Sound of Freedom (2023)

uniqueuser

uniqueuser

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
1,845
6,223
Lanx said:
holyshit, this was filmed and completed b4 covid in 2018...

bought and shelved by
1qJI.gif


www.washingtonexaminer.com

Sound of Freedom film highlights child trafficking crisis: ‘God’s children are not for sale’ - Washington Examiner

PROVO, UTAH —The new film Sound of Freedom is seeking to bring awareness to the child trafficking crisis and is set to be released in theaters on July 4. Sound of Freedom details the true story of how a federal agent quits his job and risks his life to journey into the jungles of Colombia
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
Click to expand...
Probably worked out to their benefit. With all the bullshit shenanigans in the 5 years since it was filmed I'd wager that more people than ever are receptive to its message.

I also think that most of the pushback isn't from pedos angry that their predilections are being noticed, but just neurotic ostrich people who'd rather keep their heads buried in the sand than acknowledge any more uncomfortable truths about the world they live in.
 
  • 9Like
Reactions: 8 users
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
31,800
24,477
uniqueuser said:
neurotic ostrich people who'd rather keep their heads buried in the sand than acknowledge any more uncomfortable truths about the world they live in.
Click to expand...
Sure bro. I was on top of this topic way before it was cool.

1688934791156.png

1688934865485.png
 
  • 6Like
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 6 users
Vuuxo

Vuuxo

Scaphism
<Gold Donor>
1,574
6,153
It was a good movie. Not sure why it's political other than pedophiles not wanting people to see it.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions: 4 users
uniqueuser

uniqueuser

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
1,845
6,223
Yeah that's probably the biggest factor in it. Once Leftards became aware of the film receiving positive reviews from that corner they rallied against it for the usual reasons.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
31,800
24,477
uniqueuser said:
Yeah that's probably the biggest factor in it. Once Leftards became aware of the film receiving positive reviews from that corner they rallied against it for the usual reasons.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is rallying "against" it, they just think you're being NPCs for overhyping an above-average direct-to-cable movie into some kind of religious fervor.

The whole thing is just bait all around. Brilliant marketing, will be studied for years.
 
  • 3Picard
  • 2Seriously?
  • 1EyeRoll
Reactions: 7 users
Rajaah

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
13,344
17,985
uniqueuser

uniqueuser

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
1,845
6,223
Mist said:
I don't think anyone is rallying "against" it, they just think you're being NPCs for overhyping an above-average direct-to-cable movie into some kind of religious fervor.

The whole thing is just bait all around. Brilliant marketing, will be studied for years.
Click to expand...
www.theguardian.com

Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America

Jim Caviezel stars as a hero trying to stop child traffickers in a paranoid new movie turning into a surprise box-office hit
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Yes, articles like that really exemplify the Left's ability to make impartial, level-headed cultural critiques.

I haven't watched the movie but from what I've seen it doesn't meet the criteria of a contemporary Hollywood thriller. Because it's probably not cynical and painfully self-aware it'll be disdained by fart-sniffing critics, much like how traditional Westerns were spurned as being overly simplistic and sentimental after the more "realistic" revisionist Westerns displaced them.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
31,800
24,477
uniqueuser said:
www.theguardian.com

Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America

Jim Caviezel stars as a hero trying to stop child traffickers in a paranoid new movie turning into a surprise box-office hit
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Yes, articles like that really exemplify the Left's ability to make impartial, level-headed cultural critiques.

I haven't watched the movie but from what I've seen it doesn't meet the criteria of a contemporary Hollywood thriller. Because it's probably not cynical and painfully self-aware it'll be disdained by fart-sniffing critics, much like how traditional Westerns were spurned as being overly simplistic and sentimental after the more "realistic" revisionist Westerns displaced them.
Click to expand...
The Guardian? Yeah, I really care what a British paper has to say about this particular topic. :rolleyes:
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wingz

Wingz

Being Poor Sucks.
13,747
42,885
LiquidDeath said:
It was only in 2500 theaters while Indiana Jake was in 4600. It's per-theater average is completely owning.
Click to expand...
My friends and I saw SoF in Chicagoland today. We actually had to drive pretty far to see it at a theater that was showing it instead of the normal ones we go to. Went to a 10:30 matinee and it was pretty full.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sevens

Sevens

Log Wizard
6,986
22,219
jayrebb said:
Seems like there's fire then and not just smoke if multiple cities are reporting "broken AC" at AMC theaters.

Remember Disney did not want this movie released after they acquired it from Fox.
Click to expand...
Just curious (and too lazy to google it). How did this movie get released if Disney acquired it from Fox and didn't want it released?
Did they sell the rights to someone else? If so, why if they didnt want it released so bad.
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
jayrebb

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
15,112
15,055
Sevens said:
Just curious (and too lazy to google it). How did this movie get released if Disney acquired it from Fox and didn't want it released?
Did they sell the rights to someone else? If so, why if they didnt want it released so bad.
Click to expand...

The rights to distribute the film are finite. The film was ready on-schedule for distribution.

Disney acquired Fox and said it wouldn't be getting distribution or a release. Some reasons were allegedly given, but I can't confirm anything on that. In any case-- they had to wait the entire 12 month period for the right to distribute to become an official pass from Disney on it. Disney refused to honor Fox agreement to distribute the movie.

Disney tried to shelve it. If Fox wasn't going to distribute it, the same thing would have happened and the filmmaker retains full rights to sell distribution again elsewhere.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,930
215,915
Sevens said:
Just curious (and too lazy to google it). How did this movie get released if Disney acquired it from Fox and didn't want it released?
Did they sell the rights to someone else? If so, why if they didnt want it released so bad.
Click to expand...
that sort of puts a wrinkle in the narrative. from the Midnight's Edge video i watched. the movie was bought by Disney along with everything else in the 20th Century Fox deal, then the movie makers approached Disney though a subsidiary called Angel Films. the original budget was 14.5 million, but the amount paid for the movie by Angel Films is an undisclosed amount. they also raised 5 million through kickstarter to have this movie distributed. its doing so well it went from 2634 screens to something like 2900+ screens. it will probably increase by next weekend. its already estimated to make 40 million by the end of it's first week.

does any of that add up to Disney not wanting it released because of the subject matter? no. sort of. it could be that the subject matter turned Disney off because Disney doesnt release those kinds of films on their brand. not because they were afraid it would expose themselves of some kind of guilt. so i guess one could make a weaselly argument that Disney shelved the movie, but not for the reason they are saying.
 
jayrebb

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
15,112
15,055
Chukzombi said:
that sort of puts a wrinkle in the narrative. from the Midnight's Edge video i watched. the movie was bought by Disney along with everything else in the 20th Century Fox deal, then the movie makers approached Disney though a subsidiary called Angel Films. the original budget was 14.5 million, but the amount paid for the movie by Angel Films is an undisclosed amount. they also raised 5 million through kickstarter to have this movie distributed. its doing so well it went from 2634 screens to something like 2900+ screens. it will probably increase by next weekend. its already estimated to make 40 million by the end of it's first week.

does any of that add up to Disney not wanting it released because of the subject matter? no. sort of. it could be that the subject matter turned Disney off because Disney doesnt release those kinds of films on their brand. not because they were afraid it would expose themselves of some kind of guilt. so i guess one could make a weaselly argument that Disney shelved the movie, but not for the reason they are saying.
Click to expand...

Except Disney's name would have been nowhere on it. Only insiders would know what subsidy put the movie out if they dig into it.

There wouldn't exactly be any credits on screen saying it's a "Disney movie."

Disney passed on distributing the movie. That's shelved in the industry.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
jayrebb

jayrebb

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
15,112
15,055
Fortunately the contract was written in a way where Disney couldn't permanently shelve the movie, like has happened to countless other films.
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,930
215,915
jayrebb said:
Except Disney's name would have been nowhere on it. Only insiders would know what subsidy put the movie out if they dig into it.

There wouldn't exactly be any credits on screen saying it's a "Disney movie."

Disney passed on distributing the movie. That's shelved in the industry.
Click to expand...
yes, thats what i said. they didnt shelve it because they are involved in child trafficking or their buddies in Hollywood are. they had no interest in it. so they got an offer and passed it along. why they passed on it is up for debate, but if they were trying to hide the movie from release for some nefarious reason, that doesnt seem to be the case here. the takeaway is. Disney didnt make this film. they wanted no part of this film and so they sold this film. its not "The Film DIsney DIdnt Want You To See"
 
  • 1Seriously?
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.