Sound of Freedom (2023)

Is it really?


I thought the consensus was that the producers marketed this movie in a savvy way to appeal to a niche audience.


I'm not sure what you are talking about. But I wasn't here for the beginning of this thread so I might have missed something that was deleted.

I guess this film is different?

This thread and the movie are not for everybody. I'll stay away from the theater just like I should have stayed out of this thread.

Yes, Hidden Figures was an uplifting movie (unlike most of the others I listed), yet the core of its story was one about the social injustices of racial discrimination at a time when such things were indeed built into the system - the same injustices as some of the others, but in a different era & setting.

Yup agreed. The critics seemed to pan Hidden Figures but I liked the true and mostly unknown story of the black women who served as 'human computers' making calculations for the Apollo mission. I'm pretty much always interested in early space flight movies.

One of my favorite scenes from that movie...

Is it?
I realize the question's a bit rhetorical (since I just set the film into a common genre of very popular & well-known movies that all deal either with crimes on a massive scale or social injustices that needed to be addressed at some point; the majority of which were devoid of public controversy since the wrongs presented in them were considered both real and wrong by the viewing public).

But since we can't discuss politics, we can't just state the very simple root cause of the controversy over Sound of Freedom.

If this movie had been influenced by the Left instead of everyone here feeling this is some right-wing Qanon conspired crap, you'd be praising the hell out of it and you know damn well you would too!!

This movie has Hollywood by the balls 😄

And people on the Left hate this too that it's doing as well as what it is.. The mere thought of this makes them peel their faces off like the scene from the 1982 Spielberg Masterpiece 'POLTERGEIST"

Why?

I hate how this movie is driving just another political war. Either the reaction is "Lol get rekt lefties!!" or it's treated like a nazi propaganda film from the 40's or something. What happened to discussing the film that is actually there instead of doing this stupid and tiresome left vs. right bullshit? I guess I'm supposed to be peeling my face off right now as well, even though I actually think this movie could be good. Such a non-productive and childish manner to analyze cinema.

https://forums.boxofficetheory.com/t...nd-of-freedom/

https://forums.boxofficetheory.com/t...keep-it-civil/

If you look at this website, Box office theory and it's "Sound of Freedom" board, you'll see why?? Movie websites like that and World of KJ Index are comprised of probably 97% Liberal and Gen Z with the occasional Millennial here and there and they simply don't like that the movie is doing as well as it is because in their minds, it's Conservative driven and Qanon driven, despite being a real issue..

You know my post above is exactly what you've been doing in the Barbie thread, right?


I'm judging a movie I haven't seen on a trailer. I'm making judgments towards the people who are going to see it.


Sound familiar?


I'd like to know how well would you rate your level of self awareness? On a scale of non-binary to super-duper rock-hard binary, where would you fall?

It's interesting how conflicted we are about whether we are conflicted, or how we are conflicted or why.

We have "Horrorcrammers" avowing that the content is too spicy, too dark. And yet, Captain Steel offers a list of more than a dozen dark and spicy films that touch on "real world" stuff (some of it very grim indeed) that, in the main, we do not flinch at.

We have had a heated argument in this thread about whether America, at large, is even culturally conflicted (the old "It's not happening" response).

And this is the second time you've made this comment. It's a given that not every thread and every film appeals to everyone. With this film, however, you've felt it necessary repeat this truism and dramatically exit stage left. The apparent message is, "so who is coming with me?" Is it time for Sharks to go, because the Jets are holding down this corner?

And yet the film itself, from what I've heard, is rather tame in terms of content. That is, trafficking is happening. A real problem. It is bad. We do like to fantasize about helping the helpless and saving children and this genre of film is pretty well established.

Thus, we're in this odd space where it is not the film itself, but the speech-act surrounding the film (e.g., what it says about you to attend the film, or like the film, or recommend the film), the message that is performed in the marketing, consumption, and debate, the sub-text which is overtaking the text.

And all of this adds weight to my guess that this might be evidence of a growing schism in which our culture separates into different viewing markets. Jets watching this film A in theater 1, Sharks watching film B in theater 2.

Cinema, for so many decades, was our great collective dream. It was a sort of experiential short-hand. Philosophy teachers could count on the fact that students had seen The Matrix to talk about Plato's Cave. We could talk folk-psychology with each other by referencing When Harry Met Sally (You're a Sally! You have to have everything on the side. You're high maintenance.). We all knew that Darth Vader was the ultimate baddie.

Now we have a dearth of Vaders - these cultural touchstones for conversation. The internet ended that. We all have our own apps and subs and widgets. A bubble for every boy. A chicken in every crackpot. And we might now be seeing the start of a serious self-segregation of even film viewership. If so, that is sad. Film used to be a great collective unifier (not a purity test). And what is most baffling of all is that the films we segregate into might be rather innocuous save for the speech-act performed by watching it.

Dammit, I don't have anything I can say here that won't get me a stern talking to from @Yoda



So I'll just say this: I like movies, but definitely not this movie.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

This is a tough line to call. I think in this case, it's fine to discuss the main focus of the film (the problem of child trafficking) while only lightly sprinkling in some political implications. Politics in relation to a specific film is always tough to both navigate and moderate, and I personally tend to err on the side of free speech and open discussion while staying in the framework of the a site's clearly defined rules on the matter.

Vets of the site know how quickly and badly threads can go sideways if it just a wild-west political rumble, which brings me to:

Let's lock up all the shots aimed squarely at other's MoFo's political leanings. This site has people from all areas of the political compass, and most certainly isn't comprised of "90% Gen Z liberals with a few millennials." The idea that an old-school, longform forum, which is pretty much a relic of the late 90s at this point, is populated by people born in 2002, is patently absurd. And while it is fairly easy to ascertain a MoFo's age, especially if they list their birthday, and have their actual age clearly visible on their profile, which many do, it is a bit tougher to for sure know someone's politics, unless we get into deep discussions about, you know, politics, which is heavily discouraged outside of the sphere of any given film's specific political content, as stated above.

Multiple threads are starting...starting? No, have devolved into taking thinly veiled (or not so thinly) direct jabs at other MoFo's world views. This never ends well.

So please...let's get back to discussing films, music, TV, my bad taste in film, and McClane's snacks.

I do plan on seeing this film when it hits streaming, as it doesn't seem like the type of film I need to shell out cash at the theater to see, especially with other, more big screen-worthy flicks currently running. I will comment more on its content and my reviews of the material at that time, once I have actually seen it.

__________________

This, please. I left another film site and came to this one chiefly because they have descended, over the years, into rancorous, non-stop political infighting and back-biting. (No, I'm not going to name it; many here doubtless could easily identify it already, from that scant description alone.)


There's a certain subset of message board commentariat for whom every site, ultimately, is just another Reddit or Twitter: endless eructions of bile and vituperation, where there are no polite or collegial disagreements, only holy wars. This place seems so much nicer than that, overall.


I, for one, would vote to keep it that way.

__________________
"If it was priggish for an older generation of reviewers to be ashamed of what they enjoyed and to feel they had to be contemptuous of popular entertainment, it's even more priggish for a new movie generation to be so proud of what they enjoy that they use their education to try to place trash within the acceptable academic tradition." -- Pauline Kael

No vote needed, although it is appreciated, as it is actually in the rules for the site.

Best post on the thread I agree too.

We were all doing fine discussing Sound of Freedom's success until someone had to drag out the bullhorn, soapbox and start proselytizing their politics.

Talking about the demographics of the film and wondering if it has a political appeal to x group while not appealing to z group is legit...But using the thread to attack people who have different viewpoints flies in the spirit and rules of MoFo.

I know how you feel bro! Good for you for not stoking the fire...and you beat me to the @mention thing But yeah a couple people need a talkin to so the rest of us can continue discussing the movie like adults.