Sound Of Freedom

[Yuma]

I know internet tone is tricky, so understand this is an honest and well meaning question:

Do you know the central idea that the rest of the QAnon sphere spins around?

Im not a Qanon person. So no. I guess I don't know. I read all kinds of stuff as to why they are bad. I don't know the official central idea.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Im not a Qanon person. So no. I guess I don't know. I read all kinds of stuff as to why they are bad. I don't know the official central idea.

The main concept centers around a group of wealthy Satan worshipping elites are running a global child sex trafficking ring and hold the main positions of power in government, the media, Hollywood, etc.

They quickly adopted some existing fringe tropes, many of which are anchored to anti-semitism, such as these elites will harvest the organs and drink the blood of the children for the benefits of adrenochrome.

They also quickly picked up the pieces of Pizza Gate and related conspiracies.

Of course, this mirrors and explains the existence of the "deep state"

That is the central spoke that the rest of the conspiracy wheel spins around - a lot of which is Trump was brought in to fight against and take down the cabal and any pushback to Trump is really the satanic paedophile elites using their power to fight the threat to their power

The 2 largest voices associated with this film are full on Q believers.

So while the film could lead to a legitimate discussion about sex trafficking and child abuse, it's difficult to use the film as a spring board when those voices are using the film publicity circuit to push Q Anon stuff

 

[Cheesebeef]

A very sad sign of the times when bashing QAnon is considered “virtue signaling” but shooting Bud Light Cans and refusing to buy that beer because… GASP… they partnered with someone Trans in their first ever marketing push to that audience… is considered a badge of honor.

 

[Yuma]

The main concept centers around a group of wealthy Satan worshipping elites are running a global child sex trafficking ring and hold the main positions of power in government, the media, Hollywood, etc.

They quickly adopted some existing fringe tropes, many of which are anchored to anti-semitism, such as these elites will harvest the organs and drink the blood of the children for the benefits of adrenochrome.

They also quickly picked up the pieces of Pizza Gate and related conspiracies.

Of course, this mirrors and explains the existence of the "deep state"

That is the central spoke that the rest of the conspiracy wheel spins around - a lot of which is Trump was brought in to fight against and take down the cabal and any pushback to Trump is really the satanic paedophile elites using their power to fight the threat to their power

The 2 largest voices associated with this film are full on Q believers.

So while the film could lead to a legitimate discussion about sex trafficking and child abuse, it's difficult to use the film as a spring board when those voices are using the film publicity circuit to push Q Anon stuff

Still, the movie is not about QAnon theory, or whatever. No matter if a couple voices later use it for their own politics. Should be a discussion about the movie. That's what I come here in movies to look for. Is it good? Would I want to watch it?

Personally, I don't like Clint Eastwood's politics, and don't watch his movies as a result. I don't go into every Clint Eastwood movie thread here and throw dirt on the movies.

I will go in P & R and discuss what a dirtbag I think he is, but that doesn't belong in the movie thread.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Still, the movie is not about QAnon theory, or whatever. No matter if a couple voices later use it for their own politics. Should be a discussion about the movie. That's what I come here in movies to look for. Is it good? Would I want to watch it?

Personally, I don't like Clint Eastwood's politics, and don't watch his movies as a result. I don't go into every Clint Eastwood movie thread here and throw dirt on the movies.

I will go in P & R and discuss what a dirtbag I think he is, but that doesn't belong in the movie thread.

Great approach.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Still, the movie is not about QAnon theory, or whatever. No matter if a couple voices later use it for their own politics. Should be a discussion about the movie. That's what I come here in movies to look for. Is it good? Would I want to watch it?

It's not "a couple of voices"

It's the lead actor and the actual title character in the movie.

They are using the movie as a fund raising tool.

The film publicity circuit is full on Q stuff

You can't isolate and sever the 2, because the actual people involved with the film are the ones binding them together

 

[Yuma]

It's not "a couple of voices"

It's the lead actor and the actual title character in the movie.

They are using the movie as a fund raising tool.

The film publicity circuit is full on Q stuff

You can't isolate and sever the 2, because the actual people involved with the film are the ones binding them together

This is where I got the "a couple of voices" from:

"The 2 largest voices associated with this film are full on Q believers.

So while the film could lead to a legitimate discussion about sex trafficking and child abuse, it's difficult to use the film as a spring board when those voices are using the film publicity circuit to push Q Anon stuff."

2 to me means "couple" I just wanted to let you know I wasn't discounting what you said, but rather trying to quote or use your language in explanation.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

It's not "a couple of voices"

It's the lead actor and the actual title character in the movie.

They are using the movie as a fund raising tool.

The film publicity circuit is full on Q stuff

You can't isolate and sever the 2, because the actual people involved with the film are the ones binding them together

Rare situation where this film was completed 5 years ago, and it has just now found distribution. None of this would have been in the conversation had the studios released it on time.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

This is where I got the "a couple of voices" from:

"The 2 largest voices associated with this film are full on Q believers.

So while the film could lead to a legitimate discussion about sex trafficking and child abuse, it's difficult to use the film as a spring board when those voices are using the film publicity circuit to push Q Anon stuff."

2 to me means "couple" I just wanted to let you know I wasn't discounting what you said, but rather trying to quote or use your language in explanation.

Yeah - those are also really the only voices doing press and promotion. They also aren't "us" - just some random internet people farting into the wind

The studio guy will be there as well.

Caviezel and Ballard are taking the attention and interest in this movie and desire to have a larger discussion on sex trafficking and using it to push Q stuff - which is dangerous

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Rare situation where this film was completed 5 years ago, and it has just now found distribution. None of this would have been in the conversation had the studios released it on time.

Maybe - maybe not.

Q was just emerging and pizza gate had happened

Not sure where Caviezel and Ballard were at the time, but I would guess they were on the path.

Maybe this movie put Caviezel on the path

Who knows

 

[Covert Rain]

Rare situation where this film was completed 5 years ago, and it has just now found distribution. None of this would have been in the conversation had the studios released it on time.

I am sure the crazy interviews would have followed 5 years ago too.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I am sure the crazy interviews would have followed 5 years ago too.

He’s been in league with crazy Jewish conspiracies since the days he was making Passion Of The Christ. Which makes sense considering dude is rumored to be just as much of an antisemite as Mel Gibson is.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Rare situation where this film was completed 5 years ago, and it has just now found distribution. None of this would have been in the conversation had the studios released it on time.

I disagree. This film never gets released 5 years after being made if Qanon hadn’t somehow found a comfy spot on the socially acceptable sofa.

 

[Stout]

A very sad sign of the times when bashing QAnon is considered “virtue signaling” but shooting Bud Light Cans and refusing to buy that beer because… GASP… they partnered with someone Trans in their first ever marketing push to that audience… is considered a badge of honor.

Well said.

 

[Stout]

It's not "a couple of voices"

It's the lead actor and the actual title character in the movie.

They are using the movie as a fund raising tool.

The film publicity circuit is full on Q stuff

You can't isolate and sever the 2, because the actual people involved with the film are the ones binding them together

Yeah, I think this is where the trouble would be for me. Even if the crazy doesn't leak into the film, the film (and the money it makes) is directly being used to fund and promote the crazy. I would have no desire to put money directly into the Q coffers.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Yeah, I think this is where the trouble would be for me. Even if the crazy doesn't leak into the film, the film (and the money it makes) is directly being used to fund and promote the crazy. I would have no desire to put money directly into the Q coffers.

Who makes money when Sound of Freedom does well? Angel Studios and their investors which made it possible for it to be distributed, right? Any extra money going to the main actor or the person the film was based on would be dependent on contract structure - for a film that was wrapped 5 years earlier. Not every contract gives an actor more money depending on box office results. Ballard was most likely paid outright for the rights to his story years ago before production even started. We don't know that Caviezel is making any more money than what he was paid to act in it. Both would promote the movie for free because it was a passion project type of film for them on top of what they were already paid.

And you can literally see if for free. Or claim some free tickets and then don't go so you can stop some others from seeing the film if you believe it is bad based on people connected with the film being connected with Q stuff. Problem solved.

 

[Stout]

Who makes money when Sound of Freedom does well? Angel Studios and their investors which made it possible for it to be distributed, right? Any extra money going to the main actor or the person the film was based on would be dependent on contract structure - for a film that was wrapped 5 years earlier. Not every contract gives an actor more money depending on box office results. Ballard was most likely paid outright for the rights to his story years ago before production even started. We don't know that Caviezel is making any more money than what he was paid to act in it. Both would promote the movie for free because it was a passion project type of film for them on top of what they were already paid.

And you can literally see if for free. Or claim some free tickets and then don't go so you can stop some others from seeing the film if you believe it is bad based on people connected with the film being connected with Q stuff. Problem solved.

Streaming definitely generates revenue. Problem remains.

 

[Chaplin]

Who makes money when Sound of Freedom does well? Angel Studios and their investors which made it possible for it to be distributed, right? Any extra money going to the main actor or the person the film was based on would be dependent on contract structure - for a film that was wrapped 5 years earlier. Not every contract gives an actor more money depending on box office results. Ballard was most likely paid outright for the rights to his story years ago before production even started. We don't know that Caviezel is making any more money than what he was paid to act in it. Both would promote the movie for free because it was a passion project type of film for them on top of what they were already paid.

And you can literally see if for free. Or claim some free tickets and then don't go so you can stop some others from seeing the film if you believe it is bad based on people connected with the film being connected with Q stuff. Problem solved.

Interesting how you claim to know how it all works.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Interesting how you claim to know how it all works.

So, it wouldn't depend on contract structure? I never said I knew how it all worked and I even asked questions in my post. Please, explain exactly how things work in Hollywood to us common folk. Thanks in advance.

 

[Covert Rain]

Who makes money when Sound of Freedom does well? Angel Studios and their investors which made it possible for it to be distributed, right? Any extra money going to the main actor or the person the film was based on would be dependent on contract structure - for a film that was wrapped 5 years earlier. Not every contract gives an actor more money depending on box office results. Ballard was most likely paid outright for the rights to his story years ago before production even started. We don't know that Caviezel is making any more money than what he was paid to act in it. Both would promote the movie for free because it was a passion project type of film for them on top of what they were already paid.

And you can literally see if for free. Or claim some free tickets and then don't go so you can stop some others from seeing the film if you believe it is bad based on people connected with the film being connected with Q stuff. Problem solved.

To me it's more likely that those contracts were incentive laden knowing the difficulties that were in front of them for distribution. They had to know it would be a challenge. Sure they could have used standard contract structures but that would be a much higher risk to those involved not to get a return. Streaming rights, network rights, foreign market rights are all revenue too. Seems like a ton of conjecture.

 

[Cheesebeef]

To me it's more likely that those contracts were incentive laden knowing the difficulties that were in front of them for distribution. They had to know it would be a challenge. Sure they could have used standard contract structures but that would be a much higher risk to those involved not to get a return. Streaming rights, network rights, foreign market rights are all revenue too. Seems like a ton of conjecture.

Actually seems like a ton of spin to belittle how harmful it is that the two biggest figures of the movie are using it’s publicity to spread the disgusting misinformation from Q-Anon that has gotten people killed and ripped apart the fabric of society and families across the country.

Why anyone would poo poo the spread of Q-Anon is beyond me.

 

[Russ Smith]

The main concept centers around a group of wealthy Satan worshipping elites are running a global child sex trafficking ring and hold the main positions of power in government, the media, Hollywood, etc.

They quickly adopted some existing fringe tropes, many of which are anchored to anti-semitism, such as these elites will harvest the organs and drink the blood of the children for the benefits of adrenochrome.

They also quickly picked up the pieces of Pizza Gate and related conspiracies.

Of course, this mirrors and explains the existence of the "deep state"

That is the central spoke that the rest of the conspiracy wheel spins around - a lot of which is Trump was brought in to fight against and take down the cabal and any pushback to Trump is really the satanic paedophile elites using their power to fight the threat to their power

The 2 largest voices associated with this film are full on Q believers.

So while the film could lead to a legitimate discussion about sex trafficking and child abuse, it's difficult to use the film as a spring board when those voices are using the film publicity circuit to push Q Anon stuff

The last paragraph is my take and I have not seen the movie nor do I plan on doing so. I have friends on FB that are talking about it and all the ones that love it are the same ones who believe Hollywood is killing kids for their brain fluid and that Trump is the savior and that he was the only reason Epstein ever got caught.

So that really gives me a bias without having seen the film, which isn't fair but it is what it is.

My concern is as MO said, people who get pushed towards the Qanon stuff by the people backing this film, not the film itself, are going to harm not good for trying to fight sex trafficking. There's a ton of stuff out there already that says the Qanon movement has significantly harmed law enforcements ability to do anything about that because so many people are convinced it's this massive cabal conspiracy they're flooding law enforcement with nonsense complaints.

 

[Yuma]

I

the Qanon movement has significantly harmed law enforcements ability to do anything about that because so many people are convinced it's this massive cabal conspiracy they're flooding law enforcement with nonsense complaints.

It's like a Denial of Service Attack (DOS) in IT! Overwhelm the servers with your junk, so people who need the services can't get them.

 

[Covert Rain]

Sound of Freedom now being accused of boosting tickets sales artificially to make it sound more successful then it is. People are posting stories and video evidence of theaters showing sold out but largely empty. Video:

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Covert Rain]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media