The Sound of Freedom

[TBBills Fan]

Id love to hear thoughts on this subject, the political agendas that seem to be tugging in different directions and thoughts on what this all may mean.  Curious to hear what others think about "weird" things happening at the actual theaters

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/business/sound-of-freedom-trafficking.html

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/sound-of-freedom-whats-the-deal-with-the-controversial-box-office-hit

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sound-of-freedom-box-office-jim-caviezel-qanon-conspiracy-theories-ashton-kutcher-195208217.html

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by TBBills Fan

[Punching Bag]

I think mixing politics into what may be a good cause will doom it.

Not doom sales to those who it appeals to but to expand to those who do not wave their flag.

[TBBills Fan]

34 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

I think mixing politics into what may be a good cause will doom it.

Not doom sales to those who it appeals to but to expand to those who do not wave their flag.

 

 

I think that is a fair point

[Nextmanup]

I watched the trailer, but didn't read anything about this, nor do I know anything about this film.

 

Simply judging the trailer, it looks like a not very good movie, highly sappy, Hollywoody, and overly preachy.

 

What? It's about child trafficking around the world and its point is that's bad?  That seems reasonable.

This is yet another "fictional" Hollywood film that would likely have been MUCH BETTER as a non-fiction documentary about the subject matter.  THAT I would watch.  This movie I will not see, unless I stumble on it for "Free" in a few years on HBO when I'm flipping the channels and I'm bored.  Lots of films fall into that category for me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS:  THIS is the true sound of freedom (TURN UP SPEAKERS):

 

 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Nextmanup

[4merper4mer]

 

[boyst]

5 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

Exactly.

6 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

I watched the trailer, but didn't read anything about this, nor do I know anything about this film.

 

Simply judging the trailer, it looks like a not very good movie, highly sappy, Hollywoody, and overly preachy.

 

What? It's about child trafficking around the world and its point is that's bad?  That seems reasonable.

This is yet another "fictional" Hollywood film that would likely have been MUCH BETTER as a non-fiction documentary about the subject matter.  THAT I would watch.  This movie I will not see, unless I stumble on it for "Free" in a few years on HBO when I'm flipping the channels and I'm bored.  Lots of films fall into that category for me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS:  THIS is the true sound of freedom (TURN UP SPEAKERS):

 

 

Yet, Taken was a box office smash.

 

How does Taken blow up as a franchise and this gets blacklisted for 5 years?

[Punching Bag]

9 minutes ago, boyst said:

Exactly.

Yet, Taken was a box office smash.

 

How does Taken blow up as a franchise and this gets blacklisted for 5 years?

 

 

Good taste?   

 

Plenty of movie chains are willing to rent theaters now if you want to pay to show something movie chain is not interested in carrying.

This is what movie chains do - they choose movies they believe will make a profit for them.

 

[Dr. Who]

6 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

I watched the trailer, but didn't read anything about this, nor do I know anything about this film.

 

Simply judging the trailer, it looks like a not very good movie, highly sappy, Hollywoody, and overly preachy.

 

What? It's about child trafficking around the world and its point is that's bad?  That seems reasonable.

This is yet another "fictional" Hollywood film that would likely have been MUCH BETTER as a non-fiction documentary about the subject matter.  THAT I would watch.  This movie I will not see, unless I stumble on it for "Free" in a few years on HBO when I'm flipping the channels and I'm bored.  Lots of films fall into that category for me!

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS:  THIS is the true sound of freedom (TURN UP SPEAKERS):

 

 

I haven't watched the film. I won't be seeing it at the theater. The last movie I saw in a cinema was The Artist, I think. Before that it was the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. Nonetheless, I did see an interview with Jim Caviezel and it appeared to me there is a real person whose story is the basis for the film. So perhaps it's been given the Hollywood treatment, I don't know, but it isn't simply a story about a topic that is concerning. 

[SoTier]

On 7/15/2023 at 2:54 PM, boyst said:

Exactly.

Yet, Taken was a box office smash.

 

How does Taken blow up as a franchise and this gets blacklisted for 5 years?

 

FWIW ...  Here's a piece on the film with some explanations about why it's controversial ... and why it wasn't released sooner: Why 'Sound of Freedom' is a Hit.

 

[boyst]

49 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

FWIW ...  Here's a piece on the film with some explanations about why it's controversial ... and why it wasn't released sooner: Why 'Sound of Freedom' is a Hit.

 

First, the USA Today newspaper is a pretty low end tabloid. Its topical approach and overall effect to local news, specifically through its parent company have ruined community communication bases.

 

2nd, I have not read one single review of the movie that doesn't leap to call it a right wing propaganda situation, or link "q-anon" etc.

 

3rd, it should be clear that critics are morons paid to stir emotions like Cowherd. They're not honest or living in a world of regular people. These same people praised Cuties or for its bravery and called it a great movie. They hated Hillbillyollogy and clowned on it for being too fake. The same people that praised Concussion and the little Mermaid remake as historic movies.

 

This is being made into something to make something of it. Plain and simple. It's a movie that shines a light on a real problem. It doesn't need a message, to be a symbol, or some sort of characterization of its deeper meaning. If these media types truly wanted to make it go away, they wouldn't cover it. They only ended up covering it because they were forced to by its popularity of the people - and when they covers it they are taking a massive ***** on it just because they hate the people who like the things they don't. 

 

For the record I never saw cuties, I won't see this movie, either.

[PastaJoe]

Jim Caveziel sounds normal. 🙄

“The adrenochrome conspiracy, a bizarre theory with antisemitic roots, posits that Satan-worshipping global and Hollywood elites run a massive child trafficking ring to drain their blood and harvest the chemical adrenochrome to stay young, and has been embraced by subscribers of the QAnon and Pizzagate conspiracy movements, including key people affiliated with the recent hit movie The Sound of Freedom.”

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/15/the-adrenochrome-conspiracy-theory-pushed-by-sound-of-freedom-star-explained/amp/

[SoTier]

17 minutes ago, boyst said:

First, the USA Today newspaper is a pretty low end tabloid. Its topical approach and overall effect to local news, specifically through its parent company have ruined community communication bases.

 

2nd, I have not read one single review of the movie that doesn't leap to call it a right wing propaganda situation, or link "q-anon" etc.

 

3rd, it should be clear that critics are morons paid to stir emotions like Cowherd. They're not honest or living in a world of regular people. These same people praised Cuties or for its bravery and called it a great movie. They hated Hillbillyollogy and clowned on it for being too fake. The same people that praised Concussion and the little Mermaid remake as historic movies.

 

This is being made into something to make something of it. Plain and simple. It's a movie that shines a light on a real problem. It doesn't need a message, to be a symbol, or some sort of characterization of its deeper meaning. If these media types truly wanted to make it go away, they wouldn't cover it. They only ended up covering it because they were forced to by its popularity of the people - and when they covers it they are taking a massive ***** on it just because they hate the people who like the things they don't. 

 

For the record I never saw cuties, I won't see this movie, either.

 

Did you read the article?   It referenced/quoted several positive reviews as well as others that panned it.  It also stated that the movie doesn't make any reference to QAnon or make any political statements.   The connection to QAnon apparently stems from the film star's comments.

 

[teef]

i don't know if this was mentioned in the articles, but people are pushing this a bit further as some theaters have been having trouble during the showing such as lights being left on and the a/c not working.  people are really reading into this.

[boyst]

35 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Did you read the article?   It referenced/quoted several positive reviews as well as others that panned it.  It also stated that the movie doesn't make any reference to QAnon or make any political statements.   The connection to QAnon apparently stems from the film star's comments.

 

Yes I did. And of course it's a dog whistle. To list the bad they have to gloss over the good reviews.

 

The article is spun negatively in a non-bias lens

 

That cavezilemtions q-anon outside of the movie doesn't have relevance to the movie, as well.

 

The media, specifically USA Today and ownership are extremely bias and dangerous media. They've shut down thousands of local newspapers/reporters. 

[4merper4mer]

51 minutes ago, PastaJoe said:

Jim Caveziel sounds normal. 🙄

“The adrenochrome conspiracy, a bizarre theory with antisemitic roots, posits that Satan-worshipping global and Hollywood elites run a massive child trafficking ring to drain their blood and harvest the chemical adrenochrome to stay young, and has been embraced by subscribers of the QAnon and Pizzagate conspiracy movements, including key people affiliated with the recent hit movie The Sound of Freedom.”

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/15/the-adrenochrome-conspiracy-theory-pushed-by-sound-of-freedom-star-explained/amp/

None of the above has anything to do with the movie itself.  Not a thing.  I’m sure there was dramatization but the core content itself is based on actual people and their stories.  Why does the lead actor matter?  
 

Many actors have opinions on all sorts of topics.  Some have even lost their marbles.  One just shot a woman on set.  How does that connect to their movies?  Have you stopped watching Kevin Spacey movies?  No more Christmas Vacation for you because Randy Quaid?  Watching Harvey Weinstein productions off limits?

 

I saw a rebuke of the movie in another review that called it political simply because it “overstated” the number of children being trafficked in today’s world.  It offered no explanation of the claim.  It made no statement about real trafficking numbers.  It offered no opinion on what number was “acceptable”.  It did not deny the reality of the movie’s main plot.   Should the story be dismissed because of the politics of the lead actor or is that really sticking fingers in ears and singing la la la? 
 

Many, many of the best movies both biographical and fictional are about individuals overcoming odds for a good cause or personal redemption.  Actors and actresses of all political stripes have contributed to these stories.

 

No one is forced to see this or any movie but dismissing a movie, calling  a movie “political” and backing up that claim with vapor is weak sauce.  

[PastaJoe]

33 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

None of the above has anything to do with the movie itself.  Not a thing.  I’m sure there was dramatization but the core content itself is based on actual people and their stories.  Why does the lead actor matter?  
 

Many actors have opinions on all sorts of topics.  Some have even lost their marbles.  One just shot a woman on set.  How does that connect to their movies?  Have you stopped watching Kevin Spacey movies?  No more Christmas Vacation for you because Randy Quaid?  Watching Harvey Weinstein productions off limits?

 

I saw a rebuke of the movie in another review that called it political simply because it “overstated” the number of children being trafficked in today’s world.  It offered no explanation of the claim.  It made no statement about real trafficking numbers.  It offered no opinion on what number was “acceptable”.  It did not deny the reality of the movie’s main plot.   Should the story be dismissed because of the politics of the lead actor or is that really sticking fingers in ears and singing la la la? 
 

Many, many of the best movies both biographical and fictional are about individuals overcoming odds for a good cause or personal redemption.  Actors and actresses of all political stripes have contributed to these stories.

 

No one is forced to see this or any movie but dismissing a movie, calling  a movie “political” and backing up that claim with vapor is weak sauce.  

It’s not a coincidence that the vast majority of people going to see this are right wingers, many of whom think it proves their misguided conspiracy theories about Democrats running and endorsing child trafficking. As opposed to the actors/movies you mentioned, in this case there is a correlation between the actors, backers, and viewers of this movie and the conspiracy theories attached to the subject.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

30 minutes ago, PastaJoe said:

It’s not a coincidence that the vast majority of people going to see this are right wingers, many of whom think it proves their misguided conspiracy theories about Democrats running and endorsing child trafficking. As opposed to the actors/movies you mentioned, in this case there is a correlation between the actors, backers, and viewers of this movie and the conspiracy theories attached to the subject.

 

 

Have you read a single thing written about this movie that indicates it in any way blames democrats or absolves republicans of a single thing involved?

 

Don’t go see this movie or any movie if you don’t want to see it.

 

I’ll just point out that making the statements you made above about people who have seen it is something that is better backed up rather that simply stated.   Is wrongthink the correlation you draw to the actors?  How did that wrongthink find its way into the movie?  If it did, why haven’t even the negative reviews pointed out a single specific example?  If there is no wrongthink in the movie and if is reasonably factual, what is the problem?

 

There was a terrific documentary series on Netflix called “The Pharmacist” about OxyContin and the opioid crisis.  A similar dramatization with Michael Keaton called “Dopesick” was about the same topic.  Dopesick blamed members of both parties.  The Pharmacist didn’t go so much into politics but documented the inaction of the bureaucracy.  I thought both were well done although they still make me sad.  I have no idea of the political affiliation of the actors, producers or financiers of either.  The underlying topic is clearly a concerning one.  I think the underlying topic of child trafficking is concerning as well.

[4merper4mer]

58 minutes ago, PastaJoe said:

It’s not a coincidence that the vast majority of people AVOIDING going to see this are right  LEFT wingers, many of whom think it proves their misguided conspiracy theories about Democrats  REPULICANS BLAMING SOLELY DEMOCRATS FOR running and endorsing child trafficking. 

 

See how easy that is?

[boyst]

1 hour ago, PastaJoe said:

It’s not a coincidence that the vast majority of people going to see this are right wingers, many of whom think it proves their misguided conspiracy theories about Democrats running and endorsing child trafficking. As opposed to the actors/movies you mentioned, in this case there is a correlation between the actors, backers, and viewers of this movie and the conspiracy theories attached to the subject.

 

 

Why are you blaming the actor of the movie for the contents?

 

As pointed out... are we avoiding Sean Pean movies because he beat up Madonna? Are we not going to watch movies with Spacey because he's a weirdo creep?

 

Why is this single movie getting raked so heavily without anyone finding a factual error in it? The closest is that it may overstate the situation; regardless of 1 victim being too many.

 

It's just a red herring the media is using to generate clicks, the talking heads are speaking out about to have their voice heard, and the politicians to speak to their following etc.

 

We indulge ourselves in movies like Taken being dramatic action packed kick ass. We laugh at some rather crude humor in Animal House. ... But ...this movie is getting headlines and this treatment? Why?

 

...because people are sheep and thinking it matters. And someone said something and then someone else said something. Now it's what people choose to talk about as if it actually has value or importance.

 

It doesn't. It is art. If you like it watch it. If you don't, don't. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

5 hours ago, PastaJoe said:

Jim Caveziel sounds normal. 🙄

“The adrenochrome conspiracy, a bizarre theory with antisemitic roots, posits that Satan-worshipping global and Hollywood elites run a massive child trafficking ring to drain their blood and harvest the chemical adrenochrome to stay young, and has been embraced by subscribers of the QAnon and Pizzagate conspiracy movements, including key people affiliated with the recent hit movie The Sound of Freedom.”

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/15/the-adrenochrome-conspiracy-theory-pushed-by-sound-of-freedom-star-explained/amp/

This qanon thing is a hoax.  It's a conspiracy theory ginned up by leftists about a secret cabal of right wing extremists that believe all kinds of conspiracy theories.  

A conspiracy theory about people believing conspiracy theories.  Cool, right? The libs have got quite an imagination considering they're morons.