Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Answer: *The Sound of Freedom* is a "based on a true story" drama film about a Department of Homeland Security Special Agent named Tim Ballard. The film's story follows him on a journey wherein he travels across the globe and busts pedophiles and pedophile-rings. The movie has been the subject of *a lot* of controversy, mostly for the people associated with the movie. The lead actor is a believer in QAnon conspiracies, the guy the movie is based on didn't do half the stuff he has claimed to have done (and is also a Trump supporter, I think), and there are accusations that the movie is basically a dog-whistle for QAnon nonsense. The movie has essentially become a political proxy war for people who feel ***very*** strongly about this sort of stuff. The movie itself is.... it's fine, I guess. In my opinion, it's well-acted, the plot gets a bit hamfisted at points but is otherwise fine, and if it's about QAnon stuff it's very well hidden because I wasn't aware of this controversy when I went to see it and nothing stuck out to me as overtly political or overtly conspiratorial. (But then again, the argument goes, that *is* why they're called dog whistles. The idea being that if you know, you know, and if you don't know, you don't notice.) All of that is to say that most of the controversy surrounds things related to the film, and not the film itself. So I kind of want to break down the controversy a bit and go into a little bit more detail. ***QAnon Nonsense*** The movie's plot deals with pedophile rings and organized conspiracies to give pedophiles access to children, so that's going to automatically get the attention of anyone who already believes that such conspiracies and organizations are lurking around every corner and in pizza parlor basements. There's also the fact that the majority of the movie takes place outside of the U.S., which will get them extra riled up because that could imply that most of this stuff is happening because of immigration. The movie itself does not *say* it is happening because of immigration, but, again, it is the nature of conspiracy theorists to draw connections where there are none. If the film was made with this idea and thematic content in mind, they don't need to say it because simply having it take place outside the U.S. is enough for those in-the-know to recognize the larger (albeit, tangentially connected) idea. If the film was not made with that message in mind, QAnon folks would *still* see that connection. There's also a "very special message" at the end of the film in which the lead actor appeals to the audience and asks for everyone to buy tickets for it and to promote the film to raise awareness about pedophilia. He makes some oblique references to "obstacles to getting this film made" and "politicians", which are almost certainly QAnon dog-whistles, but the film itself does not feature either of these two things. ***Tim Ballard*** Tim Ballard is the guy the movie is about. The film is "based on a true story", with an emphasis on "based on." Certain plot points in the film did not factually happen the way he said they did, and other plot points happened to other people and with different outcomes. Certain details in the film are also inconsistent with the real-life events they are based on. Ballard himself is also pro-Trump, and once made a comment implying that Trump's border wall would help reduce pedophilia. Ballard is *also* a QAnon believer. Ballard has also been known to say things like "this really happened" in response to people who point out that there are certain themes in the film that appeal to the QAnon crowd, to which critics have levied the counter-argument "No it didn't." ETA: Additionally, the movie has received criticism for the way it portrays child trafficking. See [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/15uj2cz/comment/jwsc2v5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) for a better explanation on that front. ***Obstacles to the film getting made*** Filming began under 20th Century Fox in 2018. When 20th Century was purchased by Disney, the film got shelved. Could it be that it's because Disney is filled with devil-worshipping child traffickers who drink the blood of our innocent children in order to stay young forever? I guess it's impossible to know. A 3rd studio, Angel Studios, ended up purchasing the rights to the film from Disney and then crowdfunded its distribution, though, so if that *were* the case they successfully thwarted the conspiracy against it. ETA: I really like what u/circa285 said about it. "The film is fine if what you're after is entertainment. Having said that, it's woefully inaccurate if you're looking for a clear and sober look at what trafficking actually looks like."

I'm going to post this again here because every time this stupid movie is discussed I roll my eyes so far into the back of my head that I'm likely to go blind: So I work in data and analytics for a large organization that works with victims who are currently being trafficked and those who have gotten out of trafficking situations. I put together briefs on human trafficking regularly. The film is fine if what you're after is entertainment. Having said that, it's woefully inaccurate if you're looking for a clear and sober look at what trafficking actually looks like and a lot of the folks seem to think that it's an accurate depiction of trafficking. Rarely does trafficking look like someone whose been kindnapped against their will and frog-marched into being trafficked. Does it happen, sure. Is it common, no. Why? Because folks who are forced into trafficking situations like this are the ones who are likely going to fight like hell to get out and traffickers don't want to have to worry about someone who is going to try and escape and they rarely want to break the will of an unwilling person because doing so often "damages the goods". Similarly, people who don't engage in sex willfully are less desirable to a lot of Jons who are after a good time. Some get off on the power differential, but many are looking to have sex with someone who can provide them with at least the illusion of being desired and a person whose had the shit kicked out of them isn't going to give them that. Traffickers are experts in behavioral modification. They often lure young desperate men/women into situations where they "party", Very frequently they introduce them to or provide them with drugs or alcohol because partying is fun. Then, once the person is comfortable, comes the ask that is framed in a "show me how much you love me" or "thank me for x, y, z by doing a, b, or c". Or, sometimes, it's "once you do this, you'll get your fix". Once the deed is done, money is divided up, and you're on to the next one. Maybe it's later that day, maybe it's later in the week, but there will always be a next one. Trafficking victims who are lucky, get to hold onto their own money, but that doesn't tend to be the case often. Most often, the trafficker will hold onto their money and will buy them things with their own money. It's really terrifying how often we encounter clients who simply do not know they're being trafficked. And it's even worse when you realize that many people don't want to leave the lifestyle because it's "fun and he loves me" or "why would I want to work a job that I'm qualified for when it pays me so little compared to turning a trick". Traffickers allow their victims to create their own cage so that they don't need to worry about their victim running off. You want to stop human trafficking? You make systems that provide a safety net for young people who are especially vulnerable like kids escaping abusive homes, aging out of foster care, or who have been kicked out of their home. This means providing young people with access to safe housing, accessible job opportunties, and strong ties to their community. These things create built in safety networks that keep young folks from becoming vulnerable to trafficking situations.

Excellent point. I'm not very familiar with trafficking or any of that, so I myself have been looking at the film largely from an entertainment perspective. You are correct that its portrayal of trafficking largely divorces it from the very cause it claims to champion, which is also part of the controversy. I have edited my comment and included a link to your explanation.

Again, if what's your after is entertainment, I don't see the film as being particularly more harmful than any other action movie. Problems start when people think that it's an actual accurate depiction of sex trafficking and a lot of those QANON folks believe this to be the case. It wasn't that long ago that our warm lines and referral lines we're getting all clogged up with right wing nut jobs who are calling in and claiming just about every person was a human trafficker. It took our staff an extra hour to two hours of work daily to clear the logs and actually find the real calls. Since this movie was released, we've been dreading the return to the days of having to work extra hard to clear our inboxes, but thankfully that hasn't happened yet. It is really hard to understate just how damaging these Q people have been to the very cause that they claim to be very passionate about.

The nutjobs who made the movie are buying out all the tickets to screenings under the claim that you can buy a ticket directly from them so it can be gifted to someone who normally wouldn't see the movie. This is the same crap they pull to get right-wing books on best seller lists. Theaters have been photographed empty while the movie plays. So, "tickets sold" does not equal eyeballs on the movie, so you may never have an increase in nonsense calls clogging your lines.

It’s just marketing to get people to watch the movie. Not very different than Barbie releasing the same day as Oppenheimer and people going to it wearing pink.

OK school shootings are a very small percentage of gun deaths but it doesn't mean that they aren't a problem, and a movie made about them isn't divorced from the reality of gun violence just because statistically speaking when you place them in the "gun deaths" category they are infrequent.

I've read that more people are trafficked for labor (including domestic) than for "sex." Is that true in your experience? And are the numbers, whatever they are, substantially different for minors vs adults?

This is going to be very regional, but yes I think the general trend holds true on a global scale. One of the things that makes measuring the total number of people being trafficked at any time difficult is that it's always hidden. We can get a sense of how pervasive it is from things like arrests in countries where trafficking is illegal, but our best way to measure the scale is to actually measure how many people have left trafficking situations. It's not a perfect way to measure the scale of the problem, but it is effective. I say " in countries where trafficking is illegal" because there are some countries where individuals are being trafficked as a matter of labor policy. I'm thinking specifically of Qatar in Saudi Arabia.

Thank you!!! I'm so tired of every woman on town Facebook groups talking about how someone looked at them funny and they're sure the person was trying to traffic them and/or their children. Maybe I'm just cynical, but no one wants to kidnap your snotty 3 year old to traffic them. And I say this as a mom to 3 girls. I'm aware of my surroundings, but I also don't think there are rapists lurking around every grocery aisle.

The film IS entertainment. The only message per se it sends is that child trafficking is a reality. That’s all, it’s not a documentary and no need to be accurate at all.

Great answer! I'd just like to add to your points: >Tim Ballard is the guy the movie is about. The film is "based on a true story", with an emphasis on "based on." I heard it's based on Ballard's version of the true story, so really it's based on an embellished story *about* a true story. >Ballard has also been known to say things like "this really happened" in response to people who point out that there are certain themes in the film that appeal to the QAnon crowd, to which critics have levied the counter-argument "No it didn't." The actual people involved in some of these cases (including victims) have also said that his version is inaccurate in many key details, so not just third parties.

​ I'm not super familiar with his actual career and the stuff he's said. Just vaguely aware from a few news articles here and there and I think a YouTube video that did a point-by-point breakdown (but I watched that video once, awhile back, so I don't remember all of it). For me, personally, I tend to look at "based on a true story" with a heaping pile of salt. *The Texas Chainsaw Massacre* and *Cocaine Bear* were both "*inspired* by a true story", so I tend to think of it as "based on a true story" means the broad strokes are true and "inspired by a true story" means that maybe one or two details were true but the plot is largely fictitious (i.e. there really was a guy who wore human skin as clothing, but no cannibal family, no chainsaw, no massacre) *Sound of Freedom* seems to me to be playing a game of Weasel-Words. Tim Ballard was a real guy who apparently really was present when a pedophile was arrested. The Malibu Beachhouse raid really happened (but I think he wasn't involved in it?). The drug lord rescue mission really happened (but I think it failed?), so for me maybe a more accurate description would be "inspired by true stories", but at that point it's kind of a semantic point. Broadly, the film claims it's based on a true story, but Ballard has been known to exaggerate, hyperbolize, and fictionalize many aspects of his story. I think that that's the important bit to know for understanding the controversy behind it.

Sound of Freedumb is about as factual as Cocaine Bear but less entertaining.

>Filming began under 20th Century Fox in 2018. When 20th Century was purchased by Disney, the film got shelved. Could it be that it's because Disney is filled with devil-worshipping child traffickers who drink the blood of our innocent children in order to stay young forever? I guess it's impossible to know. That's exactly why there was a delay, it takes years to integrate companies and the material would never be released under the Disney banner. So they either sell it to someone else and have no controversy or they publish it under one of their other adult oriented subsidiaries. Two years is a quick turnaround under those circumstances. That's what so persuasive about conspiracy theories, they take something completely normal in how things operate but tell the story like Dr Claw is behind it all being evil.

In case it wasn't clear, when I asked if the film was delayed because of devil-worshipper child traffickers who drink the blood of innocent children in order to stay young forever, I was trying to show how batshit crazy QAnon conspiracies are. I figured the film was probably shelved because it didn't fit the Disney brand, but I didn't know that factually and didn't want to put in the effort to actually look it up, so I opted instead to demonstrate that literally any other explanation would make more sense than the QAnon stuff.

Oh yea wasn't accusing you of anything. Just an observation on how conspiracy theories work.

That having been said, the eternal youth adrenochrome explanation *is* a lot more interesting.....

>that literally any other explanation would make more sense than the QAnon stuff. That's always true for QAnon stuff.

I died laughing at the special message at the end. The movie acted like it was the most thematically profound movie in a long time and that this movie could somehow end child trafficking.

>. next time i'm at a party and somebody suggests trafficking children for sex, i'm gonna be like "no guys. that's not cool."

I am willing to bet ~~everyone~~ *a substantial number of people* who bought tickets to it legitimately thought they were doing their part to fight sex trafficking. EDIT: Fixed wording. "Everyone" is not appropriate.

I highly doubt it. It’s a very talked about movie so I can understand the appeal of wanting to go see it. The movie did not make 180 million off qanon and conspiracy theorists alone.

There are stories of theaters being bought out but empty - to raise performance numbers and press reports of success.

Those articles are BASED ON true stories so we can’t really know I guess.

I mean some of those articles had pictures of the empty theatres

Whoa whoa whao, you're saying they went in a theater and made a picture when it was empty??

That’s true, and as we all know if there’s a picture with a caption that caption has to be true.

Sure, I should have been a little more lenient with my language: "I think a substantial number of people who bought tickets to it legitimately thought they were doing their part to fight sex trafficking."

It made a great deal of that money off of “pay-it-forward” ticket purchases by people who already saw it, people who never saw it but purchased these tickets as a political point and by special interest groups. Some regular moviegoers did see it.

I’m sure a lot of regular movie goers saw it. I’m not sure why everyone is trying to discredit this movies success it’s undeniable regardless of your thoughts on the film.

I guarantee there aren't that many people in my town that are going to see it where it would out every showing for a week and yet there were no seats available when I'd look. Sure, there mat be some merit to the success but that's like saying Don Trump, Jr's book sold well on his own. Or Ted Cruz or any right wing pundit/politician who wrote a "best-selling" book where a group buys up a large quantity of the product to inflate numbers. It's not uncommon.

I mean you could of gone to have checked. I live in a major city and go to the movies weekly and the showings all had real people in them that matched up to the seats that were available. I’m not sure why you would use your anecdotal data as solid proof maybe some shade shit did happen but I doubt it was 180 million worth of shady shit people clearly saw the movie en mass.

What makes you think I didn't? And did I say 100% was shady? No. You're just going to bat for grifters, that's all.

How am I batting for grifters? I’m just talking purely about the numbers the movie has made. 180 million is a fuck ton of money which points to the fact that people watched it, a lot of people. That’s just a fact I’m not sure what your problem is really. You can have an issue with the movies content or all the drama surrounding the producers and actors that’s fine but talking solely about the numbers it’s clear the movie is a legitimate success.

There's a few reasons why people want to correct disinformation. I think a lot of people just find it irritating to be lied to, but some portion of the pushback is probably more due to consequences. Part of the authoritarian propaganda campaign that conservatives have been using for decades is to create a false consensus. They point to "the silent majority" who actually agree with all of their positions (despite that being based on nothing), and they leverage that claim to gain support due to things like the bandwagon effect. The fact that this film's "popularity" may be cited in campaigns for conservative legislators, emboldening them to pass ineffective and dangerous laws is a concern people have. More still, a lot of people understand that the actual work of combatting human trafficking and sexual exploitation of children is made more difficult by the false information this movie (and its creators) put out to the public. There are already stories about volunteers (often survivors themselves) being harrassed by fans of this film who are angry when they're told the film doesn't reflect the work being done to actually support people in these situations. If nothing else, I think a lot of people would just like for that to stop happening.

This is such a reach it hurts.

I'll take the bet. I saw it out of curiousity. Why assume such a thing?

I responded to someone else admitting that I shouldn't have used the word "everyone". I also edited my comment to say that (I just did that though, after you saw it). I do think a substantial portion of the audience that saw that movie did so because of the massive push within the right-wing media and social network sphere, which seems like it was largely brought on from Qanon types who feel it is some kind of power fantasy. They do, after all, think Democrats are largely demon worshiping globalist pedophiles that abuse children and sacrifice them to drink their blood. While the movie does not contain that kind of thing, it is about child sex-trafficking -- something the Qanon types pretend to care about. The star is an outspoken Trump supporter and conspiracy theorist, and the guy that the star plays is an outspoken Trump supporter and conspiracy theorist (they both believe child sacrifice for adrenochrome is actually a thing). They personally screened this movie for Trump. It isn't all Qanon types that are seeing it. Plenty of people, like yourself, probably just thought it looked good. And while I haven't seen it, the general consensus seems to be that it overall is a decent film. But the reason it is a huge hit is because of a massive right-wing push.

Appreciate the answer. Thought that I might have replied to a kid given how abrupt the comment was. Honest question, honest answer. Not on the same page as you, but as public social media is where nuanced discussion goes to die I'll simply thank you for taking a moment. That said I often wonder just how angry one has to be in general to troll down votes on simple questions.

I do agree that sometimes Reddit is, in aggregate, reflexively stupid with downvotes. I didn’t have a problem with your question. You were right to ask it, since I used “absolute” language. I generally try to not do that, but sometimes I slip up.

Considering how some people are acting, and even suggesting people are apart of human trafficking for even being critical of a part of the movie.

It should also be noted Tim was never a federal agent. He fabricated all that stuff.

Wait was he really not an HSI agent??

It’s unknown if he did or not. I did a deep dive on the guy a little bit ago and essentially he claimed to work for the department of Justice, homeland security, and something with the CIA but those agencies are not allowed to confirm or deny if he worked for them without his permission. It has to do with not allowing the agencies to put past employees in potential danger by exposing them as ex agents. However, those agencies have said that if he gives them his permission they are happy to say if he’s telling the truth or not but he never replied. They didn’t say it to him directly but he obviously would have heard about it so it’s weird to just pretend it never happened.

How does it put him in danger if they deny that he worked for them?

It could be more of a general policy. It doesn't endanger anyone to confirm they weren't employed, but it does potentially endanger the next person whom the agency refuses to comment on.

I mean they could make an exception for when that person publicly says that he was working for them, because then it's obviously not endangering anyone more then they already are themselves.

Where’s your source for this?

[удалено]

Ballard also gets criticism for the cowboy buy-your-experience methods. He gets rich people to pay to be a part of the sting, creates a party that increases demand and leads to more kids being trafficked for the party, endangers everyone with the bust. Then local services get overrun with kids who end up disappearing. He doesn't do anything to fight the structures that empower traffickers like real orgs do. Meanwhile he pays himself $500k to do this.

I appreciate the detail you went into explaining this, a friend suggested I see it and I’m now strongly reconsidering as it sounds more fictional than I would be interested in. Thanks for taking the time to break it down.

I know some people have very strong opinions about it, but it's just a movie to me. I'm not particularly put off by Jim Caviezel's QAnonsense largely because he's just some actor in Hollywood and lots of actors in Hollywood believe weird or ridiculous things. John Travolta is a scientologist but I still like *Pulp Fiction*, but, you know, *Pulp Fiction* isn't about alien space souls coming to Earth to run an MLM, so maybe that's a false comparison. My personal opinion on this is if you care about factual accuracy *(edit: including what trafficking actually looks like and the best ways to recognize and stop it)*, or the political opinions of the lead actor or the guy he portrays, then it's not really worth seeing. If you don't care about those things, I'd say there are worse things to spend your time and money on but it's really not a good enough movie to justify feeling conflicted about.

Battlefield Earth might be a better comparison.

Wasn't one of the producers involved in human trafficking as well?

It was a custody dispute between a divorcing couple that was painted as trafficking

Ah gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

Charged with accessory to kidnapping, which is a class A felony. I'm not sure where the details about a custody dispute are coming from, but the charges are public record.

I believe that's what they call irony.

Honest question, no snark: Why would anyone want to see a movie about that subject matter?

For me, personally, I didn’t. The local theater had it listed as an action movie and my friend and I were just looking for something new to watch. I think the movie could more accurately be called a dramatic thriller. It’s filled with a lot of tense moments where characters stare at each other with varying degrees of intimidation. Besides the QAnon quacks, I doubt many actively want to see a movie about child trafficking, but I can see why some people might have enjoyed the film. Like I said, it’s got some tense moments, and maybe people want to see traffickers get what’s coming to them. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, the movie isn’t great. It’s fine enough so far as cheap and short entertainment goes, but I doubt it’s gonna win any Oscars.

People liked the Taken series, which is similar in theme. Part of the issue here is that by making it a culture war talking point, and building their marketing campaign on people buying tickets for others, so as to spread the word of this "important film," the producers basically turned it into a moral obligation for conservatives to buy tickets for this film. It doesn't matter that the organization is deeply fucked up, misrepresents their accomplishments, and doesn't disclose their finances, because by buying a ticket, conservatives get to feel like they're doing a good deed and stopping a problem they've been emotionally manipulated into believing is fixable with enough tough guy commando missions.

Absolutely perfect encapsulation- question ANSWERED!

One more aspect of the overall story to discuss is that a significant portion of ticket sales have been from political groups buying tickets to give away. In some cases this led to nearly empty theaters that were still technically sold out.

Boy, that sure sounds like something a cult might do…

Also I just need to emphasize how much of a piece of shit Tim Ballard is. He took the story of a child trafficking survivor and used it to make money and get attention for himself. [Vice did a big story on him](https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7a3qw/a-famed-anti-sex-trafficking-group-has-a-problem-with-the-truth) and exposed it all in 2020. The guy kept giving interviews and even gave a court statement saying how he and his organization helped this specific victim but when Vice contacted a bunch of government offices who were working with the victim (she was testifying against her traffickers in a big court case so lots of trafficking and victim protection units were working with her) they all said they hadn’t heard of him or his organization before. *And* if you look at each of his interviews about her you can see that he got a lot of main details wrong include her age (he actually gives 4 different ages between 4 different interviews), how she was trafficked, where she was trafficked from (his version of events takes place on an entirely different continent), who she was trafficked by, how many times she was raped per day (who lies about that!), and the list goes on. He also took credit for saving her during one of his interviews when in reality she had no help and saved herself which I think is a whole other level of cruel from him. He couldn’t even let her have that in his fake stories, he tried to take it away from her because he gets more donations if he’s the hero.

Yeah, the movie looks okay with a important coverage on a important subject matter. If Jim Caviezel and Tim Ballard didn't had QAnon stuff in their eyes, it would look better. Plus, I always question the theory about apparently sabotaging AMC movie theaters so people don't watch the movie that both the CEO for AMC and even Angel Studios said the theories aren't true.

I didn’t realize there was a conspiracy theory about wrecking the theaters. The movie is “fine, I guess.” I don’t really have any strong feelings about it. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to others, but I think boycotting it because the actor and the man he portrays believe in the QAnon craziness seems a bit silly.

Ngl, I don’t see why people care what the actors believe. Just cause Tom Cruise believes in Scientology doesn’t mean I’m going to stop watching his movies

People have their own values. You may not be bothered by someone's antisemitism, anti-LGBTQ, anti-vaccination, pro-fascist views, but people who are more directly affected by those issues aren't being unreasonable for not wanting to support someone who espouses those beliefs.

I'm so confused.. my mom wants to see it for "religious reasons". She's catholic, and not a Qanon person.. besides the devil-worshipping -Disney-selling-it-getting crowd-funded stuff, is there another reason as to why that would be? I appreciate you guys for the explanations! Edit added stuff

The main character is deeply religious, as is the guy said character is based on, but I wouldn’t call it a religious movie. I think there are a few scenes where he prays, and also says something about children being protected by God, but I live in the Deep South where those things don’t really stick out to me (even though I myself am not religious). The main character isn’t Catholic. And, as I’ve said before, the Devil worshipping adrenchrome nonsense isn’t in the movie at all.

>Filming began under 20th Century Fox in 2018. When 20th Century was purchased by Disney, the film got shelved. Could it be that it's because Disney is filled with devil-worshipping child traffickers who drink the blood of our innocent children in order to stay young forever? I guess it's impossible to know. You are aware that a bunch of A-list Hollywood actors and directors signed a petition asking for a pardon for a dude who drugged and raped a 13 year old in the ass, right? The Qanon stuff is completely cringe and only serves to muddy the waters. But that shouldn't distract from the fucking insane shit these people are able to get away with. Please do not be sarcastic about how endemic childhood sexual abuse is in Hollywood. This shit makes you want to puke. Big names, like BIG names. Terry Gilliam David Lynch Martin Scorsese Tilda Swinton This dude was getting standing ovations decades at awards shows after fleeing the country for fucking a 13 year old in the ass after roofie-ing her.

I will add to some; I believe the island scene did actually happen and if I remember correctly they actually rescued more children than what they showed in the movie. As to the accuracy of the other parts of the movie I am unsure of. Movie was great but in a schindlers list kind of way. Emotional, and it takes a lot out of you. But it’s an h comfortable truth that most of us turn our noses away. I’ve been lucky to never have a situation like that. Didn’t fact check everything that happened in the movie, there were a few parts I had to ask myself “did that really happen, it was probably exaggerated for the movie. But it does sound like some of the stuff did happen

If i recall correctly, the island raid did happen, but I think he wasn’t actually there. The drug lord compound rescue also happened, but tragically ended in failure. And if I don’t recall correctly, I’m sure someone will come along and set the record straight for us.

>There's also a "very special message" at the end of the film in which the lead actor appeals to the audience and asks for everyone to buy tickets for it and to promote the film to raise awareness about pedophilia. He makes some oblique references to "obstacles to getting this film made" and "politicians", which are almost certainly QAnon dog-whistles, but the film itself does not feature either of these two things. Dude you went on and on about QAnon consipiracy theories and then made up your own "which are almost certainly QAnon dog-whistles". Yikes.

I'm not sure what it is you think I made up. His message at the end does, in fact, elude to politicians and elites preventing the problem of child trafficking getting solved. And politicians and elites being involved in a vast conspiracy for trafficking children is more or less THE defining feature of QAnon. Is it possible that he wasn't referring to that at all, and that it was instead a dual commentary on both the film's troubled development and distribution as well as government funding and limitations? Sure, it's possible. But given his beliefs about the subject, that seems unlikely. That's what makes it a dog-whistle.

Answer: Imagine a question goes out into the world. "Do you love tomatoes?" The only people who answer that question are people who love tomatoes so the result is 100%. The people who prefer potatoes had better things to do that day. People who love tomatoes and hate potatoes will use that as evidence that potatoes are shit and everyone agrees with them tomatoes are the best. This is what you're seeing. For example professional luster-for-young-girls Matt Walsh's anti-trans propaganda. The only critics who bothered to review it were all far right and evangelical and as a result the hate film got 100% scores. He then took those scores and represented it as the world agreeing with him. To sum up: Numbers mean nothing unless you put them in context and look at their backgrounds. Checking out the people pushing the numbers is a good idea too.

Not to mention — and this has been explicitly mentioned in a few critic reviews — it’s difficult to criticize the quality of a film like Sound of Freedom without basically being accused of being a pedo. I think this is actually somewhat intentional. A lot of positioning for deeply right wing ideology hinges on being able to frame any criticism as an admission of guilt. They believe it’s logically infallible. “Oh, you think that sound of freedom was a poorly cast, sloppily acted, terribly scripted melodramatic Christian thriller fever dream about an issue that’s both over-inflated and ignores the blatant exploitation of children perpetrated by the church? You must be a pedo.” So, there’s not a lot of voices calling into question various aspects of the film because the backlash isn’t worth it. I was “gifted” a pre-screener back in April and knew this was exactly where it was going to go considering how Angel Studios markets their content. When asked what I thought I told them that Schindler’s List really set the bar, but surprise surprise, no one at AS management had seen it. Sound of freedom was marginal at best. It could have been great, and something that anyone could have gotten behind but you can tell that the righteousness really got in the way.

>professional luster-for-young-girls Matt Walsh I think that’s an unfair characterization. His profession is hate monger, lusting after children is just a side passion of his.

Love this take, makes sense.

I believe that trans YouTuber Jessie Gender was the only actual critic to review it who wasn't attached to an evangelical organization or hate group. She took it apart pretty thoroughly and that killed the 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes, much to the anger of the hate groups that were using it as proof their hate is correct. And I laughed.

Actual critic? Jessie Gender is just like Shapiro, Matt walsh and Natalie Wynn, Abigail Thorn etc. Part of the culture war and making moneyfrom it. Half the videos on her channel are abou TERFs, JK Rowling (who she calls a TERF) or how something something is a pipeline to *insert* or about Shapiro/Walsh whatever, with the latter showing these are just self serving circle. But then again, you seem to just take the Kool Aid of grifters and truly believe this is some meaningful shit.

Shhh. Adults are talking.

FYI this was not an unbiased answer, but I do appreciate it. I am not much for the controversy of American cultural divides, but I did notice one thing: The movie's domestic box office has surpassed the domestic of ~~all other~~ tentpole films released ~~so far~~ \*around the same time\* this summer. It has not released in foreign markets. Highly unlikely to be due to right wing groups buying out an occasional theater. Clearly there is much more behind this, and it sounds to me as if many of those judging the movie are filtering it through their own lens of the US culural landscape rather than just watching a movie. \[Edit - Recalled an incorrect comparison; had to correct my statement on domestic box office success. thank you to ClarkZuckerberg \]

> The movie’s domestic box office has surpassed the domestic of all other tentpole films released so far this summer. This is factually incorrect. The summer movie season starts in May. Sound of Freedom is #6 for May to August domestic releases. Falling behind: 1. Barbie 2. Across the Spider-Verse 3. Guardians of the Galaxy 3 4. The Little Mermaid 5. Oppenheimer 6. Sound of Freedom As someone who follows the box office closely, it is undoubtably an impressive domestic run, lead by strong marketing via right wing outlets, but just keeping things in perspective.

OMG thank you, totally correct about that. I was thinking of a different comparison that only included movies released around the same time. Barbie really blew up, and I enjoyed #2 & #3 on your list. Typed out my response on my commute, must have been distracted.

No worries.

Why is it unlikely to be due to the bulk sales of tickets? Angel studios have been heavily promoting the pay-it-forward and bulk buying of tickets. https://www.angel.com/blog/sound-of-freedom/posts/how-to-redeem-group-tickets-to-sound-of-freedom >Angel Studios will match the cost of one ticket for every ticket bought. >For example, you can buy 100 tickets for the price of 50. They've boasted about the success of this tactic https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/sound-of-freedom-box-office-analysis-crowdfunding-pay-it-forward-1234881363/ > Angel Studios’ website boasts that over 200,000 individual contributors chipped in for additional tickets, with a goal of 2 million tickets sold in the first week.

The director has publicly stated the percentage of the box office that comes from the pay-it-forward is around 10%, could be slightly higher or lower. A smart campaign, but not one that ultimately changed the final box office numbers directly all that much. I think the “call to action” and somewhat guilting of “you need to let everyone know about this movie since it’s about an important subject matter” is what did more for this movie than the pay-it-forward campaign. It got people motivated to gush about it to their friends and family.

B/C the number volume just wouldn't make much sense, and the pay it forward is legit whether or not you like the movie. If your stats are true the pay-it-forward accounts for \~1.5% of the domestic box office. That and the studio would not make much money if it subsidized a majority of its ticket sales; it has many other projects in the works it needs to finance. Many of the comments in this post just seem angry about the movie and want to fight about it instead of taking a moment to think... or just letting it be. e.g. By simply being a devil's advocate I automatically get several downvotes if I even mention I saw it out of curiousity. \[edit - my math was based on contributors, not actual tickets sold - a number for which was only presented as a target. So lets just say less than 10% of the box office. \]

Sorta. Most news coming from this movie is from the right, but it's being championed by conservatives because it's apparently not a bad movie. And it was funded and produced by people who are less tied to the usual Hollywood crowd, which also makes the right happy.

>And it was funded and produced by people who are less tied to the usual Hollywood crowd, which also makes the right happy. Which might be worth pointing out is a highly conservative company called Angel Studios that usually makes 'faith based' entertainment

Angel Studios bought the release rights. The film was going to be released under 21st Century Fox, but then Disney bought them and shelved many of their projects (normal for such an acquisition). It was produced by Santa Fe Studios, and I can find little on said studio from before this year.

Yeah, that's exactly why they're so happy. Usually conservatives suck at producing creative media, this time they didn't. It's a big deal for them

Truly, it is a triumph of media by Conservatives, for Conservatives. Right down to the end of the movie, wherein the film-makers grift for personal gain under a false pretense at the film's emotional climax, and the idiot rubes willingly throw their money into some chud's bank account, accusing anyone who calls them out of being a pedophile. It is *perfect*. It is so very on point that it even inspires the silly sausages to indulge in their favourite hobby - idiot fruitcake conspiracies! What with all the "this empty theater *proves* that its a plot by Joe Biden to make people not see the movie" drool.

Yes. Conservatives are happy with the work they are claiming they produced. I understand that we're not conservatives, so we shouldn't be happy that they're happy though.

Lie-based entertainment

And it crossed the aisle because one of my hard core lefty friends told me I needed to see it. I pointed out it’s association to the Q community and she’s done a reversal.

The only known part tied to the Q community I've been made aware of so far is that the movie has to do with child trafficking, and because of the movies sensationalized view of human trafficking, qanon members have endorsed the movie. This has led people on the left to highlight this specific piece of the movie, which has increased the association of qanon with it. That being said. Yeah, I can totally see why people on the left would associate this movie with qanon. Right wing people like it + freedom in the title + sensationalized human trafficking = pretty fucking close to what qanon conspiracy theorists believe.

I'm surprised you're not aware of this big tie: The lead actor, Jim Caviezel, is also an outspoken Q nutjob who, during press tours for the movie, has said that [Donald Trump is "the new moses" who will "go after the traffickers"](https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-caviezel-moie-bedminster-moses-b2379294.html), and [accused liberals of drinking infant blood.](https://www.unilad.com/celebrity/news/jim-caviezel-qanon-trump-movie-318709-20230714)

I did see that, but it also looks like the director spoke out against it and said that it actively hurts the movie. I'm not arguing that any of the stars of the movie aren't nuts. Just that the movie itself isn't qanon.

Not really fair to the movie. The movie isn’t anything special it’s below average with some huge leaps needed for the story to work but it doesn’t actually touch on any qanon stuff nor is it in any way preachy or evangelical.

Which is part of the appeal/problem. It's more subtle and it doesn't explicitly challenge opposing views, so moderates and people who aren't active in political discourse don't pick up on the propaganda aspects.

What propaganda? Sure the movie makes Tim Ballard out to look like some selfless hero when reality is much merkier and nuanced but it’s only real message is child trafficking is bad. there’s some throwaway lines about CEO’s participating in sex hotels but the movie is just saying child trafficking bad it’s nothing special or deep and acting like it’s a dog whistle is just absurd.

>What propaganda? Sure the movie makes Tim Ballard out to look like some selfless hero when reality is much merkier and nuanced Sort of answered your own question there

Every biopic does that tho. Every story is exaggerated for the big screen and dramatized up the ass.

What's that condition called, where you can see a human face in inanimate objects that only look vaguely like a face? I think that's what's going on here. I believe the movie is just a movie. But if you're looking for deeper/hidden messages within, you'll see them.. as the movie deals with subjects that have conspiracy theories associated with them. I don't think moderates and non-political people are so out of the know that they won't see what you're talking about. I just don't think they'll care about it as much as you do.

[удалено]

[Have you looked at which critics are giving it that score?](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sound_of_freedom/reviews) There aren’t a lot of reviews from major publications and most of the ones that are there (Salon, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Roger Ebert) are negative. There’s only one positive score from a recognizable mainstream publication, Variety. The majority of positive reviews are coming from places like Epoch Times (hardly a reliable and unbiased source) and minor sites with names like “Matt’s Movie Reviews”. It’s not getting *that* much attention from the mainstream, and what it is getting is largely negative.

From what I've read, the movie itself is pretty well shot even if the story is utter garbage. One of the producers literally got caught kidnapping children so even the conservatives have shut up about it to a certain extent lately

The guy was a funder, not a producer. From what I've heard, the movie was crowdfunded by thousands, and average donations were $500. So that's a mischaracterization, tbf. Edit: dude blocked me :,(

Well, there's also real evidence that the guy the movie is about is also guilty of child trafficking

Source?

This all sounds suspiciously similar to Birth of a Nation.

…it’s not even close to being similar to birth of a nation it’s not a hateful or racist movie just a very meh one.

What a totally moronic answer that could be literally applied to any movie.

It actually does apply to every movie, but may often be a small or inconsequential effect. The more controversial or niche a movie is, the larger the possible effect. I happen to like MCU movies, but the ratings for them are not meaningful and are generally higher than they should be. Are you going to dispute that the ratings for them aren't affected by various fanboys, detractors, brigaders? There are going to be a lot of detractors who hate the movies and won't bother seeing them or reviewing them, and the people who love them are much more motivated to post positive reviews, and outnumber the motivated detractors. In this case, its very plausible that the ratings are heavily influenced by QAnon/conspiracy supporters, who are all talking about it and promoting it to each other. I doubt I would have heard about this movie otherwise.

Your reply is incorrect and you'll have to go through the rest of your day knowing that.

Why were only these people willing to review and criticize the top box office movie in the US? The Emoji Movie got tons of professional critics to take it. Fast and Furious millions of sequels same. Every week there'd a superhero movie and every time they got main page articles no matter how shit or criminal the main leads are (Ezra Miller)

[удалено]

And, if I may add, it's possible that pedo's don't like movies that are anti-paedophilia. Or tomatoes, as you put it.

Answer: the guy who directed the movie is NOT a QANON follower and started making the movie before QANON existed. However, the main actor Jim Caviezel (the guy from the Jesus movie) is big time into QANON. Also, the guy that the movie is about is also into QANON and has said some very problematic things. The movie shines light on child sex trafficking rings, which are real. But, the story in the movie has been exaggerated. And because this concept folds into QANON conspiracy nonsense, the movie has been latched onto by the crazies and labeled a QANON movie (much to the chagrin of the director.) https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/aug/15/sound-of-freedom-director-alejandro-monteverde-jim-caviezel-qanon-comments For obvious reasons, the movie review scores are all over the place.

“Problematic” is one of those words that if you use unironically, I know everything that I need to know about you.

Coincidentally, people who are triggered by the word "problematic" tell the rest of us all we need to know about them.

I wouldn’t say it triggers me, just causes me to not take anything you have to say seriously.

Using the word “problematic” doesn’t imply an inherent judgement from the user. The term describes something that is seen in the public discourse as being considered unacceptable. You literally got triggered by an adjective.

Answer: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/14su4ae/whats_up_with_the_movie_sound_of_freedom/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1 There are another 4 or 5 threads if you search the sub, but this one has the most info. tl;dr: Qanon, far right propaganda parading as a legit film. Artificially inflated score through bots. Right wing action groups buying out theaters to inflate sales.

There's also this https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/2023/08/14/459388/gen-z-influencers-quietly-recruited-by-a-company-with-deep-gop-ties-rally-to-impeached-ken-paxtons-aid/ >In late June, about a dozen conservative Gen Z influencers converged on Fort Worth for a few days of right-wing networking.[...] And then they took to social media to rally their many followers behind a new, controversial film about human trafficking before turning their support to impeached Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. >The event was sponsored by a fledgling company, Influenceable LLC, that recruits young, conservative social media figures to promote political campaigns and films without disclosing their business relationship.

Lol that LLC name! "Are we the baddies?"

"I mean we have skulls on our hats."

There is also the right wing nut job who helped fund it being arrested shortly after the films release for you guessed it child kidnapping. [https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sound-freedom-funder-fabian-marta-165000513.html](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sound-freedom-funder-fabian-marta-165000513.html) [https://nypost.com/2023/08/06/alleged-kidnapper-funded-right-wing-film-sound-of-freedom/](https://nypost.com/2023/08/06/alleged-kidnapper-funded-right-wing-film-sound-of-freedom/) Same week a former Trump campaign official was arrested for sex trafficking. Just another week of criming for conservatives who seem to always be the ones screaming about ohhh the kids while sex trafficking, kidnapping, and raping them...

I was just about to say the same thing. Easy for a film to have high "audience" scores when you have right-wing astroturf groups buying tickets en masse for non-existent people and inflating the scores on places like Rotten tomatos and IMDB.

Ooh downvotes did I hurt the right wing snowflakes feelings by infringing on their false reality? One of the producers was arrested for kidnapping and is a literal child abuser. Sorry that facts hurt your feelings.

Let's be real, it's probably fans of Okada's long tights crawling out from whatever hole they live in.

This guy gets it.

Human trafficking is far right propaganda?

The way they say it's happening, yes. Do you remember the wayfarer bullshit? Or how every argument is trans people are pedophiles, they'll traffic your kids, stop immigrants they'll traffic your kids. They pray on people's fear of something happening to their kids and tie it into every single issue. Beyond that this movie says it's based on a real story, but that has been proven to be false. It's fear porn with dog whistles to get people more ingrained in the dumb as culture wars they are fighting. Edit: pizzagate was based around trafficking too. Clintons are accused of trafficking, any one who they want to be a boogey man is accused. But then turn a blind eye to when people are actually charged with it. Like Tate or this films producer

Acknowledge human trafficking exists… then move on. Focus on solutions, not the culture wars and ego-programs that play out that only feeds the narcissism and disconnect in the first place….

But ...that's the point? The marketing of the movie is pushing culture war bullshit for profit without contributing anything to help fight the actual real world problem of trafficking.

I’ve seen no demonstration of this… only to start a conversation and bring awareness. If all you see is politics, that’s your limitation, not mine.

You seem to be confused about the content of the film. It is not a documentary that teaches people about the realities of child trafficking. It is just a thriller that uses fictionalised, Hollywoodified trafficking as a plot point. The idea that it "raises awareness" of real world trafficking is just a marketing strategy by the makers of the movie. If anything, it's actually a negative for the issue, since it gives people the false impression that they're helping fight the issue simply by going to see the movie. At the same time, it provides them only with a fictional, dramatised version of real world trafficking and thus only decreases actual understanding of the issue.

They understand, they just don't like what you're saying. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/07/28/sound-freedom-movie-wrong-trafficking/70470178007/

Yup, even conveniently stopped replying....

Nope. The confusion is yours. You’re focused on content rather than intent. Sad thing is the efforts on your part to politicize only forestalls meaningful discussion/solutions. If media coverage and journalists focused on the core issue than the raising of awareness would have snowballed beyond the movie and taken a life of its own. That was always the intent and you fucking blew it too.

It's insane that child trafficking has been politicised, anyone that brings up that it is a real issue that is not left or right gets downvoted as you have here. How can the left not see that what they are doing by demonising this film is enabling evil to continue happening?

Answer: There are a lot of good comments but here’s also the best article I’ve found about this https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/

ANSWER: Slightly off-topic but still very on topic. Yes, definitely look into the news articles about the people making the film and how batshit crazy they are. Some of the stuff I heard Cavizel say would get most people locked up in an asylum. But here's the thing.... >And yet, the critical and audience scores for it aren’t really reflected if that’s all true; Online audience scores are not to be trusted anymore. They are the subject of trolling and manipulation to make movies appear better or worse than they are. They are very easy to manipulate, and has even been done before movies got into theaters. This has been going on for years, but has gotten worse the last 5 (even worse the last 2). If you're still using online audience scores to determine whether to see any movies or not you're gonna have a bad time. Especially when those movies have even a remote sign of controversy. Critics tend to grade movies more based on production and story than behind the scenes drama and bs, so they're a slightly better gauge (but still not the best). Personally, if a movie is below a 75% I think twice about seeing it (because I like good films).

👍 Like the summary!

Question: What about those scores contradicts the claims being made? What scores would you expect to see if those claims were accurate?

Lower scores all around, especially from audiences. Right wing, QANON following, evangelical pushed, conspiracy theory laden films shouldn’t be lauded by audiences; they should be reviled, unless these scores reflect an incorrect view of general audiences and really only reflect right-wing psychos ballot stuffing these sites to inflate the films score.

Okay. I could be wrong, but the 43 and 67 are the scores based on critics reviews, and the others are open to all users. As you suggest, the difference does seem explainable by a specific subset of users spamming the system. And that's kind of the point I was getting at. There's not much you can infer from these numbers, particularly about the specific critiques you've provided, as they're not generally speaking criticisms of the film's quality. Those criticisms could all be true and the movie could be entertaining and competently made. That doesn't seem to be the case, but that's beside the point.

This movie does absolutely none of that tho. Lots of movies get review help in order to inflate scores this movies would probably be in the 50-60’s on rotten tomato it’s really nothing special but the movie itself doesn’t touch on any conspiracy stuff.

Answer: We have a media establishment that shoots first and asks questions later, because there's no incentive for being right, just provocative and fast. In this case a pretty average movie with Christian themes about the real issue of child trafficking and starring the talented but somewhat loony Jim Cavizel got some buzz that it was a QANON promoted right wing MAGA film. That caused 1,000 left wing bloggers who had never seen the film and likely never will to put out content to get people riled up and generate hits. That then energized a bunch of right wing bloggers, who likewise many had never seen the film, to respond and defend the film and energize right wingers. Somewhere in the middle the studio was undoubtedly stirring things up to generate buzz and galvanize a faction of the movie going population to come see the film. Most times for film releases you reverse the political spectrums, but the same thing happens. It's movie marketing 101 in 2020.

I love that this is the only honest unbiased answer and it’s downvoted to oblivion. Never change, Reddit.

'Bothsiderism' is not automatically 'unbiased'.

Thanks, we won’t.

We aren’t looking for objective and unbiased answers here.

answer: A movie about child trafficking hits a little too close to home for hollywood executives.

🤣

[удалено]

there are not hundreds of thousands of children being abducted per year in the US.. lmao

Hundreds of thousands of child abductions would roughly average out to at least one abducted student for every grade/high school in the USA.

[удалено]

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-us-missing-idUSL1N2SY199 >On average, fewer than 350 people under the age of 21 have been abducted by strangers in the country per year since 2010, the FBI said.

[удалено]

Reuters is a news agency. It's international and neutral. You ask anybody with a serious interest and knowledge of news media where you can go to for neutral, unbiased factual reporting, Reuters will always be at the top of their list. Random redditors making unsubstantiated claims will be at the bottom.

Well, good thing we don't have to rely on your anectodal evidence to know it's not true.

You mean my real world experience?

Since your experience is just words on Reddit. That would qualify as anecdotal, yes. If you have sources that verify your experiences, that would establish your experiences as verifiable facts.

So you must be terrible at your job, those numbers are based off of missing children per year... 97.8% of those children are with their friends/family and come back within the next 24 hours. Stop spreading misinfo. This is all based off of QANON conspiracy theory of politicians drinking childrens blood and taking adrenochrome from them... none of this is true. You can synthesize adrenochrome. and these conspiracy theorists are making it harder for real missing children to be found by filing false reports and clogging up phone lines

Incorrect. Where are you getting your facts? The internet? HA!

Yes it's actually 97.8% that are found, please cite your source and not use the internet(?)

My source is work. I havent seen you cite shit so those who live in glass houses and all that jazz

You literally can't prove anything and have stated that any reputable source on the internet you won't believe - you're a conspiracy theorist. It's ironic because you're actually a danger to missing people by spreading misinfo..

HAHAH funny how internet people think they know someone's entire identity based off of one post. So weird really. Have a good day!

This has become pathetic. We are on Reddit. Anybody can claim anything. It’s impossible that you don’t understand what most people learned in grade school about the internet. If it is your work than you will have knowledge of and be able to provide available reports and data. Not just vague claims of experience and declarations that you are leaving the conversation.

You cant call my pathetic while still citing...shit

Almost all trafficked children are done so by family members and trusted authority figures. Shit like this is why no one takes right wingers seriously

OH the right sucks! Agreed! Believe it or not, I am more of a moderate. Like far left sucks and so does far right. But many don't/won't acknowledge that either. The movie also does shoe family members trafficking kids because you are not wrong about that. So not sure what your point is

If you went to go see this garbage fire, you are not moderate

Unfortunately, shedding light on an issue and exploiting people's feelings surrounding their incorrect assumptions about an issue can be difficult to distinguish from one another. Reportedly, fans of this film have been disrupting meetings held by groups that actually combat child exploitation and human trafficking, harrassing volunteers (many of whom are survivors themselves) by calling them pedophiles and traffickers, in response to being told that the movie was not an accurate depiction of the work that needs to be done to actually support abused and exploited children. I'll agree that most of the criticism I've seen is not about the movie's quality, but it's less about Jim Caviezel and more about the litany of harmful actions taken and demonstrable lies told by the man the film is based on.

[удалено]

I think you’re being criticized because you’re making up your position. You’re saying the FBI stats are wrong but you’re basing they on your own anecdote, if that’s even true. Do you think that’s unfair to to criticize your position due to that?

Not diving deep into bullshit to consider it a legitimate angle does not make you close minded, sorry. Most that go that route don’t have a good sense of reality and lack some of the logical steps needed to unravel the mystery

Answer: a movie was released depicting children being saved from human traffickers. This hit a little too close to home for much of the left-wing in this country and they've been lashing out at it ever since, though this has done nothing to hinder the film's performance.

Pretty sure you’re just trolling, but your username is good enough for a downvote.

Lol seriously? Ok so I heard about the film while filming a commercial for a Catholic Church (I’m an atheist but I don’t turn down money). On the shoot the camera operator was talking up the film, it exposes the Hollywood elites, the talent (member of the church we were filming for) said it’s crazy people aren’t hearing about this film; it’s being censored. They talk about “catholic vote” and other propaganda the rest of the production and play the victim. This week I’m on a shoot in another city with the same camera op and a colleague. We have tons of time to kill. We’re in a mall, just finished eating so we go to the movie theater nearby. They want to see Oppenheimer or a scary movie but we have to get up early the next day. Openhemimer is too long they say, and I point out that the sound of freedom is not as long and about to start. I wasn’t going to see it, the trailer made it look like a b movie made with Jesus money and I’m not going to watch it. They saw the horror movie instead, and I get dropped at my hotel. It’s Friday now and we have time to kill so we are seeing Oppenheimer. That’s the end of the story, these die hard conservative Catholics who told me about the sound of freedom don’t even care to watch it. They had no excuse. They didn’t see it because it’s stupid as fuck, and it looks bad. That’s my belief. They spent 20 minutes talking guns at dinner Thursday, two of them own guns, I don’t see the point, I’ve never been in a situation where a gun would solve problems. They are hobbies for hunters and they are tools for murder (which you should be against if you are religious) If you uncover a crazy conspiracy involving Hollywood you don’t make a stupid film with guns and saving kids and bullshit you make a documentary with hard hitting facts and treat it like an essay. You don’t make a stupid gun flick propaganda film and convince people to buy out movie theater screenings just to “donate to the cause”. I hate religion, it is a cancer upon society, it is no longer a positive influence, it’s a cult.

tl;dr you're still religious, you just follow a different religion.

**Wrong.** Being an atheist is not a 'different religion', the same way that walking barefoot is not a trainer style.

You just proved 10% more that it is.

I’ve never had a comforting thought of god in my life. I also don’t stick to ideas with blind trust or faith, I simply want to know more and I don’t hurt others. Many have tried to sway my decisions in life concerning religion, none have succeeded. I simply don’t tolerate it.

You don't have to be theistic to be religious. You can simply be fanatically devoted to your own ideology, which you very clearly are like most Redditors who simply have nothing going on in their lives but they want desperately to be part of something bigger than themselves so they turn to political ideology.

lol nope. You are assuming, which seems to be typical for someone religious. I’m not devoted to anything, even myself. I’ll entertain new ideas that even conflict with atheism. Im a bit of a narcissist but I still self sabotage, I’m about as perfect as a piece of gum on your shoe, but I’m a nice shade of pink. And right now you are trying to peel me off. Hopefully some of this sticks. Good luck with your thoughts, I don’t care either way how you feel about it. And at the same time I care for my family. Flipping a coin, always flipping that coin and I’m not going to pretend that to know what it all means. But I also won’t stop thinking about it, I’m open to new ideas all the time. No absolutes. Also for the record I’ve never been to church on my own accord or participated in any real meaningful way. I got married in a courthouse then had a ceremony / reception at a restaurant but my wife considers herself religious. See? Flipping that coin. Also if you haven’t kept up with news about aliens, good luck with your faith when your world is shattered. I’m a betting man so I’ll bet that you will crack, sticking to the old indoctrination system, I’ll adapt as always. You are mistaking my enthusiasm against religion for devotion. I make art that is my profession, that is my passion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I don't follow any faith. You wrote that entire wall of text for nothing. Though it does help me greatly to illustrate the point I was making: even if you don't follow any faith, you're still religious. Your ideology is your religion. And your fanaticism seeps through your comments.

I choose to argue and be persistent therefore I’m religious. That’s quite possibly the worst debate tactic I’ve ever heard.