Prime0882 said:

---

The taint of QAnon is not going away from that forum, for me at least, since I lurked there enough to know today's full throated rebuke of the QAnon posting was not occurring when F16 was a hotbed for it.

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Actual child sex trafficking is not a political issue. QAnon conspiracies about trafficking are, and conflating medical care for trans teens with "grooming," certainly is.

---

Wait…what?

Someone here is certainly "conflating medical care" and it's not the group you're pointing your finger at.

Harry Potter &

Quote:

---

The taint of QAnon

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I don't think many of us care about F16's chiming in with their insight/feelings about the film.

But F16 is a... bit of an echo chamber that meets those who offer a different voice with a lot of combative and "gotcha!" type posts. I don't think anyone can read that board and claim otherwise. It's Rivalries board except instead of A&M vs Texas it's heavy red leaning vs heavy blue leaning. And that's fine for that forum.

But when those posting styles end up on other boards, it tends to push away anyone looking for just normal Entertainment Board conversation.

In short, it's not a disdain for the poster, or the poster's viewpoints... It's a disdain for the posting style.

---

This is a very good point, I appreciate the well thought out viewpoint.

And to take it a step further and relate it to the topic at hand:

Quote:

---

I don't think many of us care about Hollywood chiming in with their insight/feelings about social topics.

But Hollywood is a... bit of an echo chamber that meets those who offer a different voice with a lot of combative and "gotcha!" type posts such as painting a film from an opposing voice as conspiratorial. I don't think anyone can watch their product and claim otherwise. It's Rivalries board except instead of A&M vs Texas it's heavy blue leaning elitists vs normal citizens.

But when their propoganda end up in every piece of entertainment, it tends to push away anyone looking for just normal Entertainment Board conversation.

In short, it's not a disdain for the people of hollywood,... It's a disdain for their heavy handed self righteous messaging.

---

That is the point of this thread. This work was held up for 5 years after being in the can and once the rights were procured, people across the industry start railing against those involved in project and painting it as some sort of conspiratorial right wing propaganda. And the film has a plot and thesis that no normal person could argue against. The industry almost always celebrates the Indie films and smaller projects. The industry loves when people tell a story that needs to be told. The industry gushes when people have a "passion project".

And then this film comes along, and the industry galvanizes. This film is far outperforming any reasonable expectation, and the most kind thing I can find being said by the industry is calling it "Christian adjacent" and everyone who wants to see it already has.

I know Hollywood has a bunch of money, but someone has got to see the opportunity for entertainment with western civilization traditional values.

Proposition Joe said:

---

But F16 is a... bit of an echo chamber that meets those who offer a different voice with a lot of combative and "gotcha!" type posts. I don't think anyone can read that board and claim otherwise.

---

So what? The Entertainment board is an echo chamber, too, complete with combative posts trying to bully others who hold different viewpoints.

Some posters on Forum 13 act just like the posters on Politics they despise.

The only thing F16 stormed is Academy when there is a deal on off brand A&M polos.

For all the claims about hating conspiracy theory spreaders, you sure do make up a lot of stuff.

EclipseAg said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

But F16 is a... bit of an echo chamber that meets those who offer a different voice with a lot of combative and "gotcha!" type posts. I don't think anyone can read that board and claim otherwise.

---

So what? The Entertainment board is an echo chamber, too, complete with combative posts trying to bully others who hold different viewpoints.

Some posters on Forum 13 act just like the posters on Politics they despise.

---

And the irony is, when opposing world viewpoints are brought up on F16...people don't ask for it to be removed or banned. They just argue it or make fun of it...and things snowball from there. But on here, there are people who want it policed and removed altogether.

I try to choose my words carefully on this board, because there's actually a lot of interesting discussion I like to take part in because I'm passionate about movies and music. But there are times where this place feels super uptight and it's like walking on eggshells.

cross posted from other thread but my local theater added a show today and it replaced a showing of IJ5. 120 seats vs the 60 seats that Sound of Freedom has been showing in. Through Sunday the theater has switched 2 of the 4 daily showings from the 60 seat venue to the 120 seat venue and each showing is a replacement of IJ5.

Already 28 seats purchased to today's show that was just listed in the past few hours.

''Sound of Freedom' Beats 'Indiana Jones' in Incredible Box-Office Coup'
https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-beats-indiana-jones-incredible-box-office-coup-1811206

Pretty good results for a movie with a 'lunatic' in it.

I guess this kind of begs the question then...

If it was questionably a "Hollywood" grand conspiracy to keep this type of movie from seeing the light of day and/or being successful...

...yet this movie has seen the light of day and looks to be successful...

Is Hollywood not all powerful and can't really "silence" any movie that has an actual audience?
... or did this movie just invigorate the "moral" majority?
... or did this movie simply use a marketing tactic to gain word of mouth traction in order to be more profitable...


What if I told you it was a little of all 3?

Prime0882 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

But F16 is a... bit of an echo chamber that meets those who offer a different voice with a lot of combative and "gotcha!" type posts. I don't think anyone can read that board and claim otherwise.

---

So what? The Entertainment board is an echo chamber, too, complete with combative posts trying to bully others who hold different viewpoints.

Some posters on Forum 13 act just like the posters on Politics they despise.

---

Good point. I have seen some Star Trek fans incite violence and storm Comicon due to their belief Trek is better than Star Wars.

---

You're just flailing around at this point.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

''Sound of Freedom' Beats 'Indiana Jones' in Incredible Box-Office Coup'
https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-beats-indiana-jones-incredible-box-office-coup-1811206

Pretty good results for a movie with a 'lunatic' in it.

---

Or it says something about the number of lunatics.

Proposition Joe said:

---

I guess this kind of begs the question then...

If it was questionably a "Hollywood" grand conspiracy to keep this type of movie from seeing the light of day and/or being successful...

...yet this movie has seen the light of day and looks to be successful...

Is Hollywood not all powerful and can't really "silence" any movie that has an actual audience?
... or did this movie just invigorate the "moral" majority?
... or did this movie simply use a marketing tactic to gain word of mouth traction in order to be more profitable...


What if I told you it was a little of all 3?

---

I could definitely see how it's all three. Every movie requires promotion to be successful, the Streisand effect surely does exist as well. But I think the main pull of the film is that people do want to show in force and en masse the desire to shed light on important topics. It's kind of the reverse of Bud Light. People always vote with their wallet. When you put a target on a product, whether good or bad, it necessitates action.

The film was shot and made five years ago and was shelved. Then the articles came to disparage Tim Ballard. They had their effect, the film of his life story became toxic. It took a grassroots movement to get this movie distributed. It took confirmation of ticket sales to get this movie in multiple theaters nationwide. This is not a typical release as you all know. It also sheds light that there is clearly a market for good vs evil, real world plights about good people doing good things for those in need. Why then, if there is a market for this style of storytelling, aren't more movies like this made by those who have direct access to distribution? Why do they continue to parrot the same political narrative regardless if there's a marketable audience?

Why have the Oscars amended their standards to DEI level inclusion policies just to be anointed their golden trophy?

Do we even need the Oscars? What weight does that really have? Could there not be a counter to the Oscars that reflect good film, regardless of criteria met?

Just an odd hill to die on for Hollywood. Do we even really need them? Technology, land, opportunity, all can be had in greater abundance in Texas and the like. Hell the only reason filmmakers fled to cali was to get away from Edison and his men for using his camera. Disney was founded on retelling stories already told and required no rights. It's time for a renaissance.

Sapper Redux said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

''Sound of Freedom' Beats 'Indiana Jones' in Incredible Box-Office Coup'
https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-beats-indiana-jones-incredible-box-office-coup-1811206

Pretty good results for a movie with a 'lunatic' in it.

---

Or it says something about the number of lunatics.

---

Stop. Even mainstream media comment that this film has none of the q-anon **** you think it does

Sapper Redux said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

''Sound of Freedom' Beats 'Indiana Jones' in Incredible Box-Office Coup'
https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-beats-indiana-jones-incredible-box-office-coup-1811206

Pretty good results for a movie with a 'lunatic' in it.

---

Or it says something about the number of lunatics.

---

Goodness, what is wrong with some of you???

Gigem314 said:

---

EclipseAg said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

But F16 is a... bit of an echo chamber that meets those who offer a different voice with a lot of combative and "gotcha!" type posts. I don't think anyone can read that board and claim otherwise.

---

So what? The Entertainment board is an echo chamber, too, complete with combative posts trying to bully others who hold different viewpoints.

Some posters on Forum 13 act just like the posters on Politics they despise.

---

And the irony is, when opposing world viewpoints are brought up on F16...people don't ask for it to be removed or banned. They just argue it or make fun of it...and things snowball from there. But on here, there are people who want it policed and removed altogether.

I try to choose my words carefully on this board, because there's actually a lot of interesting discussion I like to take part in because I'm passionate about movies and music. But there are times where this place feels super uptight and it's like walking on eggshells.

---

In the spirit of camaraderie, I hear you, and agree that, from time to time, I and others can be somewhat militant in that regard. If it's any consolation, I assure you, it's not because opposing viewpoints are being presented. I'm not trying to squash out anything that doesn't align with my worldview, or anything of the sort. Hell, I read F16 on a near daily basis, just to have my own views and biases challenged (and, admittedly, to roll my eyes at some of the more extreme "discussions").

It's just that it's so damn exhausting when every last thread here turns into the same handful of posters endlessly b*tching about "wokeness."

And I simply don't understand why those complaints *have* to be had here, in every last thread, and not on F16. Why can't we have a discussion about, say, *just* Batman? Why does the thread *have* to get derailed by the same handful of posters who *have* to let everyone else know just how aggrieved they are about Catwoman using the term "white man" in a slightly derogatory manner? When it was literally one second of two-and-a-half-hour movie. Hell, there are plenty of times when I actually agree with some of the complaints. But the amount of "wokeness" in these movies is no where near the extreme level of griping about it on this board, griping that derails thread after thread after thread, day after day after day.

And I get the argument that Hollywood is "forcing" these things into the entertainment we're consuming, so, in turn, that same handful of posters are going to "force" their grievances into the discussion here. I understand the urge. It's just that A) no one is forcing anyone to watch this stuff, and B) there are no rules saying that those conversations have to be had here, on this board, to the degree and frequency that they are.

Anyway, on my end, I will try to be better about ignoring this kind of stuff in the future. It's just so damn hard when it's so damn prevalent. Someone earlier made a great point that I'll echo - it's not necessarily *what* they're complaining about, it's *how* they're complaining. Endlessly, with the most mean-spirited, f/ck you attitude, in a way that takes away from everyone else's enjoyment, and shines the light on the aggrieved rather than the subject matter. If anything, I would just appreciate, in return, certain posters here making an effort - like you do - to simply chill a bit in that regard. That's it and that's all.

Tibbers said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I guess this kind of begs the question then...

If it was questionably a "Hollywood" grand conspiracy to keep this type of movie from seeing the light of day and/or being successful...

...yet this movie has seen the light of day and looks to be successful...

Is Hollywood not all powerful and can't really "silence" any movie that has an actual audience?
... or did this movie just invigorate the "moral" majority?
... or did this movie simply use a marketing tactic to gain word of mouth traction in order to be more profitable...


What if I told you it was a little of all 3?

---

I could definitely see how it's all three. Every movie requires promotion to be successful, the Streisand effect surely does exist as well. But I think the main pull of the film is that people do want to show in force and en masse the desire to shed light on important topics. It's kind of the reverse of Bud Light. People always vote with their wallet. When you put a target on a product, whether good or bad, it necessitates action.

The film was shot and made five years ago and was shelved. Then the articles came to disparage Tim Ballard. They had their effect, the film of his life story became toxic. It took a grassroots movement to get this movie distributed. It took confirmation of ticket sales to get this movie in multiple theaters nationwide. This is not a typical release as you all know. It also sheds light that there is clearly a market for good vs evil, real world plights about good people doing good things for those in need. Why then, if there is a market for this style of storytelling, aren't more movies like this made by those who have direct access to distribution? Why do they continue to parrot the same political narrative regardless if there's a marketable audience?

Why have the Oscars amended their standards to DEI level inclusion policies just to be anointed their golden trophy?

Do we even need the Oscars? What weight does that really have? Could there not be a counter to the Oscars that reflect good film, regardless of criteria met?

Just an odd hill to die on for Hollywood. Do we even really need them? Technology, land, opportunity, all can be had in greater abundance in Texas and the like. Hell the only reason filmmakers fled to cali was to get away from Edison and his men for using his camera. Disney was founded on retelling stories already told and required no rights. It's time for a renaissance.

---

I think you're looking for a grand conspiracy when there isn't one. How can Hollywood be all about the almighty dollar, but then according to you they are passing up the almighty dollar in order to silence a message?

Didn't The Passion of the Christ make a boatload of money?

Truth is these movies aren't being silenced, the majority of them just aren't of great quality. There's plenty of them out there, just like there's plenty of crap horror flicks that never see the big screen. If a true market for widespread release reveals itself for these films, then they will start getting more funding from the studios. However they also have to be careful to make sure the box office numbers reflect a true yearning for the content rather than a curated marketing push to certain demographics. Why? Because it's the difference between mainstream fool's gold and real gold.

They can recycle the same lackluster Indiana Jones or Marvel franchise and they have the box office history to know the demand floor. On a movie like this, they don't. If they prove themselves over time, they will.

And spare me the Oscar talk... I mean, most people outside of Hollywood don't actually take it that seriously, so if it annoys you that is on you... but go check out what film won Best Picture in 2016. A movie about a child sex abuse investigation. Mystic River (about a bunch of boys who were sexually abducted/abused taking out revenge) won a bunch of awards. High quality content on these topics has been made AND it's won awards. So no, despite what far right news outlets tell you, they aren't being "silenced".

Don't misunderstand -- Hollywood is filled with a bunch of creeps. Every time Jeepers Creepers 2 is on I wonder how in the hell they let this guy [Salva] anywhere near young actors and how every other scene is just an enormous red flag that the guy has issues.

But big tech is filled with a decent number of creeps too. Ditto politics. Hell, reference above -- ditto religion. It's not unique to Hollywood.

Nope, you've chosen your position and without even seeing the film chose your spot. No mea culpas here. Take the L and hit dusty trail. Parrot the Hollywood machine somewhere else if that's what you are doing.

VERY well said.

Tibbers said:

---

Nope, you've chosen your position and without even seeing the film chose your spot. No mea culpas here. Take the L and hit dusty trail. Parrot the Hollywood machine somewhere else if that's what you are doing.

---

Dude, I'm trying here. When someone offers an olive branch, take it. There is literally no need to be as staunchly oppositional as you're being. No one here is out to get you or erase your ideals or anything like that.

No, you've shown your true colors. Difficult to just say, "oh ok, but all the other movies this dude maybe promotes, well that's of good faith" no thanks. You chose your words carefully. Fall by them.

We are all on the same page about birds not being real, right?

Tibbers said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

I guess this kind of begs the question then...

If it was questionably a "Hollywood" grand conspiracy to keep this type of movie from seeing the light of day and/or being successful...

...yet this movie has seen the light of day and looks to be successful...

Is Hollywood not all powerful and can't really "silence" any movie that has an actual audience?
... or did this movie just invigorate the "moral" majority?
... or did this movie simply use a marketing tactic to gain word of mouth traction in order to be more profitable...


What if I told you it was a little of all 3?

---

I could definitely see how it's all three. Every movie requires promotion to be successful, the Streisand effect surely does exist as well. But I think the main pull of the film is that people do want to show in force and en masse the desire to shed light on important topics. It's kind of the reverse of Bud Light. People always vote with their wallet. When you put a target on a product, whether good or bad, it necessitates action.

The film was shot and made five years ago and was shelved. Then the articles came to disparage Tim Ballard. They had their effect, the film of his life story became toxic. It took a grassroots movement to get this movie distributed. It took confirmation of ticket sales to get this movie in multiple theaters nationwide. This is not a typical release as you all know. It also sheds light that there is clearly a market for good vs evil, real world plights about good people doing good things for those in need. Why then, if there is a market for this style of storytelling, aren't more movies like this made by those who have direct access to distribution? Why do they continue to parrot the same political narrative regardless if there's a marketable audience?

Why have the Oscars amended their standards to DEI level inclusion policies just to be anointed their golden trophy?

Do we even need the Oscars? What weight does that really have? Could there not be a counter to the Oscars that reflect good film, regardless of criteria met?

Just an odd hill to die on for Hollywood. Do we even really need them? Technology, land, opportunity, all can be had in greater abundance in Texas and the like. Hell the only reason filmmakers fled to cali was to get away from Edison and his men for using his camera. Disney was founded on retelling stories already told and required no rights. It's time for a renaissance.

---

I think you're looking for a grand conspiracy when there isn't one. How can Hollywood be all about the almighty dollar, but then according to you they are passing up the almighty dollar in order to silence a message?

Didn't The Passion of the Christ make a boatload of money?

Truth is these movies aren't being silenced, the majority of them just aren't of great quality. There's plenty of them out there, just like there's plenty of crap horror flicks that never see the big screen. If a true market for widespread release reveals itself for these films, then they will start getting more funding from the studios. However they also have to be careful to make sure the box office numbers reflect a true yearning for the content rather than a curated marketing push to certain demographics. Why? Because it's the difference between mainstream fool's gold and real gold.

They can recycle the same lackluster Indiana Jones or Marvel franchise and they have the box office history to know the demand floor. On a movie like this, they don't. If they prove themselves over time, they will.

And spare me the Oscar talk... I mean, most people outside of Hollywood don't actually take it that seriously, so if it annoys you that is on you... but go check out what film won Best Picture in 2016. A movie about a child sex abuse investigation. Mystic River (about a bunch of boys who were sexually abducted/abused taking out revenge) won a bunch of awards. High quality content on these topics has been made AND it's won awards. So no, despite what far right news outlets tell you, they aren't being "silenced".

Don't misunderstand -- Hollywood is filled with a bunch of creeps. Every time Jeepers Creepers 2 is on I wonder how in the hell they let this guy [Salva] anywhere near young actors and how every other scene is just an enormous red flag that the guy has issues.

But big tech is filled with a decent number of creeps too. Ditto politics. Hell, reference above -- ditto religion. It's not unique to Hollywood.

---

I hear ya, but the Oscars and Hollywood are intrinsically linked. If it was a joke, no one of merit would even bother to show up. And that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. People are tired of the tent pole films yet they continue to be produced when better more heartfelt alternatives could be explored. The Oscars choosing to adopt these inclusive properties when foregoing the actual creative process is simply an example of Hollywood losing its way and when things loose their way and get loose, sometimes it's time to just move on.

---

Just doing quick and dirty math, YTD Box Office Gross this year looks to be run-rating to around $9.1B - a 25% increase over last year (after a 112% and 64.4% previous two years post-covid).

I don't know the ins and outs of the industry, but I don't believe that includes streaming.

So, no, people aren't tired of the tent pole films yet.

Tibbers said:

---

No, you've shown your true colors. Difficult to just say, "oh ok, but all the other movies this dude maybe promotes, well that's of good faith" no thanks. You chose your words carefully. Fall by them.

---

Always make me laugh how serious some of y'all keyboard warriors take message boards.

I would genuinely enjoy reading your thoughts on this movie if you ever see it, let us know.

I can acknowledge that I have a list of entertainers I avoid based on their personal/public opinions and I can understand that you probably feel the same way about Jim C. I personally had no idea who he was outside of a few characters he portrayed, and Passion of the Christ was not one of them, I have not seen it.

There are also people in the industry that I don't like their ability or direction, and I don't watch their product because they don't entertain me. Entertainment is subjective like that. It gets more and more difficult to consume entertainment without viewing it through a lens in 2023 as everything is tinted by a divided populace. The images should be projected with a non tinted, neutral light to appeal across large sections of society, but unfortunately that seems impossible right now. If their is a tint to this film beyond the single statement of God's children are not for sale, I don't see it. If you watch the film and see a political or social slant to it, please share.

Tibbers said:

---

No, you've shown your true colors. Difficult to just say, "oh ok, but all the other movies this dude maybe promotes, well that's of good faith" no thanks. You chose your words carefully. Fall by them.

---

My "true colors" are that I'm anti-child trafficking, anti-pedophelia, and anti-evil in general.

I simply expressed my concern about the way the star of the movie was promoting the movie. All things being equal, I argued that a movie about child trafficking had a better chance of reaching the masses *without* QAnon messaging being attached to Caviezel's promotion of it.

One would think that my concern in that regard clearly showed that I cared about the message of the movie itself reaching the most people. One would think that my stance wouldn't at all be a controversial one, and would, in fact, be in line with what most everyone else wants for this movie.

But for some reason, a number of people instead lost their minds, accused me of trafficking children myself, of being a pedophile, and of wanting this movie suppressed.

Because I expressed concern for how it was being promoted.

Think about that.

Again, you're hearing what you want to hear in an effort to cast me as something I'm not.

But I refuse to be your villain.

It's also worth noting that we've had some really good discussions in here on a variety of social topics around film and entertainment. It's usually when people that have zero actual interest in the topic at hand feel the need to interject their random opinion, call everyone else a pedophile, etc., that things go off the rails.

fig96 said:

---

It's also worth noting that we've had some really good discussions in here on a variety of social topics around film and entertainment. It's usually when people that have zero actual interest in the topic at hand feel the need to interject their random opinion, call everyone else a pedophile, etc., that things go off the rails.

---

100%. That's the thing is that I don't at all mind the actual discussion. I enjoy the discussion, even (and sometimes particularly) when political. But only when it's *actual* discussion, and not some dude simply getting on his soapbox to air his grievances, virtue signal, and name-call. All in the most selfish/derailing manner possible.

Yet you chose to downgrade a picture without even seeing it based on those who were attached to the project. Sorry man. No amount of back tracking and friend helping can get you out of this hole.

To be clear, there is no hole I'm trying to dig my way out of. That's all in your head, which, frankly, doesn't concern me. I'm maintaining the same stance I've had from the jump, while simply attempting to clear the air a bit and dial things down a notch with everyone else here. If it makes you feel good to maintain the fantasy where I'm the bad guy, go right ahead. I'm simply saying, out here in the real world, that's not me.

Tibbers said:

---

Yet you chose to downgrade a picture without even seeing it based on those who were attached to the project. Sorry man. No amount of back tracking and friend helping can get you out of this hole.

---

I'm not saying anyone was right or wrong for doing so but I've seen plenty of conservative people on here refuse to see something simply because of a star's personal views. How is that any different?