Logos Stick said:

---

I wasn't gonna watch this movie, but the lefties are up in arms about it in here. It's like a stirred up hornets nest. Must be over the target. I'm in.

---

Same here...Streisand effect bro.

Major liberal news outlets and movie critics...and many leftist hipsters on social media...openly trashing this movie and the people who care about the issue...and some even downplaying the issue altogether (which is absolutely DISGUSTING to me).

I am definitely going to see it in theaters now.

Another Doug said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

And it just keeps rolling.....

'Angel Studios' 'Sound of Freedom' passes $50 million at the US box office'
https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainment/angel-studios-sound-freedom-passes-50-million-us-box-office

---

Marketing has been brilliant for it and it caught fire. Good for them.

---

And just imagine if it had half the marketing backing of a major Hollywood picture.

I look forward to there being a run on millstones.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

At this point the marketing value of mainstream media and critics backlash, plus good word of mouth from those who have seen it is so much more helpful than Hollywood's typical marketing campaigns. We've been conditioned at this point for the machine to hype up what turns out to be a cinematic turd. Sound of Freedom didn't need any of that.

---

*Look* you only *merely* need to try to *understand* what I am *saying*. Sound of Freedom is just *based* in Qanon conspiracy *theories*

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I wasn't gonna watch this movie, but the lefties are up in arms about it in here. It's like a stirred up hornets nest. Must be over the target. I'm in.

---

Same here...Streisand effect bro.

Major liberal news outlets and movie critics...and many leftist hipsters on social media...openly trashing this movie and the people who care about the issue...and some even downplaying the issue altogether (which is absolutely DISGUSTING to me).

I am definitely going to see it in theaters now.

---

I'm a pretty liberal person active in liberal spaces on the internet and what's weird to me about this whole thing is that the first I heard of this movie AT ALL was conservatives spamming the internet with "Liberals don't want you to see this movie!" I suspect that it's conservatives amplifying a small number of liberal critiques about Caviezel in order to frame this as some sort of widespread opposition all aimed at driving up interest in the movie among conservatives. Effective, I suppose, but also a bit ridiculous.

Even more so when the criticisms seem to be centered on saying Caviezel's a QAnon weirdo and the movie offers a pretty inaccurate portrayal of human trafficking as it actually exists.

Rocag said:

---

Effective, I suppose, but also a bit ridiculous.

---

Yeah, it isn't like our very own Hollywood insider and the libs of this board showed up and reacted exactly like you'd expect.

Rocag said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I wasn't gonna watch this movie, but the lefties are up in arms about it in here. It's like a stirred up hornets nest. Must be over the target. I'm in.

---

Same here...Streisand effect bro.

Major liberal news outlets and movie critics...and many leftist hipsters on social media...openly trashing this movie and the people who care about the issue...and some even downplaying the issue altogether (which is absolutely DISGUSTING to me).

I am definitely going to see it in theaters now.

---

I'm a pretty liberal person active in liberal spaces on the internet and what's weird to me about this whole thing is that the first I heard of this movie AT ALL was conservatives spamming the internet with "Liberals don't want you to see this movie!" I suspect that it's conservatives amplifying a small number of liberal critiques about Caviezel in order to frame this as some sort of widespread opposition all aimed at driving up interest in the movie among conservatives. Effective, I suppose, but also a bit ridiculous.

Even more so when the criticisms seem to be centered on saying Caviezel's a QAnon weirdo and the movie offers a pretty inaccurate portrayal of human trafficking as it actually exists.

---

Just a couple examples...

NEW: CNN vocally opposes the release of ‘Sound of Freedom’, a movie exposing the reality of child sex trafficking, calling it a ‘QAnon’ film.

Imagine being upset about a movie exposing child sex trafficking and thinking you’re the good guys.

“These films are created out of… pic.twitter.com/ED0zMyEwZQ

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 8, 2023

This one's just for fun...but kind of true lol

Rocag said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

I wasn't gonna watch this movie, but the lefties are up in arms about it in here. It's like a stirred up hornets nest. Must be over the target. I'm in.

---

Same here...Streisand effect bro.

Major liberal news outlets and movie critics...and many leftist hipsters on social media...openly trashing this movie and the people who care about the issue...and some even downplaying the issue altogether (which is absolutely DISGUSTING to me).

I am definitely going to see it in theaters now.

---

I'm a pretty liberal person active in liberal spaces on the internet and what's weird to me about this whole thing is that the first I heard of this movie AT ALL was conservatives spamming the internet with "Liberals don't want you to see this movie!" I suspect that it's conservatives amplifying a small number of liberal critiques about Caviezel in order to frame this as some sort of widespread opposition all aimed at driving up interest in the movie among conservatives. Effective, I suppose, but also a bit ridiculous.

Even more so when the criticisms seem to be centered on saying Caviezel's a QAnon weirdo and the movie offers a pretty inaccurate portrayal of human trafficking as it actually exists.

---

Thank you for your honesty.

You see class, what you have here is a liberal telling you why a marketing campaign is a bit ridiculous because it focuses on liberals negative reactions. Followed up with a liberal's negative reaction.

Please note the disingenuousness about the accuracy of human trafficking by criticizing the on screen portrayal of an actual real life human trafficking raid, back up by video from the portrayed raid. This is known as intellectual dishonesty.

This will be on your mid term exam.

You're free to tilt at your windmills and react to things I never said. Have fun with that. A perfect reflection of this entire issue, to be honest. Let's gin up the outrage over what we believe the other side must be thinking!

Go see the movie. Or don't. Very few people on the left care one bit either way.

"very few people on the left care either way"

Yet CNN is against people seeing the moving and made a big deal about it

Rocag said:

---

You're free to tilt at your windmills and react to things I never said. Have fun with that. A perfect reflection of this entire issue, to be honest. Let's gin up the outrage over what we believe the other side must be thinking!

Go see the movie. Or don't. Very few people on the left care one bit either way.

---

https://www.outkick.com/medias-insane-attacks-on-sound-of-freedom-speak-volumes/

Rocag said:

---

Go see the movie. Or don't. Very few people on the left care one bit either way.

---

You must have skipped the first ten pages of elitist snobbery from the group on this board who represent what Hollywood is made of.

My question back would be who turned the promotion of this film into a "left vs right", "Dem vs Rep" controversy despite the fact that (at least from what I've heard) the film itself not being explicitly political? After that happened discourse turned nasty and then the controversy became the story. Which is evidenced by most of the discussion not being the movie itself but the people involved in it.

Google seaching for the movie seems to show Caviezel promoting it in explicitly political terms well before any of the liberal media sources put out anything on it. Which, from a marketing standpoint, certainly worked out for him. Sources like CNN took the bait and gave him exactly what he wanted.

Rocag said:

---

My question back would be who turned the promotion of this film into a "left vs right", "Dem vs Rep" controversy despite the fact that (at least from what I've heard) the film itself not being explicitly political? After that happened discourse turned nasty and then the controversy became the story. Which is evidenced by most of the discussion not being the movie itself but the people involved in it.

Google seaching for the movie seems to show Caviezel promoting it in explicitly political terms well before any of the liberal media sources put out anything on it. Which, from a marketing standpoint, certainly worked out for him. Sources like CNN took the bait and gave him exactly what he wanted.

---

I'll bite, and go back to page 3 of this discussion.

Human trafficking is bad. Awareness of human trafficking is a great first step to combating human trafficking. I can't imagine why this topic would have "sides" to it.

Nothing in this film, or about the promotion of this film is saying that liberals are the people who traffic humans and conservatives are the ones to stop human traffickers. I just can't imagine why agencies of the left have attacked this film while others have rallied to this film. This topic should not be contentious.

After too much personal thought, I believe 2 things. First, the industry does not want conservatives to have a voice in Hollywood, and thus Caviezel and Angel studios are considered competition. Second, the topic is border control adjacent and any questions of democrat open border policies must be fiercely squashed. (I have lengthy posts on both these topics on previous page or 2).

I do not believe this film says conservatives good, liberals bad and I do not see any political reason for this film to be maligned as anything other than a film of hope and courage. I support the filmmakers stand against human trafficking, as I hope every American does.

I do not believe anyone is arguing that human trafficking isn't a real problem that exists or that it is bad and should be opposed. Where we have a conflict is when someone assumes that criticism of this particular film and / or the people who made it is support for human trafficking. That is simply incorrect.

In your opinion, what should be the response to this film if the criticisms of Tim Ballard are completely accurate? In other words, if Tim Ballard really is just a lying grifter whose actions put far more people in danger than they help how should we respond to a fictional account of his life that glorifies him and increases his influence? Is it a good thing if this film encourages more well meaning conservatives to donate to a con man?

The last 26 pages of this thread:

Rocag said:

---

I do not believe anyone is arguing that human trafficking isn't a real problem that exists or that it is bad and should be opposed. Where we have a conflict is when someone assumes that criticism of this particular film and / or the people who made it is support for human trafficking. That is simply incorrect.

In your opinion, what should be the response to this film if the criticisms of Tim Ballard are completely accurate? In other words, if Tim Ballard really is just a lying grifter whose actions put far more people in danger than they help how should we respond to a fictional account of his life that glorifies him and increases his influence? Is it a good thing if this film encourages more well meaning conservatives to donate to a con man?

---

prior to Ballard sitting down with Trump, all the same media outlets were praising his work and sacrifice. So in short, should I believe what they say now or then? I have seen demonstrative evidence that they have mischaracterized so many things because conservative bad.

We are just too divided as a nation and this is example #infinity of that. I admit, I have no trust in sources that are saying these things. I see a man who turned in his badge and gave up his pension to do what he thought was right, and freed actual slaves, and I see journalists malign his character. I am sure it will be called confirmation bias,but my gut says the person who risked something is the one I am going to side with.

Rocag said:

---

That doesn't answer the question though.

Treat it as a hypothetical. Assume you don't believe Ballard's story but instead are convinced he is taking advantage of peoples good intentions to promote himself. Now, how would you respond to this movie?

---

So I am to suspend all my personal beliefs and adopt what someone, who I don't trust is telling me, and then answer the question?

I don't believe the people who are saying he is being selfish in his actions so I can't answer honestly what I would think if I believed opposite of what I believe.

I guess that is the point of the whole debate, people now just believe 180 of each other and there is no common ground. Hopefully we all just agree human trafficking, slavery, and pedophilia are all bad, no ifs ands or buts

The goal is to just for a moment try to see this from someone else's point of view in order to hopefully understand their actions. You are doomed to misunderstand everyone who thinks differently from you if you are unwilling to at least consider their point of view and how that might influence them.

So yeah, if you assume at the start that everyone thinks exactly like you then it probably is confusing why some people might not be fully in support of this movie. You might even (wrongly) attribute such actions to something nefarious such as, oh I don't know, supporting human trafficking.

agsquirrel97 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I do not believe anyone is arguing that human trafficking isn't a real problem that exists or that it is bad and should be opposed. Where we have a conflict is when someone assumes that criticism of this particular film and / or the people who made it is support for human trafficking. That is simply incorrect.

In your opinion, what should be the response to this film if the criticisms of Tim Ballard are completely accurate? In other words, if Tim Ballard really is just a lying grifter whose actions put far more people in danger than they help how should we respond to a fictional account of his life that glorifies him and increases his influence? Is it a good thing if this film encourages more well meaning conservatives to donate to a con man?

---

prior to Ballard sitting down with Trump, all the same media outlets were praising his work and sacrifice. So in short, should I believe what they say now or then? I have seen demonstrative evidence that they have mischaracterized so many things because conservative bad.

We are just too divided as a nation and this is example #infinity of that. I admit, I have no trust in sources that are saying these things. I see a man who turned in his badge and gave up his pension to do what he thought was right, and freed actual slaves, and I see journalists malign his character. I am sure it will be called confirmation bias,but my gut says the person who risked something is the one I am going to side with.

---

There are serious questions about their fundraising, what they have spent the money on and exactly how much has been spent on anti-trafficking activities.

They apparently have $80m in assets.

Dude could be completely full of ****, doesn't mean his movie should get more criticism than any other full of **** Hollywood movie.

Zero offense taken.

Every person is the hero of their own story, because they see the story best from their own POV. I am super cognizant of my own ego, that little voice reaffirming my thoughts and actions can be very loud at times. I am sure Ballard who is obviously very passionate and an expert on this subject has very strong opinions about the subject. He has sat with and watch traffickers and pedophiles in person and on video for decades at this point. He surely has strong convictions on the subject.

I am just glad it is him and not me. I could not control my emotions. I am confident he is flawed, he is a human and we are all flawed. It is odd to me that this is the reaction to a person making sacrifices for others. I couldn't imagine watching a great film about Rosa Parks that is filled with hope and then wanting to debate that the scenario of sitting at the front of the bus was manufactured and preplanned. She took personal risk to bring awareness to a inequality and that is courageous.

Disclaimer: I am not saying Ballard or Parks is more pure of heart than the other just comparing that both of them believed in something strong enough to personally try to do something about it.

Another Doug said:

---

Dude could be completely full of ****, doesn't mean his movie should get more criticism than any other full of **** Hollywood movie.

---

Agree 100%, but I still find it interesting to compare the way the right is reacting to this movie versus You Were Never Really Here. I haven't seen this one, but YWNRH was fantastic and Phoenix was great in it. I just find it interesting how this one has struck such a cord with a specific part of our population but the movie I mentioned didn't.

Macarthur said:

---

agsquirrel97 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I do not believe anyone is arguing that human trafficking isn't a real problem that exists or that it is bad and should be opposed. Where we have a conflict is when someone assumes that criticism of this particular film and / or the people who made it is support for human trafficking. That is simply incorrect.

In your opinion, what should be the response to this film if the criticisms of Tim Ballard are completely accurate? In other words, if Tim Ballard really is just a lying grifter whose actions put far more people in danger than they help how should we respond to a fictional account of his life that glorifies him and increases his influence? Is it a good thing if this film encourages more well meaning conservatives to donate to a con man?

---

prior to Ballard sitting down with Trump, all the same media outlets were praising his work and sacrifice. So in short, should I believe what they say now or then? I have seen demonstrative evidence that they have mischaracterized so many things because conservative bad.

We are just too divided as a nation and this is example #infinity of that. I admit, I have no trust in sources that are saying these things. I see a man who turned in his badge and gave up his pension to do what he thought was right, and freed actual slaves, and I see journalists malign his character. I am sure it will be called confirmation bias,but my gut says the person who risked something is the one I am going to side with.

---

There are serious questions about their fundraising, what they have spent the money on and exactly how much has been spent on anti-trafficking activities.

They apparently have $80m in assets.

---

Oh crap, there are serious questions. I was unaware of the seriousness of the fundraising questions. Are you aware that the Bloomberg foundation has $7B in assets. Or that the Bill and Mel Gates foundation has $52B+ in assets?

I am not making any accusations against those foundations, but if on hand assets are the measuring stick for concern, I would be concerned.

I enjoyed the movie, it was powerful. I am recommending it to my friends and family, and they are all thanking me for the recommendation and giving glowing reviews as soon as they walk out of the theater.

If Tim Ballard is a grifting piece of crap then there is certainly plenty of scrutiny to find his deepest darkest secrets. I will stop donating to any grifter that is, in my opinion, misusing my donations. We have a very active and all powerful department of justice that I am confident will leave no stone unturned when investigating a dirty and corrupt adversary so I will sleep easy knowing any malfeasance will be brought to light.

Yup, he gave up the security of a government job and a pension with a wife and 5 kids at home depending on him.

Are you implying that he knew he would start a successful charitable foundation when he did that? Or are you implying he did it for the money? What are you implying because I am having trouble following.

I started a business in my life and I had hopes of being successful and financially rewarded. Maybe he did it for the money, I have no idea. I wouldn't fault him for wanting to be financially successful. But he went to foreign countries and freed slaves. He defended the innocent and weak.

At the surface level, do you ever stop and wonder why people are trying to tear down a feel good story? I am not implying you would prefer children to be sex slaves. I am not saying there are no other options to OUR and Tim Ballard. I am just saying their cause seems really needed and moral, and when people argue against it I can't help but wonder why.

I get it, you are getting information saying buyer beware, so you are asking questions. But you aren't a buyer. Between the two options, I prefer to celebrate the group proclaiming to make a difference. I am positive they are making some kind of difference. There are plenty of articles over the previous decade saying they are making a difference. Is it changing the world? Probably not. But it is dramatically changing the world for some people.

How many people had actually heard of Ballard before all of this, let alone heard enough to know about his methods and what those in the fight against human trafficking actually think about those methods?

Seems so weird how many experts there are on some things when those things offend the sensibilities.