Two more pages and this thread matches the number of pages for the HBO Q documentary (Caviezel shows up on Page 22). Same cast of characters on both threads

https://texags.com/forums/13/topics/3190879

aTmAg said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

Are there any critics of the movie knocking Tim Ballard?

Or just the guy who played him in the movie?

---

Good question. I haven't seen the movie yet, and have been waiting for some of (legit) criticism to come out. So far, it's all Q-anon nonsense.

---

I still don't even get the Q criticism as if shedding light on bad actors is a bad thing. Through that community, I learned of Epstein well before his capture. Was that bad?

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

I think the issue is that Q is some how relevant to any discussion. It quite literally had no part in this conversation. Ballard's story has been well documented and has been receiving positive media coverage for the decade plus since the incident in the film occurred. Now it's some how Q related?? Absolute garbage position and like I mentioned it's similar to invalidating a position by calling someone a racist.

https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-movie-creator-tim-ballard-responds-qanon-allegations-sick-1812204

---

We've already discussed this. Caviezel has promoted QAnon claims. The film was extensively promoted before release on far right outlets, including promoters of QAnon claims, and the basic premise of the film fits into the claims of that worldview. No one has said Ballard is involved with QAnon, though he's clearly on the political right.

---

And again, why do you think Caviezel went on "far right outlets" to promote the movie?

Did he really turn down interview requests from the NY Times, CBS/NBC/ABC, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., to do a podcast with Steve Bannon? Which high-profile entertainment websites were clamoring to give him attention?

Look at how the media has portrayed him -- and the movie -- once the film gained a little traction. Do you really think these mainstream outlets would have given him the time of day beforehand?

He likely promoted the film with the only outlets that would allow him to. And then the media turns around and calls it a "far right movie."

THAT is the real issue here.

---

Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. You have a Christian production studio making this film that knows where it's bread is buttered, that audience is often going to see their films whether they're good or not and they targeted their marketing at that demo. Like someone mentioned earlier, they only knew of the film because they saw The Chosen.

---

Incorrect.

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

I think the issue is that Q is some how relevant to any discussion. It quite literally had no part in this conversation. Ballard's story has been well documented and has been receiving positive media coverage for the decade plus since the incident in the film occurred. Now it's some how Q related?? Absolute garbage position and like I mentioned it's similar to invalidating a position by calling someone a racist.

https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-movie-creator-tim-ballard-responds-qanon-allegations-sick-1812204

---

We've already discussed this. Caviezel has promoted QAnon claims. The film was extensively promoted before release on far right outlets, including promoters of QAnon claims, and the basic premise of the film fits into the claims of that worldview. No one has said Ballard is involved with QAnon, though he's clearly on the political right.

---

And again, why do you think Caviezel went on "far right outlets" to promote the movie?

Did he really turn down interview requests from the NY Times, CBS/NBC/ABC, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., to do a podcast with Steve Bannon? Which high-profile entertainment websites were clamoring to give him attention?

Look at how the media has portrayed him -- and the movie -- once the film gained a little traction. Do you really think these mainstream outlets would have given him the time of day beforehand?

He likely promoted the film with the only outlets that would allow him to. And then the media turns around and calls it a "far right movie."

THAT is the real issue here.

---

Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. You have a Christian production studio making this film that knows where it's bread is buttered, that audience is often going to see their films whether they're good or not and they targeted their marketing at that demo. Like someone mentioned earlier, they only knew of the film because they saw The Chosen.

---

Help me understand your point about "chicken and egg."

Do you actually believe Angel Productions and Jim Caviezel would turn down visibility on mainstream media sites so they could promote their product on Steve Bannon's podcast to reach a handful of Q Anon-believing Christians? Versus marketing to millions via "Entertainment Tonight" or "The Today Show?"

The bone of contention on this thread -- supposedly -- is that the movie was marketed incorrectly. I'm sure the folks involved would have loved a more mainstream campaign. But with a limited budget and no interest from major news/entertainment outlets, the producers went where they could.

Occam's razor.

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

I think the issue is that Q is some how relevant to any discussion. It quite literally had no part in this conversation. Ballard's story has been well documented and has been receiving positive media coverage for the decade plus since the incident in the film occurred. Now it's some how Q related?? Absolute garbage position and like I mentioned it's similar to invalidating a position by calling someone a racist.

https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-movie-creator-tim-ballard-responds-qanon-allegations-sick-1812204

---

We've already discussed this. Caviezel has promoted QAnon claims. The film was extensively promoted before release on far right outlets, including promoters of QAnon claims, and the basic premise of the film fits into the claims of that worldview. No one has said Ballard is involved with QAnon, though he's clearly on the political right.

---

And again, why do you think Caviezel went on "far right outlets" to promote the movie?

Did he really turn down interview requests from the NY Times, CBS/NBC/ABC, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., to do a podcast with Steve Bannon? Which high-profile entertainment websites were clamoring to give him attention?

Look at how the media has portrayed him -- and the movie -- once the film gained a little traction. Do you really think these mainstream outlets would have given him the time of day beforehand?

He likely promoted the film with the only outlets that would allow him to. And then the media turns around and calls it a "far right movie."

THAT is the real issue here.

---

Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. You have a Christian production studio making this film that knows where it's bread is buttered, that audience is often going to see their films whether they're good or not and they targeted their marketing at that demo. Like someone mentioned earlier, they only knew of the film because they saw The Chosen.

---

Incorrect.

---

A studio making Christian targeted content then. Point still stands.

---

So being anti-child-trafficking is Christian targeted now? Does that mean non-Christians are a-okay with child trafficking?

If I remember correctly, a main stream studio filmed it, but then refused to release it. The Chosen guys bought the rights to the movie and released it.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

And I'm agreeing that he should be prosecuted.

What are we even talking about here?

---

Just let it be. These guys have reaching the "**** tossing chimp" stage of reading comprehension and argument.

---

---

So you need a buddy to calm you down with some ad hominems on an online forum....weird. just weird.

Oh and yes they're groomers by affiliation, and there are millions of parents who would love to let you know what's being done to their children in the school system.

ETA:ETA: your buddy likes to show up on F16 to troll, but stopped after getting his arguments eviscerated regularly.

---

Lol. Yeah, that's it.

---

It is, I enjoyed reading the posts.

You run towards what is popular, not what is right.l, and are consistently proven wrong.

aTmAg said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

I think the issue is that Q is some how relevant to any discussion. It quite literally had no part in this conversation. Ballard's story has been well documented and has been receiving positive media coverage for the decade plus since the incident in the film occurred. Now it's some how Q related?? Absolute garbage position and like I mentioned it's similar to invalidating a position by calling someone a racist.

https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-movie-creator-tim-ballard-responds-qanon-allegations-sick-1812204

---

We've already discussed this. Caviezel has promoted QAnon claims. The film was extensively promoted before release on far right outlets, including promoters of QAnon claims, and the basic premise of the film fits into the claims of that worldview. No one has said Ballard is involved with QAnon, though he's clearly on the political right.

---

And again, why do you think Caviezel went on "far right outlets" to promote the movie?

Did he really turn down interview requests from the NY Times, CBS/NBC/ABC, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., to do a podcast with Steve Bannon? Which high-profile entertainment websites were clamoring to give him attention?

Look at how the media has portrayed him -- and the movie -- once the film gained a little traction. Do you really think these mainstream outlets would have given him the time of day beforehand?

He likely promoted the film with the only outlets that would allow him to. And then the media turns around and calls it a "far right movie."

THAT is the real issue here.

---

Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. You have a Christian production studio making this film that knows where it's bread is buttered, that audience is often going to see their films whether they're good or not and they targeted their marketing at that demo. Like someone mentioned earlier, they only knew of the film because they saw The Chosen.

---

Incorrect.

---

A studio making Christian targeted content then. Point still stands.

---

So being anti-child-trafficking is Christian targeted now? Does that mean non-Christians are a-okay with child trafficking?

If I remember correctly, a main stream studio filmed it, but then refused to release it. The Chosen guys bought the rights to the movie and released it.

---

Yes, that's exactly what it means. We all love child trafficking (I'm Christian btw).

It's impossible to have an adult conversation with some of you.

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

I think the issue is that Q is some how relevant to any discussion. It quite literally had no part in this conversation. Ballard's story has been well documented and has been receiving positive media coverage for the decade plus since the incident in the film occurred. Now it's some how Q related?? Absolute garbage position and like I mentioned it's similar to invalidating a position by calling someone a racist.

https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-movie-creator-tim-ballard-responds-qanon-allegations-sick-1812204

---

We've already discussed this. Caviezel has promoted QAnon claims. The film was extensively promoted before release on far right outlets, including promoters of QAnon claims, and the basic premise of the film fits into the claims of that worldview. No one has said Ballard is involved with QAnon, though he's clearly on the political right.

---

And again, why do you think Caviezel went on "far right outlets" to promote the movie?

Did he really turn down interview requests from the NY Times, CBS/NBC/ABC, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., to do a podcast with Steve Bannon? Which high-profile entertainment websites were clamoring to give him attention?

Look at how the media has portrayed him -- and the movie -- once the film gained a little traction. Do you really think these mainstream outlets would have given him the time of day beforehand?

He likely promoted the film with the only outlets that would allow him to. And then the media turns around and calls it a "far right movie."

THAT is the real issue here.

---

Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. You have a Christian production studio making this film that knows where it's bread is buttered, that audience is often going to see their films whether they're good or not and they targeted their marketing at that demo. Like someone mentioned earlier, they only knew of the film because they saw The Chosen.

---

Incorrect.

---

A studio making Christian targeted content then. Point still stands.

---

Still wrong. Angel Studios didn't make it. You have no "point".

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

I think the issue is that Q is some how relevant to any discussion. It quite literally had no part in this conversation. Ballard's story has been well documented and has been receiving positive media coverage for the decade plus since the incident in the film occurred. Now it's some how Q related?? Absolute garbage position and like I mentioned it's similar to invalidating a position by calling someone a racist.

https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-movie-creator-tim-ballard-responds-qanon-allegations-sick-1812204

---

We've already discussed this. Caviezel has promoted QAnon claims. The film was extensively promoted before release on far right outlets, including promoters of QAnon claims, and the basic premise of the film fits into the claims of that worldview. No one has said Ballard is involved with QAnon, though he's clearly on the political right.

---

And again, why do you think Caviezel went on "far right outlets" to promote the movie?

Did he really turn down interview requests from the NY Times, CBS/NBC/ABC, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., to do a podcast with Steve Bannon? Which high-profile entertainment websites were clamoring to give him attention?

Look at how the media has portrayed him -- and the movie -- once the film gained a little traction. Do you really think these mainstream outlets would have given him the time of day beforehand?

He likely promoted the film with the only outlets that would allow him to. And then the media turns around and calls it a "far right movie."

THAT is the real issue here.

---

Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. You have a Christian production studio making this film that knows where it's bread is buttered, that audience is often going to see their films whether they're good or not and they targeted their marketing at that demo. Like someone mentioned earlier, they only knew of the film because they saw The Chosen.

---

Incorrect.

---

A studio making Christian targeted content then. Point still stands.

---

Still wrong. Angel Studios didn't make it. You have no "point".

---

They released it and are marketing it, which is what I'm obviously referring to.

But I was really just putting up a point for discussion and not taking a side or looking to argue semantics, so I'll leave you guys to your insane nitpicking. It's been..something.

I haven't seen a single add for this film, or had even heard of it before this thread, while most of the people who have seen it heard about it in right wing media or at church. Also the company marketing it was founded to make and market Christian films.

So of course people on here somehow find it incendiary to say it was marketed at Christian folk.

Also, for all the complaints about how people won't just talk about the movie, the thread dedicated to that isn't getting much love.

DargelSkout said:

---

TCTTS, I have a question.

First off, I'm a conservative that never got into the whole Qanon stuff. I really don't even understand what it is. I do remember seeing it on F16, but thought it was some big troll job.

Do you think that most people hear about movies through the promotional interviews that you posted?

I don't think that they do. I think most people are like me and see trailers while watching other movies/shows or learn about upcoming movies through word of mouth. I found out about this movie while watching The Chosen. When I saw the trailer, I never got a hint of Qanon stuff or anything political.

Nor did I even know the political leanings of the actor and creators of the film. It wasn't until you injected that into this thread that I learned they're into Qanon stuff.

Admittedly, I don't keep up with hollywood gossip or actors beliefs. I know a few of their political thoughts, like Penn and Baldwin, but still enjoy their movies.

---

My argument isn't that "most people" - especially those on the left - are watching Jim Caviezel interviews with Steve Bannon.

Because they're not.

Obviously.

The issue is that the mainstream media/social media get wind of those interviews, and more importantly the crazy stuff Caviezel says in them, and *that's* what leads to nearly every headline of every mainstream review of this movie saying things like "Sound of Freedom, the QAnon adjacent film…"

In other words, if in promoting the movie, Caviezel didn't use QAnon talking points while speaking to controversial figures like Steve freaking Bannon, the mainstream media/social media would have nothing to latch onto in that regard, and then many here wouldn't be up in arms at them associating the movie with QAnon.

Which, again, is no one's fault but Jim Caviezel's. So blame him.

And I know a number of people here like to downplay QAnon, or talk about how they know nothing about it, but A) that isn't the flex you think it is, and B) a ton of Americans are still super skittish about January 6th, which was directly incited by QAnon, so now there's an overzealousness to label anything with a whiff of QAnon *as* QAnon, and stomp out anything associated with it.

Anyway, I've explained this multiple times in this thread now, and there will no doubt be all kinds of goal post moving and dumb excuse making in response, as per usual, but whatever.

fig96 said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

fig96 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

I think the issue is that Q is some how relevant to any discussion. It quite literally had no part in this conversation. Ballard's story has been well documented and has been receiving positive media coverage for the decade plus since the incident in the film occurred. Now it's some how Q related?? Absolute garbage position and like I mentioned it's similar to invalidating a position by calling someone a racist.

https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-movie-creator-tim-ballard-responds-qanon-allegations-sick-1812204

---

We've already discussed this. Caviezel has promoted QAnon claims. The film was extensively promoted before release on far right outlets, including promoters of QAnon claims, and the basic premise of the film fits into the claims of that worldview. No one has said Ballard is involved with QAnon, though he's clearly on the political right.

---

And again, why do you think Caviezel went on "far right outlets" to promote the movie?

Did he really turn down interview requests from the NY Times, CBS/NBC/ABC, Washington Post, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc., to do a podcast with Steve Bannon? Which high-profile entertainment websites were clamoring to give him attention?

Look at how the media has portrayed him -- and the movie -- once the film gained a little traction. Do you really think these mainstream outlets would have given him the time of day beforehand?

He likely promoted the film with the only outlets that would allow him to. And then the media turns around and calls it a "far right movie."

THAT is the real issue here.

---

Probably a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. You have a Christian production studio making this film that knows where it's bread is buttered, that audience is often going to see their films whether they're good or not and they targeted their marketing at that demo. Like someone mentioned earlier, they only knew of the film because they saw The Chosen.

---

Incorrect.

---

A studio making Christian targeted content then. Point still stands.

---

Script was written in 2015, filming was complete in 2018. Owned by Fox, then Disney. Angel bought the rights in March 2023.

But but but Qanon! Insurrection! Racist!

Quote:

---

And I know a number of people here like to downplay QAnon, or talk about how they know nothing about it, but A) that isn't the flex you think it is, and B) a ton of Americans are still super skittish about January 6th, which was directly incited by QAnon, so now there's an overzealousness to label anything with a whiff of QAnon *as* QAnon, and stomp out anything associated with it.

---

Good grief.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

And I know a number of people here like to downplay QAnon, or talk about how they know nothing about it, but A) that isn't the flex you think it is, and B) a ton of Americans are still super skittish about January 6th, which was directly incited by QAnon, so now there's an overzealousness to label anything with a whiff of QAnon *as* QAnon, and stomp out anything associated with it.

---

Good grief.

---

At this point I can only wonder which this poster's house has more of. Cats or COVID Testing kits?

TCTTS said:

---

And so it begins. Again.

---

What begins? Please tell the class how "Q" directly incited January 6th…apparently the most horrific day in the history of the world.

Please explain to me what I said that was wrong. I would love to hear.

TCTTS said:

---

DargelSkout said:

---

TCTTS, I have a question.

First off, I'm a conservative that never got into the whole Qanon stuff. I really don't even understand what it is. I do remember seeing it on F16, but thought it was some big troll job.

Do you think that most people hear about movies through the promotional interviews that you posted?

I don't think that they do. I think most people are like me and see trailers while watching other movies/shows or learn about upcoming movies through word of mouth. I found out about this movie while watching The Chosen. When I saw the trailer, I never got a hint of Qanon stuff or anything political.

Nor did I even know the political leanings of the actor and creators of the film. It wasn't until you injected that into this thread that I learned they're into Qanon stuff.

Admittedly, I don't keep up with hollywood gossip or actors beliefs. I know a few of their political thoughts, like Penn and Baldwin, but still enjoy their movies.

---

My argument isn't that "most people" - especially those on the left - are watching Jim Caviezel interviews with Steve Bannon.

Because they're not.

Obviously.

The issue is that the mainstream media/social media get wind of those interviews, and more importantly the crazy stuff Caviezel says in them, and *that's* what leads to nearly every headline of every mainstream review of this movie saying things like "Sound of Freedom, the QAnon adjacent film…"

In other words, if in promoting the movie, Caviezel didn't use QAnon talking points while speaking to controversial figures like Steve freaking Bannon, the mainstream media/social media would have nothing to latch onto in that regard, and then many here wouldn't be up in arms at them associating the movie with QAnon.

Which, again, is no one's fault but Jim Caviezel's. So blame him.

And I know a number of people here like to downplay QAnon, or talk about how they know nothing about it, but A) that isn't the flex you think it is, and B) a ton of Americans are still super skittish about January 6th, which was directly incited by QAnon, so now there's an overzealousness to label anything with a whiff of QAnon *as* QAnon, and stomp out anything associated with it.

Anyway, I've explained this multiple times in this thread now, and there will no doubt be all kinds of goal post moving and dumb excuse making in response, as per usual, but whatever.

---

Directly incited? Are you serious?

https://qanon.pub/?

Show me one message on or around January 6th that led to that. Certainly seems the posts stop in December and don't continue until June of last year. Where's your proof that Q led to folks storming the capitol? If you mean to say it just encourages a specific state of mind, then I'm sure you'd not discount the Capitol Police Chief's admission of hundreds of federal officers also present that day or the video of Ray Epps encouraging storming of the Capitol the night before and whispering in someone's ear moments before barriers were breached. Or Pelosi turning down the national guard or Bowser turning down further assistance or the FBI obfuscating that agents were present as well.

Look, I get that you weary of the boogeyman, what I am trying to illustrate is you have the wrong boogeyman in mind. Also, Qanon doesn't exist. In no post are they referred as QAnon. You can't even get your facts straight. Just smear tactics meant to throw mud on an otherwise interesting community driven enterprise meant at peeling back the curtain of those who's power is motivated by pulling folks apart and subjugating them.

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

And I'm agreeing that he should be prosecuted.

What are we even talking about here?

---

Just let it be. These guys have reaching the "**** tossing chimp" stage of reading comprehension and argument.

---

---

So you need a buddy to calm you down with some ad hominems on an online forum....weird. just weird.

Oh and yes they're groomers by affiliation, and there are millions of parents who would love to let you know what's being done to their children in the school system.

ETA:ETA: your buddy likes to show up on F16 to troll, but stopped after getting his arguments eviscerated regularly.

---

Lol. Yeah, that's it.

---

It is, I enjoyed reading the posts.

You run towards what is popular, not what is right.l, and are consistently proven wrong.

---

Bull***** Especially on that forum. And accurate username, in this case.

TCTTS said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/US/qanon-emerges-recurring-theme-criminal-cases-tied-us/story?id=75347445

https://www.insider.com/capitol-riots-qanon-protest-conspiracy-theory-washington-dc-protests-2021-1

https://www.businessinsider.com/qanon-trump-capitol-attack-belief-precursor-the-storm-2021-1

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/qanon-capitol-congress-riot-trump-b1784460.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/us/capitol-rioters.html

https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_capitol-riot-exposed-qanons-violent-potential/6203967.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/qanon-capitol-siege-trump/

https://theweek.com/politics/1000962/the-qanon-contradiction

https://theconversation.com/qanon-and-the-storm-of-the-u-s-capitol-the-offline-effect-of-online-conspiracy-theories-152815

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents_involving_QAnon

Also, see the HBO documentary thread linked to above, which outlines it all great detail.

---

Who's bringing F16 to the Entertainment Board now?

We crossed that rubicon like 20 pages ago, bud.