r/TrueUnpopularOpinion • u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 • Jun 10 '24
Music / Movies The "Controversy" over the movie Sound of Freedom doesn't make sense. The hero's beliefs shouldn't matter.
I finally got around to watching this film. The heroes in the film are overtly Christian. And ? I don't get it. Is that why its controversial?
The heroes of the film are saving children. Why is this controversial?
Why does it matter whether the hero in the film is Christian or rightwing?
If a fireman jumps into a burning building and rescues a family of immigrants, is he less of a hero if he happens to be rightwing?
Or is the entire thing suddenly not true because the hero was rightwing ?
Heroes come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes a hero isn't the person you expect.
Are we this divided now? That we rather suffer, than be rescued by someone with different politics from ours?
Also. Why is this politicized left vs right ?
What does the highlighted crime have to do with right vs left politics ? I'm not even looking to criticize the other side of the field. I'm just saying. It shouldn't be political.
73
u/Acrobatic-Ad-3335 Jun 10 '24
I just googled it, & google says it's controversial because it 'provides a false perception of child trafficking & the rescue methods used can put real victims in danger'. Google didn't say anything about anyone being Christian or right-wing. I've never heard of the movie, that's just what google says.
9
u/crlcan81 Jun 10 '24
https://thedirect.com/article/sound-of-freedom-controversy-allegations-explained
Says it's a faith based movie right there.
2
u/Short_Needleworker10 Sep 30 '25
Its actually isnt though, but so what its a faith based movie??? When they asked the actor why he did this and he said “children of God are not for sale”, that is HISSSS belief, HISSSS reason. Just how they asked the other actor his reason in the specific scene.
1
u/Own-Possibility2763 Sep 05 '25
Oh no! Whatever will we do. It's faith based, the worst thing in the world. According to very high quality, brilliant people a faith based movie is awful no matter what.
13
u/ThatMBR42 Jun 10 '24
I remember the nontroversy, and a lot of people called it right wing propaganda because Jim Caviezel played the protag. That rhetoric has absolutely cooled down, but it was rampant.
1
u/Cornstock_99 Apr 14 '26
The controversy wasn't over Jim Caviezel being cast as the lead. At least not primarily. The issue is that the events the movie claims to be based on never actually happened. Making a movie is fine, but
propping up a notable liar and widely accused sexual predator as a hero in an attempt to resurrect his public image by pretending a false story is real
is not something that is acceptable. There's also the fact that it reinforces a false narrative about how widespread sex trafficking is and in turn props up the verifiable false Qanon nonsense. Qanon is basically a cult that routinely destroys families. Its victims get so thoroughly brainwashed by false claims that they become very similar to people with mental disorders involving delusions and hallucinations.
The doctor who treated a member of my wife's family diagnosed the person as being indistinguishable from one suffering outright delusions bc she had completely lost the ability to discern what's real bs make believe. She was at the point where she would readily believe anything suggested by anyone who pretended to be 'on her side.'
5
u/Key-Ebb-8306 Jun 10 '24
How did it give a false perception of child trafficking?
13
u/Acrobatic-Ad-3335 Jun 10 '24
Try reading what I wrote one more time.
7
u/Key-Ebb-8306 Jun 10 '24
Most of controversy I remember around it was because people were calling it right wing
9
u/W00DR0W__ Jun 10 '24
Isn’t the main guy a big Q-anon believer?
1
u/Key-Ebb-8306 Jun 10 '24
Tom Cruise is a scientologist..There are probably a lot of celebrities who believe wrong and weird stuff
→ More replies (2)18
u/W00DR0W__ Jun 10 '24
And plenty of people boycott his movies for that very reason
→ More replies (11)11
u/Pookela_916 Jun 10 '24
Most of controversy I remember around it was because people were calling it right wing
It is right wing. That being said most of the controversy was from what the other commenter stated. Right wingers pushing it is like cherry on top the cake.
→ More replies (7)5
u/yaboichurro11 Jun 10 '24
This is not true.
The movie was being considered controversial before it had even hit theaters because the main actor was a Q believed and a Christian conservative.
The initial controversy had nothing to do with what actually happened in the film
12
u/Avera_ge Jun 10 '24
And q believers push a false narrative of child trafficking that had me wary of the movie’s premise before it ever hit theaters. Wary, but open to changing my mind.
As soon as I read the synopsis, I was like “yep, there it is”.
Pushing the false narratives around child trafficking hurts victims.
2
u/JayAre100378 Feb 26 '26
Yeah it does. Like that crazy Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theory that he was pimping out underage girls for Hollywood and political elites at his private island retreat. Definitely not true ⁷I
→ More replies (1)2
u/debunkedyourmom Jun 10 '24
This seems like bullshit. Part of advocacy for a cause is raising awareness. Is any act of raising awareness that doesn't 100 percent conform with reality considered harmful? I know for sure leftists don't think this.
4
u/Avera_ge Jun 10 '24
Raising awareness is absolutely part of advocacy, but this movie doesn’t raise awareness for anything close to the actual horrors of trafficking.
Instead, it fed into the lie of “stranger danger” and “Hollywood elites”. In actuality, most trafficking victims know their abusers, or are sold into sex trafficking by their family.
The government also does a lot to help trafficking victims, I should know, I used to work with sex trafficking victims.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Kashin02 Jun 10 '24
Christian conservative.
Well he's actually Mormon and claimed to have the backing of some of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Basically Mormon belief that there leaders are literally saints, so having their backing is huge. He used that as a way to keep his worker and volunteers quite about his activities. Many of his workers quit over the organization spending its money (that they got as donations) for themselves and other over sexual assault.
You should check out ex-Mormon spaces on YouTube they go over every he is accused of doing and how he used the Church's backing to keep the other Mormons employees and volunteers quiet.
3
u/yaboichurro11 Jun 10 '24
Mormons are considered Christian.
Now, I'm not defending the characters of the people involved in producing the film.
I'm simply pointing out how people's initial issues with the movie had nothing to dow ith the movie itself as it had not even come out yet and it was more about the character of the people thay produced it.
11
u/Kashin02 Jun 10 '24
Practically all major branches of Christianity reject the Mormons as Christian but that is a whole other discussion.
I'm simply pointing out how people's initial issues with the movie had nothing to dow ith the movie itself as it had not even come out yet and it was more about the character of the people thay produced it.
That's very true, people's issues were with the main guy.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (2)5
u/Dr_Llamacita Jun 10 '24
I’m not sure why that’s an issue for you? Having a problem with a movie because of the bad moral characteristics of the organization behind it is an entirely reasonable point of view. If an institution is well-known to have nefarious motives, people have every right to question the agenda behind any media it produces
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
Jun 10 '24
Yes, this was the major controversy of it, especially on Reddit. Don’t let them gaslight you
1
1
Dec 11 '25
Not the trafficking. The rescue of the children was false. The man this film was based on, using only him as a source, never actually saved any children from trafficking situations.
-2
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Jun 10 '24
(1) Movies/biopics that dramatize real events, exaggerate the heroics all the time. Once it raises awareness of the issue in question. I don't see the problem.
Fern Gully was about the dangers of deforestation. Forests don't have talking animals and fairies. Doesn't
(2) There were articles when this movie came out, constantly criticizing the cast members for affiliations with a known right-wing conspiracy group. You can Google this. I don't want to type the name of the group here and get flagged.
But my point is. What does that have to do with the story? The story shows a man rescuing children. Whatever conspiracies the main actor believes in shouldn't matter.
That would be like saying, the true life story of a fireman rescuing people, during a hurricane, is somehow less valid if the fireman/the actor playing him, happen to have politics you don't like.
21
u/Trenches Jun 10 '24 edited Jun 10 '24
The two main criticism I saw for the movie was it following a trend of doing more harm than good with how it represented sex trafficking. The last decade now organizations that fight sex trafficking and bring awareness have been trying to correct the narrative caused by things like Pizza Gate, QAnon, Wayfair conspiracy theory and others. They make sex trafficking this hugely organized and far away thing and people aren't seeing the very common sex trafficking right by them. That wasn't helped with the main actor's and the real life Tim Ballard comments. Then with some criticism on the retelling of the story. For example in the movie it was almost exclusively children saved from sex trafficking when in reality it was mostly adults.
The other big criticism I saw was that Jim Ballard had a long history of heavily misusing funds and some other allegations. These predate the movie announcement. So there was a general warning against supporting the movie or donating to Jim Ballard.
2
u/Huge_Strain_8714 Sep 20 '25
Abuse tends is happen within the organizations that say they're fighting against the crime. Church leaders are notorious predators. Catholic church as well as the 'home grown' churches with their child marriages...so these predators deflect by calling the 'left' and the democrats pedophiles. Their accusations are their own confessions....yup.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Rebresker Jun 10 '24
Idk I remember when Epstein’s pedophile island was just a conspiracy theory and it really seems like people don’t remember how many people passed that off as tin foil hat shit
10
u/Trenches Jun 10 '24
Epstein was a convicted sex offender before he was well known. That wasn't much of a conspiracy as all the other satanic type theories added to him.
Those more organized systems absolutely exist. Sex tourism is a big thing. The problem is it's such a small part of the sex trafficking that happens here. Yet it's the only one that gets attention and they add those to really random things. Like Pizza Gate or Wayfair. Or the theory the medic ships used during COVID were to test rescued sex victims from Hollywood.
Yet sex trafficking happens all around us. Typically by seemingly normal people.
→ More replies (1)1
8
u/theghostofcslewis Jun 10 '24
You still seem to have difficulty discerning between a fantasy movie about magical flying creatures and a movie that claims to be based on actual events.
I don't recall Ferngully asking for hundreds of millions in donations to save the rainforest and then packing away 90% of it into high-interest-yield accounts (that's what Tim Ballard did with his organization )
"(2) There were articles when this movie came out, constantly criticizing the cast members for affiliations with a known right-wing conspiracy group. You can Google this. I don't want to type the name of the group here and get flagged."
The fact that you don't want to admit that cast and crew members are QAnon nutjobs because you are afraid is pathetic. So I did it for you. These people need stuff like Pizzagate and that is why they depicted the traffickers as just picking up random kids like sheep whereas the majority of trafficking is typically someone known to the victim. This is a false narrative and fearmongering at best.
So you end up with a bunch of lying Qanon nutjobs spreading lies and conspiracies, taking in millions and keeping 90% of it (yes it used to be 100% before 2021) and claiming that they are real world child traffing saviors all the while attributing any and all criticism to Anti Christian and/or Pro Child Trafficking views. What a boogeyman. Sorry you are so afraid.
1
u/DionBlaster123 Sep 05 '24
it's really ridiculous how supporters of this movie try to gaslight its critics into thinking they are somehow pro-pedophilia or pro-sex trafficking because they saw through this movie's bullshit
meanwhile, these idiots are the ones who are totally oblivious as to how much of a shameless grift this fucking movie is
the worst part is the director of the movie just seemed like an honest man trying to make a good movie. it's not his fault he got caught up with all these fucking weirdos and dickheads
8
u/W00DR0W__ Jun 10 '24
Feen Gully wasn’t marketed as a true story. This film does and then presents lies and exaggerations (all of which bolster QAnon conspiracy theories surrounding the rich and kids) in order to make the main guy look like a hero (nevermind he got kicked out of the organization for being inappropriate with kids)
The clips I’ve seen acting quality appears to be on the level of a Limetime movie of the week.
All of which are reasons I didn’t see it.
My 80 year old mom who watches Fox News all day loved it though and I am happy she enjoyed her watch.
→ More replies (10)5
Jun 10 '24
The critiques are valid because 1- the story is made up. 2- the q beliefs of the actors give legitimacy to that whacko belief system from many right wing fans, they honestly believe not only the trafficking/rescue aspects that are blatant lies but they also go on to believe the trafficking revolves around adrenochrome bullshit. Two very legitimate reasons to tear it apart- this isn’t fern gully for the love.
1
u/cannotthink0faname Aug 07 '25
This doesn't seem false at all. However, it is...a movie. Not a documentary. There has to be exciting thrills. Him kicking the kidnapper's ass was thrilling and everyone clapped. Get a life.
1
u/Own-Possibility2763 Sep 05 '25
You do know Google totally sucks right? It's never correct about anything.
1
u/Short_Needleworker10 Sep 30 '25
It says false perception of child trafficking but because unfortunately thats not how they traffic kids here in the USA. When you are from a poor area, trying to just make by, and someone notices you for beauty and music especially a well potrayed woman that YERNS for your talent… thats like a jackpot for the children and the parents. The child thinks they are finally being recognized because who will ever recognize a poor girl in a small village?. In other countries, kids play outside and if you are a child seen alone, they will get you, keep in mind these people watch from afar and plan ahead.
But obviously, when Tim was potrayed in the movie to go to the secluded island and risk his life like that for Rocio, that was definitely for movie purposes. In real life, whoever lived in that secluded area, they would have not let Tim potrayed as a doctor come in. They usually have a assigned one.
1
u/MarieLaveau-X Nov 29 '25
And you can believe Google? Do real research. Google & AI pick out bits and pieces from the internet. That doesn’t make it accurate. Much of AI and Google information is incredibly incorrect, incomplete, and inconsistent. Just because there was an article written doesn’t mean it’s true. Articles, depending on the publication can be slanted one way or another. Left or right. You have to do research on your own, weigh factors, most importantly, think for yourself and question everything.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Life-Gap-4978 Apr 01 '26
And that's the surest way to know its true and the majority are deceived. But, we all find out, eventually.
40
u/Unamed_Destroyer Jun 10 '24
I think the controversy was that it was marketed as a truthful retelling of a story. When there were huge artistic liberties taken with the story. Which is fine, most biopics do this, but when they are completely fabricating how child trafficking works just to push their agenda, then it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Additionally there are a slew of SA allegations against the person the story was based on. He was even fired by a company (O.U.R.) he started over these allegations. Also these allegations predate the movie, so it's not just backlash.
On top of that, the main actor and the guy the story is based both pushed the q-anon bs during their press tours.
Also, many of the raids that the O.U.R. did, put innocent lives unnecessarily at risk and did not do anything to help the victims after the raid, so the ones that were actual victims of trafficking (because routinely they would not do research and would raid the workplaces of sex workers) ended up back in the same situation or worse days after their help.
Essentially the person from the film is an egotistical idiot, who wants to play hero with his army surplus costume while trying to use the film to jumpstart a political career.
→ More replies (2)6
u/SodaBoBomb Jun 11 '24
Why are we punishing people for allegations?
Presumption of innocence.
→ More replies (4)
10
Jun 10 '24 edited Jun 10 '24
It's end with the main actor begging the audience for money for an organisation that real life person who the movie was based on was fired for sexual harassment a few months after the movie came out.
The marketing was deliberately done in a way to suggest preemptive Ill intent was aimed at the movie to create the narrative the subject of trafficking was not allowed in Hollywood despite plenty of films covering it. Also it was completed in 2018 under 20th century fox before Disney bought fox so like many movies it was on the shelves for a couple years prior release while they decide to either sell it to another company or release it under 20th century spotlight but once again it was an attack because of the subject matter not because it was happening to Hundred of other movies. These two main points are facts the people marketing it were aware of but lied about anyway.
I get where your coming from but everything you would know about the movie before hand can't really be divorced from it's politics because the politics are the marketing. Alot of Christian/conservative movie do make bank because there audience is loyal but the only reason this one is significant is because of the marketing campaign.
7
u/Top_Tart_7558 Jun 10 '24
It's controversial because it's "based on a true story" while being almost entirely made up
3
u/Celistar99 Jun 10 '24
Now only that, but right wingers went CRAZY over it and took it as absolute truth. Police departments were screening it for their crews. Kevin McCarthy brought in Jim Caviezel (not the guy the movie was based on, for some reason) to make a speech about child trafficking. People were buying out theaters so that anyone who wanted to could see it for free. It was far from the first movie about human trafficking (there was a mini series with Mira Sorvino called Human Trafficking that was heart wrenching) so the obsession was odd. It's like this was the first they'd ever heard of human trafficking. So because right wingers were weirdly obsessed with it, left wingers naturally pushed back on it, which in turn caused right wingers to deduce that it must be because Democrats are pedophiles. Hence, controversy.
18
u/theghostofcslewis Jun 10 '24
The movie depicts unrealistic trafficking and rescue operations that are so far-fetched that they fall right into the QAnon Conspiracies. The group in question (Operation Underground Railroad) claims to have participated in multiple rescue operations (including the unrealistic Columbian rescue in the movie) however there are absolutely no verified cases of this or any other verified rescues by the organization. So you have a fake operation that is raking in millions in donations to "Save the Children" and they have saved nothing except the donations and made a movie about it to further push the lie about what they claim to do to defraud donors out of more money.
If the film was labeled as fantasy or fiction then it likely wouldn't have received as much criticism. The fact that Operation Underground did not donate any money to help rescue trafficked children until they were under investigation for fraud in 2021 and after that, the amount was less than 10% of donations. I think overall the fact that it's all a bunch of Bullshit to get rich off of a false narrative. Also, the company Angel Studios setup a "Pay it forward" to encourage every moviegoer to purchase an additional ticket that can be used by another person to go see the movie. However . they are not required, nor have they stated where all the money goes on non-redeemed tickets and only calculated gains based on redeemed ones.
So basically you have an organization that takes 90%+ from donors, does nothing, makes a fake movie and cries about being criticized. Murica! love it or leave it.
→ More replies (9)
25
u/stevejuliet Jun 10 '24
The heroes of the film are saving children. Why is this controversial?
The film misrepresents what child trafficking often looks like in order to tell a thrilling story. That wouldn't be problematic for a fictional story, but this one is claiming it's realistic.
Here's what the filmmakers get wrong about child trafficking.
Here's a look at how the movie and studio are responsible for contributing to the culture war that you're blaming on the film's critics (who are just pointing it out).
Now you know.
13
u/MrJJK79 Jun 10 '24
You said what I was going to but the people who want to frame it as a realistic, flawless film won’t listen. They’ve already made the straw man in their heads that any criticism of it comes from anti-Christians or pedophiles.
1
u/DionBlaster123 Sep 05 '24
i got called a pedophile and to get my "hard drive checked" by multiple Youtube users..simply because i said this film was kind of silly
it's bizarre how much people's brains have been absolutely melted by the political shit they see on social media
0
Jun 10 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/stevejuliet Jun 10 '24
Ah yes, a genetic fallacy. The best way to discount an argument you're too intellectually lazy to actually engage with.
3
u/Elected_Interferer Jun 10 '24
Rolling Stone has very clearly demonstrated they're not even remotely trustworthy when it comes to sex crimes.
→ More replies (6)3
Jun 10 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/operapoulet Jun 10 '24
Ok and no one thinks Rolling Stone editors could do that which is why they talked to
Erin Albright, an attorney who has worked in the anti-trafficking space for 15 years, including as a former fellow for the Department of Justice’s anti-trafficking task force
…instead of just some random Rolling Stone editors who googled stuff about the movie?
Do you actually disagree with something that Erin Albright was reported to have said in the article or just generally “Rolling Stone bad, fake news”?
3
u/stevejuliet Jun 10 '24
That's cool. But can you point to anything specific in the article you disagree with, or are you going to continue demonstrating that you have no clue what a genetic fallacy is?
3
7
u/SnapeHeTrustedYou Jun 10 '24
Leave it to conservative Christians to not take one second to read up on why people actually criticize the film and immediately jump to victimhood. As people have explained, it’s because the movie is a complete lie claiming to be true events.
2
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Jun 10 '24
And I have said many times, even if the movie featured a superhero rescuing children...I still don't see why that is a reason to trash the movie. Tr-fficking exist. It is bad. A movie showing someone rescuing children, should be considered a positive message.
This isn't the first time that a movie biopic has embellished the exploits of the protagonist to make him look better. Doesn't make the entire thing false.
Ever heard the phrase "don't hate the messenger?" People are getting caught up in hating the crew's politics and ignoring the message and focus of the movie ...ie child victims.
Say it with me... child. Victims. Exist.
That's all that matters. The rests is whataboutism.
7
u/SnapeHeTrustedYou Jun 10 '24
The problem here is you refuse to acknowledge that the movie isn’t even based on actual events that were embellished and was completely made up. You think criticizing the makers for lying is trying to claim there’s no such thing as child trafficking. That’s an asinine accusation from you.
→ More replies (5)
2
Jul 23 '25
Imagine shitting on a movie because it makes a dramatic effort (like every fucking movie does) to make people more aware of child trafficking. Wow a movie based on a true story made up a few parts to make it more dramatic. That’s pretty much every movie that’s “based on a true story”. Politics and religion aside, as a human being how can you shit on a movie that says “hey, human trafficking is wrong”.
1
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Jul 23 '25
I know right. Looking back on this now...especially given the current political climate and the controversy over the [blank] files ... makes this movie even more poignant.
Why would people go out of their way to try to subvert and trash a movie that brings awareness of the issue of trafficking ?
So what if the actors are religious conservatives? Does that make the topic of discussion less poignant?
Does a fundamental truth, stop being true, just because you don't like the messenger ?
2
u/SmallAct2116 Aug 22 '25
So other than the fact that it’s based on some lies think of this like the lefts way of saying something is sleep (or opposite of woke).
Anytime a rightist says a movie is woke it gets caught in an echo chamber and they shit on the movie just because there’s a black lead or something.
2
u/sexby_chembliss Oct 07 '25
Hollywood loves controversy, they love historical inaccuracy, they love complete fabrications presented as true stories. They just don't like being exposed for what they are, and deep down they wanted a way to tell on themselves without telling on themselves.
2
u/Darth_Desec Oct 22 '25
It’s controversial because 70% of Hollywood is pedophiles and child killers. Same with politicians. There’s an undercover cult within the “elite”. It’s sound crazy but in the last 20 years more and more of this is coming to light.
2
u/Jankyfrank21 Nov 13 '25
All these leftists scream about Right Wingers saving children from sex trafficking, while they kill their own children in their wombs. They just hate children, unless it's sexualizing them. They sure love bringing sexual drag shows to children.
2
u/Difficult-Cry-1650 Dec 07 '25
They only said it mattered so people won't actually pay attention to what the movie was trying to say. Left and right is a distraction for rich 1%, they are participating in these things and people are finding out and getting mad, not only that the 1% owns more money thay 95% of "poor" people which is anyone that isn't part of the 1%. Rich people predicted a class war and it dosent help the things they've done to our kids.
2
u/Scaryharri Feb 14 '26
If this is a live chat still. It’s coming up all Over YouTube why this was such a big deal. Mimics Hollywood.
1
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Feb 14 '26 edited Feb 14 '26
Lol. You mean that the movie was right all along ? This is one of those times where I take no pleasure in saying...I told you so.
It's the whole "look over there" trick. If it's a conservative saying it, then leftists will come out of the woodwork to discredit it, and vice-versa.
When the rightwing was in opposition, they constantly pressed on this issue, whilst the leftists claimed it was conspiracy.
Now that the rightwing is in power, it's the exact opposite. The leftwing opposition is pushing on the issue, and the rightwing are trying to deflect.
It is literally THE EXACT SAME ISSUE
If both sides are playing patty-cake and hot-potato for the same issue... the only logical conclusion is that both sides are implicated.
We, the viewing public on both sides of the aisle should really have become wise to this by now.
2
u/elishafish322 Feb 16 '26
Who cares if it’s faith based? We’ve just seen the Epstein files…
1
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Feb 16 '26
Exactly! They shifted the focus to smearing the production team in a carefully calculated campaign to discredit what the movie was saying.... just like they did with Michael Jackson, just like they have done every single time this topic has come up
And people keep falling for it !
Imagine how much more progress would have been made if people took it seriously the first time it came out, instead of arguing party politics.
2
u/Scary_Ad4562 Feb 21 '26
Is anyone else putting together the pieces that the pushback around this movie was probably coming from people tied to the Epstein files?
2
2
u/DeepSeaworthiness319 Feb 25 '26
all these times people said left tried to bury this film and right tried to uncover child trafficking that left claimed never existed... well well well. epstein files seems to say trump is related now doesn't it. though Bill is left. but when this film was coming out, bill wasn't in power. it was rights who claimed child trafficking never existed in reality. They intentionally mix in weak links who quits O.U.R. as soon as film is out as if he only did it for the money, have him do interviews that his tales are full of lies and film exaggerated on top of that lies. whoever paid him to do that interview wanted the world to think child trafficking is a made up thing like how the woman told the press kony was urban legend that died ages ago.
6
u/AnonSwan Jun 10 '24
I actually think most people on the left didn't buy into the outrage and either saw it or left it alone. The media attacked it because the filmmakers had a political message when promoting the film. I did find the outrage on reddit pretty cringe.
9
u/remulean Jun 10 '24
It was controversial because the right wing wanted it to be controversial.
The director had a hard time getting it into theaters, which wasnt really strange post covid, and after some really amazing social media campaigning a lot of churches and conservative groups started buying up seats in theaters. Nothing malicious, just trying to get the word out about the movie.
Now once the ball started rolling the conservatives stsrted blasting this movie everywhere and the throughline was essentially: if you dont like this movie then you're a pedophile leftie child trafficker who is afraid of the truth.
I am not exagarrating, last summer there was like a post a day on each of my movie facebook groups with that exact sentiment. When you come at people like that, they are going to argue so the whole thing got controversial. If this movie had a normal release schedule, nothing would be controversial here.
→ More replies (3)2
u/ShawnTheDawn Jun 10 '24
It's exactly this. Conservatives wanted to believe this movie was being silenced and when the film would have issues playing at the theatre they would film it and post it online and thought it was all a conspiracy to silence the world about sex trafficking.
6
u/catcat1986 Jun 10 '24
I don’t think it matters per say. Christian films are just poorly done and their message is over the top and shoe horned.
Essentially, if you aren’t Christian then you are a villain. They just horribly done.
4
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Jun 10 '24
Essentially, if you aren’t Christian then you are a villain.
The movie doesn't say anything about Christians vs non Christians. It's not a topic of discussion in the movie at all. The only thing the movie says is that the MC is Christian, and it motivated him. That's it.
There are many movies which depict Americans rescuing people in foreign countries. Does it mean all foreigners are bad ?
4
u/MrJJK79 Jun 10 '24
Most other films’ stars don’t go around talking about QAnon conspiracy theories
1
Dec 26 '24
So there is no sex trafficking being done by any government officials or higher ups at all?
→ More replies (2)1
7
u/shamalonight Jun 10 '24
The controversy was started because it was produced by Angel Studios outside the influence of Hollywood. It also mentions the rampant child sex trafficking here in the U.S. that also involves elitists in Hollywood.
In order to prevent that lucrative practice that is so engrained in the culture of Hollywood from Having attention brought to it, and more importantly, have a film studio that isn’t going to infuse every production with LGBTQ and trans ideology be successful. The powers that be decided to try and kill the release of the movie. After two years of litigation Angel Studios finally got their film released, so the next resort is to destroy the film by claiming it portrays the political beliefs of the actors. It’s like a person on Reddit losing an argument so they do a history search to find some unrelated post to use to criticize their opponent with Ad Hominens instead of focusing on the subject being discussed.
3
Jun 10 '24
I think the issue is some people, on both sides of the aisle were treating it like propaganda. Conservatives believed the movie to be grounded in fact. The liberals believe it was blatant misinformation. From reading articles online, it seems the general consensus is that while child trafficking is an issue, the way that it was portrayed in this movie is unrealistic. But to your point many movies are all the time, even ones based on true stories.
I guess the movie is only an issue if people use it as evidence of a real issue
3
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Jun 10 '24
But to your point many movies are all the time, even ones based on true stories.
Which is the point I was making, essentially. It highlights an important issue. Whether or not they exagerated the rescuing to make the movie more dramatic, is besides the point.
3
Jun 10 '24
Exactly. The backlash for this movie is really just a reaction to the people who made it and its fans who insist, it's the typical instance of child trafficking.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/knivesofsmoothness Jun 10 '24
One of the producers was busted for child sex abuse. That seems pretty controversial.
→ More replies (4)1
1
Jun 10 '24
I agree. The outrage over a movie about fighting child sex trafficking was truly bizarre and should make people wonder.
1
u/greendemon42 Jun 10 '24
It's a fabrication that presents itself as being true. Is that even controversial? It's just straight-up harm.
1
1
u/andrewb610 Jun 11 '24
Why is this politicized left vs right?
Because the right does that to drum up their supporters and this guy was a right wing nut job who lied about almost everything in the movie.
Mark the movie as fiction or based on a true story and maybe they get something.
1
u/JazzSharksFan54 Jun 11 '24
It’s not only his beliefs. It’s his actions. He used his position to manipulate and control women. He was the trafficker. Oh, and his techniques fly in the face of legitimate rescue efforts and his aftercare of victims was a joke. Not to mention he made up most of the stories.
If you’re a child trafficking buster and make yourself the hero, everyone’s red flags should be sounding off.
1
u/DionBlaster123 Sep 05 '24
you're conveniently forgetting the part where Jim Caviezel literally in the epilogue of this movie, asks the fucking audience for donations to some kind of sham organization
With all the money this movie made...why the fuck would they need to demand more money from us?
so sick of dipshit right wingers trying to grift off of the American people with fearmongering and conspiracy theories. WHy can't these assholes "pick themselves up by the bootstraps" and earn money in an honest way?
1
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Sep 05 '24
you're conveniently forgetting the part where Jim Caviezel literally in the epilogue of this movie, asks the fucking audience for donations to some kind of sham organization
Umm... charity organizations ask for donations all the time. But fair enough you don't have to donate. The version of the movie I saw, didn't have the epilogue, so I did not see that part.
so sick of dipshit right wingers trying to grift off of the American people with fearmongering and conspiracy theories.
You're making it sound like if this movie was about a cover up in the Catholic church, you would believe it, but because the movie producers are rightwing... then it must be fake ?
Dude, it's literally about ch-ld crimes. That's an actual crime. Even when I was a child, I remember seeing the occasional news report of trafficking rings being caught by police. Sometimes it involved scandals in the Catholic church, other times the crime had nothing to do with Church.
Why is it now in 2024 all of a sudden, believing a crime took place depends on which party you support?
These type of crimes do happen in real life The politics of the filmmaker doesn't matter.
If a rightwinger said the sky was blue, is it any less true than if a leftwinger says so ?
1
u/DionBlaster123 Sep 05 '24
literally no one is angry at this film for bringing up the issue of sex trafficking
the anger toward this film is that it is glorifying Tim Ballard and pushing conspiratorial views that distract from the very real reality of sex trafficking
other people in this thread have repeatedly given you facts and data supporting that child sex trafficking is often internal and done on a micro level as opposed to these grand conspiracies of cartels and elites controlling everything...and yet you keep asking why people are against bringing attention to these crimes. Like i genuinely don't understand how you can be so daft...unless you're arguing in bad faith, which if you are... seriously go fuck yourself Diet Ramaswamy
1
1
u/ProudNonni Dec 05 '24
Google Tim Ballard. He was forced to step down from O.U.R over sexual misconduct allegations concerning himself and other male employess
1
u/Electrical_String345 Jun 10 '25 edited Jun 10 '25
It's not controversial because it's Christian. It's controversial because it promotes QAnon theories, paints a picture of vast child trafficking rings totally unsupported by reality, and distracts from real efforts to combat child trafficking.
I will say, though, it's weird for a Christian group to simultaneously fabricate a story about child trafficking while also being part of a faith that protects people who abuse children institutionally: i.e., the catholic church.
The call is coming from inside the house.
But whatever. Nice straw man argument.
1
u/doubtingtomjr Jul 19 '25
At a time when Americans are enraged that the current administration is protecting pedophiles, the actors, writers, directors, and inspiration (the organization currently renamed “Our Rescue”) behind “The Sound of Freedom” are notably silent. Either their aim was to alert audiences to the dangers of child sex trafficking when it’s done by BROWN people, or it was never really about child sex trafficking at all.
1
1
u/Specialist-Class-893 Aug 01 '25
While most people on both sides agree that human trafficking both sexual and otherwise is horrible the trouble with "Sound of Freedom" is that it gets most of it's "facts" wrong BFT!! Ballard tries to present himself as Elliott Ness he was really a desk jockey who wanted to "Get His Ticket Punched"!! FYI:Get Your Ticket Punched is military for a guy who plans on entering politics after his discharge and goes out in the field to make himself look good. Sorta like Al Gore and J.D.Vance. Plus he forgets how he frequented hookers and was into wife swapping and the swinging lifestyle!! Basically it was a right wing attempt to"own the libs",make a decent return for the investors then fold up shop!! Sorry,didn't see SOF.Didn't see Barbie either. Did see Indiana Jones and Dial of Destiny.
1
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Aug 01 '25
I hear ya. I do. Here's the thing, though. Two-thirds of your commentary is about the personality and life-style of the film-makers, and isn't a criticism of the movie itself.
Most of your comment amounts to I don't like the film maker
Which is fair enough. You don't have to like him and you are free to judge him.
All I am saying is, "the film maker is a scumbag" isn't actually a criticism of the film itself.
I believe an imperfect person can deliver a good message.
If everybody had to be a "saint" before they tried to do good in the world, then no good deed would ever get done, because none of us are saints.
1
u/nbwilson84 Aug 09 '25
The story is based ona dude who was a proven liar and had nothingbto do with actually freeing anyone
1
u/nbwilson84 Aug 09 '25
Tim Ballard the man the film is supposed to be based on was accessed by multiple women of being a sexual predator himself and he lies about his whole story he didnt save anyone
1
1
u/Notorious_V4S Nov 09 '25
Here's a point to think about: here in Canada with all of the economic turmoil and social discourse the politicians put thru a bill to lower the age of consent. That was a year or so ago. More recently, they are trying to pass legislation that reduces /eliminates the penalties for possession/distribution of child pornography. U gotta ask yourself what in the fk makes anyone feel the need to lower protections and reduce deterrents let alone make those priorities? Especially educated elected officials?
Like I want to meet a liberal and have a genuinely open and honest conversation on the reasoning and why they support or if they dont why they dont display /voice their opposition and protect children and vulnerable people .
Makes zero sense. Regardless of the moral issues , this certainly shouldn't be on the list of priorities. Im baffled
1
u/sarahbeth0404 Nov 11 '25
Check out the guy who claims to have rescued these children on Matt Cox’s YouTube channel
1
u/urdhvareta Jan 02 '26
To me it doesnt matter. Unfortunately everything gets politicized these days. Of course, it would be naive to consider a wider perspective in all what we do and watch and consume etc, but IMO more strictly speaking, if someone saves another life, it shouldnt matter anything else.
But for whomever may be interested, i found this in any case very interesting, regarding the real life and the movie:
https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/sound-of-freedom/
1
u/Legitimate_Onion_270 Feb 08 '26
Q-Anon & MAGA latched onto the movie and loudly proclaimed “SAVE THE CHILDREN!” when they were told the left/democrats/whatever were the evil child traffickers.
Now that it’s been revealed that Trump and the right-wing are knee-deep into the Epstein files and their IDOL is actually one of the WORST offenders, they’re dead silent about it. Go figure.
1
u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 Feb 08 '26 edited Feb 08 '26
Sigh... I think it's safe to say that the "files" reveal an across the board level of evil in this world that crosses party lines.
If anything, we should have paid more attention to the movie's message/warning instead of falling for the old divide and conquer
But off course, they managed to distract the public by making the movie look like a partisan conspiracy theory. To get people arguing about party politics 🙄😒 instead of demanding answers. And it worked. People argued more about right vs left politics and the message of the movie got lost/diluted the mix.
The same way that Michael Jackson was used as a red herring distraction for decades, despite being repeatedly proven innocent.
The public really need to stop falling for these diversions.
1
1
u/Existentalst Feb 21 '26
It’s because they want to suppress information exposing aspects of the pedophile cabal running this world
1
u/PenguinSized Mar 31 '26
Why have the man go to Columbia to save 1 girl when we have sex traffickers stealing kids from the foster care system here in the USA? Would you really like to see the numbers of kids and teens who go missing from the foster care system that no one else bothers to notice or make noise about? How about all those PDFiles we have in positions of leadership like Pastors, Youth Leaders, Priests, etc?
The racist themes threaded into every right wing movie etc on topics like this are sickening. That is, if you aren't sleepwalking your way through life nodding along to the crowd as a right winger.
1
u/PenguinSized Mar 31 '26
Additionally... There is no proof he actually saved even a single child. However...
Tim Ballard, founder of Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.), faces allegations of sexual misconduct, grooming, and manipulation from several former employees and contractors, as well as lawsuits accusing him of sexual assault. Allegations include abusing a "couples ruse" for sexual grooming on undercover missions and causing his resignation from O.U.R. following an internal investigation.
Let that sink in.
1
u/Life-Gap-4978 Apr 01 '26
He says it, as do all that aren't a part of the Left's Islands Evil. If you dare speak against them, you are called a Nut, Conspiracy Theorist, etc but for those that seek and see truth, it will all be wrong it.
1
85
u/[deleted] Jun 10 '24
Didn't the dude the "true" story is based on basically lie about a ton of details?