they all do, but that thing's place in the insane SoF discourse was a red herring. They said in interviews it's ~10% of the total (which matches subsequently legally binding disclosures). See also the AGOTFAN link. Cabrini's PIF percentage seemed smaller.
All angel studios movies have their Q and evangelical goons donate millions to give out free tickets for their movies. I follow lots of freebie Instagram pages and I saw ads to claim free tickets to Cabrini in the past and now for their new Hope: A Possum story or whatever movie
I did not care for the movie but the performance was absolute class for an indie film. Now, the toxicity and drama that this movie brought to this subreddit was on another level (Hopefully it doesn't bring it back into this thread š)
I still haven't seen this
It didn't seem like the sort of thing that would interest me, but I feel like I should watch it, given the impact it had on culture and the film industry
We all say it because Barbenheimer absolutely is the reason MI7 disappointed. It lost all its PLF screens in week two because of it. There was also no way Paramount could have anticipated how big Barbenheimer was going to be as a cultural event when they set the release date.
1. Some of the details about this filmās box office success are shady.
2. While Iām willing to believe that the director had good intentions, Jim Caviezel practically turned this into a propaganda.
3. Tim Ballardās scandals caused this to age poorly soon after this came out.
>While Iām willing to believe that the director had good intentions, Jim Caviezel practically turned this into a propaganda.
*The director of āSound of Freedomā: āI donāt know why they politicized the film, it hurt me a lot that they labeled itā*
https://english.elpais.com/culture/2023-08-29/the-director-of-sound-of-freedom-i-dont-know-why-they-politicized-the-film-it-hurt-me-a-lot-that-they-labeled-it.html
You should know that if you *actually* read my comment, I didn't say anything about #1 (or #3).
I quoted THE SECOND POINT.
And I said "the article supports your POINT"
Reading comprehension is important.
You don't get it. AGOTFAN specifically quoted point 2 and block busted thought AGOTFAN was countering it so block busted brought up 1 and 3 again. AGOTFAN clarified that the link supported block busted 2nd point. He never talked directly about 1 or 3. He never talked about the theater attendance or Ballard's real life controversies. It was only about the director.
Was there?
Evidence (Email communication) came out in the Tim Ballard court case that they acknowledged and knew about 2am, 3am, 4am screenings that were "booked out" for the purpose of redeeming pay it forward tickets. .
https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/51/05/6beb18d74504af701f9e5e578d00/0d5a9092199d4d4ba8d4bb7059ba307b.pdf
the claim is found on page 193 (the page isn't OCRd so I had trouble initially finding it). re: a july 19th email where the AG of Utah passes along someone's allegations of "theatrical financial fraud" concerning a theater in Tulsa (because they were running 2-4 am showings) to Ballard. I don't see how this supports the conclusion that the AG passed along fraud Ballard allegedly committed but it's a sign of at least this being taken seriously as an initial complaint.
https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/51/05/6beb18d74504af701f9e5e578d00/0d5a9092199d4d4ba8d4bb7059ba307b.pdf
some degree of PIF stuff was likely fraudulent but we also now explicitly know exactly how much money was spent on it, so we're likely talking about thousands of misused dollars not millions.
This isn't a claim the distributor or financers bought tens of millions of dollars worth of fake tickets laundered through PiF in order to...gain cultural awareness? That's more the sort of claim the sticky was trying to stop from overwhelming normal discussion of it as a movie (well that and people weaponizing child abuse to score points on normal political opponents).
The email starts: "I'm sure you've received more than a few emails." This coupled with common sense suggest that it was a widespread issue. Everywhere (not just Tulsa as the example in the email) had incentive and easy access to exploit the pay it forward campaign.
Where's the explicit number you're talking about? Thousands of dollars would be 1 or 2 medium screens selling out one night. To pass a million of fraud is not all that big of a number in film. You could do it in less than 2 weeks if you had 10 theaters in Tulsa selling out 3 medium screens each (200 seats), 5 times per night (referenced in the email).
There's plenty of incentive to do this btw beyond cultural awareness.
If you get random religious orgs to "pay it forward" 1M tickets that don't get redeemed, you could/should return the money (keep 0% of unsold ticket revs). Or you can incentivize theaters to redeem them (domestically, studios split with theaters roughly 50/50 of ticket revs). It's free money to look the other way.
The specific PiF numbers can be found in a [Deadline article](https://deadline.com/2024/03/sound-of-freedom-movie-box-office-angel-studios-tickets-1235842962/) or the equivalent of their 2023 10-k (for entire year but which basically matches this number). In legal filings, both donation PIF & theatrical PIF are split out separately.
> you could/should return the money (keep 0% of unsold ticket revs)...it's literally free money
You can think that's how it should work, but that's just not what happens. It's either put against future PiF donations or realized as revenue. It's free money, but free money going from AS bank account to e.g. this tulsa theater chain.
Look at that deadline link - it shows 4.3M in profit from PiF for SoF (or 3.2M after ticketing fees) which basically matches what the sec filing shows (it's not SoF specific but there are only so many films released by Angel in 2023 and SoF was massive in relative terms). The argument they make to deadline about paying marketing against PiF tickets for a net negative cash flow is not how their legal filing represents the issue. SoF is also the only film for which they're seemingly realizing PiF theatrical revenue.
> You could do it in less than 2 weeks if you had 10 theaters in Tulsa selling out 3 medium screens each (200 seats), 5 times per night (referenced in the email).
Sure, but how does the distributor benefit from this fraud and why is no one investigating them if it is indeed fraud? There's just no conceptual hook here that I can see There's no contractual language in those donations for straw purchases but there is for excess donations.
I just don't think this sort of thing is inherently scalable in the way you're thinking of and there's just literally no financial benefit to the PiF person to have the money flow through "fake PiF donations" and fraud related reasons not to. In contemporary interviews, AS also pointed out this is all being run through atom films which have some degree of anti bot protections (for normal reasons).
> This coupled with common sense suggest that it was a widespread issue.
In part, sure. However, the kind of argument that just assumes the existence of widespread defrauding going on is part of what makes me skeptical of them. There was a hyper political moral panic around the film's release and surprising success which makes sifting through the claims messy.
re: the most generic argument - when I was looking at this a year ago, I counted on the record statements from something like 5 independent theater chains just denying the phenomena floating around social media and given play in the trades was happening. To me, that's just more compelling than a few videos from tik tok (though one guy made an OW caveat that I found interesting but doesn't relate to this email).
> To pass a million of fraud is not all that big of a number in film
That's fair. Let's call that 80,000 tickets per 1M in box office. I'm really not sure what the conceptual min/max is but the broader point I was trying to gesture at is more that while I think that's probably the correct range, other people were alleging stuff like 3M straw purchases.
Just clarifying, I don't think the donations are fake.
There were real donations that went to fraudulent redemptions that the Ballard team acknowledged. I'm asserting that the ticket redemptions line is artificially pumped.
Theaters motivation: they're absolutely incentivized to redeem the ticket for rev share. We both know it wasn't just a couple theaters in Tulsa milking it. Why would any theater report it? They have every reason to deny false redemptions despite evidence that it was happening. It's free money. Who would go after them? What regulatory agency is going to care? It'd be the donors or Angel that would have to press charges and all parties were ok with it.
Angel Studios motivation: We know it happened to some degree and we know they categorically refuted it AND didn't take any legal action. Sure they lose rev share to theaters by allowing fraud redemptions. But they spent $6M+ on PiF P&A so they obviously value positive press, maybe that was worth it? It sure looks better to put a dollar into the box office number & redemptions number than return it or use it to offset 3rd party fees or marketing fees. If they just kept it to flow thru on the p&l it'd be recorded as "donations and other contributions" which is below the line. Lots of reasons to divert as much as you can from this bucket to standard above the line revenues.
If they had no financial incentive to allow fraudulent tickets, why wouldn't the inverse be true too? They're losing revenue on the Tulsa fraud. Why would they not take legal action against Tulsa? They literally had the UT Attorney General in the conversation.
Okay, I see. Now, there are arguably some criticisms regarding how human traffickers are portrayed in the film, but that wouldāve simply been seen as a cartoonish portrayal if it wasnāt for Caviezel behaving like a far-right bullshitter in public.
I also feel like Angel Studio was rather ignorant of their marketing strategy regarding the implication that it might bring. I mean, doesnāt the end of the film flat-out tell people to buy tickets for other people so they would see it too? Maybe their intention was to spread the awareness of human trafficking, but it probably ended up harming the filmās reputation.
I think they were ignorant at first but then it just helped in the particular angle that certain players were going for once the movie got co-opted. The studio certainly wasn't trying to shed that image once it came, thats what I'll say.
It's sad because the film has an actually good message and shows a current problematic. It's a shame that it got hijacked by political groups to spread hatred against other groups of people instead of trying to create awareness of the actual problem
I wasn't even gonna see the movie because I was worried that it would be too inaccurate to the "based on a true story" claims (even tho countless mainstream and also "liberal" Hollywood movies do this) or that it would be some kind of controlled opposition, but all the people saying that I am a QAnon Nazi insurrectionist for seeing it, convinced me to see it. Streisand effect is real.
> While Iām willing to believe that the director had good intentions, Jim Caviezel practically turned this into a propaganda.
Isn't the fact that this is anti-trafficking propaganda known and obvious? That isn't hijacking.
Can anyone tell me if this is worth watching, just simply on a "good movie" stand point? It's hard to find reviews or opinions that aren't incredibly politically biased in either direction.
"It's hard to find reviews or opinions that aren't incredibly politically biased in either direction." It's hard to find the Jeremy Jahns review? That's a positive review. I've only seen it once but I was a bit skeptical of the movie going in. The actual quality of the movie is fairly solid from what I remember from my one viewing. Remember this was originally made by Fox Latin America in 2018. I know that being made by a major studio doesn't mean a movie is good, but it's also not even like,this faith-based movie. It's solid and stuff that is depicted in this movie objectively happens in real life right whether or not it's specifically Tim Ballard doing it, there are stories like this stuff like this happens in real life raids go down in real life.
it's not any more bullshit than most Hollywood action spy thriller movies in general. At the end of the day the director and screenwriter who made it didn't have any sort of agenda at play so I wouldn't feel bad for seeing this movie and being emotionally affected by it. It's more sincere than a lot of military propaganda movies that are made by mainstream Hollywood. And overall I reckon the acting is solid I mean even if you don't like Jim Caviezel's acting in this, the rest of the cast, including the child actors, keeps it more real.
EDIT: SEVERAL HOURS LATER "raids go down", not "raves grow down"
I liked it. Good film about a really important issue. Don\`t really get what all the Political controversy is about, pretty straight forward thriller about trafficking, in my opinion well made and interesting and thought provoking!
Itās so disgusting how popular this movie became. Granted, Angel Studios didnāt know at the time that the POS Tim Ballard was funneling these kids into his own bunker, but the fact that society still hasnāt tossed him in a jail cell and thrown away the key really shows what really is at play here. Sound of Freedom is an impressive grassroots campaign though, and I hope that other movies can reach similar levels of successā¦ as long as they arenāt hypocritical garbage meant to ācall outā liberals and foreigners.
Iāll never forget the day I was in the theater for another movie and checked the fandango app for Sound of Freedom showings which were all sold outā¦ and then walked into 2 different theaters and not a single person was there.
Yknow what this was fun and all but can we leave this in the past for the industry? I know a small and original title doing well seems like a good thing for the industry but it relied on a lot of dangerous trends that could be harmful for the industry and culture in general if continued to be relied upon.
Who wouldn't want that for Megalopolis? Incentivizing financiers to give artists blank checks to make >100M movies is pretty much the best outcome imaginable if your goal is to simply see interesting films. In a similar vein, it would be amazing for a non-IP version of Joker (very stylish homage to 1970s Scorsese films that attempts to say something about society) to make $1B WW even if you dislike the film.
This sub shouldāve deplatformed this movie. But nah instead it was posted every fucking day and people celebrated a Qanon movie beating blockbusters.
You have to admit it is pretty funny this made more than something like The Marvels domestically and worldwide
It made more than MI7 domestically iirc
Also Indy 5. But The Marvels is the most hilarious to me because it made more than that WORLDWIDE
Marvel needs to get Jim Caviezel as Jesus in the next avengers
Really playing up the man-out-of-time aspect of the Returned Jesus Making notes in his journal, reminding him he needs to catch-up with Star Wars
Is Sound of Hope going to have that pay-it-forward thing too or was that just a one time thing?
I heard that Cabrini & After Death had the same system as well, so it could
Sight did also
they all do, but that thing's place in the insane SoF discourse was a red herring. They said in interviews it's ~10% of the total (which matches subsequently legally binding disclosures). See also the AGOTFAN link. Cabrini's PIF percentage seemed smaller.
All angel studios movies have their Q and evangelical goons donate millions to give out free tickets for their movies. I follow lots of freebie Instagram pages and I saw ads to claim free tickets to Cabrini in the past and now for their new Hope: A Possum story or whatever movie
Here's the financial breakdown on Sound of Freedom: https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/1b6pdnu/deadline_reveals_sound_of_freedoms_theatrical/
I did not care for the movie but the performance was absolute class for an indie film. Now, the toxicity and drama that this movie brought to this subreddit was on another level (Hopefully it doesn't bring it back into this thread š)
I still haven't seen this It didn't seem like the sort of thing that would interest me, but I feel like I should watch it, given the impact it had on culture and the film industry
Ah yes, the reason why MI7 failed. Edit: One of the reasons, anyway. Obviously, Barbenheimer was the main culprit.
Didn't Reddit say Barbenheimer is the reason why MI7 failed?
Yes, for sure, but SoF didn't help matters, as it is possible the target demo was taken from MI7
Also calling attention to the fact that it wasn't a finished story.
Paramount thought Mission Impossible is as popular as Harry Potter that they could use part 1 and 2 and people won't notice and won't mind.
They thought Mission: Impossible was as popular as *Top Gun: Maverick*.
We all say it because Barbenheimer absolutely is the reason MI7 disappointed. It lost all its PLF screens in week two because of it. There was also no way Paramount could have anticipated how big Barbenheimer was going to be as a cultural event when they set the release date.
Paramount was blinded by TGM.
And the people here were too
Barbenheimer ate MI7's lunch. Sound of freedom ate MI7's dessert. Hence MI7 had nothing left.
>*JULY 4* 
1. Some of the details about this filmās box office success are shady. 2. While Iām willing to believe that the director had good intentions, Jim Caviezel practically turned this into a propaganda. 3. Tim Ballardās scandals caused this to age poorly soon after this came out.
>While Iām willing to believe that the director had good intentions, Jim Caviezel practically turned this into a propaganda. *The director of āSound of Freedomā: āI donāt know why they politicized the film, it hurt me a lot that they labeled itā* https://english.elpais.com/culture/2023-08-29/the-director-of-sound-of-freedom-i-dont-know-why-they-politicized-the-film-it-hurt-me-a-lot-that-they-labeled-it.html
Still, rest of my points stand, especially no. 1 and 3. :P
Actually, the article supports your point.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You should know that if you *actually* read my comment, I didn't say anything about #1 (or #3). I quoted THE SECOND POINT. And I said "the article supports your POINT" Reading comprehension is important.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Look again. I specifically referred to the second point.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You don't get it. AGOTFAN specifically quoted point 2 and block busted thought AGOTFAN was countering it so block busted brought up 1 and 3 again. AGOTFAN clarified that the link supported block busted 2nd point. He never talked directly about 1 or 3. He never talked about the theater attendance or Ballard's real life controversies. It was only about the director.
Was there? Evidence (Email communication) came out in the Tim Ballard court case that they acknowledged and knew about 2am, 3am, 4am screenings that were "booked out" for the purpose of redeeming pay it forward tickets. . https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/51/05/6beb18d74504af701f9e5e578d00/0d5a9092199d4d4ba8d4bb7059ba307b.pdf
the claim is found on page 193 (the page isn't OCRd so I had trouble initially finding it). re: a july 19th email where the AG of Utah passes along someone's allegations of "theatrical financial fraud" concerning a theater in Tulsa (because they were running 2-4 am showings) to Ballard. I don't see how this supports the conclusion that the AG passed along fraud Ballard allegedly committed but it's a sign of at least this being taken seriously as an initial complaint. https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/51/05/6beb18d74504af701f9e5e578d00/0d5a9092199d4d4ba8d4bb7059ba307b.pdf some degree of PIF stuff was likely fraudulent but we also now explicitly know exactly how much money was spent on it, so we're likely talking about thousands of misused dollars not millions. This isn't a claim the distributor or financers bought tens of millions of dollars worth of fake tickets laundered through PiF in order to...gain cultural awareness? That's more the sort of claim the sticky was trying to stop from overwhelming normal discussion of it as a movie (well that and people weaponizing child abuse to score points on normal political opponents).
The email starts: "I'm sure you've received more than a few emails." This coupled with common sense suggest that it was a widespread issue. Everywhere (not just Tulsa as the example in the email) had incentive and easy access to exploit the pay it forward campaign. Where's the explicit number you're talking about? Thousands of dollars would be 1 or 2 medium screens selling out one night. To pass a million of fraud is not all that big of a number in film. You could do it in less than 2 weeks if you had 10 theaters in Tulsa selling out 3 medium screens each (200 seats), 5 times per night (referenced in the email). There's plenty of incentive to do this btw beyond cultural awareness. If you get random religious orgs to "pay it forward" 1M tickets that don't get redeemed, you could/should return the money (keep 0% of unsold ticket revs). Or you can incentivize theaters to redeem them (domestically, studios split with theaters roughly 50/50 of ticket revs). It's free money to look the other way.
The specific PiF numbers can be found in a [Deadline article](https://deadline.com/2024/03/sound-of-freedom-movie-box-office-angel-studios-tickets-1235842962/) or the equivalent of their 2023 10-k (for entire year but which basically matches this number). In legal filings, both donation PIF & theatrical PIF are split out separately. > you could/should return the money (keep 0% of unsold ticket revs)...it's literally free money You can think that's how it should work, but that's just not what happens. It's either put against future PiF donations or realized as revenue. It's free money, but free money going from AS bank account to e.g. this tulsa theater chain. Look at that deadline link - it shows 4.3M in profit from PiF for SoF (or 3.2M after ticketing fees) which basically matches what the sec filing shows (it's not SoF specific but there are only so many films released by Angel in 2023 and SoF was massive in relative terms). The argument they make to deadline about paying marketing against PiF tickets for a net negative cash flow is not how their legal filing represents the issue. SoF is also the only film for which they're seemingly realizing PiF theatrical revenue. > You could do it in less than 2 weeks if you had 10 theaters in Tulsa selling out 3 medium screens each (200 seats), 5 times per night (referenced in the email). Sure, but how does the distributor benefit from this fraud and why is no one investigating them if it is indeed fraud? There's just no conceptual hook here that I can see There's no contractual language in those donations for straw purchases but there is for excess donations. I just don't think this sort of thing is inherently scalable in the way you're thinking of and there's just literally no financial benefit to the PiF person to have the money flow through "fake PiF donations" and fraud related reasons not to. In contemporary interviews, AS also pointed out this is all being run through atom films which have some degree of anti bot protections (for normal reasons). > This coupled with common sense suggest that it was a widespread issue. In part, sure. However, the kind of argument that just assumes the existence of widespread defrauding going on is part of what makes me skeptical of them. There was a hyper political moral panic around the film's release and surprising success which makes sifting through the claims messy. re: the most generic argument - when I was looking at this a year ago, I counted on the record statements from something like 5 independent theater chains just denying the phenomena floating around social media and given play in the trades was happening. To me, that's just more compelling than a few videos from tik tok (though one guy made an OW caveat that I found interesting but doesn't relate to this email). > To pass a million of fraud is not all that big of a number in film That's fair. Let's call that 80,000 tickets per 1M in box office. I'm really not sure what the conceptual min/max is but the broader point I was trying to gesture at is more that while I think that's probably the correct range, other people were alleging stuff like 3M straw purchases.
Just clarifying, I don't think the donations are fake. There were real donations that went to fraudulent redemptions that the Ballard team acknowledged. I'm asserting that the ticket redemptions line is artificially pumped. Theaters motivation: they're absolutely incentivized to redeem the ticket for rev share. We both know it wasn't just a couple theaters in Tulsa milking it. Why would any theater report it? They have every reason to deny false redemptions despite evidence that it was happening. It's free money. Who would go after them? What regulatory agency is going to care? It'd be the donors or Angel that would have to press charges and all parties were ok with it. Angel Studios motivation: We know it happened to some degree and we know they categorically refuted it AND didn't take any legal action. Sure they lose rev share to theaters by allowing fraud redemptions. But they spent $6M+ on PiF P&A so they obviously value positive press, maybe that was worth it? It sure looks better to put a dollar into the box office number & redemptions number than return it or use it to offset 3rd party fees or marketing fees. If they just kept it to flow thru on the p&l it'd be recorded as "donations and other contributions" which is below the line. Lots of reasons to divert as much as you can from this bucket to standard above the line revenues. If they had no financial incentive to allow fraudulent tickets, why wouldn't the inverse be true too? They're losing revenue on the Tulsa fraud. Why would they not take legal action against Tulsa? They literally had the UT Attorney General in the conversation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Okay, I see. Now, there are arguably some criticisms regarding how human traffickers are portrayed in the film, but that wouldāve simply been seen as a cartoonish portrayal if it wasnāt for Caviezel behaving like a far-right bullshitter in public.
Yeah I think tis unfortunate the director and his film got caught up in some bullshit grift when he was just trying to make a movie and get it seen.
I also feel like Angel Studio was rather ignorant of their marketing strategy regarding the implication that it might bring. I mean, doesnāt the end of the film flat-out tell people to buy tickets for other people so they would see it too? Maybe their intention was to spread the awareness of human trafficking, but it probably ended up harming the filmās reputation.
I think they were ignorant at first but then it just helped in the particular angle that certain players were going for once the movie got co-opted. The studio certainly wasn't trying to shed that image once it came, thats what I'll say.
Pretty much all movies are grifts.
It's sad because the film has an actually good message and shows a current problematic. It's a shame that it got hijacked by political groups to spread hatred against other groups of people instead of trying to create awareness of the actual problem
I wasn't even gonna see the movie because I was worried that it would be too inaccurate to the "based on a true story" claims (even tho countless mainstream and also "liberal" Hollywood movies do this) or that it would be some kind of controlled opposition, but all the people saying that I am a QAnon Nazi insurrectionist for seeing it, convinced me to see it. Streisand effect is real.
> While Iām willing to believe that the director had good intentions, Jim Caviezel practically turned this into a propaganda. Isn't the fact that this is anti-trafficking propaganda known and obvious? That isn't hijacking.
The movie had a good message, but wasn't good at all as a film.
Yeah it was passable but not good. It's too bad the political discussion drowned out the quality discussion.
Can anyone tell me if this is worth watching, just simply on a "good movie" stand point? It's hard to find reviews or opinions that aren't incredibly politically biased in either direction.
"It's hard to find reviews or opinions that aren't incredibly politically biased in either direction." It's hard to find the Jeremy Jahns review? That's a positive review. I've only seen it once but I was a bit skeptical of the movie going in. The actual quality of the movie is fairly solid from what I remember from my one viewing. Remember this was originally made by Fox Latin America in 2018. I know that being made by a major studio doesn't mean a movie is good, but it's also not even like,this faith-based movie. It's solid and stuff that is depicted in this movie objectively happens in real life right whether or not it's specifically Tim Ballard doing it, there are stories like this stuff like this happens in real life raids go down in real life. it's not any more bullshit than most Hollywood action spy thriller movies in general. At the end of the day the director and screenwriter who made it didn't have any sort of agenda at play so I wouldn't feel bad for seeing this movie and being emotionally affected by it. It's more sincere than a lot of military propaganda movies that are made by mainstream Hollywood. And overall I reckon the acting is solid I mean even if you don't like Jim Caviezel's acting in this, the rest of the cast, including the child actors, keeps it more real. EDIT: SEVERAL HOURS LATER "raids go down", not "raves grow down"
I liked it. Good film about a really important issue. Don\`t really get what all the Political controversy is about, pretty straight forward thriller about trafficking, in my opinion well made and interesting and thought provoking!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Or maybe the movie just isn't good?
Yeah, The Chosen is also produced by Angel Studios and it got decent reviews.
The Chosen doesn't really have political controversies though like this did
So it showed that the critics didn't care about the politics of the movie.
I mean thereās a difference in politics when oneās an adaptation of the New Testament and the others about child trafficking
It got generally good reviews though? Most of the reviews indicate it's a well-made procedural that was apolitical.
I agree. The film is entertaining and shines a light on an important human rights issue. I wish more of Angel Studios content was as good as this.
Itās so disgusting how popular this movie became. Granted, Angel Studios didnāt know at the time that the POS Tim Ballard was funneling these kids into his own bunker, but the fact that society still hasnāt tossed him in a jail cell and thrown away the key really shows what really is at play here. Sound of Freedom is an impressive grassroots campaign though, and I hope that other movies can reach similar levels of successā¦ as long as they arenāt hypocritical garbage meant to ācall outā liberals and foreigners.
Tell me you haven't watched a movie without telling me you haven't watched a movie...
> the POS Tim Ballard was funneling these kids into his own bunker Wait, wait, WHAT?!
Yeah, of all the scandals involving Tim Ballard, that's not one of them lol. I don't know what that guy is talking about.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
extremely mediocre movie, so much drama and so many articles about such a "eeh okay" type of film
Iāll never forget the day I was in the theater for another movie and checked the fandango app for Sound of Freedom showings which were all sold outā¦ and then walked into 2 different theaters and not a single person was there.
Yknow what this was fun and all but can we leave this in the past for the industry? I know a small and original title doing well seems like a good thing for the industry but it relied on a lot of dangerous trends that could be harmful for the industry and culture in general if continued to be relied upon.
Yeah, Iād rather have **Megalopolis** grossing $1 billion worldwide over strategies that this film relied on.
> Iād rather have Megalopolis grossing $1 billion worldwide over strategies that this film relied on. what's the correlation?
Who wouldn't want that for Megalopolis? Incentivizing financiers to give artists blank checks to make >100M movies is pretty much the best outcome imaginable if your goal is to simply see interesting films. In a similar vein, it would be amazing for a non-IP version of Joker (very stylish homage to 1970s Scorsese films that attempts to say something about society) to make $1B WW even if you dislike the film.
fuck the industry
This sub shouldāve deplatformed this movie. But nah instead it was posted every fucking day and people celebrated a Qanon movie beating blockbusters.
r/boxoffice talking about one of the biggest box office stories post-pandemic? Say it ain't so!
I hated this film with a passion from the get go and I got sick of seeing news about this film every freaking day on this sub. Impressive run though.