Angel Studios (VidAngel) Scores Big Box Office Win: "Sound of Freedom"

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also Person of Interest on TV, now Freevee iirc. 

They need to remake that show and not repeat the Samaritan story line. 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

They need to remake that show and not repeat the Samaritan story line. 

Yes or kill off the best characters. 
 

Remakes change the actors though and I liked all the main ones and loved the chemistry between them especially. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I hope I would have said the same thing to anyone who made that joke. I don’t think that it is appropriate no matter who says it.

That’s baloney and you know it. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

That’s baloney and you know it. 

You really don’t know me or my posting history.

You should have said John Dehlin.  You might have even gotten an upvote from me with that one. (And I am not joking).  Off the top of my head I can’t think of any other critic I feel Iknow well enough to be comfortable that is not defaming them.  I have through the past 2+ decades seen good people put off by members who make derogatory remarks about critics,  This has at times backfired with apologist work trying to help members with faith crises and investigators.  It is one of the reasons we at FAIR have made a big effort to remove snark, which we had a lot of at the beginning.  I love snark and I miss it, but because of my exposure through FAIR I know it needs to be used carefully and is best among friends and a small group at that.  A public site on the Internet does not qualify, especially since I know there are posters who appreciated and respected the Tanners who may be lurking and some who have spoken up when they have been criticized before.

But perhaps I completely misunderstood your joke and you chose the Tanners because they would be the last people you would expect to falsify findings or destroy evidence.  If so, my apologies for missing the point of your joke.

——

Unless the person you are with is very transparent and you have lots of opportunities to interact with them and you keep an open mind, there is a very good chance you (speaking generically) are wrong about why someone does something or what they are feeling and thinking.  It is why there is so much miscommunication that goes on, all those assumptions getting in the way of seeing things as they really are (or as real as they can be claimed to be).

Your continual insistence (back to Grug only) that you understand what I am saying and my motivation for doing so in spite of me telling you that you are wrong does nothing but underline how you aren’t listening to me.  Imagine if I started claiming you were paranoid and fixated on women and that is why you believe you are targeted by me and calling me out for trying to undermine you, whatever that is supposed to even mean.  I assume you would deny that and would continue to deny it even if I continued to insist I was right.  Would that somehow convince you or others reading my comments that I knew better than you what you said and why?

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You really don’t know me or my posting history.

I know a lot more than you seem to think.

You have come after me and my views at nearly every opportunity from pretty much the first moment I showed up here and your gal pals have all rallied behind you. 

And your criticism of the joke I made to someone else that had absolutely nothing to do with you proves just how deep your disdain for me and/or the old fashioned views I espouse really is, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

I suggest you put the hatchet away for a while and try to build a bridge as opposed to looking for every opportunity to oppose and attack what I say. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

You really don’t know me or my posting history.

You should have said John Dehlin.  You might have even gotten an upvote from me with that one. (And I am not joking).  Off the top of my head I can’t think of any other critic I feel Iknow well enough to be comfortable that is not defaming them.  I have through the past 2+ decades seen good people put off by members who make derogatory remarks about critics,  This has at times backfired with apologist work trying to help members with faith crises and investigators.  It is one of the reasons we at FAIR have made a big effort to remove snark, which we had a lot of at the beginning.  I love snark and I miss it, but because of my exposure through FAIR I know it needs to be used carefully and is best among friends and a small group at that.  A public site on the Internet does not qualify, especially since I know there are posters who appreciated and respected the Tanners who may be lurking and some who have spoken up when they have been criticized before.

But perhaps I completely misunderstood your joke and you chose the Tanners because they would be the last people you would expect to falsify findings or destroy evidence.  If so, my apologies for missing the point of your joke.

——

Unless the person you are with is very transparent and you have lots of opportunities to interact with them and you keep an open mind, there is a very good chance you (speaking generically) are wrong about why someone does something or what they are feeling and thinking.  It is why there is so much miscommunication that goes on, all those assumptions getting in the way of seeing things as they really are (or as real as they can be claimed to be).

Your continual insistence (back to Grug only) that you understand what I am saying and my motivation for doing so in spite of me telling you that you are wrong does nothing but underline how you aren’t listening to me.  Imagine if I started claiming you were paranoid and fixated on women and that is why you believe you are targeted by me and calling me out for trying to undermine you, whatever that is supposed to even mean.  I assume you would deny that and would continue to deny it even if I continued to insist I was right.  Would that somehow convince you or others reading my comments that I knew better than you what you said and why?

Yes!  I've arrived!  I'm one of your "gal pals".  I'm going to have to put that in my signature now.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

suggest you put the hatchet away for a while and try to build a bridge as opposed to looking for every opportunity to oppose and attack what I sa

Will you consider doing this yourself or is your advice only for me?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Will you consider doing this yourself or is your advice only for me?

I am perfectly willing to do this myself and have actually done my best to do so (admittedly not as well as I should have). But the continuous gaslighting from you and your gal pals is mind numbing. 

But if you and your gal pals actually put your hatchets away and stop the gaslighting and ganging up, I’m happy to put my hatchet away, too. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I am perfectly willing to do this myself and have actually done my best to do so (admittedly not as well as I should have). But the continuous gaslighting from you and your gal pals is mind numbing. 

But if you and your gal pals actually put your hatchets away and stop the gaslighting and ganging up, I’m happy to put my hatchet away, too. 

I have a problem with this as I don’t accept that I am gaslighting anyone because I know my own heart and mind.  I am telling the truth of how I see things.  I would be lying if I accepted your interpretation of my comments (not saying you are lying because you can’t know my thoughts like I do) and I try hard not to lie.  The feedback I have received from more than just my gal pals supports my view as well, though I have no doubt you don’t see the same value in such.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I am perfectly willing to do this myself and have actually done my best to do so (admittedly not as well as I should have). But the continuous gaslighting from you and your gal pals is mind numbing. 

But if you and your gal pals actually put your hatchets away and stop the gaslighting and ganging up, I’m happy to put my hatchet away, too. 

Grug,

Calm and Bluebell are not as you describe here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Grug,

Calm and Bluebell are not as you describe here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm out of rep points but thanks Smac.  I appreciate this.

[The Nehor]

Saw the movie. Hated it. It came across as hate porn. The musical build up before abuse “events” was disturbing. It also portrays child trafficking all wrong and focuses on the rare sensational kind over the normal recruiting process. It implies that kids quickly recover once rescued.

It leans into Q-anon adjacent tropes about child abuse. The Q-Anon internet is cheering on the movie convinced it is a victory over “demons” and will wake up America to all the children being murdered for their organs and adrenochrome which is not a thing. They seem to treat this movie as a gateway drug to the Q-Anon cult and this wasn’t an accident. Some of those involved in the film’s production have peddled Q conspiracies.

My hopes that this will raise awareness and increase funding to deal with child abuse in all forms are probably a pipe dream. Many of the viewers have already decided that most of the government is in on the child trafficking conspiracy.

Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm out of rep points but thanks Smac.  I appreciate this.

Me too.  Reality checks from longtime posters on how I am coming across are always appreciated. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Saw the movie. Hated it. It came across as hate porn. The musical build up before abuse “events” was disturbing. It also portrays child trafficking all wrong and focuses on the rare sensational kind over the normal recruiting process. It implies that kids quickly recover once rescued.

It leans into Q-anon adjacent tropes about child abuse. The Q-Anon internet is cheering on the movie convinced it is a victory over “demons” and will wake up America to all the children being murdered for their organs and adrenochrome which is not a thing. They seem to treat this movie as a gateway drug to the Q-Anon cult and this wasn’t an accident. Some of those involved in the film’s production have peddled Q conspiracies.

My hopes that this will raise awareness and increase funding to deal with child abuse in all forms are probably a pipe dream. Many of the viewers have already decided that most of the government is in on the child trafficking conspiracy.

Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall.

I haven't seen it but I'm worried that it does overdramatize the issue and make it a caricature of the events.    

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Saw the movie. Hated it. It came across as hate porn. The musical build up before abuse “events” was disturbing. It also portrays child trafficking all wrong and focuses on the rare sensational kind over the normal recruiting process. It implies that kids quickly recover once rescued.

It leans into Q-anon adjacent tropes about child abuse. The Q-Anon internet is cheering on the movie convinced it is a victory over “demons” and will wake up America to all the children being murdered for their organs and adrenochrome which is not a thing. They seem to treat this movie as a gateway drug to the Q-Anon cult and this wasn’t an accident. Some of those involved in the film’s production have peddled Q conspiracies.

My hopes that this will raise awareness and increase funding to deal with child abuse in all forms are probably a pipe dream. Many of the viewers have already decided that most of the government is in on the child trafficking conspiracy.

Excuse me while I go bang my head against a wall.

I’ll skip it then. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Saw the movie. Hated it. It came across as hate porn. The musical build up before abuse “events” was disturbing.

Heh.  Yeah, I wasn't a fan of the overdramatization, the blatant emotional manipulation of the musical score either.  Honestly though, the more I watch movies, the more I see how every movie uses music to manipulate the viewer's emotions to one extent or another.  Sometimes it's rather comical.  (My children don't think so, they're getting sick of me saying stuff like "oooo - there's the kissing music!  I better cover my eyes!".  Or "Well, it took that guy a longer time to die than normal, so the violinists could get their entire musical score out.")

 

The value of this movie, IMO, is that it tells true stories.  Dude really did get a rich benefactor to buy an island.  Fuego is a real human.  Kelly Johana Suarez is a real human former beauty queen who really did harvest children through scams.  Vampiro/Batman is a real human who lived the life of a mobster cartel member bad guy, until he realizes his latest prostitute really was a 14 year old girl, and he really did almost kill himself over the realization, and he really did turn over a new leaf and join the forces of good.   People who want to think of themselves as informed humans, need to know this stuff is real, for similar reasons that it's important to know about nazi Germany and the holocaust. 

People need to know stuff like this is real:

Here's a good "what's real/what was invented for the movie" article: https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/sound-of-freedom/

Edited July 13, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh.  Yeah, I wasn't a fan of the overdramatization, the blatant emotional manipulation of the musical score either.  Honestly though, the more I watch movies, the more I see how every movie uses music to manipulate the viewer's emotions to one extent or another.  Sometimes it's rather comical.  (My children don't think so, they're getting sick of me saying stuff like "oooo - there's the kissing music!  I better cover my eyes!".  Or "Well, it took that guy a longer time to die than normal, so the violinists could get their entire musical score out.")

 

The value of this movie, IMO, is that it tells true stories.  Dude really did get a rich benefactor to buy an island.  Fuego is a real human.  Kelly Johana Suarez is a real human former beauty queen who really did harvest children through scams.  Vampiro/Batman is a real human who lived the life of a mobster cartel member bad guy, until he realizes his latest prostitute really was a 14 year old girl, and he really did almost kill himself over the realization, and he really did turn over a new leaf and join the forces of good.   People who want to think of themselves as informed humans, need to know this stuff is real, for similar reasons that it's important to know about nazi Germany and the holocaust. 

People need to know stuff like this is real:

Here's a good "what's real/what was invented for the movie" article: https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/sound-of-freedom/

Most of the stories told in the movie were untrue or true but so distorted that it might as well just be made up.

If I believed that people knowing this stuff happens would lead them to take steps to correct it I would agree with you that it is important. I don’t though. At least not for most people.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Grug,

Calm and Bluebell are not as you describe here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

No, they are and I’m not the only one on this board who has noticed this. Several members of this board have messaged me expressing this. 

[MustardSeed]

Just now, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, they are and I’m not the only one on this board who has noticed this. Several members of this board have messaged me expressing this. 

I don’t believe this at all . 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t believe this at all . 

Are you accusing me of lying? Because I’m not, it’s the honest truth. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Are you accusing me of lying? Because I’m not, it’s the honest truth. 

Yes I am . 
 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t believe this at all . 

They aren't giving him much (any) support in public. Cal's Gal Pals must be more intimidating than we thought.   

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, they are and I’m not the only one on this board who has noticed this. Several members of this board have messaged me expressing this. 

If they are, I hope they go public or write me privately with their concerns that they see me as gaslighting others.  I would appreciate that.  If there are multiple people who are interpreting my posts in such a way, then I could be poorly communicating and I need to take more care.  I will be blunt and why my response is not the same with you and that is because your own complaints are not convincing me I am being confusing because I have seen you interpret so many thing I and others have said incorrectly, I don’t believe for you I am the primary issue, but the assumptions you are bringing to the conversation and likely reading into my and others’ comments.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They aren't giving him much (any) support in public. Cal's Gal Pals must be more intimidating than we thought.   

Insouciance is all I can think to describe my reaction to whether or not he has buddies “backing him up.”  I just don’t believe it based on absolute absence of public support. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I hope they go public or write me privately with their concerns that they see me as gaslighting others.  I would appreciate that.

I strongly doubt they would say anything publicly. I’m sure they have no desire to have to deal with the gaslighting and ganging up that I have to deal with. And I don’t blame them. 

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will be blunt and why my response is not the same with you and that is because your own complaints are not convincing me I am being confusing because I have seen you interpret so many thing I and others have said incorrectly, I don’t believe for you I am the primary issue, but the assumptions you are bringing to the conversation and likely reading into my and others’ comments.

No, it’s not my assumptions. You have consistently openly opposed pretty much everything I say, even when it’s simply ridiculous to do so, like the joke to smac. And when I respond and defend my position the attacks and gaslighting from you and your gal pals begins.