|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 29, 2023 16:04:22 GMT
Why did they sell the distribution rights back? They could've made sure it never saw the light of day by simply sitting on it and holding onto the rights. They didn't see it as a profitable venture, but this political statement disguised as a word of mouth campaign for the film has worked wonders.
Disney of all people didn't see it as a profitable venture, and yet once the 'nobody' film company that made it got it back, it grossed $150M on a $15M budget. Gee, I wonder how many more people would've gone to see it if it had the DISNEY name slapped on it, advertisements on Facebook and TV spots around the clock every single day up to the big premiere?
It isn't a Disney kind of movie, is it? That explains why they didn't want to release it under the Disney umbrella. They cut their losses (or so they thought) when they sold it back to the filmmakers. Its BO take has been driven, partly, by the very idea that Disney was somehow trying to hide this 'incredibly important' message in the film. What other Disney movie have churches bought tickets to and distributed? The gross of the film has nothing to do with the quality of the film, and 100% to do with the agenda behind the people who distributed it. Ironic for the people constantly complaining about the 'Hollywood Agenda' all the time.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Aug 29, 2023 17:33:16 GMT
Disney of all people didn't see it as a profitable venture, and yet once the 'nobody' film company that made it got it back, it grossed $150M on a $15M budget. Gee, I wonder how many more people would've gone to see it if it had the DISNEY name slapped on it, advertisements on Facebook and TV spots around the clock every single day up to the big premiere?
It isn't a Disney kind of movie, is it? That explains why they didn't want to release it under the Disney umbrella. They cut their losses (or so they thought) when they sold it back to the filmmakers. Its BO take has been driven, partly, by the very idea that Disney was somehow trying to hide this 'incredibly important' message in the film. What other Disney movie have churches bought tickets to and distributed? The gross of the film has nothing to do with the quality of the film, and 100% to do with the agenda behind the people who distributed it. Ironic for the people constantly complaining about the 'Hollywood Agenda' all the time.
What is 'a Disney kind of movie' anymore? It sure as hell ain't what it used to be. So what was their big gripe, not enough teenagers in lingerie or not enough poop jokes?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 29, 2023 18:57:04 GMT
It isn't a Disney kind of movie, is it? That explains why they didn't want to release it under the Disney umbrella. They cut their losses (or so they thought) when they sold it back to the filmmakers. Its BO take has been driven, partly, by the very idea that Disney was somehow trying to hide this 'incredibly important' message in the film. What other Disney movie have churches bought tickets to and distributed? The gross of the film has nothing to do with the quality of the film, and 100% to do with the agenda behind the people who distributed it. Ironic for the people constantly complaining about the 'Hollywood Agenda' all the time.
What is 'a Disney kind of movie' anymore? It sure as hell ain't what it used to be. So what was their big gripe, not enough teenagers in lingerie or not enough poop jokes?
No idea what you mean. I guess they've come a long way from anthropomorphic ducks walking around without pants. I didn't come here to defend or debate Disney, I only wanted to point out that there was no conspiracy against this movie.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Aug 29, 2023 19:06:29 GMT
What is 'a Disney kind of movie' anymore? It sure as hell ain't what it used to be. So what was their big gripe, not enough teenagers in lingerie or not enough poop jokes?
No idea what you mean. I guess they've come a long way from anthropomorphic ducks walking around without pants. I didn't come here to defend or debate Disney, I only wanted to point out that there was no conspiracy against this movie.
Ducks without pants? Seriously?
The company that did this movie for their Wonderful World back in 1999, nowadays does NOT want to put their name on an anti-slavery movie.
That's not a conspiracy?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 29, 2023 19:43:53 GMT
No idea what you mean. I guess they've come a long way from anthropomorphic ducks walking around without pants. I didn't come here to defend or debate Disney, I only wanted to point out that there was no conspiracy against this movie.
Ducks without pants? Seriously?
The company that did this movie for their Wonderful World back in 1999, nowadays does NOT want to put their name on an anti-slavery movie.
That's not a conspiracy?
No, it isn't. You're honestly comparing a rated G television movie to the Sound of Freedom to try to prove your point? Seriously? That's unintentionally funnier than my intentional joke about Donald Duck. I haven't seen either movie, but the movie you posted seems to have a much lighter tone, no? I'll take the G rating as a yes. Again, can you explain why Disney sold Sound of Freedom back to the filmmakers if they never wanted it to see the light of day? They were so desperate to hide this from the public that instead of just sitting on it until kingdom come, they sold it back to the people who were surely the most passionate about the project being released? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You act as if not wanting to distribute this film makes them pro- child slavery. I have no interest in watching it, do you think that makes me pro- child slavery? Disney just shitcanned their Nautilus series before it was ever released. The production company is desperately looking for a new platform for the project. Conspiracy? Or maybe they want to focus their finances and marketing on a different project they deem more financially viable in the long run? I'll let you decide. Good luck with the tinfoil hat stuff.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Aug 29, 2023 23:14:42 GMT
Ducks without pants? Seriously?
The company that did this movie for their Wonderful World back in 1999, nowadays does NOT want to put their name on an anti-slavery movie.
That's not a conspiracy?
No, it isn't. You're honestly comparing a rated G television movie to the Sound of Freedom to try to prove your point? Seriously? That's unintentionally funnier than my intentional joke about Donald Duck. I haven't seen either movie, but the movie you posted seems to have a much lighter tone, no? I'll take the G rating as a yes. Again, can you explain why Disney sold Sound of Freedom back to the filmmakers if they never wanted it to see the light of day? They were so desperate to hide this from the public that instead of just sitting on it until kingdom come, they sold it back to the people who were surely the most passionate about the project being released? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You act as if not wanting to distribute this film makes them pro- child slavery. I have no interest in watching it, do you think that makes me pro- child slavery? Disney just shitcanned their Nautilus series before it was ever released. The production company is desperately looking for a new platform for the project. Conspiracy? Or maybe they want to focus their finances and marketing on a different project they deem more financially viable in the long run? I'll let you decide. Good luck with the tinfoil hat stuff. Same reason the fires in Fahrenheit 451 were merely a spectacle and not actually a government sanctioned public service. There was no *need* to burn books to prevent people reading them, the public had already quit reading of their own accord long ago. People didn't even know what went on at the fires, they just listened to the 'official' version, and when an eyewitness contradicted that official version, 'oh that didn't happen'.
No need to destroy something if nobody's going to see it anyway. And how many non-Hollywood, non-Disney movies, get shown across the country and gross $150M? That doesn't happen with limited release to a handful of theaters as most indie projects wind up, the ones that aren't immediately released on DVD so most people never even know they're out and are quickly moved to the bargain rack.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Aug 29, 2023 23:59:49 GMT
Now movie theaters have always had glitches and there've been times our theater has one room where the projector isn't working, etc., so you have to come back the next day to see the movie, and I was watching Amityville Horror when the picture froze and then the screen went blank...guess what?, the manager got it working again so the movie would finish playing. And I'm sure all the 'there's NO conspiracy' people are suddenly going to remember 'oh yes I've been to MANY movies where the AC went out, the fire alarms went off and there was no fire and they refunded our tickets instead of starting the picture again, blah blah blah', but there's no other movie in existence that has had so many problems, especially by one big chain theater in particular.
And now that a little indie film has proven it could do what Disney 'couldn't' and make a huge profit on it...why don't Amazon and Netflex want to stream it? They hate money now?
Oh and here's a tip. If you're saying don't see this movie because it's SOOOOO political, you might as well say don't watch Halloween (1978) because there's SO much blood in it, thank you for proving you haven't seen it, so what makes you an expert on what's in it?
But maybe the most curious part is when people say it MISREPRESENTS child sex trafficking...how can someone who's not going to admit being IN that industry going to claim they know what an accurate representation is? Gee, is that like 'we hired a pedophile for his life experience'?
|
|
selfworth10
Sophomore
@selfworth10
Posts: 416
Likes: 174
|
Post by selfworth10 on Aug 30, 2023 11:46:05 GMT
According to box office mojo , SOF has made zero money outside the US. V_ucking crazy Americans hard to get the numbers when countries bann the movie , because the stupid globalists wouldnt allow to air it , do you know how many countries banned the movie? look it up hmmmm...i wonder why Fabian Marta, a financial patron of “The Sound of Freedom,” was charged with being an accessory to child kidnapping a few weeks after the film premiered. The 51-year-old was arrested for accessory child kidnapping on July 23 in St. Louis, according to a statement from the St. Louis Police Department. OH THE IRONY.......
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 30, 2023 11:57:46 GMT
No, it isn't. You're honestly comparing a rated G television movie to the Sound of Freedom to try to prove your point? Seriously? That's unintentionally funnier than my intentional joke about Donald Duck. I haven't seen either movie, but the movie you posted seems to have a much lighter tone, no? I'll take the G rating as a yes. Again, can you explain why Disney sold Sound of Freedom back to the filmmakers if they never wanted it to see the light of day? They were so desperate to hide this from the public that instead of just sitting on it until kingdom come, they sold it back to the people who were surely the most passionate about the project being released? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You act as if not wanting to distribute this film makes them pro- child slavery. I have no interest in watching it, do you think that makes me pro- child slavery? Disney just shitcanned their Nautilus series before it was ever released. The production company is desperately looking for a new platform for the project. Conspiracy? Or maybe they want to focus their finances and marketing on a different project they deem more financially viable in the long run? I'll let you decide. Good luck with the tinfoil hat stuff. Same reason the fires in Fahrenheit 451 were merely a spectacle and not actually a government sanctioned public service. There was no *need* to burn books to prevent people reading them, the public had already quit reading of their own accord long ago. People didn't even know what went on at the fires, they just listened to the 'official' version, and when an eyewitness contradicted that official version, 'oh that didn't happen'.
No need to destroy something if nobody's going to see it anyway. And how many non-Hollywood, non-Disney movies, get shown across the country and gross $150M? That doesn't happen with limited release to a handful of theaters as most indie projects wind up, the ones that aren't immediately released on DVD so most people never even know they're out and are quickly moved to the bargain rack.
Ah, you're a lunatic. Apologies, carry on.
|
|
|
Post by jon snow loves sansa on Aug 30, 2023 19:23:52 GMT
hard to get the numbers when countries bann the movie , because the stupid globalists wouldnt allow to air it , do you know how many countries banned the movie? look it up hmmmm...i wonder why Fabian Marta, a financial patron of “The Sound of Freedom,” was charged with being an accessory to child kidnapping a few weeks after the film premiered. The 51-year-old was arrested for accessory child kidnapping on July 23 in St. Louis, according to a statement from the St. Louis Police Department. OH THE IRONY....... If this person is guilty I'm glad he got arrested , and i hope they will pay , because there are thousands in hollywood who haven't , thats the point . However it doesn't take away from the importance of the film , the message and what it exposes .
|
|
|
Post by jon snow loves sansa on Aug 30, 2023 19:36:36 GMT
It isn't a Disney kind of movie, is it? That explains why they didn't want to release it under the Disney umbrella. They cut their losses (or so they thought) when they sold it back to the filmmakers. Its BO take has been driven, partly, by the very idea that Disney was somehow trying to hide this 'incredibly important' message in the film. What other Disney movie have churches bought tickets to and distributed? The gross of the film has nothing to do with the quality of the film, and 100% to do with the agenda behind the people who distributed it. Ironic for the people constantly complaining about the 'Hollywood Agenda' all the time.
What is 'a Disney kind of movie' anymore? It sure as hell ain't what it used to be. So what was their big gripe, not enough teenagers in lingerie or not enough poop jokes?
Disney is not what it used to be , their movies and the remakes they are doing recently are all awful . I guess the 'woke" writers team have major writers block so they have to kidnap original stories and write in their own twisted woke preferences and ruin the original stories to please their sick agenda.They know deep down NO ONE would watch something original they create especially if they include all these woke stuff they know they will loose, so its easier to hijack snow white and the seven dwarfs and twist it any way they want it because majority of parents and children are not into their pretend idielology . Whoever doesn't believe there was a coordinated effort to block , bann Sound of freedom are living in a pretend world that all of us are forced to live in the last couple of years , I'm glad there are several of us who see through their dark evil plans.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Mar 6, 2024 0:30:09 GMT
People have questioned the veracity of SOUND OF FREEDOM, a well-directed yet overlong dramatization of how special agent Tim Ballard rescued children from sex traffickers. Whether it's historically accurate or not, as a movie, it comes off as generic. Not to mention that a lot of lines are cheesy or lame. Jim Caviezel gives it his all, while Mira Sorvino... Ummm... I don't know how to end the sentence. There are plenty of films where the protagonist's wife's role consistly mostly of staying at home and expressing support, whether he's in the same room as her or not. It isn't a good form of characterization, but at least those movies would cut back to what the wife was doing every couple of scenes. Here, the amount of screen time and dialogue given to Katherine Ballard is less than the bare minimum. She could've been played by an unexperienced actress and nothing would've changed.
5/10
|
|