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

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
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?

That's where the culture difference is more noticeable.

Records cover art is a good example, as there are several cases (mostly from the 1960s and 1970s) that show the different way of looking at art. Another more recent example is the case of the parents of some Tallahassee Classical school sixth grade students being against the "pornographic sculpture" their children were shown. The statue was Michelangelo’s "David".

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.

My definition of art (and to which my sister, who is a painter and photographer) is that art is something that doesn't have any other use besides being looked/heard/whatever.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
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.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!



The guy that bought the young boy is, if I'm not mistaken, American.
The girl was bought by a FARC commander (or something like that).




END ALERT

During the whole movie I got the impression that they were presenting child trafficking as being mostly a non-US problem that may end up in the US.

originally posted by: wdkirk
America is the 2nd largest consumer of child exploitation and abduction including child porn and child sex trafficking.

Who is the largest consumer?

I know this thread is days old and I just ran into it but the argument that the a larger distributor did not want this movie is 100% false. This movie was made over 5 years ago. 20th century fox picked it up but before it could be released Disney bought 20th Century fox and being the child groomers they are Disney shelved the movie. Disney is all about turning kids into sex objects and warping our children so Angel studios had to go elsewhere for funding and it took a while but they got it out. More and more theaters are picking it up and its proving to be a hit without any real media push. The media is trying to bury it and ignore it. This movie is killing it at the box office based on word of mouth and social media campaigns.

Its one thing for Hollywood to just be wrong and not want to touch a project. Its a whole other thing for them to actively try to slander and bury the movie. I could care less about cuties. I didn't watch it and have no interest in watching it. But Sound of Freedom was a good movie. Sorry if you didn't like the story or thought it was slow. it was based on a true story. Its a real story and everyone I know that has watched it was touched by it. If you weren't then maybe you should ask yourself why.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: wdkirk
America is the 2nd largest consumer of child exploitation and abduction including child porn and child sex trafficking.

Who is the largest consumer?

as i understood the usa was the largest producer and consumer of child porn with Russia as number 2 while the eu is the largest host of child porn..thats according to thorn..

originally posted by: TheTardis
20th century fox picked it up but before it could be released Disney bought 20th Century fox and being the child groomers they are Disney shelved the movie. Disney is all about turning kids into sex objects and warping our children so Angel studios had to go elsewhere for funding and it took a while but they got it out.

If Disney had the distribution rights how did they allow a parallel distribution?

Sorry if you didn't like the story or thought it was slow. it was based on a true story. Its a real story and everyone I know that has watched it was touched by it. If you weren't then maybe you should ask yourself why.

Based on a true story or not is irrelevant to the quality of the movie.
Also. "based on a true story" is not the same as "it's a real story".
Some people may be influenced by that, but I', not.

Its a real story and everyone I know that has watched it was touched by it. If you weren't then maybe you should ask yourself why.

I am not easily impressed, specially by low quality movies.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: TheTardis
20th century fox picked it up but before it could be released Disney bought 20th Century fox and being the child groomers they are Disney shelved the movie. Disney is all about turning kids into sex objects and warping our children so Angel studios had to go elsewhere for funding and it took a while but they got it out.

If Disney had the distribution rights how did they allow a parallel distribution?

Sorry if you didn't like the story or thought it was slow. it was based on a true story. Its a real story and everyone I know that has watched it was touched by it. If you weren't then maybe you should ask yourself why.

Based on a true story or not is irrelevant to the quality of the movie.
Also. "based on a true story" is not the same as "it's a real story".
Some people may be influenced by that, but I', not.

Its a real story and everyone I know that has watched it was touched by it. If you weren't then maybe you should ask yourself why.

I am not easily impressed, specially by low quality movies.

True story. Actual footage of the incidents as portrayed in the movie are show.

Go see it. Jesus H Christ.

a reply to: ArMaP

They bought it back. Its not hard to find this information. Its not a secret.

originally posted by: wdkirk
True story. Actual footage of the incidents as portrayed in the movie are show.

The general story is true, some things in the movie are not.

SPOILER ALERT!!










For example, he didn't kill anyone to save the girl, and of the 54 people saved from the island not all were children. Many of the people saved in those operations were adults.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: wdkirk
True story. Actual footage of the incidents as portrayed in the movie are show.

The general story is true, some things in the movie are not.

SPOILER ALERT!!

 

For example, he didn't kill anyone to save the girl, and of the 54 people saved from the island not all were children. Many of the people saved in those operations were adults.

I am really curious as to why you are fighting so hard against this movie. Have you actually watched the movie or did you just watch the previews and trailer? I would be willing to say compared to most movies that are based on fact this one follows the story much more closely than most. You are right though. I am sure there are some things that were changed to make the story better for theatrical purposes, but I am betting you it wasn't much and why would that matter. The facts are still the facts. EVIL people are stealing kids and using them for sex slaves. The more you argue against this movie the more it seems like maybe you are part of the problem.

originally posted by: TheTardis
I am really curious as to why you are fighting so hard against this movie.

I'm not, I just didn't like it.

Have you actually watched the movie or did you just watch the previews and trailer?

If you had read the whole thread you would have seen that I watched the two movies being discussed on this thread.

I would be willing to say compared to most movies that are based on fact this one follows the story much more closely than most. You are right though. I am sure there are some things that were changed to make the story better for theatrical purposes, but I am betting you it wasn't much and why would that matter.

Just by looking at those I mentioned on my previous post you can see that the changes were made to make it look more "movie-like".

The facts are still the facts. EVIL people are stealing kids and using them for sex slaves. The more you argue against this movie the more it seems like maybe you are part of the problem.

You're funny. I'm not arguing against the movie, I just didn't like the directing and the .
Is that so hard to understand?

As for human trafficking and children being used for sex slaves, that's nothing new to me.
In fact, I like the idea that this movie is getting bigger audiences than expected, although I suppose those that watch the movie are the ones that already know about this and not much will change from it, but it's a good step in the right direction.

originally posted by: ArMaP
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.

I found that out on my first visit to a beach in Europe.

a reply to: ancientlight

wont be watching either of these, the freedom thingy is probably raising money for qanon or something. Big thumbs dooown.

a reply to: XipeTotex

Big thumbs dooown.

That is how the black pill rolls.

Like why are you on a site called Above Top Secret if you cannot even handle the less restricted stuff?

originally posted by: ancientlight

originally posted by: ArMaP
One question: Did anyone see both movies?

I haven't seen any, so I cannot really comment.

No , I certainly have not seen Cuties.
But from what I heard , whom saw it, it's defintely not acceptable. Led to many dropping Netflix.
And I plan on watching The Sound of Freedom still.

So, you have an opinion on a movie you refuse to see.

First off “Cuties” is a French film.

Typical teen girl flick.

The big out roar? Some camera focus on specific areas of the body.

“Toddlers & Tiaras” is far worse — especially considering the ages

a reply to: Annee

So, you have an opinion on a movie you refuse to see.

To get this far on a thread like this without any background on the matter does raise a flag, something is not adding up. I have not interest in Cuties, got the jist and hype at the time it came out, have seen the other.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Annee

So, you have an opinion on a movie you refuse to see.

To get this far on a thread like this without any background on the matter does raise a flag, something is not adding up. I have not interest in Cuties, got the jist and hype at the time it came out, have seen the other.

It’s just a French teen girl flick.

There was a whole thread on it here ATS.

Hysteria for the sake of hysteria.

Many in the thread never watched it.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: XipeTotex

Big thumbs dooown.

That is how the black pill rolls.

Like why are you on a site called Above Top Secret if you cannot even handle the less restricted stuff?

Oh i can handle my (SNIP) just do not want to financially support qanon nonsense.

a reply to: ancientlight


I saw this movie. It stuck with me for days. God Bless Tim Ballard and O.U.R foundation for doing Gods work to save the children.

Great movie, acting was phenomenal, and you felt every emotion possible. A must see!


ETA: This movie is informative and worth seeing. I learned a few things that I wasn’t aware of. 🥲

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: wdkirk
America is the 2nd largest consumer of child exploitation and abduction including child porn and child sex trafficking.

Who is the largest consumer?

The largest consumer for trafficking is in the US sadly!