There are next to no Catholics in Afghanistan, much less an Archbishop of Kabul. That seems far more unlikely than what y'all are bickering about.

The Archbishop of Algiers would have been just as unlikely and yet too on the nose.

The sets were impressive and the acting was top notch. My main issue as a close observer is all of the realistic, compelling stories cast aside for typical Hollywood reasons: Good people good, bad people are bad, mmmkay.

It's not honest.

- It's impossible to understand the abuse crisis without the homosexual context. YES ITS TRUE. Review honest leftist Richard Sipe. Literally over 90% of abuse cases were post pubescent same sex.
- There really was / is a "Lavendar mafia." We even know nicknames - for example, Donna. We know McCarrick, almost everyone knew - open conspiracy. Most powerful prelates gatekeepers at seminaries.
- Bernandin, most powerful cardinal in US history….Spellman of NYC - blackmailers AND so many were blackmailable.
Satanic? Including in St. Paul's chapel? We have excellent evidence. Homosexual conduct is RELEVANT.

Much else. Much. I could fill this thread, including horrific things from the National Cathedral in DC (beach houses for boyfriends is the least of it).

But does not conform to Narrative.

Instead we get this, a horribly written film, yet on narrative.

And about the Rockefellers and Jewish groups, tens of millions via Notre Dame, and undue influence and blackmail during Vatican II … WITH DOCUMENTS…..

Or Bugnini and Freemasonry?
Or P2?
Or the Gagnon investigations? The many mysterious deaths, including a pope? (First hand testimonies, shredded documents)….

So cinematic. Yet
So off Narrative.

edit:
Most prominent Catholic investigative journalist in recent times being murdered in Africa? Much else besides…..
Off narrative!

It's just a movie. Written to entertain during awards season. Good Lord. Some of you are acting like it should have been a hyper-accurate, twenty-episode, Ken-Burns-like examination of every facet of the Catholic Church, somehow distilled down to two hours.

Hollywood, due to its assumptions, biases, and priors, makes very predictable fare - continuously - while wholly ignoring real life cinematic intrigue.

Gay clerics conspiring for years in Switzerland to influence the Church via cardinal selections, and eventually popes?

Where a known leftist, Paul VI, got so scared he used language like "smoke of Satan?"

Nope! Let's do this nonsensical but On Narrative stuff instead!

It's an adaptation of a best-selling book, conceived and written outside of the Hollywood system. The only reason it then got made into a movie is because it was hot IP, therefore had a built-in audience, making it less of a gamble for execs to take. Again, it's meant to be nothing more than a pulp thriller. One that currently happens to be at 92% on Rotten Tomatoes and a shoe-in for a Best Picture nomination. If it's not your cup of tea, though, that's fine. It's just that some of the reasons I'm seeing for not liking it seemingly have to do with expectations for a completely different story/experience, and something this movie was never trying to be or do.

Checking this out this afternoon. Raised Catholic and attended Catholic/private school all my life, for whatever that's worth.

Will report back my thoughts.

That's the point, no?

Just like Solzhenitsyn's estate can't get his history of the Russian Revolution published in English (yes, really), and Philip K. Dick's anti-robot views get turned into the Gnostic opposite view, and Ross Douthat's very good CS Lewis inspired fiction won't get faithfully adapted, and …..

Choices tell us things.

Murder in the 33rd Degree, Hostsge to the Devil, Blai's books on exorcisms, faithful adaptations of Amorth (ie not the Russell Crowe series)
….there is a LOT that could be done, way more interesting and cinematic - and yet, Narrative rules. Even if money is left on the table.

I dislike Angel Studios and Ballard, because I dislike Mormonism and also think he's another Fed fraud, but this is one major reason Sound of Freedom was such a sensation.

TCTTS said:

---

It's just a movie. Written to entertain during awards season. Good Lord. Some of you are acting like it should have been a hyper-accurate, twenty-episode, Ken-Burns-like examination of every facet of the Catholic Church, somehow distilled down to two hours.

---

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Checking this out this afternoon. Raised Catholic and attended Catholic/private school all my life, for whatever that's worth.

Will report back my thoughts.

---

Great movie. The acting and cinematography were top notch, and the story kept me riveted the entire way through.

I figured out about 20 minutes in where the story was going, except obviously not the final twist.

I was probably the youngest person in the theater by a good 15 years, and it was definitely interesting seeing the reactions throughout the movie. People were audibly and visibly cheering when the sister outed Tremblay.

Then at the end, everyone seemed to be in approval of the final outcome, until the twist started coming in. I could tell it instantly started ruffling feathers.

At first it seems like it's a FTM situation. There was an older lady who was clasping her hands in approval when he won, and was now laughing in disbelief. I heard someone behind me whisper "sex change". The hermaphrodite angle I guess provided a similar twist without making it such a strong-handed "woke" message, which probably would have put off an enormous sect of the target audience for this. But I'm still not surprised a lot of people disliked it. Was it necessary? Probably not. But I think it's just a very on-the-nose way to further the themes of progressivism that the movie was trying to advocate for. I probably would have slightly preferred the movie without that twist, bit in the end I still think it's a great movie.

Audiences really seem to get involved in this one. They were super into my showing too, and then I've heard a couple podcasts talking about audiences gasping/clapping/cheering at their showings as well. It's kind of like a Marvel movie for boomers.

Something I meant to bring up before, but:

OK can confirm my spoiler tags don't work when I used italics inside the spoiler tag. Sorry for anyone who saw it. I took it down about five seconds after it posted so hopefully not.

Maybe I missed something or don't remember...the film insinuated but never outrightly accused Tremblay of murdering the Pope. Is this further fleshed out in the novel? They did the "he was there, he had a meeting, last one to meet with him, had a clear motive" thing but it was left open-ended. Maybe I'm not remembering a key conversation or accusation being leveled.

That's something I do wish was made clearer. Heavily insinuated, never really confirmed.

CONCLAVE (2024)
Streaming: November 26, 2024
PVOD (Apple, Amazon, Fandango at Home, etc.)#Conclave
Added to our streaming calendar: https://t.co/8GNvcwmCuB

— WhenToStream.com (@WhenToStream) November 20, 2024

CONCLAVE (2024)
Streaming Now
PVOD (Apple, Amazon, Fandango at Home, etc.)#Conclave pic.twitter.com/IffrbJS2RY

— WhenToStream.com (@WhenToStream) November 26, 2024

Now available on Peacock...

Edward Berger's #Conclave is now available to watch on Peacock: https://t.co/i77byK5aDo pic.twitter.com/Ss1EiowlIb

— Rotten Tomatoes (@RottenTomatoes) December 13, 2024

Yes as the twist was clearly a middle finger to the "old fuddy duddy Catholic Church" … I'm not sure how many churches around the globe would be thrilled to have their leader be a hermaphrodite

IMO, any organization that subjugates women, doesn't allow them the same positions as men, etc, should be given the middle finger. I get why the ending is rubbing certain people the wrong way, but I for one love how it undermines the church's archaic, arbitrary rules.

I really, really hate the blocked off sections. I find it childish that you have to do this and one reason I rarely go to this part of Tex-Ags.

Also, I'd spoiler tag that final word in your post, seeing as more and more people are starting to see this now that the movie is on Peacock, and it would suck to have that twist spoiled before they do.

Other people "really, really hate" being spoiled too. What other options do we have?

Agree as well once a movie or episode has been released. People should not click on a thread if they have not seen the movie/show and concerned about spoilers.

I disagree completely. There's a significant amount of people who come to this board looking for recommendations or for what fellow posters think of certain movies/shows, before diving in themselves. Given that's such a draw, it's just that not that big of a deal to show an ounce of consideration and either use spoiler tags or start a spoiler thread.

Because the Catholic Church is so righteous and innocent? I'm sorry, but when you're constantly in the news for sexual abuse, cover-ups of sexual abuse, abuses of power, entrenched sexism, archaic views on contraception, over-the-top opulence, and being known for guilting the **** out of your followers in general, what else do you expect? How about don't be notoriously problematic and maybe you won't be treated as such?

As for Hollywood treating Islam the same way, I'm all for it.

Of the two, Hollywood isn't the one claiming to be literal saints.

That's the difference.

Still, any filmmaker who wants to put Hollywood in his or her crosshairs, let's go. I'm all for it. This place can obviously be a cesspool and needs to be called out just the same.

What you won't see me doing is blindly defending my industry/tribe/religion just because it's the one I apparently belong to. I recognize its flaws and talk **** on it all the time here.

It's all good, my man.

These thread are not recommendation threads. These are discussion threads. Like all of the forums on here. Pretty much all of the threads have spoilers all over them without being blacked out.

LB12Diamond said:

---

These thread are not recommendation threads. These are discussion threads. Like all of the forums on here. Pretty much all of the threads have spoilers all over them without being blacked out.

---

That's not even remotely true, but whatever you need to tell yourself.

For TV threads, yes, once an episode airs, spoilers are fare game.

But not for recently released movies. For more years than I can count, we've either used spoiler tags or created a separate spoiler thread, the latter of which you're more than welcome to do. In threads like this, though, after six months or so, sure, maybe people start talking a bit more freely when it comes to spoilers. But not for a movie that's only been out for two months, just dropped on streaming for a whole new audience to discover, and will soon be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, which will bring in an even wider/newer audience.

Why a handful of people here always feel the need to ***** about having to do the absolute bare minimum, especially when it means preserving everyone else's enjoyment, I will never understand. To either have to use or hover over spoiler tags is just not that big of a deal at all. There's a reason staff created them, and it's for this very reason.

LOL

Just came from the Dune Prophecy discussion all throughout the thread that gives all the details.

If you have to lie to yourself to justify your stance. That's a sign for you to just stop with your soap box stance.