Sound of Freedom || Discussion of The Movie And Its Producers Should be HERE and HERE ONLY || The Report Button Is Your Friend || Keep It Civil

[ChipDerby]

12 minutes ago, Belakor said:

 

Child sexualization in movies good! Exposing child trafficking bad!

Seems like the 2nd headline is correct then

[von Kenni]

9 minutes ago, Torontofan said:

Its not saying all rich people are pedos 

 

It is like this

 

Be warned what i am about to say is not pleasant, but it is true.

 

An unknown but seems a small minority have some sort of attraction to younger people sexually. From what i read, people generally self realize such things are morally unacceptable by society and is illegal and dont act on it. However, people who are like this, usually abuse someone they know personally. 

 

However if someone is rich and powerful, if they are a pedo they can shield themselves from society and legal issues and can indulge in their most perverted desires. 

 

Yeah, richer and more powerful (pretty ambitious term) people have more capabilities in their use for sure to shield them. I guess, going after them has more incentives partly because they might be rich and famous, but then again Weinstein (not pedo to my knowledge) and likes have shown to be able to keep it all going longer in a shielded manner. I think the less rich and powerful will act almost as much on it but have less capabilities...now I'm already nitpicking and this goes waaay off-topic.

 

Maybe those who have seen the movie could give a longer take on it than just fine or very good. How does it work as a movie?

[Legion Again]

Barely on page 4? Disappointing.  
 

Seems like (some of) the people behind the movie are nutjobs with insulting and dangerous beliefs… but the movie itself is basically pretty good and not peddling that stuff? It’s having an impressive run in part by catering to an audience that feels excluding by modern HW which is a path that I’m sure we’ll see repeated and I’m pretty interesting to see the legs play out.

[MightGuy]

56 minutes ago, baumer said:

who hate Jim caviezel because, insert reason here

I've told you exactly what Caviezel has said, in his own words, in regards to the promotion of this film.

 

And you have no answer for that.

22 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

It's weird to me to see "how the film is being promoted" b/c outside of the Pay It Forward website, Angel Studios is doing almost no direct promotion b/c they don't have the money to pay for it.  

 

So, it's more a "how the internet is promoting the movie" vs "how the studio is running a campaign" b/c they never crowdfunded the money for a campaign.  And folks are putting all sorts of "stuff" on this movie from all sides based on really nothing actually in the movie.  Now, that's happened before, and even recently (ask Disney), but it tends to be for the "bigger" movies, although I guess after $40M already in the bank, we might have to consider this as a bigger movie.

 

As I sit here, I see a small "indy" movie bought by a big studio, buried by a 2nd, and resurrected by a 3rd.  And now chaos b/c it's made more than anyone in that chain (and pretty much everywhere) probably ever thought it could.  

Again, Caviezel is the star. *he* directly, specifically, is tying the film to these causes. There's nothing to make up.

 

These. are. his. words.

This is Jim Ballard, the man the film is about, in an interview with Caviezel.

 

This is a interview *for the film*. The poster is right there in the background. Watch the video, listen to what he's saying, and then tell me it's all fine.

 

Now look, if you want to just focus on the film and not the talk of the star and the man the film is about, in tandem with the film's promotion, then fine. But say it with your chest. "I only care about the film and not anything directly tied to it." I'm not making anything up or bringing anything extra to the table. I'm just telling you their own words. Whether you care is up to you.

Edited July 10, 2023 by MightGuy

[Mr Terrific]

I’m sorry, folks. 
The guy the movie is based on has extremist beliefs and lumps people who disagree with him with pedophiles. He states things I have literally never heard a liberal say as clear liberal doctrine. 
The actor playing the real life guy publicly has said similar or worse things. 
The actor nods or doesn’t argue during the real guy’s rant while they are promoting the movie. 
Nah, how could anyone see a connection?

[The GOAT]

Saw a lot of Boomers and Gen Xers outside my local theaters and I'm going to assume it's for this movie.

I was wondering if everyone, who's watched it, got a free ticket to see this movie?

[von Kenni]

38 minutes ago, Belakor said:

 

Child sexualization in movies good! Exposing child trafficking bad!

 

I'm surprised how tamed that Sound of Freedom headline is if there were headlines like this about Chris Pratt's Terminal List which was watched 1.6 B minutes during its first week compared to e.g. Rings of Power 1.3 B minutes.

Chris Pratt’s ‘The Terminal List’ Is an Unhinged Right-Wing Revenge Fantasy

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/chris-pratts-the-terminal-list-is-a-deranged-right-wing-revenge-fantasy#:~:text=Reviews-,Chris Pratt's 'The Terminal List' Is an,Unhinged Right-Wing Revenge Fantasy&text=The new Amazon series features,expose an elaborate government conspiracy.

 

After I watched the Terminal List, enjoyed it very much, and saw this headline, I was like huh? how? what?

[ChipDerby]

My other issue with the film is it's not being made in good faith. These people don't actually care about sex trafficking. They want to pin it on the LGBTQ+ community and the "elites". Because they can't see anything beyond their bubble.

[rebelscum86]

2 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

Does this movie focus on how multiple republican politicians have been credibly accused of trafficking children?

 

It's unbecoming to be so partisan. The list this meme is based on had hundreds of Democrat names too. It's an issue in churches and public schools. The issue is abusers seeking positions that give them power and or access to kids.

 

3 hours ago, Mr Terrific said:

If I’m being cold-blooded about it, “awareness” by itself or being worried helps no one. 
I don’t mean to be hostile but finding something scary that is real after seeing it in a movie doesn’t mean much. 

Due respect, people whose child is harmed by someone close to them probably thought they had control. 
Go do a good thing for an actual kid. 

The systemic problem is that some people will trust this guy about the nutty stuff because he is concerned about something that 99.99% of people find reprehensible. It’s snake oil. He promotes the idea that people of my ilk - - liberals, people in government, the media - are hiding something. 
That makes no sense. That’s Pizzagate shit. 
That means Hollywood guy is the expert talking about adrenochrome and some people trust actual experts less. 
To be clear, you would get better results on stopping child trafficking if you gave cops, teachers, social workers, juvenile officers and school counselors more money. You’d get better staff with more experience. That’s a real solution for the safety of children. Not “awareness.”
I don’t think that interests Jim Caveziel. I think he wants to make speeches. 

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, Mulder said:

I'm a pretty optimistic person but personally this movie making so much money has easily been the thing to make me feel the most pessimistic about the state of things in a while. Don't want to get too deep into personal stuff but just genuinely makes me feel unsafe and insecure in the future of things in regards to my identity.

 

39 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Because it's starring and being promoted by a far right/Qanon propaganda section of the US.

 

I've seen actually nobody in Hollywood/media demonizing the movie.

 

50 minutes ago, Belakor said:

 

Child sexualization in movies good! Exposing child trafficking bad!

 

This is the terrible juxtaposition the left has gotten ourselves in and all the other comments reflect that to me. You dislike people so much you invent reasons to disagree with them when you should be happy there is some moral agreement, which then makes them suspicious. It's pettiness and insecurity, not malicious like the conservatives interpret, but progressives definitely fumble on this issue and make the whole side look bad.

And if you dig deep into progressive literature, we have a real issue when it comes to kids, sex, and age of consent that has never been properly rebuked. Kinderladens, 68ers, Marxist and Queer theorists have a lot of unfortunate quotes and ideas that shouldn't exist unopposed by the rest of the left.
 

this is Derek Jensen, he is probably one of the furtherest left educators in the US, but he was abused as a child and this is him unsucessfully trying to call out some of the problematic ideas from the left.

When ever you get your feathers up and refuse to agree with others bad thing is bad, these are the issues they see you identifying with.

I saw some one in the thread asked why the left is reacting like this? It's not malicious, it's insecurity. Any security issue the left worries the right is going to look better on. there is fear that heightened call for security is going to lead to less personal freedom, and much of the trafficking issue is helped by open borders. And my final thoughts are, you look bad on this issue when you fight it. You come out ahead by saying hell yeah that's awful lets do more about it.

[von Kenni]

4 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

My other issue with the film is it's not being made in good faith. These people don't actually care about sex trafficking. They want to pin it on the LGBTQ+ community and the "elites". Because they can't see anything beyond their bubble.

 

Looks to me that based on what has been discussed and shown here, Jim Caviezel at least looks like a believer in a cause that goes much beyond what the movie is about. And is there much that pins trafficking blame on him or other makers of the movie per se to LGBTQ+ community? A general disdain for elites is there for sure but still, looks like they are genuinely caring about the children and child trafficking, even though outside the movie they go waaaay beyond with it.

[Mr Terrific]

10 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

My other issue with the film is it's not being made in good faith. These people don't actually care about sex trafficking. They want to pin it on the LGBTQ+ community and the "elites". Because they can't see anything beyond their bubble.

Caveziel is a complete coward in the clip above with Ballard. 
He seems to nod. Or does he? He won’t explicitly agree with or repudiate a very intense and hostile point of view. 
I guess it’s hard to be a man of conviction and sell a movie simultaneously. 
It’s also hard to be a man of convictio  if you’re ok with someone beating false witness. 

[Ozymandias]

There's no way you're gonna convince me there aren't some sex-pest elites out there after Jeffrey Epstein definitely did not kill himself in like the most suspicious way possible.  You already know that fool had the goods on too many powerful people.

[The GOAT]

3 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

There's no way you're gonna convince me there aren't some sex-pest elites out there after Jeffrey Epstein definitely did not kill himself in like the most suspicious way possible.  You already know that fool had the goods on too many powerful people.

Rumor has it. Epstein was a deep state asset/operative used to blackmail/"influence" people. 

[Mr Terrific]

9 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

It's unbecoming to be so partisan. The list this meme is based on had hundreds of Democrat names too. It's an issue in churches and public schools. The issue is abusers seeking positions that give them power and or access to kids.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the terrible juxtaposition the left has gotten ourselves in and all the other comments reflect that to me. You dislike people so much you invent reasons to disagree with them when you should be happy there is some moral agreement, which then makes them suspicious. It's pettiness and insecurity, not malicious like the conservatives interpret, but progressives definitely fumble on this issue and make the whole side look bad.

And if you dig deep into progressive literature, we have a real issue when it comes to kids, sex, and age of consent that has never been properly rebuked. Kinderladens, 68ers, Marxist and Queer theorists have a lot of unfortunate quotes and ideas that shouldn't exist unopposed by the rest of the left.
 

this is Derek Jensen, he is probably one of the furtherest left educators in the US, but he was abused as a child and this is him unsucessfully trying to call out some of the problematic ideas from the left.

When ever you get your feathers up and refuse to agree with others bad thing is bad, these are the issues they see you identifying with.

I saw some one in the thread asked why the left is reacting like this? It's not malicious, it's insecurity. Any security issue the left worries the right is going to look better on. there is fear that heightened call for security is going to lead to less personal freedom, and much of the trafficking issue is helped by open borders. And my final thoughts are, you look bad on this issue when you fight it. You come out ahead by saying hell yeah that's awful lets do more about it.

I’m gonna nope you on that. 
I am not letting the Right claim some kind of moral high ground on caring for kids. 
I literally do more about it. And I have no problem saying I fail often and the system fails often. 
I encourage people to do more than watch a movie or defend a movie. I’ve said that in this thread. Watching the movie makes zero difference. 
If it makes you do a good thing, great. 
 

[von Kenni]

7 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

It's unbecoming to be so partisan. The list this meme is based on had hundreds of Democrat names too. It's an issue in churches and public schools. The issue is abusers seeking positions that give them power and or access to kids.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the terrible juxtaposition the left has gotten ourselves in and all the other comments reflect that to me. You dislike people so much you invent reasons to disagree with them when you should be happy there is some moral agreement, which then makes them suspicious. It's pettiness and insecurity, not malicious like the conservatives interpret, but progressives definitely fumble on this issue and make the whole side look bad.

And if you dig deep into progressive literature, we have a real issue when it comes to kids, sex, and age of consent that has never been properly rebuked. Kinderladens, 68ers, Marxist and Queer theorists have a lot of unfortunate quotes and ideas that shouldn't exist unopposed by the rest of the left.
 

this is Derek Jensen, he is probably one of the furtherest left educators in the US, but he was abused as a child and this is him unsucessfully trying to call out some of the problematic ideas from the left.

When ever you get your feathers up and refuse to agree with others bad thing is bad, these are the issues they see you identifying with.

I saw some one in the thread asked why the left is reacting like this? It's not malicious, it's insecurity. Any security issue the left worries the right is going to look better on. there is fear that heightened call for security is going to lead to less personal freedom, and much of the trafficking issue is helped by open borders. And my final thoughts are, you look bad on this issue when you fight it. You come out ahead by saying hell yeah that's awful lets do more about it.

 

"You dislike people so much you invent reasons to disagree with them when you should be happy there is some moral agreement, which then makes them suspicious."

 

We really would be better off seeking that common ground, common humanity, whenever we can. If we already dislike people so much, that when they like color blue, we don't like color blue, then we're just repelling each other further and further apart. If this movie is a story about fighting child trafficking without promoting these modern-day QAnon theories as people who have seen it say here, and that it's at least fine or even very good, it should be some common ground at least.

[Mr Terrific]

11 minutes ago, Mr Terrific said:

Messed up post

Edited July 10, 2023 by Mr Terrific
Double post

[BoxOfficeFangrl]

2 hours ago, TwoMisfits said:

So, there's a movie...and it made $40M box office its 1st week...

 

And for those wondering how I saw some of it coming - after Deadline reported on the $7M presales, I looked up the movie and found the movie's Direct Purchase/Pay It Forward site, and that gave me a sense of how much it could be looking at...and then the tickets continued to blow up b/c the movie met what the original audience wanted...which I wasn't 100% expecting...

 

For those wondering how it will continue this week, it's now at 3.133M tickets sold/bought forward (that number is both) on its site.  I don't know if that includes all possible tickets sold, or just those trackable on the internet (I suspect the latter, but I'm not sure b/c this whole strategy and company is new to me).  But with quick math, with tickets being "bought forward" at $15/pop, I suspect the box office for this movie will continue to grow for at least the 1st few weekdays this week (since $15 X number of tickets bought is $46.995M)...no idea how accurate this will be going forward and how much tickets will grow per day, but it's something that could be trackable in the future.

I find the $15/ticket for their Pay It Forward program very *interesting* because in many of the markets where this movie is thriving, movie tickets don't cost nearly that much. At my nearest AMC, the evening ticket price for a 2D ticket is a few cents over $12 with tax, and senior ticket is around $10.50. Matinees are cheaper. Then there’s a Phoenix Theater where all tickets are under $7 all day, and the Cinemark where Cheap Tuesday tickets are less than $6 with tax. Group tickets at these places would be even less expensive.

 

People can also buy tickets for themselves through the Angel Studios website, but it just takes you to Atom Tickets and displays local prices. So it's not like the studio is really hiding that Pay It Forward may involve a markup and they say it helps pay creators, but I wonder what the exact breakdown is. How much is cast/crew bonuses vs administrative costs for Angel Studios?

 

[rebelscum86]

And the whole, but Caveizel! argument is so disegenous when talking about "understanding" the coverage, or the coverage being apropriate. Hollywood is full of awful addictive, abusive people who treat other human beings horribly, actual actions taken, and these people release movie after movie without every headline pairing a rape or abuse with the movie title.

The Flash wasn't called the child trafficker or woman choker movie in every headline. Polanski and Allen got to release movies without associating their titles with their abuse.

Everyone in the industry knows Bryan Singer abuses underage teens. Drew Bailey finished Superman Returns b/c Singer was ran out of Australia over an "incident".

But Caviezel a dad who managed to stay married to the same woman for 27 years is supposedly awful and dangerous b/c he thinks wrong and his movie should be labelled the qanon movie. Anyone who views life that way needs to get over self.

[OncomingStorm93]

I think multiple things can be true at once:

 

1: The film itself, in a vacuum, appears to be a quality product that's not inherently conspiratorial

2: The film is produced by and frontlined by highly conspiratorial people

3: Child sex trafficking is a real problem, pedophilia in certain elite circles is a real problem

4: The film is acting as and being promoted within conservative media as a dog whistle for Qanon

5: The film's release rollout and box office success are worth studying

 

All in all, a perfectly engineered culture war trojan horse, which I'm sure was the intent of the producer and promoters. On the surface to a casual viewer, mostly innocuous stuff, but designed to get the uninitiated into the rabbit hole, while turning a profit from those already in the cult. All while churning the culture waters like we're seeing here right now.

[Mr Terrific]

Caveziel refers to people who disagree with him as working with Lucifer!
I’m supposed to concede that someone who thinks me, my wife, most of my family and hundreds of friends are in league with the devil as a reasonable guy?

That’s laughable. 
This isn’t do I side with Depp or Heard. This is a highly political guy talking about the devil. 
He’s a dad! Me, too. I’ve only been married for 18 though.

I’m pushing my point aggressively because that is literally what the guy has asked for. Just read his wiki page and argue that he just wants to talk.