Poll of the Day > This Sound of Freedom crap is hilarious.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like, by all means, enjoy a movie. Suggesting it's going to move the dial on child abuse? What a joke. I thought these people were the ones that shat on others for 'virtue signalling'. Plus the creators are just making bank with no proposition to actually help children. And they'll vote for politicians that defend child marriage. Great job!

I heard the movie ends with a QR code to buy tickets, instead of anything that would actually help anyone.

papercup posted...

I heard the movie ends with a QR code to buy tickets, instead of anything that would actually help anyone.

Like...to see it again???

ReturnOfFa posted...

Like...to see it again???

I guess? Or to give to other people or something? Idk.

Probably to donate money for the development of ethically-sourced adrenochrome.

It has a 100%, 4.9/5 user review score on rotten tomatoes. Quite obviously bumped up by brigading, just the inverse of a movie thats simply "regular" bad getting the worst user review scores ever.

This seems like the kind of movie wherein if you don't watch it or watched it and didn't like it some people would call you a secret groomer.

I've never heard of it and I think the best move is probably to stop talking about it and let it die in the darkness.

My sister is one of the people who was telling me this. Said she got her tickets for free too, so Im guessing this is that pay it forward thing.

acesxhigh posted...

I've never heard of it

This + I have seen several youtube videos recently about Hollywood dying due to lack of creativity or something.

acesxhigh posted...

I've never heard of it and I think the best move is probably to stop talking about it and let it die in the darkness.

I haven't seen the movie, but it does deal with child trafficking which is a serious issue(and likely has been throughout all of recorded human history). This isn't the kind of movie, to me, people need to boycott and let it die(Unlike the Matt Walsh trans documentary that 'THEY DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE' that came out a while ago).

But the super fans of this movie are seriously delusional. this isn't likely to have any noticeable effect on child trafficking. I can tell, because the comments at least to the youtube trailer all sound like keyboard warriors who I couldn't picture actually doing anything noticeable to end child trafficking except donating to a church. People are hailing this as the most important film of all time, when it just isn't. The user score was obviously highjacked on rotten tomatoes, the critic score is mid 70s.

Child trafficking is bad, but the people in these comment sections are just cringe as heck if you ask me.

Never heard of it

The biggest lesson from this film is that theres a big conservative audience thats being neglected by modern audiences.

"The MCU but everybody is a republican" would make fucking gangbusters

argonautweakend posted...

It has a 100%, 4.9/5 user review score on rotten tomatoes. Quite obviously bumped up by brigading

Not necessarily? The problem with aggregate review scoring is that it ultimately relies on a self-selected group to provide feedback.

In other words, if the only people who are going to offer audience reviews are people who've seen it, and the only people really going to see it are people who are already predisposed to like it, then you've artificially selected for positive reviews. All the people who would have reviewed it negatively never went to see it in the first place.

It's one of many reasons why Rotten Tomatoes has always been a terrible site.

Eh, that makes sense. In the negative reviews for certain things it seems like the internet hate machine latches onto something(that usually is bad in the first place but not worst of all time - of course this is all subjective) and people who didn't see it and never would give it a low rating.

I guess if 10,000 people saw this movie and like it enough to give it a perfect or near perfect score, that isn't really brigading. That does make sense. But it does clash with having a user score higher than movies that critics and fans alike would be willing to call the best ever, like The Godfather. But that's kinda why user reviews are pointless.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Not necessarily? The problem with aggregate review scoring is that it ultimately relies on a self-selected group to provide feedback.

In other words, if the only people who are going to offer audience reviews are people who've seen it, and the only people really going to see it are people who are already predisposed to like it, then you've artificially selected for positive reviews. All the people who would have reviewed it negatively never went to see it in the first place.

It's one of many reasons why Rotten Tomatoes has always been a terrible site.

While it's not the sort of unbiased analysis you can get from a double blind RCT sort of deal, I'd argue that it doesn't need to be. People going to see it aren't people that are predisposed to like it, they're people that *expect* to like it based on whatever predispositions they have and whatever impressions they've been given by promotional material and/or other forms of advertising (including other reviews). That's not a perfectly neutral audience, but it doesn't have to be. The people that are looking up reviews to determine whether or not it's going to be worth seeing are also people that expect to like it, based on their predispositions and the impressions they've had from promotional material.

More simply, audience/user reviews and aggregate scores don't answer the question "I've randomly stumbled on this thing, will I like it?", they answer the question "I think I'll probably like this thing, do other people's experiences support this?" They're written by people predisposed to liking it, but they're also written for people predisposed to liking it, and that's precisely what makes them useful.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Not necessarily? The problem with aggregate review scoring is that it ultimately relies on a self-selected group to provide feedback.

In other words, if the only people who are going to offer audience reviews are people who've seen it, and the only people really going to see it are people who are already predisposed to like it, then you've artificially selected for positive reviews. All the people who would have reviewed it negatively never went to see it in the first place.

It's one of many reasons why Rotten Tomatoes has always been a terrible site.

Well yeah. It seems strange to review a movie you haven't seen. And some genres are meant to appeal to specific groups more then others. It's like complaining that they're trying to appeal to the kindergarten set with a Bluey film and people are chiming in about how much the kiddies loved it.

Anyway I have no interest in whatever this is about. And nothing else at the movies right now are enticing me to go spend money either.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/5/0/AAFUswAAEqhe.jpg

Metalsonic66 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/5/0/AAFUswAAEqhe.jpg

I genuinely liked that movie. My mom has a thing for musicals. The only ones I remember liking were that and Pollyanna. I never got into The King and I, Carousel, or Oklahoma.

Doesnt seem like the movie really focuses at all on how most of the child molesters in our country are like, church people, coaches, doctors, family, and not nebulous strangers.

But I guess theyd alienate their conservative audience if what they said was these are the people you know.

PK_Spam posted...

Doesnt seem like the movie really focuses at all on how most of the child molesters in our country are like, church people, coaches, doctors, family, and not nebulous strangers.

But I guess theyd alienate their conservative audience if what they said was these are the people you know.

Those are just most of the exposed ones

crazyisgood posted...

Those are just most of the exposed ones

ehh, I think the magnitude is under-estimated. it's all these sick family members that can keep things secret. along with other people that are close to the children. who do you think are the 'not exposed' child traffickers?

like, the magnitude of 'regular joes' abusing children is ludicrous.
https://www.instagram.com/reichwingwatch/

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Well yeah. It seems strange to review a movie you haven't seen. And some genres are meant to appeal to specific groups more then others. It's like complaining that they're trying to appeal to the kindergarten set with a Bluey film and people are chiming in about how much the kiddies loved it.

This kind of reminds of years ago, when I was in NYC hanging out in Washington Square Park, and someone came up to me with a portable DVD player asking if I was willing to do a survey on movie trailers for market research. I said sure, and they showed me the trailer for the first Spongebob Squarepants movie.

I was like "Yeah, I don't think I'm the target audience for this, can I get a different trailer?", and they were like "No, it's random to avoid bias so I have to give you the one it gives me". So then I said "Okay, but you're going to get like zero useful feedback from me because I'm 27 and have absolutely no interest in Spongebob", but they replied with "I don't care, I'm getting paid minimum wage and just want to hit my quota." So I wound up filling out a feedback form with a lot of "I have no interest in this movie" and "This trailer didn't make me more interested in seeing this movie" type answers. Which probably gave the people doing the survey inaccurate assumptions about whether or not the trailer was any good. I'm sure if they'd show it to actual kids, they might have gotten a more positive response.

Which has always left me a bit dubious about Hollywood market research in general, because there's always a part of me that wonders what sort of audience they're bringing in to watch these movies in pre-release. If your focus group is completely random, you're going to get a lot of useless or even outright harmful feedback compared to if you actually tried to find people who were already interested in the subject matter.

ReturnOfFa posted...

ehh, I think the magnitude is under-estimated. it's all these sick family members that can keep things secret. along with other people that are close to the children. who do you think are the 'not exposed' child traffickers?

Not just children but women are abducted and sold into sexual slavery.

Its raising a lot of awareness surrounding a very real and widescale problem of children being stolen and abused/killed.

Fuck this topic and fuck your politics.

Culture War Bullshit

Supposedly there were sold out theatres of it that had zero people actually sitting in the seats. . .

gogues posted...

Supposedly there were sold out theatres of it that had zero people actually sitting in the seats. . .

Reminds me of the Captain Marvel discussions

gogues posted...

Supposedly there were sold out theatres of it that had zero people actually sitting in the seats. . .

Yeah I kept hearing about sold out showings here, but nobody I know has seen it or has any interest in seeing it.

VampireCoyote posted...

Its raising a lot of awareness surrounding a very real and widescale problem of children being stolen and abused/killed.

Fuck this topic and fuck your politics.

There's what I was looking for. It's not raising awareness dumbass. There have been other movies about child abuse, do you remember them? Everyone already knows child abuse is a massive problem.

Isn't the hypocrisy of grandstanding about this movie and then voting for folks that enshrine child marriage in law a tad hypocritical? It's almost like they...don't actually give a shit. Prove me wrong?

ReturnOfFa posted...

Isn't the hypocrisy of grandstanding about this movie and then voting for folks that enshrine child marriage in law a tad hypocritical?

So If you watched the movie your ballot is already submitted? Damn .

deoxxys posted...

So If you watched the movie your ballot is already submitted? Damn .

This movie is extremely popular among Republican voters. I'm not saying nobody else can simply enjoy it. But it's rather obvious that this movie is being frequented by Conservatives. You're not proving a point by questioning it, the majority of people supporting this movie in an evangelical way are Republican voters.

It has a lot of action

ReturnOfFa posted...

This movie is extremely popular among Republican voters. I'm not saying nobody else can simply enjoy it. But it's rather obvious that this movie is being frequented by Conservatives.

While this movie has been made an issue of politics regardless of what the contents of the movie actually are, is there any real statistics showing that its success on a relatively small budget compared to the modern Hollywood blockbuster is fueled mostly by right leaning by conservatives?

I'm sure most people who have already decided whether they like or dislike the movie from a political angle haven't even bothered watching it. This is not specific to this situation, this is common among many types of movies, including people who claim they are supporting a movie for political reasons (and those movies still end up bombing despite large amounts of online political support).

I feel like the mainstream medias initial attempt to shut this thing down accidentally "Streisand effected" it. Now people want to watch it just because they want to know what all the fuss is about.

ForteEXE3850 posted...

While this movie has been made an issue of politics regardless of what the contents of the movie actually are, is there any real statistics showing that its success on a relatively small budget compared to the modern Hollywood blockbuster is fueled mostly by right leaning by conservatives?

I'm sure most people who have already decided whether they like or dislike the movie from a political angle haven't even bothered watching it. This is not specific to this situation, this is common among many types of movies, including people who claim they are supporting a movie for political reasons (and those movies still end up bombing despite large amounts of online political support).

I feel like the mainstream medias initial attempt to shut this thing down accidentally "Streisand effected" it. Now people want to watch it just because they want to know what all the fuss is about.

I fail to see how mainstream reviews being critical constitute the 'mainstream media' attempting to 'shut this thing down'. It's being played in theatres everywhere. Can't really argue the "Streisand Effect" point though, that's fair. Plenty of movies get bad reviews. Plenty of movies get bad reviews and remain popular.

It was heavily advertised via Conservative media sources. I think it would be nonsensical to claim that the majority of viewers are not Conservative.

That one neo nazi guy who says all liberals are groomers and pedos said his ideal age for a wife is 16 lmfao

ReturnOfFa posted...

ehh, I think the magnitude is under-estimated. it's all these sick family members that can keep things secret. along with other people that are close to the children. who do you think are the 'not exposed' child traffickers?

like, the magnitude of 'regular joes' abusing children is ludicrous.
https://www.instagram.com/reichwingwatch/

every accusation is a confession, it will never not be true for these people

Zareth posted...

That one neo nazi guy who says all liberals are groomers and pedos said his ideal age for a wife is 16 lmfao

inb4"Technically it's not pedophilia if she's a teenager"

adjl posted...

inb4"Technically it's not pedophilia if she's a teenager"

That's actually scientifically true though.
And the age of consent in some states is 16 (which I find too young but whatever).
I wish they would just popularize another word.
It bothers me that someone caught in a "she was only 17" scenario is placed in the same headspace as some sicko that preys on literal children who no concept of what sex is.
It's like it all murder was treated as premeditated and heat of passion/manslaughter didn't exist.
Mind you, I know it puts me on a list for discussing such things but there's a truth to it.

ForteEXE3850 posted...

While this movie has been made an issue of politics regardless of what the contents of the movie actually are, is there any real statistics showing that its success on a relatively small budget compared to the modern Hollywood blockbuster is fueled mostly by right leaning by conservatives?

I'm sure most people who have already decided whether they like or dislike the movie from a political angle haven't even bothered watching it. This is not specific to this situation, this is common among many types of movies, including people who claim they are supporting a movie for political reasons (and those movies still end up bombing despite large amounts of online political support).

I feel like the mainstream medias initial attempt to shut this thing down accidentally "Streisand effected" it. Now people want to watch it just because they want to know what all the fuss is about.

No one has even tried to shut it down.

ForteEXE3850 posted...

I feel like the mainstream medias initial attempt to shut this thing down accidentally "Streisand effected" it. Now people want to watch it just because they want to know what all the fuss is about.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I fail to see how mainstream reviews being critical constitute the 'mainstream media' attempting to 'shut this thing down'. It's being played in theatres everywhere.

creativerealms posted...

No one has even tried to shut it down.

If it wasn't clear based on the context, I didn't mean this literally, as in, the movie being made illegal to show or view. I mean how many major media outlets are telling people the movie is terrible and you shouldn't watch or support it for various reasons, including reasons not actually related to the content of the movie itself.

AltOmega2 posted...

That's actually scientifically true though.
And the age of consent in some states is 16 (which I find too young but whatever).
I wish they would just popularize another word.
It bothers me that someone caught in a "she was only 17" scenario is placed in the same headspace as some sicko that preys on literal children who no concept of what sex is.
It's like it all murder was treated as premeditated and heat of passion/manslaughter didn't exist.
Mind you, I know it puts me on a list for discussing such things but there's a truth to it.

The age of consent being 16 does not in any way legalize adults having sex with these children.

Every idiot I've seen get criticized for preying on older teens usually ends up getting found out for pushing the boundary younger and younger. Chris D'Elia? Machine Gun Kelly? I don't hear those pedos rationalizing an attraction to older teens and then acting as if a 14-year old is out-of-bounds. If you find yourself chasing 17/16 year olds, you're still a pedo. I think you'll find that the majority of these people are not principled in any such way ie they 'care' about children. If you're trying to screw a 17 year old, you don't care about children.

and it's not fucking 'scientifically true', that's literally gross as hell

ForteEXE3850 posted...

If it wasn't clear based on the context, I didn't mean this literally, as in, the movie being made illegal to show or view. I mean how many major media outlets are telling people the movie is terrible and you shouldn't watch or support it.

There's a rather large gap between saying that a movie is terrible and saying that someone shouldn't watch or support it. Fair enough though, thanks for clarifying!

ReturnOfFa posted...

and then acting as if a 14-year old is out-of-bounds. If you find yourself chasing 17/16 year olds, you're still a pedo. I think you'll find that the majority of these people are not principled in any such way.

I get what you're saying but 14 years old ain't pedo either. We need to normalize either "hebephilia" or "ephebeophilia" to show that there's a difference and that it matters.

Wait, how is it not scientifically true? There's a biological difference. It's gross, I agree, but pretending it doesn't exist isn't the answer.

AltOmega2 posted...

I get what you're saying but 14 years old ain't pedo either. We need to normalize either "hebephilia" or "ephebeophilia" to show that there's a difference and that it matters.

Wait, how is it not scientifically true? There's a biological difference. It's gross, I agree, but pretending it doesn't exist isn't the answer.

I will suggest that the difference does not matter. Or if you want to use them for further classification, sure, but you're still under the umbrella of 'minor-attracted'. I think there should be more resources for these people, but nit-picking the classification of an adult fucking a teen isn't exactly my bag. It'd be like nitpicking someone arrested for bestiality because they only boned monkeys.

If you think a 14 or 17 year old is more 'biologically viable' than someone of adult age, that's fucking dumb, gross and wrong. Just because it was how humans biologically operated in ancient times does not mean that's how we biologically operate now. A woman's birthing canal is generally NOT suited for childbirth at the ages you're suggesting. Unless you're also a fan of infant mortality and girls dying in childbirth.

So from what I'm gathering lazily right here, Sound of Freedom is a fiction about child trafficking, Right Wingers are flocking to it? So there's nothing wrong with the movie by itself, right?

But they're posturing as the "anti-child-abuse" party right now because of their mongering over trans issues?

Someone else tell me please, someone who's already sacrificed the brain cells

ReturnOfFa posted...

I will suggest that the difference does not matter.

If you think a 14 or 17 year old is more 'biologically viable' than someone of adult age, that's fucking dumb, gross and wrong. Just because it was how humans biologically operated in ancient times does not mean that's how we biologically operate now. A woman's birthing canal is generally NOT suited for childbirth at the ages you're suggesting.

Oh, I think you misunderstood me.
I'm not one of those weirdos arguing that teenagers are more fertile or some bullshit.
For me it's just the semantics of grouping two sets of predators the same when one is way worse.

AltOmega2 posted...

It bothers me that someone caught in a "she was only 17" scenario is placed in the same headspace as some sicko that preys on literal children who no concept of what sex is.

But it is the same headspace. It's saying "I'm attracted to people that are significantly less psychologically mature than I am." Sure, there's a spectrum there, and fringe cases exist where a teenager is genuinely mature enough and/or the adult is immature enough that they can be in a relationship without there being a power imbalance (whereas such fringe cases do not exist for, say, 8-year-olds), but at the end of the day it's a matter of wanting an unequal relationship, whether it's because it's unequal or just because that's one's aesthetic preference and they don't care about what the power imbalance means for consent.

ReturnOfFa posted...

The age of consent being 16 does not in any way legalize adults having sex with these children.

Every idiot I've seen get criticized for preying on older teens usually ends up getting found out for pushing the boundary younger and younger. Chris D'Elia? Machine Gun Kelly? I don't hear those pedos rationalizing an attraction to older teens and then acting as if a 14-year old is out-of-bounds. If you find yourself chasing 17/16 year olds, you're still a pedo. I think you'll find that the majority of these people are not principled in any such way ie they 'care' about children. If you're trying to screw a 17 year old, you don't care about children.

and it's not fucking 'scientifically true', that's literally gross as hell

What did Machine Gun Kelly do?

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/amp/

seems like people criticizing the film mainly have an issue with it not being representative of the vast majority of sex trafficking, and how that can influence public perception that can then negatively impact real victims

which like.. ok.. it's some action film. but claiming to be really important and making a difference ain't it

also the actor and people in the film going off on the qanon conspiracy about adrenochrome or whatever bull..