Ervin Burrell said:

---

redsquirrelAG said:

---

Paul was going to expose the crimes in Haiti and connections to the Clintons.

---

If you say so. Thanks for all the "receipts", btw.

Definitely seems reasonable that the Clintons recruited somebody to drive 120 mph straight into a tree…because reasons.

---

Can't believe I missed this gem.

Why is Jim Caviezel considered crazy or difficult? I can't seem to find any incidents other than he is conservative, Catholic and refuses to do nude scenes?

Sound of Freedom continues getting massive momentum, now with Dana White buying tickets for all UFC employees!

pic.twitter.com/3eqeqCuDIo

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) July 9, 2023

Rolling stone with a huge hit piece onthe movie taking the TCCTS angle that it's a conspiracy theorist wet dream and mocks the movie and movement against exposing child trafficking and pedophilia.

OVER THE TARGET!

ILL SAY IT AGAIN YES I BELIVE FATHER YEHOVAH OUR CREATOR IS WATCHING MANKIND and this moment TO EXPOSE THE Worst CRIMES POSSIBLE, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

GOOD OR EVIL?

Just got out of a packed 3 pm showing.

I'm glad I watched that. Hard to watch at times of course, but a very good movie.

Honestly I was surprised at how apolitical it was. Outside of maybe the "white savior" trope (which is most movies anyway), there's nothing remotely controversial in there. I hope everyone can block out all the noise around the movie and just see it for themselves.

And in any case, it's clear the word has gotten out.

Recommended for everyone regardless of political or religious persuasion.

redsquirrelAG said:

---

Rolling stone with a huge hit piece onthe movie taking the TCCTS angle that it's a conspiracy theorist wet dream and mocks the movie and movement against exposing child trafficking and pedophilia.

OVER THE TARGET!

ILL SAY IT AGAIN YES I BELIVE FATHER YEHOVAH OUR CREATOR IS WATCHING MANKIND and this moment TO EXPOSE THE Worst CRIMES POSSIBLE, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

GOOD OR EVIL?

---

Man, had a RS subscription from the age of 12, till I hit 40. Read Jann Wenners recent bio. But RS has really went off the rails this decade, unreadable. It's sad, they were always liberal, but now its just garbage.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Interesting....

Here's what they won't admit

Entire media calling Sound of Freedom a QAnon film but ignores the fact that it was made in 2017-2018 before QAnon really even got going

I know why they're doing this, just had to point it out

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 9, 2023

---

I'm honestly kind of speechless at this point, at either the ignorance, or the gaslighting nature of arguments like this.

Because no one here is saying there is QAnon messaging within the movie. What we're saying is that now, in the year 2023, the filmmakers, and a whole slew of others, are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie.

That's it and that's all.

This point has been made a kajillion times in this thread, explained in detail, every way possible.

And yet a handful of people here *continue* to push this bad faith nonsense.

Quote:

---

What we're saying is that now, in the year 2023, the filmmakers, and a whole slew of others, are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie.

---

Can you point to where the Filmakers and "slew of others" are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie? And something other than "Vice News says".......Actual interviews, promotion videos, etc......

Gaslighting goes both ways and I say this as someone who despises the Qfreaks. it is clear no one from traditional news entertainment is approaching the movie in any good faith and is gaslighting people to feel bad for appreciating what this movie is talking about.

TCTTS said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Interesting....

Here's what they won't admit

Entire media calling Sound of Freedom a QAnon film but ignores the fact that it was made in 2017-2018 before QAnon really even got going

I know why they're doing this, just had to point it out

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 9, 2023

---

I'm honestly kind of speechless at this point, at either the ignorance, or the gaslighting nature of arguments like this.

Because no one here is saying there is QAnon messaging within the movie. What we're saying is that now, in the year 2023, the filmmakers, and a whole slew of others, are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie.

That's it and that's all.

This point has been made a kajillion times in this thread, explained in detail, every way possible.

And yet a handful of people here *continue* to push this bad faith nonsense.

---

Even if, what part of Q do you vehemently disagree with? It'd be nice to understand where you are coming from because apparently we both agree that Q bringing to light child trafficking is a good thing.

TCTTS said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Interesting....

Here's what they won't admit

Entire media calling Sound of Freedom a QAnon film but ignores the fact that it was made in 2017-2018 before QAnon really even got going

I know why they're doing this, just had to point it out

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 9, 2023

---

I'm honestly kind of speechless at this point, at either the ignorance, or the gaslighting nature of arguments like this.

Because no one here is saying there is QAnon messaging within the movie. What we're saying is that now, in the year 2023, the filmmakers, and a whole slew of others, are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie.

That's it and that's all.

This point has been made a kajillion times in this thread, explained in detail, every way possible.

And yet a handful of people here *continue* to push this bad faith nonsense.

---

People struggle to grapple why some conspiracy theories are such a line in the sand when you have cowards like this Hollywood. I hate Qanon, but pedophiles can burn in acid.

Quote:

---

In recent months, Polanski's supporters in Britain and the US, who were once so vocal in his defence, have been notable by their silence. So I decided to ask them how they felt about Polanski now. I start by emailing Zenovich to ask if she feels attitudes towards Polanski have changed since she made her movie and its follow-up, Roman Polanski: Odd Man Out, about the Zurich arrest. But she is too busy preparing for Sundance to engage. I then contact 25 actors who have worked with Polanski since his arrest, including Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Christoph Waltz, Kate Winslet, Kim Cattrall, Pierce Brosnan and Jodie Foster. Some don't reply at all, despite repeated approaches. A few will only talk off the record. The rest say they are too busy. Adrien Brody, who won an Oscar for The Pianist, was "unable to participate due to schedule". Kingsley, who has worked with Polanski multiple times, would "need to pass".

I then contact the film-makers who signed the 2009 petition demanding Polanski's release, including David Lynch, Wes Anderson and Martin Scorsese. Again, some ignore me, a couple will talk off the record, some are too busy to talk at all. Alexander Payne is currently "focused on his new baby". Tilda Swinton "would like to graciously pass on being interviewed". Only one person who signed the petition agrees to speak on the record: the actor Asia Argento, who has since accused Weinstein of abusing her.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/30/hollywood-reverence-child-rapist-roman-polanski-convicted-40-years-on-run

I think there was a thread here recently about Wes Anderson.


Actually being a pedophile is more forgivable in Hollywood apparently.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Just got out of a packed 3 pm showing.

I'm glad I watched that. Hard to watch at times of course, but a very good movie.

Honestly I was surprised at how apolitical it was. Outside of maybe the "white savior" trope (which is most movies anyway), there's nothing remotely controversial in there. I hope everyone can block out all the noise around the movie and just see it for themselves.

And in any case, it's clear the word has gotten out.

Recommended for everyone regardless of political or religious persuasion.

---

Appreciate this honest review from a non F16 resident. Going to give it a shot tomorrow.

Raiderjay said:

---

Quote:

---

What we're saying is that now, in the year 2023, the filmmakers, and a whole slew of others, are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie.

---

Can you point to where the Filmakers and slew of others are using QAnon messaging to promote teh movie? And something other than "Vice News says".......Actual interviews, promotion videos, etc......

---

SPOILER ALERT: He can't

And if the QAons are using QAnon conspiracy theories to promote the movie, as the movie has NONE of that crap in it wouldn't it piss off the QAnoners and then that would get out on the QAnon interwebs?

Is the movie any good should be the only thing that people are talking about....but I cant help but notice something.

This thread is almost as bad as the live action Little Mermaid thread and there's one common denominator in both.

Another L for the groomers and groomer-defenders.




Get a life and leave the kids alone, please!

This is an exhausting and disappointing thread to read on this board...

Sapper Redux said:

---

Actual child sex trafficking is not a political issue. QAnon conspiracies about trafficking are, and conflating medical care for trans teens with "grooming," certainly is. This film is being marketed specifically to Christian and conservative audiences through Christian and conservative channels. I don't think it's a surprise that it's being ignored by the rest of the population. The choice of subject is also controversial. His organization is not always well regarded by others working on trafficking.

---

TCTTS said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

Interesting....

Here's what they won't admit

Entire media calling Sound of Freedom a QAnon film but ignores the fact that it was made in 2017-2018 before QAnon really even got going

I know why they're doing this, just had to point it out

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) July 9, 2023

---

I'm honestly kind of speechless at this point, at either the ignorance, or the gaslighting nature of arguments like this.

Because no one here is saying there is QAnon messaging within the movie. What we're saying is that now, in the year 2023, the filmmakers, and a whole slew of others, are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie.

That's it and that's all.

This point has been made a kajillion times in this thread, explained in detail, every way possible.

And yet a handful of people here *continue* to push this bad faith nonsense.

---

That tweet wasn't directed at you and its inclusion here in this thread wasn't directed at you either. It was directed at the MSM like CNN who are saying exactly what the tweet is referring to. Yet you still continually jump in all defensive trying to stir the pot every time you feel offended. Maybe you should just stop posting in this thread? Or not. I don't care. But you just seem to keep digging in deeper without anything new to add.

pic.twitter.com/qK58OdqmON

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) July 9, 2023

Raiderjay said:

---

Quote:

---

What we're saying is that now, in the year 2023, the filmmakers, and a whole slew of others, are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie.

---

Can you point to where the Filmakers and "slew of others" are using QAnon messaging to promote the movie? And something other than "Vice News says".......Actual interviews, promotion videos, etc......

---

Below is an excerpt from an interview, where in Caviezel talks about "the adrenochroming of children" while directly promoting this movie...

Jim Caviezel further pushes the "adrenochrome" conspiracy theory (https://t.co/E3q2Fe2H25): (clip 2/2) pic.twitter.com/xAqNcyJOcz

— Eric Hananoki (ehananokimmfa: threads) (@ehananoki) April 17, 2021

The adrenochroming of children is a QAnon-born conspiracy theory, which is a key tenant of a larger false narrative that claims the existence of a satanic "deep state" cabal of powerful Democrats in government, media, and Hollywood, who participate in an international child sex trafficking ring to harvest adrenochrome from the blood of children to take as a psychedelic or life-extending drug. In 2016, the peddling of this fever dream is what led directly to the man who swallowed the adrenochrome theory hook, line, and sinker, Edgar Maddison Welch, in his attempt to liberate children he believed were being kept captive in a Washington pizza parlor by Hillary Clinton. There, he brandished a rifle and a pistol as he "investigated the crime," threatening customers and employees in the process. He was subsequently arrested and sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail.

Yet, five years later, despite how close the adrenochome insanity came to resulting in a mass shooting, Caviezel then irresponsibly promoted the bullsh*t theory again, directly to an audience of conservative conspiracy theorists, at what was all but an official QAnon convention, given the other guest speakers and speeches given over the two-day conference.

"Okay, but that was two years ago."

Well, here are a couple of promotional interviews Caviezel gave recently with Steve Bannon, of all people, where in he continues to peddle the same nonsense and more, while now playing the victim card as well…

Actor Jim Caviezel went on Steve Bannon's War Room again, where besides invoking the QAnon-connected adrenochrome conspiracy theory now also claimed it was connected to the false Ukrainian biolabs conspiracy theory — which originally blew up online due to a QAnon influencer. https://t.co/vuXapDbMn7 pic.twitter.com/UQaq1WngMs

— Alex Kaplan (@AlKapDC) June 21, 2023

You can see the entire first interview for yourself here, which includes multiple incoherent rants from Caviezel, with the cherry on top being the long, gonzo tweet that sets it all up (yet another example of how certain radicals are using this movie in attempt to radicalize their followers)…

THE ADRENOCHROME EMPIRE: What is driving the child trafficking demand? Child sex, organ harvesting and Adrenochrome. This is a big deal. Adrenochrome is an Elite drug they have used for many years. 10 times more potent than heroin with mystical qualities to make you look younger.… pic.twitter.com/lSpWniwkzo

— Truth Justice ™ (@SpartaJustice) July 6, 2023

I'm not going to waste more time tracking them all down and linking to them here, but there are plenty of other interviews and tirades out there, along the same lines. Just go look for yourself.

As for Ballard, here he is recently - in promotion of the movie - using the movie to demonize the left to a ridiculous degree. Now, does a *portion* of the left do what he's accusing them of? Yes, absolutely, and I can't stand those assh*les either. But for whatever reason, guys like Ballard can't just talk about this issue as an apolitical tragedy. They can't stop there, they *have* to then turn it into an anti-woke screed, or a giant conspiracy, where in one side of the political spectrum is either responsible for this tragedy, or shares the same values of those perpetuating this tragedy…

Tim Ballard
I had to study their literature (child traffickers/pedophiles)
1. separate children from parents.
2. Sexualize kids let them see pornography.
3. Take God out of education.
4. Kids can consent.
It’s the woke left agenda

Who believes is coincidences? pic.twitter.com/VouCRj0UKN

— Jeff (@ISO_XRP) July 5, 2023

You add all of this together, and it is undeniable that those directly associated with this movie, in conjunction with the controversial voices whom they've inspired and given their time and support, absolutely believe that only one political party is responsible for this tragedy, thus are using this tragedy/movie to demonize the left to a ridiculous, batsh*t insane, QAnon-inspired degree. Which then, in turn, radicalizes gullible right wingers to the point of things like Pizzagate, or worse.

In other words, you have the filmmakers themselves politicizing their own movie, in their promotion of the movie, yet some of you have the audacity to get mad at people like me and "the media" for then associating the movie with QAnon as well. When none of this would be happening if not for the filmmakers' own words.

Do you really not see how hypocritical that is?

Why some of you can't accept this, I will never understand. Why you can't just be like, "It's a great, important movie, but yeah, it sucks that the filmmakers believe and promote this crap," I'll never know. Some of you are, and I appreciate that. But to the rest of you, I just don't know what to say anymore. Especially when I concede all the damn time that Hollywood is full of pieces of sh*t who pull roughly the same crap, yet some of you absolutely refuse to admit that your "side's" sh*t stinks as well.

And look, obviously a number of people here are going to watch the interviews above and come up with all kinds of excuses regardless, because they essentially either believe this crap as well - or - couldn't care less if the left is demonized to the point of collateral damage in the process. So I completely realize even this is going to get some idiotic pushback, but whatever. I've said my piece (in every way possible, across pages of posts), I've brought receipts, and if you guys still want to keep up the gaslighting, go right ahead.

FCBlitz said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Actual child sex trafficking is not a political issue. QAnon conspiracies about trafficking are, and conflating medical care for trans teens with "grooming," certainly is. This film is being marketed specifically to Christian and conservative audiences through Christian and conservative channels. I don't think it's a surprise that it's being ignored by the rest of the population. The choice of subject is also controversial. His organization is not always well regarded by others working on trafficking.

---

So are you saying how the movie portrays human trafficking is too harsh?

---

What? Are we even speaking the same language at this point?

TCTTS said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

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?

---

Yes, it's doing great numbers for an indie. But like I alluded to earlier, imagine the same movie, except with none of the countless reviews/headlines associating it with QAnon, all because Caviezel & co decided to go all Q in their promotion of it. If this was *just* a solid, heart-wrenching movie with an important message, without the Q stigma, I would argue that so many more on the left would have shown up for this thing, if only out of sheer curiosity after such a news-worthy opening day.

I mean, Spotlight - a movie that by its very title shined a light on an investigation into widespread and systemic child sex abuse - won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2016. In other words, Hollywood isn't afraid of this kind of subject matter. What turns them off/keeps them away is the QAnon stench that Caviezel & co gave this thing.

---

I call BS on this. You, and others, have associated the Q stuff with this pic because of Caviezel…. period.

It hasn't been marketed that way. It hasn't been attached to or associated with the Q stuff outside of people like you and the media and the libs attaching it to it. It was not in the marketing. I have looked. I have studied the marketing. And the Q stuff is not attached by Angel or Caviezel or anyone else associated with it.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Actual child sex trafficking is not a political issue. QAnon conspiracies about trafficking are, and conflating medical care for trans teens with "grooming," certainly is. This film is being marketed specifically to Christian and conservative audiences through Christian and conservative channels. I don't think it's a surprise that it's being ignored by the rest of the population. The choice of subject is also controversial. His organization is not always well regarded by others working on trafficking.

---

---

Do you think viewer reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are an accurate, scientifically verified method for measuring actual audience opinion and engagement? Because if you are, we need to have a discussion about how statistics and polling works.

This may win the worst thread on TexAgs.

TCTTS said:

---

I seriously doubt I'll be watching the movie myself, but I'll of course wait and reserve judgment to see if this thing really does delve into or hint at a CIA conspiracy component, touches on adrenochroming and the like, or lays the blame on liberals or immigrants or whoever. This Tim Ballard dude is dubious enough, and the loudest voices shilling for this thing are suspect as hell (Mel Gibson, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, etc), but still.

Either way, the overall concern people have with crap like this is that the filmmakers shouldn't have to rile people up with psyops to get them to care about human trafficking. Because anyone with a heart *already cares* about human trafficking. So then you start wonder if the filmmakers are using a subject like this for nefarious/political purposes, in order to cast one side as evil or "the other" or whatever, because that has certainly been the result so far.

I don't know, the whole thing just stinks to high heaven, and it sounds like people were right to be questioning it from the jump.

---

You posted this gem on page 2. I haven't seen this movie, and probably won't because my job keeps me too busy, but your speculation about it in this post, without seeing it, is pretty telling.

Human trafficking is a devastating reality today and from what I've heard, this movie does a great job of telling an incredible story about this horrible reality. The fact that people on the Left think it's political says a lot about what Leftism is today.

I'll just ask you some questions. Are you familiar with the new label Minor Attracted Person (MAP)?

Was it the Left or the Right who coined this new label?

Are you okay with this label, which at it's core seeks to legitimize adults who are attracted to minors (pedophiles)?

mslags97 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

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?

---

Yes, it's doing great numbers for an indie. But like I alluded to earlier, imagine the same movie, except with none of the countless reviews/headlines associating it with QAnon, all because Caviezel & co decided to go all Q in their promotion of it. If this was *just* a solid, heart-wrenching movie with an important message, without the Q stigma, I would argue that so many more on the left would have shown up for this thing, if only out of sheer curiosity after such a news-worthy opening day.

I mean, Spotlight - a movie that by its very title shined a light on an investigation into widespread and systemic child sex abuse - won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2016. In other words, Hollywood isn't afraid of this kind of subject matter. What turns them off/keeps them away is the QAnon stench that Caviezel & co gave this thing.

---

I call BS on this. You, and others, have associated the Q stuff with this pic because of Caviezel…. period.

It hasn't been marketed that way. It hasn't been attached to or associated with the Q stuff outside of people like you and the media and the libs attaching it to it. It was not in the marketing. I have looked. I have studied the marketing. And the Q stuff is not attached by Angel or Caviezel or anyone else associated with it.

---

The marketing campaign leaned heavily into right wing media, including people associated with QAnon. Caviezel has associated himself with QAnon conspiracies that include their child trafficking conspiracies, and Ballard has made explicitly political attacks on liberals and leftists that dog-whistle towards QAnon claims. Of course they aren't making a movie that says, "Q IS RIGHT!," nor marketing it directly like that. That would be financially idiotic. What is being pointed out repeatedly here are the connections and the problems with those connections. No one here has said anyone involved is stupid enough to tank their movie by making dog whistles towards one crowd explicit to everyone.

snowdog90 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I seriously doubt I'll be watching the movie myself, but I'll of course wait and reserve judgment to see if this thing really does delve into or hint at a CIA conspiracy component, touches on adrenochroming and the like, or lays the blame on liberals or immigrants or whoever. This Tim Ballard dude is dubious enough, and the loudest voices shilling for this thing are suspect as hell (Mel Gibson, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, etc), but still.

Either way, the overall concern people have with crap like this is that the filmmakers shouldn't have to rile people up with psyops to get them to care about human trafficking. Because anyone with a heart *already cares* about human trafficking. So then you start wonder if the filmmakers are using a subject like this for nefarious/political purposes, in order to cast one side as evil or "the other" or whatever, because that has certainly been the result so far.

I don't know, the whole thing just stinks to high heaven, and it sounds like people were right to be questioning it from the jump.

---

You posted this gem on page 2. I haven't seen this movie, and probably won't because my job keeps me too busy, but your speculation about it in this post, without seeing it, is pretty telling.

Human trafficking is a devastating reality today and from what I've heard, this movie does a great job of telling an incredible story about this horrible reality. The fact that people on the Left think it's political says a lot about what Leftism is today.

I'll just ask you some questions. Are you familiar with the new label Minor Attracted Person (MAP)?

Was it the Left or the Right who coined this new label?

Are you okay with this label, which at it's core seeks to legitimize adults who are attracted to minors (pedophiles)?

---

Maybe read at least *part* of the next 13 pages before commenting? Where in I've said, numerous times, I'll see the movie.

As for the MAP label, no, I've never once heard that. I assume it's some woke term some idiots on the left came up with, and no, I'm not "okay" with it, or any attempt to legitimize adults who are attracted to minors.

Is this some sad, weird attempt at a "gotcha"?

In an interesting twist, the main F16 thread on this basically died after a regular poster there pointed out that having Q associated with the film was a bad thing for getting the central message out.