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

[Water Bottle]

2 hours 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.

 

"If you support open borders you support child trafficking"

 

If you make it easier to enter this country legally (meaning opening up the border) then so many people wouldn't need to hire coyotes to cross the dangerous border...

 

The actual evidence shows that the more you try to close the border the more people turn to human traffickers. Closed borders actually increase trafficking. 

 

And yes it should be a goal to fight trafficking while protecting personal freedom. I don't see it as a binary choice here but I guess authoritarians do. Yeah let's do more about it. Let's increase international cooperation. Let's make it easier to enter this country legally and get rid of arbitrary quotas. Let's increase support to the communities impacted the most by trafficking. 

[OncomingStorm93]

11 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

So what is enough to make someone be labelled Qanon?

Maybe they call themselves the "Qanon Shamman". Maybe they ransack the capital in hoodies with giant Qs. Maybe they wave around Q flags. Maybe they tag themselves as Qanon on Twitter. Maybe they shout their catchphrase WWG1WGA. 

 

Maybe, like in the case of Jim Caviezel, they speak at a Qanon convention in Vegas and spew rancid Qanon talking points while standing in front of an actual Q

 

It's not like these people have been trying to hide.

[MightGuy]

47 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

Had a final thought on this. So what is enough to make someone be labelled Qanon? At an academic level disbelieving any part of the above means you do not believe in Qanon. For a statement to be true all it's propositions must be true. This is how fact checkers operate. It is unfair to apply fact checking standards to everyone else, but not to media.

Now it is true that fact checking can be seen as pedantic, so we could say the leading proposition of Qanon is that a govt official was making anonymous promises. I would definitely say that someone has to believe this part to be called a Qanono believer.

But maintain since the media uses fact checkers, their headlines should be held to the standard of fact checking which is all propositions must be true for the statement to be true. It's good to be mindful of how media plays with language like this.

The adrenochrome conspiracy comes from QAnon.

 

Caviezel, as I've shown multiple times, openly believes in the adrenochrome conspiracy. I have outlined why that is bad. Conspiracies like this and the Wayfair conspiracy actually get in the way of legitimate child trafficking investigations. The latter was in 2021, for example.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/interactive/2021/wayfair-qanon-sex-trafficking-conspiracy/

Quote

Human trafficking investigators at the Department of Homeland Security, who had to pause active investigations to sort out what was happening with Wayfair, would find no evidence to support any of the allegations. Wayfair’s staff, bombarded with threats, would realize how the pricing anomalies were happening. Anti-trafficking organizations, inundated with callers, would beg the public to stop sharing bogus stories that made their work harder.

 

Further on Caviezel himself.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-hollywoods-jesus-jim-caviezel-went-full-qanon
 

Quote

 

But while talking about his new movie Sound of Freedom, Caviezel went on a wild tangent about a QAnon conspiracy theory called “adrenochroming.” The event’s 4,500-strong crowd had a decent showing of raised hands when asked if they were familiar with the term. Essentially, it’s an insane theory rooted in anti-Semitism (and the Pixar film Monsters, Inc.) that liberal elites and members of Hollywood are secretly killing children in order to harvest adrenochrome from their blood for psychedelic experiences, satanic rituals, and even to extend their lifespan.

 

“I’ll just simplify it,” he began. “When you are scared, you produce adrenaline. You’re an athlete, you get in the fourth quarter, you have adrenaline that comes out. If a child knows he’s going to die, his body will secrete this adrenaline. They have a lot of terms that they use that [Tim Ballard] takes me through, but it’s the worst horror I’ve ever seen. The screaming alone, even if I’d never, ever, ever, ever saw it, it’s beyond.”

 

“These people that do it,” he paused, seeming to hold back tears. “There’ll be no mercy for them.”

 

So, when one talks about Qanon beliefs, we are pointing, in this case, to the linked adrenochrome conspiracy, which is, to be clear, entirely nonsense. Again, as I've stated before, his own words. Words he has openly tied Ballard to. Caviezel has also attended many events adjacent to Qanon beliefs. Openly! He does not shy away from this, in the same way Kyrie does not shy away from his flat earther beliefs.

 

These beliefs are tied to the film by Caviezel and Ballard. I am not making connections that they have not stated, and you can see their beliefs in previous posted videos. Does the director and producers believe the same? I have no clue. I do know that they have let the tying of those beliefs to the film by their star go unchallenged. Whether that is because they believe the same or simply believe it's a profitable route, I do not know.

 

Now, similar to Terrific, I may dip on discussing the matter with you, because the facts of the matter are openly at hand. I have little interest quibbling on terminology with you instead of those facts.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by MightGuy

[Bob Train]

People have no problems seeing the latest Tom Cruise movie despite the fact that he's a Scientologist and part of an exploitative cult, but then turn around and refuse to watch this one because Jim Caviezel is involved with strange conspiracy theories and cults? What's the difference?

 

Not saying I have a problem with people watching either, quite the opposite, but it's just funny seeing the blatant hypocrisy.

Edited July 10, 2023 by Bob Train

[harry713]

7 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

People have no problems seeing the latest Tom Cruise movie despite the fact that he's a Scientologist and part of an exploitative cult, but then turn around and refuse to watch this one because Jim Caviezel is involved with strange conspiracy theories and cults? What's the difference?

 

Not saying I have a problem with people watching either, quite the opposite, but it's just funny seeing the blatant hypocrisy.

I think if TC were to actively promote his religion/cult and any beliefs behind it as part of the marketing for his films it would likely drive away a large portion of his audience. 

[PlatnumRoyce]

6 hours ago, MightGuy said:

Lemme put a pin in the whataboutism. Didn't see The Flash for the reason you state, despite being a very big fan of the characters and acknowledging that the crew was much more than just Miller. Fine with cutting Majors, Polanski, Allen, Singer, and Spacey. I have no fear or problem in remaining remarkably consistent.

 

I've given you Caviezel's own words (Ballard too) in regards to promotion of the film. Nothing disingenuous there at all. I have not added or embellished anything.

 

If you want to go see the film, by all means. You're (theoretically) an adult. I don't know you. I merely want folks to acknowledge what is being tied to the film by proponents of the production, and how a success will raise all ships.

 

I largely agree with all of this. My issue is in those who try to minimize or ignore 2 and 4.

 

To what degree is point 4 true and to what degree is conservative media ecosystem just echoing more banal conservative points of view/themes that can be read into the film and liberal backlash to it? That's an honest question, I'm not actively tracking partisan media coverage of this film.

[TwoMisfits]

8 hours ago, BoxOfficeFangrl said:

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?

 

 

Since I used the tickets, it does cover the Atom fee as well, which would normally be $1.75 on top of each ticket (or it might be higher - I wasn't really paying attention except to see $0 for payment)...

[baumer]

I did my part yesterday. After I got out of the movie I bought three tickets on the website for the pay it forward initiative. I also saw a few others doing the same thing.

[SLAM!]

Believer here, so I should post my take:

- I like the movie in and of itself

- I dislike Caviezel’s engagement with QAnon, because many of their conspiracies are based in falsehood

- I saw the film before I knew about the ties to QAnon and feel slightly deceived

- If someone wants to see it, I still encourage them to see it, but because I know that they’re the demographic that’s interested

- I want to keep the QAnon stuff in mind as I discuss the movie so that even if people continue seeing the movie, they might not be led astray into believing lies perpetuated by QAnon

- Hey, if people don’t want to see it, if they don’t want to buy tickets, that’s perfectly fine, that’s their right, and I respect their decision especially if it’s a decision made in response to its ties to QAnon

- The cinematography is fantastic, great imagery, and I will campaign this for cinematography at the Boffies even if I’m the butt of a joke for it

- Not Ballard for Hero due to QAnon

- But yes for Trafficking for the Villain category

[M37]

10 hours ago, Deep Wang said:

Are any amount of the gross being donated to orgs to help fight trafficking or anything like that?

Somebody asked this question directly on Twitter (and I only know because I kept getting SOF promoted in my feed)

 

 

 

“Inspire Action” 🙄

In other words: nope, not a cent being directly donated. Which tells me all I need to know about the motivation of the distributors: solely profit seeking by “raising awareness”

 

(and fwiw, I’d call out the same behavior from a company promoting a cause I support. Put your money where your stated values are, or you’re just grifting off the empathy for someone’s else tragedy)

[Deep Wang]

3 minutes ago, M37 said:

Somebody asked this question directly on Twitter (and I only know because I kept getting SOF promoted in my feed)

 

I literally just checked the topic on twitter because it was trending and one of the first tweets I saw was someone saying that thousands of children are going to be saved now because of this movie, and I'm like, HOW?

[M37]

9 minutes ago, baumer said:

I did my part yesterday. After I got out of the movie I bought three tickets on the website for the pay it forward initiative. I also saw a few others doing the same thing.

 
I don’t mean this as an attack, I just need someone to explain this to me like I’m 5:

 

How is giving money to Angel Studios, Atom Tickets, and some local theater “doing your part” if none of them are donating or doing anything else for the actual cause? Can I ask why that money wouldn’t have been better spent donated directly to an organization that helps victims of actual trafficking?

What child that has/is/will be a potential victim is better off from this expenditure of time and money?

[baumer]

Ok, like you're 5.

 

Not everybody knows about child trafficking.

There wasn't a huge marketing budget for the film.

It's not really being covered by mainstream media. 

The more people that see the movie that don't know anything about the subject, the more people become educated about it.

 

No it wouldn't be better to donate to some charity or company that I know nothing about. This at least gives people a chance to see it if they can't afford to do so. 

[XXR vs XXR]

6 minutes ago, baumer said:

The more people that see the movie that don't know anything about the subject, the more people become educated about it.

And now you’re gonna use this education to…..what? The studio you gave your performative dollars to suggests charity donations and community involvement, but….

 

9 minutes ago, baumer said:

No it wouldn't be better to donate to some charity or company that I know nothing about.

https://www.angel.com/blog/sound-of-freedom/posts/sound-of-freedom-join-the-fight-against-child-trafficking

How to Help Anti-Trafficking Efforts

Rescue 

There are a variety of nonprofit organizations that lead international operations to rescue people from trafficking. Research organizations in your area you can donate to, volunteer or fundraise for.  

 

[MrHardapple]

48 minutes ago, baumer said:

I did my part yesterday. After I got out of the movie I bought three tickets on the website for the pay it forward initiative. I also saw a few others doing the same thing.

Nice thing to do.👍

 

How did you like the movie?

[baumer]

It's not going to matter what anybody says about the movie. All you guys have made up your mind and you've decided to hate the movie for reasons that don't make any sense to me.

 

 

[baumer]

2 minutes ago, MrHardapple said:

Nice thing to do.👍

 

How did you like the movie?

 

I liked it a lot. It's not exactly the kind of movie you can say that you enjoyed because of the subject matter but it was really well done and I liked it a lot. It got two ovations from the audience. The first one was when the credit started rolling and then the second one went when Jim caviezel came on with his message. When I was in the restroom after the movie, there were grown men who had tears in their eyes and were wiping them back. It definitely packs an emotional punch.

[Deep Wang]

7 minutes ago, baumer said:

It's not going to matter what anybody says about the movie. All you guys have made up your mind and you've decided to hate the movie for reasons that don't make any sense to me.

 

 

I can’t speak for everyone, but it’s not that I hate the movie so much as I hate the messengers.  Caviezel especially has so much baggage now that it’s hard to care about a movie like this knowing what he really thinks about the subject matter. 
 

 

[TwoMisfits]

As for donating profits, see you guys are making me research the studio.

 

Apparently, it's only emerged from bankruptcy in 2021 after its original core idea, filtering content out of main studio movies to make them effectively G rated, was shut down by the 9th circuit after a 4 year lawsuit from the major studios.  So, since Chosen had been an original hit for them, the company rebranded and decided to go the original content route in 2022 with its crowdsourcing "angel investor" concept.  It had $123M in revenue for the entire year (that's revenue, not profit).

 

So, it's an American struggling new indy content studio (aka a small business b/c it also only has 100-250 employees, according to Wiki).  To donate money with its 2nd profitable product (after The Chosen) would probably put it out of business.  It needs to make money on something this year, and it found its way to stay in business 12 more months with this movie.  So, I'm not gonna bash the studio for sticking to its "crowdfunding" concept to try to mount a donation/help campaign for its movie's message - that's all the resources it has.  That's how it's operating on a shoestring.  

 

As for "what makes the most impact" - since I have a leukemia few people have heard of and leukemia doesn't really make it into the "top cancer" zeitgeist, and neither does multiple myeloma (which my mom died of), I understand trying to get folks even aware of an issue so you can start getting funds/people/time dedicated to an issue to help.  I'm usually a walking billboard for my leukemia type when I go out of town b/c so few folks know it, and if they don't know it, no one lobbies for government money for it, no one donates private money for it (unless they already have the disease), and no one cares if there is healthcare coverage for the treatments for it, no one tries to fund research and find cures, etc, etc, etc.  And b/c folks who work get a stigma if they say they have any type of cancer, few of the sufferers under 65 can do this "get out the word" work without fear of being fired.  I can, so I do.  But I get the reason you push to raise awareness.  If folks don't care or do, but it's not THAT important, then it's something that just continually gets ignored, unfunded, and un dealt with.

 

If there was a chronic lymphocytic leukemia movie made, I'd be sending you all tickets and encouraging you to take friends and get the word out...so, I get someone who dealt with this issue day in and day out doing the same...

 

As for me, Variety's review sold me on seeing this movie b/c it was also free, and free is in my price range.  Just like I took Amazon up on Coda last year, I decided to take Angels' pay it forward folks up on their free tickets.  I'm not usually a person who pays for dramas and "true" stories, but then again, I'm not one to pass on free guaranteed seat movies that apparently are quality.  I like movies, and I don't have a lot of money to throw away on $15-$20 tickets/movie.

 

 

[filmlover]

Re: Caviezel: I had no idea about his political beliefs since he had been off my radar for a while (and it's not like he's a Kirk Cameron ie someone whose ridiculous behavior and statements have made him - and the entire Christian religion - into an easy punchline) but I looked up his filmography to see what else he's done since his hit TV show ended besides this and...yeah, I guess it checks out he went off the deep end when he did (it wasn't around the time this movie was made back in 2018). Usually these "they've lost it" moments occur when their careers have been totally irrelevant for a while.