Found on the National Public Radio WBEZ Sunday email:
“Sound of Freedom, a thriller film based on the real-life, controversial anti-trafficking activist Tim Ballard, has been a box office hit, earning almost as much as the latest Indiana Jones installment did on its release day. But the film has landed in the middle of the country’s culture wars, as critics say it promotes conspiracy theories and contains misleading depictions of human trafficking.”
The Disney connection from Screenrant.
Disney takes a Sergeant Schultz approach.
Screenrant reports:
“According to Newsweek, a Disney spokesperson commented on the matter and shared that a deal regarding Sound of Freedom’s international distribution happened before Disney bought Fox. They said, “‘Disney] studios had no knowledge of the film given the nature of the international acquisition pre-merger.’ Therefore, it got shelved, and the rest is history.”
Congrats to ‘Woke” Disney, celebrating a five year low in share price.
Like Bud Lite, more of these liberal elite Ivy Leaguer’s wanting to change the world, when they can’t even change a tire.
Conspiracy theory is a phrase those that are involved in child exploitation and trafficking use to cover their tracks.
I keep waiting for the fag on WGN Dean Richard’s to mention it in his segment.
Nope he just keeps shilling and covering up the truth and pushing Barbie and Indiana Jones crap.
The film shows trafficking in children is 150b per year industry.
Unlike drugs, children can be resold again and again.
Sure sounds like a “conspiracy theory” Tim Ballard must have made up in his head.
Disney shelved because they want to keep the topic and truth out of people’s minds.
Conspiracy theory is a phrase used by those operating in reality to identify those still locked into The Matrix.
Prove me wrong dope addled Monk. Google will give you your approved truth to respond.
This article was frustrating because the author acknowledges there are NO conspiracy theories in the film — but makes the connection anyway(!) because
-questionable things the actors have said. So what? That has nothing to do with the movie.
-the fanbase of the movie. Guilt by association.
and adds
-it wasn’t totally accurate. It never claimed to be. It’s based on a true story but nobody ever said every part of this movie is exactly how it happened irl, so this is a strawman.
I looked up the author but could not find her contact info.
Shannon Bond is her name.
Usually when there’s a stupid piece written I will email the author to either let them know what they got wrong and if it’s a really stupid piece then I’ll make sure to personally insult them.
So anyway what is it about this movie that makes them so mad? What it sounds like is the very mention of “human trafficking” kicks off this crazed defense mechanism where they start howling about Q Anon and conspiracy theorists. That didn’t happen when the Taken movies came out though. Those were about abduction, sex slavery, and even well connected people being involved in the business. Is it because Taken was complete fiction? Is it because Taken was about a college aged woman instead of children?
I don’t believe those are adequate explanations. What is their angle here? Do they want us to think human trafficking is not a thing or??? How could they possibly think we are so stupid? Would they actually try to gaslight us about that? idk but their visceral reaction to just mentioning this movie is soooo weird.
My guess is a lot of these people writing these negative reviews and bringing up Q Anon and conspiracy theories are involved with or more likely at least know about the really sick and bad stuff that goes on in Elite circles.
They are running cover for the sickos.
Their hubris is their undoing though.
They have caused major Streisand Effect and helped make the movie even more popular through their shrieking.
And it has marked them as “the enemy of the people.” We’ll keep that in mind for future reference if you know what I’m saying.
A more generous interpretation is that pieces like the one Cal mentioned are similar to NPC programming.
The authors know what they are supposed to say because of political/tribal affiliations and the programming [if human traffic then q anon, q anon bad, traffic movie is like q anon, movie bad because q anon!].
They know what their readers want to hear because the readers are brainwashed too.
The writing is deterministic because the authors are like bots themselves.
Every article trashing this movie is the same thing.
q anon adjacent.
Jim C has said some “weird” things.
“Conspiracy theories” about human trafficking.
References to adrenochrome even though it’s not mentioned in the movie (this piece even admits that, but still brings it up lol).
You could take 100 left-liberal writers and you wouldn’t have one original thought between all of them.
So they are either perverts or morons.
Maybe even both.
Anyway, Cal, you shouldn’t be linking crappy articles like that.
You’re just trying to ragebait people with the NPR stuff cuz you KNOW your readers hate NPR!
If you want a movie review just ask your audience and they can write it for you, and then we can read their thoughts instead of the “thoughts” of someone who works for NPR!
“They have caused major Streisand Effect and helped make the movie even more popular through their shrieking”
Whose shrieking? Both sides’ are deafening.
+++
Jim C tweeted that the other day. I know why. Who else recently tweeted a post ending in ++×?
They feel threatened that Q is a tool to wake people up and get them to research and learn. Q is only quackery and conspiracy to those that are afraid of what it is doing or the media mind controlled zombies that believe what they are spoonfed.
Ask yourself why would the UN and Int’l Committee of Jurists be pushing sex between Adults and Minors to be ok? Is that a conspiracy or is exposing the truth via a movie a conspiracy?
=======
Conservative critics of the growing libertinism in the West have warned that the next step will be to allow adult/minor consensual sex. Those who scoff at such warnings as paranoia should scoff no more. Two U.N. agencies, in conjunction with the International Committee of Jurists, have published a new report on criminal law that urges doing just that.
PRINCIPLE 16 — CONSENSUAL SEXUAL CONDUCT
Consensual sexual conduct, irrespective of the type of sexual activity, the sex/ gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of the people involved or their marital status, may not be criminalized in any circumstances. Consensual same-sex, as well as consensual different-sex sexual relations, or consensual sexual relations with or between trans, non-binary and other gender-diverse people, or outside marriage — whether pre-marital or extramarital — may, therefore, never be criminalized.
With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual, in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.
Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/u-n-backed-report-dont-prosecute-some-adult-minor-consensual-sex/
Creeper sexpert JT loves giving mushroom tattoos.
Wow, you got up at 3AM to write that shit.
“They know what their readers want to hear because the readers are brainwashed too.” You mean like going to church on sunday an listening to the same old shit?
“You could take 100 left-liberal writers and you wouldn’t have one original thought between all of them.” kind of like trumpty claiming he is a victim.
“So they are either perverts or morons.” From the dean of strawmen.
“Usually when there’s a stupid piece written I will email the author to either let them know what they got wrong and if it’s a really stupid piece then I’ll make sure to personally insult them.” but you rail at me
for doing the same thing.
Your review about reviews is really assinine, but then you are the dean of anal retention.
Which by the way is not an admirable quality.
No, I work from home and have irregular sleep patterns, Pokorny. Like I said, that’s none of your business or JT’s business or anybody’s business. Mind your own business. There was no waking up only staying up late cuz my brain is so active! You wouldn’t understand.
second line on church is “whataboutism” Why would you want someone’s taste in movies to be based on their politics and for their politics to be as dogmatic as the religion you say you hate? Very weird stuff, Poo korny.
third line about trump “whatbaoutism” You just can’t help yourself! Trump is one person he’s not a hundred movie critics lol and we would expect more thoughtful analysis from 100 film critics than from Trump, wouldn’t we? If you mean his supporters saying similar things.. ok? I guess? But a write-up of a movie is different than a political opinion such as “the government has different standards for different people”. Nobody ever told voters to write something original. A movie review is supposed to be that. They are literally paid to do that. Those are (or should be) far more subjective and creative than political issues where you’re only given a few possible answers — sometimes even binary choices. Reviews are supposed to be more complex and thoughtful. So why are they all saying the same thing? They’re blasting the same talking points — we’ve seen this before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
“dean of strawmen” such as? Your grasp of logical fallacies is tenuous at best. I doubt you know what a strawman is. Tell us the explanation if I’m wrong then. They’re all offended by this movie and all writing the same review but they’re not morons or perverts you say. Ok, so what are they, Pokorny?
“but you rail at me” I never claimed you can’t insult someone, Stephen, I just take issue when that’s all you do. You have to mix it up. Otherwise you sound cranky, boring, and predictable. You don’t want to be that, do you?
Yes, you’ve said writing about things is not an admirable quality. I don’t find these people all writing essentially the same review about “q anon” to be admirable either! Their little digs about Q Anon and conspiracy theories are annoying, especially when they admit that stuff has nothing to do with this movie. Ok so why bring it up then?
Thanks for the write-up about my write-up about those people’s write-ups though! Now I have done a write-up on your write-up about my write-up about their write-ups. Have one for the library.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg
Someone please just review this Sound of Freedom movie for Cal. How come you won’t be a team player and help this blog?
Look at that. TRIGGERED TROLLS. Explain why the UN is pushing to legalize pedophilia? Tick tock sports.
That post wasn’t for Correcting BTW.
I liked the Sinclair post too. Those that know well they know. Those that don’t just mock to placate their cognitive dissonance.
LOL.
No, we KNOW. Then, we mock.
Do another bong idiot
People are writing all sorts of thoughtful and creative pieces about this new Barbie movie but regarding SOF it’s just muh q anon muh conspiracy theory. maga this adrenochrome that. And they’re all saying the same thing! It’s a bunch of low effort hit pieces. Check out these stories about Barbie and compare them to the NPR article Cal posted or even an official review of SOF (since what he published was not a review). You’ll see what I’m talking about.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/barbie-movie-review-1.6912486
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/barbie-movie-review-2023