Media Bashes "Sound Of Freedom" and Defends Netflix Cuties!

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Keep defending pedo stuff oh superior wise one.

Where did I did that?

All you have to do is look at the cover of these movies, or even just hear about them and that's enough to know which one is which.

All you have to do is to look at the original poster I posted above.
The most famous post created by Netflix was removed after all the criticisms and they even stated that it "was not an accurate representation of the film".

One thing is watching the movie and then comment, another thing is basing the comments on things other people say.

So what is your intent besides self righteously defending child abuse?

That question implies that I am defending child abuse, which is not true.
Ask honest questions and I will answer.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
I haven't seen either movie. Have seen one very positive review by the YT'er The Critical Drink for "Sound of Freedom", whereas I have mostly seen mixed reviews for both. Criticisms of SoF include, among other things, that it does cater to Qanon conspiracies, and fetishes child abuse. Again, just going by reviewer's statements. On the other hand, "Cuties" is described as being hard to watch in parts, but the point of the movie is to deal with uncomfortable subjects, including the sexual exploitation/objectification of children. The same can be said of SoF, no doubt.

The OP's title thread makes it sound as if it is a straightforward case of the MSM panning SoF and praising of "Cuties", which simply isn't the case, and doesn't even seem to be what the cited video is about. If you're going to make that case, then provide links to some MSM movie reviews of these two movies, which make your case. Even then it could just be cherry picking.

Now there must've been a documentary by now about child beauty pageants, such as what Jon Bonet Ramsey was involved in. Perhaps there is even a fictionalized movie on the subject (Something more centered on it than "Little Miss Sunshine"), I don't know. Assuming such movies were not meant to be exploitative, would you have a problem with them? My impression is that "Cuties" was not meant to be exploitative either, although the main poster/graphic for it most certainly appears to be so.

My point is that art is a bit more nuanced than people here are taking it to be.

You do understand reviewing is not the only way the media can negatively influence the spread of a movie right? Well I cant be assed to watch an hour of some random youtuber about it but it starts with the fact the media barely promotes Sound of freedom while it did for cuties. That sounds like panning it to me? Especially if you see the cast and reviews on imdb.

originally posted by: ElitePlebeian
You do understand reviewing is not the only way the media can negatively influence the spread of a movie right? Well I cant be assed to watch an hour of some random youtuber about it but it starts with the fact the media barely promotes Sound of freedom while it did for cuties. That sounds like panning it to me? Especially if you see the cast and reviews on imdb.

Is "The Sound of Freedom" being promoted by Netflix?

Netflix bought the distribution rights of "Cuties" for the whole world except France.

One non-Netflix movie is always going to have much less promotion and more negative official reviews than a Netflix movie.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: ElitePlebeian
You do understand reviewing is not the only way the media can negatively influence the spread of a movie right? Well I cant be assed to watch an hour of some random youtuber about it but it starts with the fact the media barely promotes Sound of freedom while it did for cuties. That sounds like panning it to me? Especially if you see the cast and reviews on imdb.

Is "The Sound of Freedom" being promoted by Netflix?

Netflix bought the distribution rights of "Cuties" for the whole world except France.

One non-Netflix movie is always going to have much less promotion and more negative official reviews than a Netflix movie.

Let me put it different: fact that that movie is not bought by Netflix, Amazon, Hbo, Disney or Hulu while obviously being a money maker when cuties was bought supports the argument that big media doesnt want a lot of attention for that topic but is fine with a movie that glorifies kid pageants.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
I haven't seen either movie. Have seen one very positive review by the YT'er The Critical Drink for "Sound of Freedom", whereas I have mostly seen mixed reviews for both. Criticisms of SoF include, among other things, that it does cater to Qanon conspiracies, and fetishes child abuse. Again, just going by reviewer's statements. On the other hand, "Cuties" is described as being hard to watch in parts, but the point of the movie is to deal with uncomfortable subjects, including the sexual exploitation/objectification of children. The same can be said of SoF, no doubt.

The OP's title thread makes it sound as if it is a straightforward case of the MSM panning SoF and praising of "Cuties", which simply isn't the case, and doesn't even seem to be what the cited video is about. If you're going to make that case, then provide links to some MSM movie reviews of these two movies, which make your case. Even then it could just be cherry picking.

Now there must've been a documentary by now about child beauty pageants, such as what Jon Bonet Ramsey was involved in. Perhaps there is even a fictionalized movie on the subject (Something more centered on it than "Little Miss Sunshine"), I don't know. Assuming such movies were not meant to be exploitative, would you have a problem with them? My impression is that "Cuties" was not meant to be exploitative either, although the main poster/graphic for it most certainly appears to be so.

My point is that art is a bit more nuanced than people here are taking it to be.

Sound like you arguing for Cuties being a normal movie but the poster is for pedos ? And it’s definitely not art .. maybe black arts .

kind of worrying how this topic is dominating the west again as it did in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, as we keep pivoting back to coming close to outing the scale of child trafficking and abuse but always ending up with the media providing protection..

originally posted by: ElitePlebeian
Let me put it different: fact that that movie is not bought by Netflix, Amazon, Hbo, Disney or Hulu while obviously being a money maker when cuties was bought supports the argument that big media doesnt want a lot of attention for that topic but is fine with a movie that glorifies kid pageants.

I agree with the part about "Sounds of Freedom", but did you watch "Cuties"? It's not about kid pageants.

I watched both movies in a kind of fast forward.

SPOILLER ALERT:
below the line I have a condensed description of both movies, so if you plan on seeing them be aware of that.

If you want to read my conclusion just jump to the end, bellow the double line.








"Cuties" is about a girl from a Muslim family that disagrees with her father's second marriage and wants to get noticed and be part of a dance group that a rival group of older girls from the same school. To increase their odds against the other group she makes several bad choices that result of her being sent out of the group. She then throws one of the girls into the river and takes her place in a dance competition. As they were missing one member the other girls accept her and follow her sexualized dance routine (the kind of "dance" we can see in many of today's music videos), with mix results, some people in the audience like it, some think it's too much. Eventually she remembers her mother and her problems and decides to leave the competition and go home, where she removes her dance outfit and, ignoring the dress that she was supposed to use to attend her father's second marriage, she returns to jeans and a t-shirt and ignores the weding.

The movie is well made and the actors are good.

"Sound of Freedom" is about a man that decides to take things further from what he is able to do in the US and goes to South America to try to save kidnapped children from child traffickers. Eventually he ends up rescuing a bow that was taken along with his older sister by a woman that told their father that they were having a photo session. The boy tells the man about his sister and gives him a Saint Timothy medal that his sister had gave him. While investigating the man finds a way of attracting the woman that took the children and he ends up by finding out that the girl was sold to a FARC commander (or something like that) and that she is in the Colombian jungle with the FARC fighters. He then goes there disguised as a doctor (the only people they let enter the jungle areas where the FARC is) and finds the girl, taking her home to her father and little brother. At the end it says that the man kept there and was able to participate in the rescue of many children.

The movie is a bit too slow for my taste, even a fight with a FARC man (I suppose it was the one that bought the girl) is boring. The acting is average.







I see to two main reasons for "Sounds of Freedom" not being picked up by big distribution companies:
1 - it's two hours long, most people today are expecting a movie to last 90 minutes;
2 - it's far from being a real action movie (as it's supposed to be), as it has very little action.

But there's another thing at the end of "Sounds of Freedom" that may have convinced the big money to ignore it (and that is not even mentioned on the Wikipedia's plot description), a sentence that reads:

Human trafficking is a 150 billion dollar-a-year business.
The United States is one of the top destinations for human trafficking
and is among the largest consumers of child sex.

So, in conclusion, I think now that my previous opinion about a cultural difference was mostly right, but I confess I wasn't expecting that sentence at the end of "Sounds of Freedom", and I think that may have had a big part of the ignoring of the movie done by big money, even if it had, according to Wikipedia, as of July 14, 2023 a gross $58.5 million box-office result.

a reply to: kwakakev

Mind shattering. Living afterwords…

It’s being brought to light more and more… few are putting the pieces together.

Jesus only reason I’m living.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
My impression is that "Cuties" was not meant to be exploitative either, although the main poster/graphic for it most certainly appears to be so.

This is the original, French, poster.

I suppose Netflix thought(?) it needed a "spicier" poster...

That would be my guess. Evidently the Netflix marketing team decided they had to appeal to the pedophile demographic.

originally posted by: GoShredAK

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: ancientlight
But from what I heard , whom saw it, it's defintely not acceptable.

From what I have read about it sounds like one of those cultural differences cases. Although connected through many things, Europeans and Americans look at things in different ways.

And I plan on watching The Sound of Freedom still.

The cultural differences thing applies here too, in the opposite direction, so I suppose the people that chose to compare these two movies noticed the differences but do not understand them.

Or maybe they do and just want more "views", "likes" or "followers".

Keep defending pedo stuff oh superior wise one.

All you have to do is look at the cover of these movies, or even just hear about them and that's enough to know which one is which.

So what is your intent besides self righteously defending child abuse?

By "cover" of a movie I take it you mean the posters that are the "fingernails" for each of these movies. You realize that any poster for a movie represents one frame from a movie, and that movies have 24 fps, so that in a 90-minute movie there are nearly 130,000 frames? Have you seen both of these movies? I'm guessing that for sure you haven't seen "Cuties". I haven't see it of SoF, but I have read some reviews, and it's purdee clear that "Cuties" is not an exploitation movie, but does address the sexualization/exploitation of young girls, as well as a number of other issues.

A person suggesting that someone should see the movie before criticizing it, or take into account the difference in culture of the country in which the movie was made doesn't make that person a defender of child abuse or pedophiles. You're just making that facile argument in order to justify your POV.

On can argue about the appropriateness and ethics of a couple scenes in SoF as well, in particular scenes involving children being prepped for provocative pictures by adult groomers. On could also argue about the luridness of such scenes; they could play to the pedophile crowd as well. My point is not to criticize SoF for how it handled such scenes, but rather that film portrayals and narratives, and the making of them are more nuanced than many in this thread believe to be the case.

I fully agree that the one shot from "Cuties" on half the video thumbnail in the OP is hyper lurid and suggestive. However judging the movie as a whole from this one shot does not do the movie justice.

a reply to: ArMaP

Thanx for the reviews, because neither one seems like my cup of tea. A question, however, regarding SoF: did you find the scenes involving children to have a lurid or queasy quality to them, including thinking about how they were actually filmed?


Also, I wonder as to the actual reason that larger film studios didn't want to make this film? Was it really, as claimed by some in this thread, that they feared some kind of ground swell reaction by the public that would lead to a decrease in child trafficking, which would then affect studio execs' perverse kinks, or was it that they thought the movie wouldn't be a crowd pleaser because it was too preachy and not enough action in it? I can think of a third reason why as well, which also involves economics as well as politics. Movies these days need to be able to reach international audiences, so a movie about children of color from poorer nations being trafficked to white devils in America just might not be a good look or a big money maker.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

The sounds of freedom is a film is for the international audience, not in the popular trends. More down the line of 'Hostel', not quite as bad. Yes its true and has a long history when trying to gets one head around it. For any critic to dump this movie, it is more of a reflection of where they are at with things.

To clarity on my last post, In Tim's earlier movie 'Operation Underground', has a similar theme but did not get the same result. He got kicked out of town when word got around he was looking for kids. With this one, having a lot more money helped get further into these problems. Slavery is nothing new. Hillary was happy to see Gadaffi go, now the slavery market is back in the open at Libya.

It is a tough job trying to make some impact. Takes a lot of balls to go where Tim did, he has not sorted it all out, but for a few he made some ground.

originally posted by: Scotchjimmy

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
I haven't seen either movie. Have seen one very positive review by the YT'er The Critical Drink for "Sound of Freedom", whereas I have mostly seen mixed reviews for both. Criticisms of SoF include, among other things, that it does cater to Qanon conspiracies, and fetishes child abuse. Again, just going by reviewer's statements. On the other hand, "Cuties" is described as being hard to watch in parts, but the point of the movie is to deal with uncomfortable subjects, including the sexual exploitation/objectification of children. The same can be said of SoF, no doubt.

The OP's title thread makes it sound as if it is a straightforward case of the MSM panning SoF and praising of "Cuties", which simply isn't the case, and doesn't even seem to be what the cited video is about. If you're going to make that case, then provide links to some MSM movie reviews of these two movies, which make your case. Even then it could just be cherry picking.

Now there must've been a documentary by now about child beauty pageants, such as what Jon Bonet Ramsey was involved in. Perhaps there is even a fictionalized movie on the subject (Something more centered on it than "Little Miss Sunshine"), I don't know. Assuming such movies were not meant to be exploitative, would you have a problem with them? My impression is that "Cuties" was not meant to be exploitative either, although the main poster/graphic for it most certainly appears to be so.

My point is that art is a bit more nuanced than people here are taking it to be.

Sound like you arguing for Cuties being a normal movie but the poster is for pedos ? And it’s definitely not art .. maybe black arts .

Yes, you're first sentence is correct. I would go one further and suggest that the movie is in fact about the issues that girls face even before coming of age, including uncomfortable societal issues regarding the sexual objectification of young girls, and that the movie does not make an argument for it.

Now as for what constitutes art, that is in the eye of the beholder. There is certainly pornographic art, and there is pedophiliac art, which one can call a dark or black art if one wants to. Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" is also art, albeit of a propagandistic nature glorifying a horrible ideology. What about Renaissance art with nude Cherubs? Was that pedophiliac art? How about the original album cover of Blind Faith's self-titled album? And if a person owns a copy of it, does it make that person a pedophile? Asking for a friend... There's good art and bad art, and each person has their own idea of what constitutes one or the other.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: MrInquisitive

The sounds of freedom is a film is for the international audience, not in the popular trends. More down the line of 'Hostel', not quite as bad. Yes its true and has a long history when trying to gets one head around it. For any critic to dump this movie, it is more of a reflection of where they are at with things.

I honestly don't know whether SoF would be popular with international audiences. For several reasons, first of all do they want to have this uncomfortable an issue shoved in their faces? Some countries' cultures don't do well at examining such societal issues. Do they have their own domestic child trafficking problems to contend with? And do they want to have a movie on the subject with gringo heroes saving the little kids of color? And not having seen the movie, I don't know what the bad guys and gals look like? Are they predominantly caucasian or people of color? Seems that would make a difference as well.

It would be interesting to see what box office/dvd/streaming sales are for this movie in other countries, assuming it is released internationally.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
A question, however, regarding SoF: did you find the scenes involving children to have a lurid or queasy quality to them, including thinking about how they were actually filmed?

Not really, but some people could have that point of view regarding some scenes.

Also, I wonder as to the actual reason that larger film studios didn't want to make this film? Was it really, as claimed by some in this thread, that they feared some kind of ground swell reaction by the public that would lead to a decrease in child trafficking, which would then affect studio execs' perverse kinks, or was it that they thought the movie wouldn't be a crowd pleaser because it was too preachy and not enough action in it?

I think the second is the most likely.
First, because human trafficking is not an easily affected "market", as those in it know they that what they are doing is illegal and not really subject to external influences.

Second, because if people outside the US want to see a movie of a "good guy" saving children they do not want to watch a two hour movie that could have been done in half the time.

I can think of a third reason why as well, which also involves economics as well as politics. Movies these days need to be able to reach international audiences, so a movie about children of color from poorer nations being trafficked to white devils in America just might not be a good look or a big money maker.

I don't think so, and one of the reasons (and one of the things I don't like in the movie but didn't mention in my review) is that the girl is much "whiter" than her brother and the movie appears to give more emphasis to the saving of the girl than to the saving of the boy.

Lol
Still #2 at the box office

$84 mil so far….

Sound of Freedom is a good movie.

The media is smearing it while running cover for the elite pedo ring. You don’t have to believe it, however, it is true.

America is the 2nd largest consumer of child exploitation and abduction including child porn and child sex trafficking. You don’t have to believe that statistic, however it is true.

All 50 states have sex trafficking and child abduction problems.

Easy to see why the media is running interference.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Lol
Still #2 at the box office

$84 mil so far….

As far as I know, no one in this thread has argued that Hollywood execs are always correct in their decisions on green-lighting films. And then there is a history of surprise big box office hits. So a vast Hollywood conspiracy against the making of SoF isn't necessary to explain the narrative of its production. I'm no fan of Hollywood film making or the modern formulaic studio system, particularly in the last 20 or so years, but one doesn't need to reach for some far-fetched pedophile conspiracy to explain why this movie wasn't made by a big studio.

Also, if people are really all that worried about the health, safety and welfare of children, I would think that they would have a problem with all the mind-numbing action/violence movies involving firearms and gun play. A lot of young kids are killing their siblings or parents unintentionally. Is this because they see their parents pointing guns at each other or at their children or because of what these kids see on tv? And yes, I realize it's the parents' faults as well for not practicing good gun safety protocols, but what's causing little kids to grab guns and point them at their family members and pulling the trigger in the first place. I believe it is a case of monkey see, monkey do, and I doubt they are seeing their parents displaying gun play.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Lol
Still #2 at the box office

$84 mil so far….

As far as I know, no one in this thread has argued that Hollywood execs are always correct in their decisions on green-lighting films. And then there is a history of surprise big box office hits. So a vast Hollywood conspiracy against the making of SoF isn't necessary to explain the narrative of its production. I'm no fan of Hollywood film making or the modern formulaic studio system, particularly in the last 20 or so years, but one doesn't need to reach for some far-fetched pedophile conspiracy to explain why this movie wasn't made by a big studio.

Also, if people are really all that worried about the health, safety and welfare of children, I would think that they would have a problem with all the mind-numbing action/violence movies involving firearms and gun play. A lot of young kids are killing their siblings or parents unintentionally. Is this because they see their parents pointing guns at each other or at their children or because of what these kids see on tv? And yes, I realize it's the parents' faults as well for not practicing good gun safety protocols, but what's causing little kids to grab guns and point them at their family members and pulling the trigger in the first place. I believe it is a case of monkey see, monkey do, and I doubt they are seeing their parents displaying gun play.

Sound of Freedom has nothing to do with children and guns.

It’s about child abduction and exploitation for purposes of sex.

It’s about the world wide abduction of people and children for the purposes of sex trafficking. It is the fastest growing illegal trade outpacing drug trafficking.

But no, no guns used by children to accidentally kill their siblings or parents, as you asked and are trying to steer a thread in a different direction.