
..... "The Knowing" shows what Jews believe. They consider themselves as "chosen-ppl" & believe they'll be saved by their messiah & rest of the world will be destroyed & then repopulated as paradise.....
I can’t comment on ‘Knowing’ because I haven’t seen it.
However, the concept of ‘chosen people’ and ‘messiahs’ appears in countless myths and world religions. It’s a universally resonant theme, possibly because it appeals to human laziness – why bother to earn your happy ending when you’re fortunate enough to be born into a tribe guaranteed it? Why bother trying to improve the world when a handy-dandy messiah will appear to do the job? Or it could simply function as reassurance – another way of telling people everything will work out all right in the end.
Consequently, the concept of chosen people and messiahs appears in art, literature, theatre, film, comic books and video gaming. The concept of a chosen people is also dramatically resonant and interesting – the hero may not be a ‘chosen one’ (so the audience fears for his safety); the hero may not discover he is a ‘chosen one’ until a key point (so the audience is surprised and elated); the hero may learn that the concept of ‘chosen ones’ is false (so the audience is tense, waiting to see how the hero solves the problem, and to see who or what survives) etc.
they don't believe in heavenly paradise. They believe this very earth will become paradise for them, exactly what's shown in The Knowing..... In The Knowing/Legion/2012 only chosen ppl r saved........
Again, haven’t seen the films so can’t comment on them. However, the concept of a dystopia becoming a utopia is nothing new.
There's a tradition(don't know about it's authenticity)
where Umar(r.a) went to jews & they told him Gabriel was their enemy & that ArchAngel Michael was their friend........ That's when this verse was revealed Quran:2:98:"Whoever is an enemy of God or his angels or his apostles or Jibril or Mikal, verily God is an enemy of the unbelievers."
In movie "Legion" they show ArchAngel Michael becomes a Falen Angel & protects the "chosen-ppl" from other Angels(Daniel:10:13:Michael warrior & advocate for israel
)...... & the chosen person is a baby in a pregnant lady, messiah for chosen-ppl........
Firstly, I haven’t seen that movie. Secondly, it sounds kind of lame anyway. Thirdly, I’ve seen a variation of that plot in Terminator 1 and 2.
Now do these movies reflect mentality of a particular group or NOT...!!! or may be it's just conspiracy theorists' immagination
I think you give both Hollywood producers and Freemasons far too much credit.
Hollywood is run by businesspeople with bad taste or drug addictions. The main thing such people are concerned with is a decent rate of return. They are not interested in warning the public of upcoming attacks of which they allegedly have knowledge, nor are they interested in preparing the movie-going public for Life After Nukes. Even if they did somehow have knowledge of future events, it would have to be a good two or three years in advance – this being the average production cycle of a film from conception to release. And if they did have cold, hard knowledge of future events, why would they bother showing them to the public in ‘code’? That suggests they are ultimately concerned with things apart from their customers’ money, which frankly is not the case. If a particular political or scientific crisis has permeated the public consciousness and shows signs of staying there for a fair while, rest assured that Hollywood will be there to exploit it.
Freemasons ruling the world doesn’t make much sense if you take into account human selfishness. All human empires have been run by one person. Not a group of equals. A Pharaoh, a Caesar, a King, an Emperor, or a President. Human beings crave power. The more powerful they become, the more they crave – and what they crave most is absolute power, for themselves. Personally. Bearing this in mind, why should Freemasons, as a group of human beings, behave any differently? Why should they behave as a perfectly homogenised hive-mind that make all decisions unanimously for the good of mankind?
This ‘Freemasons rule the world’ thing assumes that they are a bunch of perfect human beings, immune from selfish desires of power, without some overlord who really makes the decisions. Regardless, the theory is also far too simple – anything, [/I]anything[/I] bad in the world is due to the decisions of some mysterious group whom few have ever met, but whose will allegedly shapes the lives of every human being on this planet. This allows believers of the theory to offload all difficulty onto a convenient scapegoat, whose mysterious ways allows anyone to project anything onto that scapegoat. You know how it works – hardly anyone has been to a Freemasons meeting, and even if they have, they wouldn’t talk about it, so anyone can safely say they were talking about anything at all. Making movies. Ruling the world. Who’s to say different?
All that strikes me as far too simple and convenient. The real truth is that throughout human history, often one power-hungry person’s desires has granted him dominion over a tribe, a people, a country. Obviously he couldn’t have got there without the people below him, but that’s the point of hierarchies – everybody knows who’s boss. Boss. Singular. And when things go wrong, and these power-hungry people panic, they tend to revert to caveman reactions of stupidly committing violence bound to escalate the crisis.