That is clearly implied. God this board
"Only" clearly implies "only"That is clearly implied. God this board
Cute - a mod throwing insults because they can't type or use the language correctlySure whatever...even though it's clear I am saying over 200 million and between 100 and the previously stated level
I left off the word between. You can take that win and I will basically assume you are a pendantic dick
True.The movie board is starting to rival P and R for the sheer hilarity of the inane arguments we repeatedly suck ourselves into.
All my friends are heathens, take it slowThe movie board is starting to rival P and R for the sheer hilarity of the inane arguments we repeatedly suck ourselves into.
But there’s a difference when writers take artistic license to entertain and when there’s an ulterior motive whine the manipulation of facts. Reading further on this turned me off.So now that’s the reason? Another reason.
Being in the industry, I assumed you would know that “based on true events” does not mean “everything happened just like this.”
No. That was about commenting on the quality without having seen it. I have no issue with someone criticizing the topic or the known storyline of a film without having seen it. But you can’t say something definitively sucks without having seen it. Imo.Nice thing about this movie is that you can literally go see it in the theater for free. Still don’t like it and you’re out nothing but a couple hours. But maybe it will make an impact or just be well made enough that you’re entertained. As I have said and both reviewers I posted mentioned “It is a one watch film but it is worthy of that one watch.” No need to tear it down without having seen it. Didn’t we recently have a back and forth about that on here in a different thread?
Exactly! Some people can't differentiate between film QUALITY and film SUBJECT. It's comical.No. That was about commenting on the quality without having seen it. I have no issue with someone criticizing the topic or the known storyline of a film without having seen it. But you can’t say something definitively sucks without having seen it. Imo.
I think you just nailed the issue people are having. This is a topic that has been co-opted by Q nuts for political and insanity purposes to an extent. As a result there’s a general distrust when a connection is made between the film and those individuals associated with W and the affiliated politicos. When you read that some in law enforcement view the actions of the subjects in this movie as potential dangerous to the victims and creating interference with legit police actions it makes one not want to give breath to whatever potential BS may be associated with the movie because . . . stories do have power. And it can be for the bad.Well, having actually seen the film, I can say it is not at all a “hero’s journey” tale celebrating Tim Ballard. He is just one of many people and agencies battling against human traffickers. The movie tells a story because stories have power and can be shared and can make a difference. Period. That’s its overall motivation.
I don't care who they hire to do the acting as long as they don't use it as a vehicle to spread crazy, dangerous rhetoric, political ideology or conspiracy garbage.I hope they do a remake soon with some actors you prefer so you'll get to see a powerful film.
Who said that? To pretend there is no relationship between Jim C and Q beliefs is absurd. To ignore the relationship between the two is incredibly problematic.So, if I go see the newest Jim Caviezel film, that suddenly makes me a QAnon supporter?
If you ask ridiculous rhetorical devices to lead to an answer, does that make it legitimate?If I then go see Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 7 (Part One), does that then make me a supporter of Scientology?
Is that how films work?
What a hilarious framing of the issue - calling a straight Q conspiracy "not left or right". Why don't we do a quick perusal of all the people supporting "Sound of Freedom" on social media...oh, what do you know...all the right wing influencers are pushing it, and calling those that don't like it groomers and pedophiles!The film is not right or left. It's a film against child trafficking. Hopefully, we're all on the same page regarding that issue regardless of what anyone tweets, right?
Selling this as neutral content is wild.I hope you know that Ballard, the person this story is about, is a full on QAnon supporter.
In 2020 Ballard gave an interview stating his belief that Wayfair is shipping children across country in furniture boxes. He chose another QAnon man to portray him, and a religious production company then released the film. There is a reason why the film is controversial.
Rule 3: NO ATTACKING A PERSON: Debate the idea and not attack the person.Sure whatever...even though it's clear I am saying over 200 million and between 100 and the previously stated level
I left off the word between. You can take that win and I will basically assume you are a pedantic dick
The film wrapped production years before then. It's an anti-child-trafficking film. Period. It doesn't invite you to be buddies with anyone the film stars or is based on. It's a film. You see it, it impacts you, you discuss it, you move on and see other films. The blowback on this is insane. Don't want to see it? Don't see it. Congrats. Pat yourself on the back and say "Man, I dodged a bullet by not seeing that movie with actor X in it."I hope you know that Ballard, the person this story is about, is a full on QAnon supporter.
In 2020 Ballard gave an interview stating his belief that Wayfair is shipping children across country in furniture boxes. He chose another QAnon man to portray him, and a religious production company then released the film. There is a reason why the film is controversial.
Already resolved.Rule 3: NO ATTACKING A PERSON: Debate the idea and not attack the person.
Chris, for the good of the board please try and lessen the insults. There are ways to get your point across without the incessant pot shots.
A moderator and enforcer of the board rules should know better.
WELL, that is the argument about kids being exposed to gay people. If you see one, it will make you one!So, if I go see the newest Jim Caviezel film, that suddenly makes me a QAnon supporter?
If I then go see Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 7 (Part One), does that then make me a supporter of Scientology?
Is that how films work?
The film is not right or left. It's a film against child trafficking. Hopefully, we're all on the same page regarding that issue regardless of what anyone tweets, right?