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

[Deep Wang]

7 minutes ago, Incarnadine said:

Just from a boxoffice perspective this is one of the most interesting films in quite some time.

 

From the way it was made, marketed and released I was thinking it would have a big opening weekend then probably struggle to get a 2x multiplier as it burned through its niche audience . But not only is it not front loaded it appears to have caught on to more mainstream audiences. Hell, it's already past 3x its opening weekend and still going strong.

 

No matter if you like the movie or not this is the kind of run that makes following boxoffice interesting.

 

Not trying to diminish what it's done, but it's been pointed out that it actually hasn't really made 3x it's opening because about 1/3 of it's total (so far) came before it's first weekend.   

[von Kenni]

2

(3)

Sound of Freedom

$27,000,000

+37%

3,265

+313

$85,498,581

2

[Fanboy]

Kinda didn't want to acknowledge this movie but it just had a better 2nd weekend jump than Titanic. Will be interesting to see how it does next weekend cause theatres are gonna be giving a lot of their showtimes to Barbie and Oppenheimer, but at the same time a lot of the people championing this movie are anti-Hollywood and might make a point of seeing it instead. It's gotta run out of steam eventually though, right? 

[Noctis]

What's the controversy regarding this film? I don't get it? Both parties are against child sex trafficking obviously?

[El Gato]

2 minutes ago, Noctis said:

What's the controversy regarding this film? I don't get it? Both parties are against child sex trafficking obviously?

The actor’s beliefs, you can look it up if you’re curious enough. The studio being a Christian based studio, Conservatives in the USA latching onto it and using it as a victory in their culture war narrative (like they did with Target and Bud-Light), and the pay it forward thing (movie playing in empty theaters despite selling out). 
 

This movie has just become another right vs left debate… some on the box office Reddit said this being a hit while Bros was a bomb, shows that conservatives show up more than liberals.

Im annoyed by how partisan the USA is becoming. Brands, films, games, stores…etc are now being labeled as liberal or conservative and it’s exhausting 

[ChipDerby]

30 minutes ago, Noctis said:

What's the controversy regarding this film? I don't get it? Both parties are against child sex trafficking obviously?

 

The movie was not made to shine a light on trafficking. It was made by a group of people who believe insane conspiracies regarding who is doing the trafficking. This is just propaganda from them to get a foothold into people's brains to look into THEIR mindset and agree with them. 

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8RFpVdD/

 

[Ezen Baklattan]

Imagine if SPOTLIGHT (2015) saw these numbers.

[Noctis]

I'm not American, but the vicious divide between conservatives and liberals is unbelievably toxic. 

 

Social media really has been destructive to society.

[Water Bottle]

1 hour ago, Ezen Baklattan said:

Imagine if SPOTLIGHT (2015) saw these numbers.

 

Now that was a very good movie.

[Deep Wang]

2 hours ago, Ezen Baklattan said:

Imagine if SPOTLIGHT (2015) saw these numbers.

 

12 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Now that was a very good movie.

 

That is indeed a great movie dealing with a similar subject.  It unfortunately predates Q, so they don't care about it 👀

[von Kenni]

2 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

 

The movie was not made to shine a light on trafficking. It was made by a group of people who believe insane conspiracies regarding who is doing the trafficking. This is just propaganda from them to get a foothold into people's brains to look into THEIR mindset and agree with them. 

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8RFpVdD/

 

 

The phenomenon around the movie is interesting and what kind of discussion and reception it gets in different realms but the more I've read and listen to the interview of the people behind the film it looks more and more that

 

1) they are true to their cause of fighting child trafficking,

 

2) they are people of faith and one could say strong convictions,

 

3) the film isn't made to promote as extreme views as the opposing discussion  implies.

 

The film itself doesn't include them and I just watched an interview where Tim Ballard told that he has and is denouncing most of the conspiracies that are associated to QAnon such as celebrities being part of some pedophilia rings and other similar claims. He seems to speak pretty level headed about the issues. That said there are claims that need to be substantiated but he doesn't either intice in those interviews any hatred or fight against some pizzagate/celebrity/democratic etc people.

[von Kenni]

2 hours ago, El Gato said:

The actor’s beliefs, you can look it up if you’re curious enough. The studio being a Christian based studio, Conservatives in the USA latching onto it and using it as a victory in their culture war narrative (like they did with Target and Bud-Light), and the pay it forward thing (movie playing in empty theaters despite selling out). 
 

This movie has just become another right vs left debate… some on the box office Reddit said this being a hit while Bros was a bomb, shows that conservatives show up more than liberals.

Im annoyed by how partisan the USA is becoming. Brands, films, games, stores…etc are now being labeled as liberal or conservative and it’s exhausting 

 

I think the boycotting and kill the messenger type of attitude to this film on more left leaning circles and in some of the mainstream media will just fuel the extreme parts associated with this and is once again a counterproductive way to respond a movie that has a theme that all should support and rather discuss about these real issues which could actually build bridges. Now the mentality is more like burn them and dig into your trenches more which is sad.

 

I don't know the details on their marketing but they offered the film for years to many of the Hollywood studios which turned it down a decade ago. They don't really have any marketing budget either so they needed to find platforms to promote where they could. E.g. Tony Robbins has been a big advocate and a friend to Tim Ballard. He also got Jordan Peterson to interview Ballard and Caviezel. And so on. I'm sure they tried to get interviews in mainstream media and more left leaning media as well but they most likely chose not to have them and here we are.

 

The people behind the film seem to firmly believe in the importance of the cause of fighting child trafficking so they had to play with the cards that they had.

 

If anyone has more intel about this, it would be welcomed.

[PlatnumRoyce]

people are focusing an insane amount on "pay it forward" stuff instead of legacy media.

 

For example, this weekend Fox news aired 20 minutes of coverage about this film (as is normal with film coverage/interviews for a portion of the time a scene/trailer will play in the background). 

 

If they had to pay for the equivalent time in advertising, 5 grand per thirty seconds * 40 = $200k in "earned media" coverage instead of $0.00 you'd normally expect for a small film going into its third week. The real value is obviously significantly more than that as it's a on air endorsement package. Remember that this film had a 2 or 2.5M total marketing spend pre-release. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[Ladybug]

2 hours ago, von Kenni said:

 

The phenomenon around the movie is interesting and what kind of discussion and reception it gets in different realms but the more I've read and listen to the interview of the people behind the film it looks more and more that

 

1) they are true to their cause of fighting child trafficking,

 

2) they are people of faith and one could say strong convictions,

 

3) the film isn't made to promote as extreme views as the opposing discussion  implies.

 

The film itself doesn't include them and I just watched an interview where Tim Ballard told that he has and is denouncing most of the conspiracies that are associated to QAnon such as celebrities being part of some pedophilia rings and other similar claims. He seems to speak pretty level headed about the issues. That said there are claims that need to be substantiated but he doesn't either intice in those interviews any hatred or fight against some pizzagate/celebrity/democratic etc people.

 

He is absolutely entrenched in QAnon. As early as a few weeks ago, while promoting this movie on Steve Bannon's (a well-known and documented conspiracy theorist) podcast, Caviezal verbalized his support of a fringe QAnon theory that elites are harvesting children's blood for eternal youth. He's got a documented past strongly supporting QAnon. If he's backpedaling from his past comments and actions now, it's because he's trying to distance himself from his extremist image and the overall controversy surrounding this movie. 

 

QAnon believers like to utilize the cause of "protecting children from sex trafficking" as a vehicle to recruit new followers into their group -- it's a palatable cause that the vast majority of persons, regardless of personal belief system, generally support. Like a virus, QAnon exploits popular media sites like FB and Twitter by creating and encouraging seemingly harmless content that is actually purposefully designed to gradually warm the average John and Jane Doe to extremist and nonsensical beliefs by appealing to a generalized sense of pathos. The cause of "protecting children" just happens to be a very easy means of doing that. What may start as liking a FB post from a QAnon-aligned parenting page about child safety gradually leads to exposure to posts from users who try to convince others that Hillary Clinton is chomping on babies. Before long, the average QAnon user won't be able to differentiate truth from fiction, and they truly will believe that movies like these do good things for children. 

 

But the truth is, QAnon does more harm than good when it comes to combating child trafficking. For example, when QAnon accused Wayfair of being involved in sex trafficking in 2021, QAnon believers flooded the Human Trafficking Hotline with false claims, overshadowing and sweeping under the rug called-in claims of actual victims. This film also misrepresents how most human trafficking happens -- the vast majority of victims are taken by people they know and trust, not by random or foreign strangers. Most kidnappers look like the average American John and Jane Doe, living in plain sight right here in the United States. Kidnappers come from all walks of life, from all different kinds of backgrounds. Even, yes, "people of faith" with "strong convictions" can be sexual predators. By misrepresenting the nature of human trafficking, the film obscures the real issue of crimes happening on our OWN SOIL, not in some foreign country.

 

But, QAnon followers don't want to see stories about Evangelical, MAGA-aligned pastors abusing children on the big screen (because that would be "woke" or something). They want to be angry at someone -- preferably someone not looking like them or their neighbors. They want movies about white, Christian Americans fighting scary foreigners living in scary countries, because those are the people QAnon has told them they should fear instead. Because that is far easier to digest for the average QAnon or American conservative than having to think critically and introspectively about their own country and culture.

 

That's why this film comes off as so disingenuous. It's made to present in a topic in a way that's easy to consume for the average QAnon supporter and/or conservative but is not necessarily accurate or representative of the very real issue that is human sex trafficking and its nuances. This film wasn't made to advocate for victims; it was made to entertain QAnon.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Ladybug

[interiorgatordecorator]

1 hour ago, Ladybug said:

 

He is absolutely entrenched in QAnon. As early as a few weeks ago, while promoting this movie on Steve Bannon's (a well-known and documented conspiracy theorist) podcast, Caviezal verbalized his support of a fringe QAnon theory that elites are harvesting children's blood for eternal youth. He's got a documented past strongly supporting QAnon. If he's backpedaling from his past comments and actions now, it's because he's trying to distance himself from his extremist image and the overall controversy surrounding this movie. 

 

QAnon believers like to utilize the cause of "protecting children from sex trafficking" as a vehicle to recruit new followers into their group -- it's a palatable cause that the vast majority of persons, regardless of personal belief system, generally support. Like a virus, QAnon exploits popular media sites like FB and Twitter by creating and encouraging seemingly harmless content that is actually purposefully designed to gradually warm the average John and Jane Doe to extremist and nonsensical beliefs by appealing to a generalized sense of pathos. The cause of "protecting children" just happens to be a very easy means of doing that. What may start as liking a FB post from a QAnon-aligned parenting page about child safety gradually leads to exposure to posts from users who try to convince others that Hillary Clinton is chomping on babies. Before long, the average QAnon user won't be able to differentiate truth from fiction, and they truly will believe that movies like these do good things for children. 

 

But the truth is, QAnon does more harm than good when it comes to combating child trafficking. For example, when QAnon accused Wayfair of being involved in sex trafficking in 2021, QAnon believers flooded the Human Trafficking Hotline with false claims, overshadowing and sweeping under the rug called-in claims of actual victims. This film also misrepresents how most human trafficking happens -- the vast majority of victims are taken by people they know and trust, not by random or foreign strangers. Most kidnappers look like the average American John and Jane Doe, living in plain sight right here in the United States. Kidnappers come from all walks of life, from all different kinds of backgrounds. Even, yes, "people of faith" with "strong convictions" can be sexual predators. By misrepresenting the nature of human trafficking, the film obscures the real issue of crimes happening on our OWN SOIL, not in some foreign country.

 

But, QAnon followers don't want to see stories about Evangelical, MAGA-aligned pastors abusing children on the big screen (because that would be "woke" or something). They want to be angry at someone -- preferably someone not looking like them or their neighbors. They want movies about white, Christian Americans fighting scary foreigners living in scary countries, because those are the people QAnon has told them they should fear instead. Because that is far easier to digest for the average QAnon or American conservative than having to think critically and introspectively about their own country and culture.

 

That's why this film comes off as so disingenuous. It's made to present in a topic in a way that's easy to consume for the average QAnon supporter and/or conservative but is not necessarily accurate or representative of the very real issue that is human sex trafficking and its nuances. This film wasn't made to advocate for victims; it was made to entertain QAnon.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, ChipDerby said:

 

The movie was not made to shine a light on trafficking. It was made by a group of people who believe insane conspiracies regarding who is doing the trafficking. This is just propaganda from them to get a foothold into people's brains to look into THEIR mindset and agree with them. 

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8RFpVdD/

 

 

according to Wikipedia, the script is from 2015, and Caviezel was only cast in 2018 for a summer 2018 shoot

not my forte, but I'm certain it predates qanon

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by interiorgatordecorator

[crazydom]

7 hours ago, interiorgatordecorator said:

 

 

according to Wikipedia, the script is from 2015, and Caviezel was only cast in 2018 for a summer 2018 shoot

not my forte, but I'm certain it predates qanon

 

Caviezal has repeatedly connected the movie to QAnon conspiracy theories, including days ago on Charlie Kirk's podcast.

 

Why should all of you defenders on this forum be trusted to know the true purpose of the movie over the lead actor?

 

On Charlie Kirk’s show Jim Caviezel compares critics of QAnon to The Pharisees, who are opponents of Jesus in the New Testament.   He also says “It’s not QAnon. It’s Q and Anons,” which is a paraphrase of Q drop 4881.

 

This is what all the defenders on this forum are deliberately trying to ignore. Caviezal is using his conservative media tour for this movie to spread conspiracy theories that can get people killed.

Edited July 17, 2023 by crazydom

[interiorgatordecorator]

1 hour ago, crazydom said:

Why should all of you defenders on this forum be trusted to know the true purpose of the movie over the lead actor?

 

 

cause he joined 3 years after development began 

[PlatnumRoyce]

3 hours ago, crazydom said:

Caviezal is using his conservative media tour for this movie to spread conspiracy theories that can get people killed.

Yeah, this is a genuine difference from the generic version of this sort of dumb negative polarization story where there's a goofy media backlash over a normal film with conservative leanings/praise in explicitly conversative outlets. There are some insane pieces written (see the guardian one that randomly decided the film was a dogwhistle about Bill/Hillary Clinton funding child sex trafficking?) but the actual hits on Caviezel seem pretty undeniable.  People really are massively downplaying how Caviezel stuff is pure smoking gun stuff. 

 

Quote

Why should all of you defenders on this forum be trusted to know the true purpose of the movie over the lead actor?

Because interview circuit != film itself and actor != film. The boring answer is that this film's creation in 2017 really looks like a pretty banal "based on true story" thing about a then buzzy NGO. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[PlatnumRoyce]

edit: nevermind just ragebait even if true. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[Niceguy]

They let Noah Berlatsky write a hit piece against this movie? Why?