TCTTS said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

maca1028 said:

---

Why am I not surprised that there's no reviews about the movie in here?

---

I tried. Didn't make it about politics or QAnon or any of that crap. Amercer and TCCTS threw us right back in.

It is a good movie and most would appreciate it. Obviously it is dark subject matter so you will feel uncomfortable a lot of the time. If you are a parent, you will likely get emotional at parts.

---

A thread was created specifically for the movie...

https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/3386014

So I assumed this thread was for ancillary movie talk, while the other thread was for the contents of the movie itself.

---

It was at the bottom of the page. Didn't see it. Not sure why this ancillary movie talk needs to even happen. You are letting a couple aggressive posters get you spun up and lashing out in weird ways. I'd take a breather.

I hadn't posted on this thread in over 12 hours. And the last time I did I was clearly using laugh emojis. I'm fine. That, and it feels like things are finally/hopefully dying down.

As for the other thread, it wasn't my idea. I was just pointing people toward it.

*********this film was hard to watch. I choked back tears more times than I could count.

Theater was basically packed out.

There was nothing political or religious in this film. No QAnon, no conspiracy. This was clearly originally going to be distributed by Fox until it got shelved in the acquistion. At best the most religious line was that God's Children are Not for Sale and when he arrested a pedophile he threw the bible verse about causing little ones to stumble and better to have a millstone around their neck and thrown in the ocean.

Caviezel bounced between this no nonsense gruff cop, to a charismatic fop when trying to catch a mark. Then there was the scene where he emotionally breaks down in front of his superior at the toll this job has done to him. Catching over 200 pedos and not really saving any children directly. It was a lot more range than I expected from him honestly having not seen him on screen since I was a child in Passion.

This film is going to stick with me and haunt me for awhile. The former cartel member who turned to a life of freeing children from sex trafficking as played by Bill Camp had a particularly shocking story for his heel turn.

There is a middle scene in the film as they attempt to lure several prominent traffickers to an island for an exclusive members club that turned into a raid saving a crap ton of children. They showed scenes at the end from the actual island raid and damn.

TCTTS said:

---

I hadn't posted on this thread in over 12 hours. And the last time I did I was clearly using laugh emojis. I'm fine. That, and it feels like things are finally/hopefully dying down.

As for the other thread, it wasn't my idea. I was just pointing people toward it.

---

Go away.

Dude, you've got issues.

I saw a thread on the only other message board I frequent besides TexAgs, phantasytour.com, and there is a thread about this movie as well and resident leftists on there are also discrediting the movie they haven't seen and calling it "QAnon adjacent".

I don't even know what QAnon is really, let alone what the hell QAnon adjacent even means (never once posted in the old Q thread here or even read it). I did find it funny though to see the same NPC talking points on a drug band message board as here, though.

Caviezel has promoted QAnon garbage. The outlets playing up this movie the most are right wing outlets including QAnon outlets. The most recent "save our children" bit started with QAnon and was part of a conspiracy theory where essentially anyone they didn't like with any power or cultural presence was a pedophile or torturing kids for their own benefit. And the real life subject of the film has been accused of overhyping his accomplishments and causing problems for others working on the issue. So yes, these are real concerns around the movie.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

I saw a thread on the only other message board I frequent besides TexAgs, phantasytour.com, and there is a thread about this movie as well and resident leftists on there are also discrediting the movie they haven't seen and calling it "QAnon adjacent".

I don't even know what QAnon is really, let alone what the hell QAnon adjacent even means (never once posted in the old Q thread here or even read it). I did find it funny though to see the same NPC talking points on a drug band message board as here, though.

---

They aren't "talking points."

It's just basic, common sense.

There are two theoretical paths here...

1) Release a politically neutral movie that depicts the horrors of child trafficking, one that hopefully raises awareness to the point of eventually leading to further tangible action that saves additional children/helps alleviate the problem. In this scenario, no QAnon rhetoric is used by the filmmakers in their promotion of the movie, thus no controversy surrounds the movie, thus the potential exists for the movie to reach a much wider audience, and thus have more of an impact on addressing the issue.

- or -

2) Release the exact same movie as above, with the exact same political neutrality, that has the potential to lead to the exact same outcome as above. However, because QAnon rhetoric is attached to the promotion of it, the potential audience reach is instantly cut in half. Rhetoric that attracts controversial figures like Mel Gibson, Steve Bannon, and Michael Flynn, whom half the country instantly tunes out because of their association and promotion of the movie, assuming the movie is just another crazy conspiracy theory being peddled by the fringe far right.

Not to mention, in the second scenario, because of the QAnon rhetoric being used, the left is further demonized, to a ridiculously insane degree, which of course raises the potential for further Pizzagate-type incidents, or worse.

The media didn't just slap the QAnon stigma on this movie out of thin air, for no good reason. That happened *because* of Jim Caviezel's own words/beliefs. They're *reacting* to Caviezel's own rhetoric, and how his rhetoric has led to the fringe far right using this movie to advance their lunatic conspiracy theories against the left. In other words, the only reason it's being labeled "QAnon adjacent" is because Caviezel hasn't been able to keep his crazy to himself.

Frankly, it just blows my mind that this entire time a handful of us here have been arguing FOR a path that leads to an objectively larger audience for this movie, yet somehow *we're* the villains for expressing our concern.

It's honestly mind-blowing, yet such a simple concept to understand.

A lot here are gaslighting TC. The thread has run its course

I'd say it's half and half. Some who know better are clearly gaslighting, but there are others who are simply so ingrained, and so determined to fuel their outrage, that they're being willfully ignorant to certain objective points and realities.

Either way, I agree that this convo has run its course.

TCTTS said:

---

I'd say it's half and half. Some who know better are clearly gaslighting, but there are others who are simply so ingrained, and so determined to fuel their outrage, that they're being willfully ignorant to certain objective points and realities.

Either way, I agree that this convo has run its course.

---

The only outrage there should be is at the subject material, not who it was made by, you goaltending freaks.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Caviezel has promoted QAnon garbage. The outlets playing up this movie the most are right wing outlets including QAnon outlets. The most recent "save our children" bit started with QAnon and was part of a conspiracy theory where essentially anyone they didn't like with any power or cultural presence was a pedophile or torturing kids for their own benefit. And the real life subject of the film has been accused of overhyping his accomplishments and causing problems for others working on the issue. So yes, these are real concerns around the movie.

---

Sounds like they were onto something. Keep your head buried in the sand, bud.

That's because you are in the 2% of the population that has ever even heard of QAnon because you are a message board regular.

I challenge you to go outside and poll people on the street and ask them what are their thoughts on QAnon. I gurantee well over 9 out of 10 people will look at you and ask you to repeat the question and then look at you like you're crazy.

TCTTS said:

---

A thread was created specifically for the movie...

https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/3386014

So I assumed this thread was for ancillary movie talk, while the other thread was for the contents of the movie itself.

---

The second thread was only created because you derailed this one.

TequilaMockingbird said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

A thread was created specifically for the movie...

https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/3386014

So I assumed this thread was for ancillary movie talk, while the other thread was for the contents of the movie itself.

---

The second thread was only created because you derailed this one.

---

Literally the third post of this thread started spouting Hollywood conspiracy nonsense, warning that "Father Yah is watching," and then I wasn't even the first to bring up the QAnon aspect, but ok.

I'm sorry, but this thread was doomed from the jump.

OP was zealous, then everything went to ****

TCTTS said:

---

TequilaMockingbird said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

A thread was created specifically for the movie...

https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/3386014

So I assumed this thread was for ancillary movie talk, while the other thread was for the contents of the movie itself.

---

The second thread was only created because you derailed this one.

---

Literally the third post of this thread started spouting Hollywood conspiracy nonsense, warning that "Father Yah is watching," and then I wasn't even the first to bring up the QAnon aspect, but ok.

I'm sorry, but this thread was doomed from the jump.

---

So in your eyes it's ok to ruin the thread, because it was "destined " to be ruined? Grow up.

Clearly, my point is that the thread was already derailed by the time I chimed in.

More importantly, though, this thread was started nearly a *week* before the movie was released. No one had even seen it yet, so how could we have a discussion about its content? By the time the movie actually did release - six days later - this thread was so far gone that a new thread was then started. But when have you guys ever let facts get in the way of a good hate narrative against me?

Either way, why aren't you just as annoyed at redsquirrelAG or Tibbers? From the third post of the thread, redsquirrelAG was talking nonstop about a Hollywood conspiracy, and how God was going to judge those who were trying to "suppress" the movie, as others joined in with similar messaging. All while Tibbers was spreading QAnon nonsense, talking about the Clintons and whoever else, as he went on a batsh*t crusade to see my "downfall" and my "influence" wane. Each of them have had multiple posts deleted by staff in this thread, for how much they've gone off topic and attacked me. Yet here again, *I'm* to blame, simply because I reacted to them with counter arguments.

Seriously, how much more bullsh*t are you guys going to spread?

TCTTS said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

I saw a thread on the only other message board I frequent besides TexAgs, phantasytour.com, and there is a thread about this movie as well and resident leftists on there are also discrediting the movie they haven't seen and calling it "QAnon adjacent".

I don't even know what QAnon is really, let alone what the hell QAnon adjacent even means (never once posted in the old Q thread here or even read it). I did find it funny though to see the same NPC talking points on a drug band message board as here, though.

---

They aren't "talking points."

It's just basic, common sense.

There are two theoretical paths here...

1) Release a politically neutral movie that depicts the horrors of child trafficking, one that hopefully raises awareness to the point of eventually leading to further tangible action that saves additional children/helps alleviate the problem. In this scenario, no QAnon rhetoric is used by the filmmakers in their promotion of the movie, thus no controversy surrounds the movie, thus the potential exists for the movie to reach a much wider audience, and thus have more of an impact on addressing the issue.

- or -

2) Release the exact same movie as above, with the exact same political neutrality, that has the potential to lead to the exact same outcome as above. However, because QAnon rhetoric is attached to the promotion of it, the potential audience reach is instantly cut in half. Rhetoric that attracts controversial figures like Mel Gibson, Steve Bannon, and Michael Flynn, whom half the country instantly tunes out because of their association and promotion of the movie, assuming the movie is just another crazy conspiracy theory being peddled by the fringe far right.

Not to mention, in the second scenario, because of the QAnon rhetoric being used, the left is further demonized, to a ridiculously insane degree, which of course raises the potential for further Pizzagate-type incidents, or worse.

The media didn't just slap the QAnon stigma on this movie out of thin air, for no good reason. That happened *because* of Jim Caviezel's own words/beliefs. They're *reacting* to Caviezel's own rhetoric, and how his rhetoric has led to the fringe far right using this movie to advance their lunatic conspiracy theories against the left. In other words, the only reason it's being labeled "QAnon adjacent" is because Caviezel hasn't been able to keep his crazy to himself.

Frankly, it just blows my mind that this entire time a handful of us here have been arguing FOR a path that leads to an objectively larger audience for this movie, yet somehow *we're* the villains for expressing our concern.

It's honestly mind-blowing, yet such a simple concept to understand.

---

Mind blowing indeed. Take a second poll amongst your Hollywood peers and report back to us all. Would love to see the reaction. You won't, because you are an absolute coward. But it would be a fun experiment nonetheless.

In the meantime, can the mods please perma this guy?

Easy fix, bud-quit derailing everything. People can like or not like something.

You called for me to be perma'd because I didn't like episode 3 of The Last Of Us, something I actually watched.

You haven't seen a thing on this, post some loser's opinion from bankrupt Vice, and expect others to take you seriously while most of us think you should be taking 10! laps by now. Sad.

And I saw the movie yesterday. Your assertions are baseless and obviously agenda driven. You didn't offer any point of view that we couldn't deduce wouldn't come from a Hollywood "insider" such as you. You did exactly this in the Last of Us thread because of your adolescent behavior. You can't stand opposition to your view and you lash out at anyone who does with insults.

If anyone is concerned with an underlying message of faith, God or religion, it's just not there. Nothing political or faith based in the film. It does an outstanding job of presenting a difficult topic in a palatable light and I'd recommend anyone to go see it.

TCTTS said:

---

Perma me for what? Disagreeing with the mob?

---

TCTTS, your disagreement is based on the possible political affiliations of the star and true life subject, and not the movie itself, and your attack of those possible affiliations, true or not, is going to lead to a lot of disagreement.

There are plenty of movies that Hollywood makes that have political messaging in them, so you're ok when those movies happen as long as it's a message you're on board with. I think that's true for most folks.

Just don't be surprised if continuing to attack these individuals based on your perception of their politics instead of talking about the movie gets you into a lot of arguments.

This is a good snapshot of the entertainment industry and the so-called insiders.

When they show you who they are....believe them. pic.twitter.com/K4rVC3Q98k

— Natalie F Danelishen (@Chesschick01) July 8, 2023

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And I saw the movie yesterday. Your assertions are baseless and obviously agenda driven. You didn't offer any point of view that we couldn't deduce wouldn't come from a Hollywood "insider" such as you. You did exactly this in the Last of Us thread because of your adolescent behavior. You can't stand opposition to your view and you lash out at anyone who does with insults.

If anyone is concerned with an underlying message of faith, God or religion, it's just not there. Nothing political or faith based in the film. It does an outstanding job of presenting a difficult topic in a palatable light and I'd recommend anyone to go see it.

---

- Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie. That is an objective fact and not at all "baseless." Yesterday, I explained in detail why I have a problem with him doing so, and why him doing so negatively affects the reach of an otherwise non-political, apparently good /effective movie. Clearly, you ignored that post, like most everything else I've said.

- Re: the above, my "point of view" in that regard has absolutely nothing to do with me being a "Hollywood insider." I don't even know what that means or how it's at all relevant to the QAnon issue. My knowledge of Caviezel's QAnon peddling was gained from watching/hearing Caviezel's own words over the past few days/weeks/months, which I came across via various non-Hollywood news articles and posts.

- I have been called more names than I can count in this thread, have been the aim of multiple personal attacks, have literally been accused of child trafficking, of being a pedophile, and have been told I'm going to hell. Multiple times. Across two different threads, actually, on two different boards, one of them I'm not even participating in. Yet, not a single one of you has voiced your disapproval of those people lashing out at me. It's only my "lashing out" in response that's a problem and a derailment. How that's not the height of hypocrisy, I don't know.

- I have said absolutely nothing about "faith, God, or religion" being in this movie. And if it was in the movie, I wouldn't care one bit. That, and I have made it abundantly clear that I realize the movie takes no side politically. I've said as much at least three times on each of the last, say, five pages. I've said it so much that I can't believe I'm typing it yet again.

For the thousandth time, my issue is that because the PROMOTION of the movie - not the movie itself - has been so tied to QAnon and controversial figures like Gibson, Bannon, and Flynn, the potential audience reach of the movie and it's message has been severely limited. I'm arguing that the movie SHOULD be seen by more people, but that it's not because of its promoters' association with certain people and certain conspiracies that instantly turn away half the country. And yet, for some reason, that makes me a bad person worthy of some of the most insane vitriol I've ever seen in this board.

Considering you've spent days filling 12 pages of this thread with angry diatribes about a movie you haven't seen tells me their PROMOTION game is working…

My "angry diatribes" have mostly been in defense/response to people continually calling me, and accusing me of, some of the worst thing I've ever been called/accused of. It's insane to me that on a public message board I've been accused of literally trafficking children and promoting pedophillia, yet when I respond "angrily," I'm the one in the wrong. One poster is even actively rooting for my "downfall," while showing signs of crazed, obsessive behavior, and I'm just supposed to either turn the other cheek or ignore it all? All because I echoed opinions about QAnon? Really?

TCTTS said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And I saw the movie yesterday. Your assertions are baseless and obviously agenda driven. You didn't offer any point of view that we couldn't deduce wouldn't come from a Hollywood "insider" such as you. You did exactly this in the Last of Us thread because of your adolescent behavior. You can't stand opposition to your view and you lash out at anyone who does with insults.

If anyone is concerned with an underlying message of faith, God or religion, it's just not there. Nothing political or faith based in the film. It does an outstanding job of presenting a difficult topic in a palatable light and I'd recommend anyone to go see it.

---

- Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie. That is an objective fact and not at all "baseless." Yesterday, I explained in detail why I have a problem with him doing so, and why him doing so negatively affects the reach of an otherwise non-political, apparently good /effective movie. Clearly, you ignored that post, like most everything else I've said.

- Re: the above, my "point of view" in that regard has absolutely nothing to do with me being a "Hollywood insider." I don't even know what that means or how it's at all relevant to the QAnon issue. My knowledge of Caviezel's QAnon peddling was gained from watching/hearing Caviezel's own words over the past few days/weeks/months, which I came across via various non-Hollywood news articles and posts.

- I have been called more names than I can count in this thread, have been the aim of multiple personal attacks, have literally been accused of child trafficking, of being a pedophile, and have been told I'm going to hell. Multiple times. Across two different threads, actually, on two different boards, one of them I'm not even participating in. Yet, not a single one of you has voiced your disapproval of those people lashing out at me. It's only my "lashing out" in response that's a problem and a derailment. How that's not the height of hypocrisy, I don't know.

- I have said absolutely nothing about "faith, God, or religion" being in this movie. And if it was in the movie, I wouldn't care one bit. That, and I have made it abundantly clear that I realize the movie takes no side politically. I've said as much at least three times on each of the last, say, five pages. I've said it so much that I can't believe I'm typing it yet again.

For the thousandth time, my issue is that because the PROMOTION of the movie - not the movie itself - has been so tied to QAnon and controversial figures like Gibson, Bannon, and Flynn, the potential audience reach of the movie and it's message has been severely limited. I'm arguing that the movie SHOULD be seen by more people, but that it's not because of its promoters' association with certain people and certain conspiracies that instantly turn away half the country. And yet, for some reason, that makes me a bad person worthy of some of the most insane vitriol I've ever seen in this board.

---

I think the QAnon stuff is bonkers.

Honest question. I think the entire Scientology "religion" and Tom Cruise's power and influence is just as if not more damaging as QAnon crap. I have no issues seeing his films that do not espouse those beliefs. Celebs say crazy stuff. For the most part, a lot of them are a little unhinged. Why is this the one you are crusading on?

The crazier posters on the board shouldn't rile you up. Ignore them. Don't stoop to their level. You fall into that trap too often.

I love that people are still entering this thread saying, "I just saw the movie and there's no political stuff in it," as if they're responding to something anyone is saying.

I saw it last night. I think the biggest take away is that people should recognize that child trafficking is going on all over the world, it is pure evil, and you should do something about it, whether it be to promote the movie for awareness, or donate to a local group that works to support those who help rescue the children. It is in our community NOW. Children are being kidnapped now. This isn't political...it is recognition of the evil around us.

I just saw the movie. It was good. No political agenda

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And I saw the movie yesterday. Your assertions are baseless and obviously agenda driven. You didn't offer any point of view that we couldn't deduce wouldn't come from a Hollywood "insider" such as you. You did exactly this in the Last of Us thread because of your adolescent behavior. You can't stand opposition to your view and you lash out at anyone who does with insults.

If anyone is concerned with an underlying message of faith, God or religion, it's just not there. Nothing political or faith based in the film. It does an outstanding job of presenting a difficult topic in a palatable light and I'd recommend anyone to go see it.

---

- Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie. That is an objective fact and not at all "baseless." Yesterday, I explained in detail why I have a problem with him doing so, and why him doing so negatively affects the reach of an otherwise non-political, apparently good /effective movie. Clearly, you ignored that post, like most everything else I've said.

- Re: the above, my "point of view" in that regard has absolutely nothing to do with me being a "Hollywood insider." I don't even know what that means or how it's at all relevant to the QAnon issue. My knowledge of Caviezel's QAnon peddling was gained from watching/hearing Caviezel's own words over the past few days/weeks/months, which I came across via various non-Hollywood news articles and posts.

- I have been called more names than I can count in this thread, have been the aim of multiple personal attacks, have literally been accused of child trafficking, of being a pedophile, and have been told I'm going to hell. Multiple times. Across two different threads, actually, on two different boards, one of them I'm not even participating in. Yet, not a single one of you has voiced your disapproval of those people lashing out at me. It's only my "lashing out" in response that's a problem and a derailment. How that's not the height of hypocrisy, I don't know.

- I have said absolutely nothing about "faith, God, or religion" being in this movie. And if it was in the movie, I wouldn't care one bit. That, and I have made it abundantly clear that I realize the movie takes no side politically. I've said as much at least three times on each of the last, say, five pages. I've said it so much that I can't believe I'm typing it yet again.

For the thousandth time, my issue is that because the PROMOTION of the movie - not the movie itself - has been so tied to QAnon and controversial figures like Gibson, Bannon, and Flynn, the potential audience reach of the movie and it's message has been severely limited. I'm arguing that the movie SHOULD be seen by more people, but that it's not because of its promoters' association with certain people and certain conspiracies that instantly turn away half the country. And yet, for some reason, that makes me a bad person worthy of some of the most insane vitriol I've ever seen in this board.

---

I think the QAnon stuff is bonkers.

Honest question. I think the entire Scientology "religion" and Tom Cruise's power and influence is just as if not more damaging as QAnon crap. I have no issues seeing his films that do not espouse those beliefs. Celebs say crazy stuff. For the most part, a lot of them are a little unhinged. Why is this the one you are crusading on?

The crazier posters on the board shouldn't rile you up. Ignore them. Don't stoop to their level. You fall into that trap too often.

---

For me, it's partly because Cruise doesn't use Scientology to promote his movies, nor is the promotion of his movies driven by any of his Scientology beliefs. As I said earlier, he used to talk Scientology all the damn time, and would even set up freaking recruitment tents. But then, 15ish years ago, he finally wised up to the fact that it was turning people away. It was limiting his audience, just as Caviezel's rhetoric is limiting his audience.

Another big difference is that Cruise's movies weren't tackling such important issues. If Cruise did use Scientology to promote a movie, and doing so turned people off, ultimately it was no big deal, morally speaking. But when QAnon rhetoric is dominating the headlines, all because of Caviezel and others spreading QAnon crap, their words are legitimately keeping the message of the movie from reaching a wider audience, and IMO, that *is* a big deal, morally speaking.

TCTTS said:

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

And I saw the movie yesterday. Your assertions are baseless and obviously agenda driven. You didn't offer any point of view that we couldn't deduce wouldn't come from a Hollywood "insider" such as you. You did exactly this in the Last of Us thread because of your adolescent behavior. You can't stand opposition to your view and you lash out at anyone who does with insults.

If anyone is concerned with an underlying message of faith, God or religion, it's just not there. Nothing political or faith based in the film. It does an outstanding job of presenting a difficult topic in a palatable light and I'd recommend anyone to go see it.

---

- Jim Caviezel has used QAnon rhetoric to promote this movie. That is an objective fact and not at all "baseless." Yesterday, I explained in detail why I have a problem with him doing so, and why him doing so negatively affects the reach of an otherwise non-political, apparently good /effective movie. Clearly, you ignored that post, like most everything else I've said.

- Re: the above, my "point of view" in that regard has absolutely nothing to do with me being a "Hollywood insider." I don't even know what that means or how it's at all relevant to the QAnon issue. My knowledge of Caviezel's QAnon peddling was gained from watching/hearing Caviezel's own words over the past few days/weeks/months, which I came across via various non-Hollywood news articles and posts.

- I have been called more names than I can count in this thread, have been the aim of multiple personal attacks, have literally been accused of child trafficking, of being a pedophile, and have been told I'm going to hell. Multiple times. Across two different threads, actually, on two different boards, one of them I'm not even participating in. Yet, not a single one of you has voiced your disapproval of those people lashing out at me. It's only my "lashing out" in response that's a problem and a derailment. How that's not the height of hypocrisy, I don't know.

- I have said absolutely nothing about "faith, God, or religion" being in this movie. And if it was in the movie, I wouldn't care one bit. That, and I have made it abundantly clear that I realize the movie takes no side politically. I've said as much at least three times on each of the last, say, five pages. I've said it so much that I can't believe I'm typing it yet again.

For the thousandth time, my issue is that because the PROMOTION of the movie - not the movie itself - has been so tied to QAnon and controversial figures like Gibson, Bannon, and Flynn, the potential audience reach of the movie and it's message has been severely limited. I'm arguing that the movie SHOULD be seen by more people, but that it's not because of its promoters' association with certain people and certain conspiracies that instantly turn away half the country. And yet, for some reason, that makes me a bad person worthy of some of the most insane vitriol I've ever seen in this board.

---

I think the QAnon stuff is bonkers.

Honest question. I think the entire Scientology "religion" and Tom Cruise's power and influence is just as if not more damaging as QAnon crap. I have no issues seeing his films that do not espouse those beliefs. Celebs say crazy stuff. For the most part, a lot of them are a little unhinged. Why is this the one you are crusading on?

The crazier posters on the board shouldn't rile you up. Ignore them. Don't stoop to their level. You fall into that trap too often.

---

For me, it's partly because Cruise doesn't use Scientology to promote his movies, nor is the promotion of his movies driven by any of his Scientology beliefs. As I said earlier, he used to talk Scientology all the damn time, and would even set up freaking recruitment tents. But then, 15ish years ago, he finally wised up to the fact that it was turning people away. It was limiting his audience, just as Caviezel's rhetoric is limiting his audience.

Another big difference is that Cruise's movies weren't tackling such important issues. If Cruise did use Scientology to promote a movie, and doing so turned people off, ultimately it was no big deal, morally speaking. But when QAnon rhetoric is dominating the headlines, all because of Caviezel and others spreading QAnon crap, their words are legitimately keeping the message of the movie from reaching a wider audience, and IMO, that *is* a big deal, morally speaking.

---

Morally speaking? I honestly don't know enough about Q to engage there but this movie seems to be doing pretty well considering it was released by a small outfit in Angel Studios. How would they have reached a larger audience than they are currently?