|
|
Post by jsquare on Jul 18, 2023 10:47:44 GMT -5
Again you have no evidence of this. Remember the other day when you fell flat on your face to try and prove what you posted? Again, in your opinion which you claim toward every single conservative that puts any information in front of you. Do you realize you’ve never admitted once that you’re wrong. Could it be your problem? I have no problem admitting I’m wrong. More silly distractions because you can never back up your claims. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 18, 2023 12:42:16 GMT -5
I think Mike's point is it's highly questionable any of this actually happened the way the guy says it did. Based on this - I think this movie passes the test on accuracy. Otherwise - we would need to pan every movie ever made based on a true story, because everyone of them will depict something that didn't happen exactly that way as in the movie. www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/sound-of-freedom/Reading through that, I agree that it seems reasonably accurate, though I'm not an expert on the events that the movie is based on. That said, I don't even really care if most movies are accurate to history as long as they're entertaining. Like The Irishman is not accurate at all, but that wasn't my issue with it. My problem is that no one told Scorsese that his movie didn't warrant a 3.5 hour runtime. A minimum of 45 minutes should have been cut. Scorsese did Casino too, and that movie checks in right at three hours. But it's a fast three hours, and there isn't a single scene that I would cut. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 18, 2023 12:54:29 GMT -5
Anyway, back to Indiana Jones, I've seen reports that the budget before marketing (this is important--marketing costs are often about 50% of the budget, especially for what is supposed to be a blockbuster) was between $295 million and $400 million. Yikes. I'm seeing reports that Indy V has now "broken even," which assumes the lower end of the projected budget (~$300 million) and again doesn't include marketing costs. I would say that it can take solace in that The Flash is an even bigger flop, but I'm not even sure if that's true, since The Flash seems to have had a smaller budget (~$200 million). Okay, I'm thoroughly enjoying the comments in the thread on /r/boxoffice about Indy V's bloated budget. Kind of a shame since it sounds like the movie isn't that bad (likely the third best movie in the franchise, though well behind Last Crusade and Raiders). But that's why you don't put out something as bad as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It just wrecks your goodwill with the movie-going public. Even if this movie was great, it still might not make that much. Look at Batman Begins. It made less than $400 million worldwide, but it had the task of restoring faith in Batman after the disastrous Schumacher movies, particularly Batman and Robin. It worked, but the dividends weren't seen until The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, which both grossed over $1 billion. |
|
|
|
Post by staticb on Jul 18, 2023 13:05:20 GMT -5
Anyway, back to Indiana Jones, I've seen reports that the budget before marketing (this is important--marketing costs are often about 50% of the budget, especially for what is supposed to be a blockbuster) was between $295 million and $400 million. Yikes. I'm seeing reports that Indy V has now "broken even," which assumes the lower end of the projected budget (~$300 million) and again doesn't include marketing costs. I would say that it can take solace in that The Flash is an even bigger flop, but I'm not even sure if that's true, since The Flash seems to have had a smaller budget (~$200 million). It's made 300M WW vs. a 297M budget. Definitely is not a box office success--however it's a franchise. Lots of people will watch it on Streaming, and Given all the various tie-ins, toys, future ride enhancements etc. Disney will likely make money on it one day. (especially when Ford passes) Flash was also a good movie (in my opinion) that hasn't resonated with audiences. Imho, sometimes it's the future movie that pays when the ones before it aren't so good. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 18, 2023 13:10:05 GMT -5
Thankfully for America, you don’t speak for Americans - who, based on ticket sales, really want to watch Tom Cruise do his own stunts. Or watch a low budget horror movie titled “Red Door,” which came out a week after “Sound of Freedom” and has made more money. Right now, “Sound of Freedom” has made slightly less money than “Cocaine Bear,” so Americans apparently like movies about hopped up forest animals too. In other words, you have no idea “what Americans want to watch.” “Sound of Freedom” is a nice story for its producers and an interesting case study in crowdfunding and marketing, but don’t make it out to be mire than it is. If it’s not a big deal and doesn’t have some bigger meaning then why are liberal channels so critical of the film? Why would they bother? Why even focus on it?Why not talk about Tom Cruise? More ink is probably being spilled over the mediocre performance of Indiana Jones and Elemental - not to mention the dismal results for The Flash - than criticizing Sound of Freedom.But there certainly is interest. One, because nobody really saw this coming - a film that had been gathering dust in a closet for years before being bought by a small independent production house in Utah - becoming a solid hit. Sound of Freedom is going to net these guys a very nice sum of money. Two, the investor and marketing strategy is unusual - using crowdfunding and the "pay it forward" ticket sales concept. All of that stuff has created media interest. Anyway, as for the movie content and criticism, let's note that it is currently at 72% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty good. Variety gave it a good review, as one example. Other critics hated it. This happens for virtually every movie ever released, Sound of Freedom is no different. But there are two other things at play in regard to this flick - One, its relative success has led to a spotlight put on the guy who the story is based on - and it turns out there are a lot of legitimate questions surrounding Ballard and his former organization. The other thing is that the star of the movie has - and still does - espouse QAnon stuff about "elites" harvesting the organs and blood of kids, not to mention Pizzagate. So, yeah, there's gonna be some blowback and skepticism, which should surprise no one. To sum up: Some critics liked the movie. Some critics were ambivalent. Some hated it. More liked it than hated it. Turns out the person the movie is based on might be shady. Jim Caveziel is batsh!t crazy. There is no conspiracy to kill the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Jul 18, 2023 13:26:32 GMT -5
If it’s not a big deal and doesn’t have some bigger meaning then why are liberal channels so critical of the film? Why would they bother? Why even focus on it?Why not talk about Tom Cruise? More ink is probably being spilled over the mediocre performance of Indiana Jones and Elemental - not to mention the dismal results for The Flash - than criticizing Sound of Freedom.But there certainly is interest. One, because nobody really saw this coming - a film that had been gathering dust in a closet for years before being bought by a small independent production house in Utah - becoming a solid hit. Sound of Freedom is going to net these guys a very nice sum of money. Two, the investor and marketing strategy is unusual - using crowdfunding and the "pay it forward" ticket sales concept. All of that stuff has created media interest. Anyway, as for the movie content and criticism, let's note that it is currently at 72% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty good. Variety gave it a good review, as one example. Other critics hated it. This happens for virtually every movie ever released, Sound of Freedom is no different. But there are two other things at play in regard to this flick - One, its relative success has led to a spotlight put on the guy who the story is based on - and it turns out there are a lot of legitimate questions surrounding Ballard and his former organization. The other thing is that the star of the movie has - and still does - espouse QAnon stuff about "elites" harvesting the organs and blood of kids, not to mention Pizzagate. So, yeah, there's gonna be some blowback and skepticism, which should surprise no one. To sum up: Some critics liked the movie. Some critics were ambivalent. Some hated it. More liked it than hated it. Turns out the person the movie is based on might be shady. Jim Caveziel is batsh!t crazy. There is no conspiracy to kill the movie. The first few paragraphs are smart. Totally agree. I don’t agree with you. I always worry when a large group of people are against something that they are not even really that familiar with. Like Jim, I think there’s a bigger reason when that happens. I don’t think that makes anyone crazy, I think it makes them aware. And also it’s not a secret that Hollywood and the media have not been fans of this movie since day one. That I really don’t understand. Here is what is exciting. I hope this doesn’t offend you and I’m not sure how much control you have over creative content but I just don’t think they make good movies anymore. There are a few exceptions. And they are in Insanely popular because people are so hungry for good content. Here’s my question. What movies that are made today will become classics that people watch year after year after year. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 18, 2023 13:27:47 GMT -5
Anyway, back to Indiana Jones, I've seen reports that the budget before marketing (this is important--marketing costs are often about 50% of the budget, especially for what is supposed to be a blockbuster) was between $295 million and $400 million. Yikes. I'm seeing reports that Indy V has now "broken even," which assumes the lower end of the projected budget (~$300 million) and again doesn't include marketing costs. I would say that it can take solace in that The Flash is an even bigger flop, but I'm not even sure if that's true, since The Flash seems to have had a smaller budget (~$200 million). It's made 300M WW vs. a 297M budget. Definitely is not a box office success--however it's a franchise. Lots of people will watch it on Streaming, and Given all the various tie-ins, toys, future ride enhancements etc. Disney will likely make money on it one day. (especially when Ford passes) Flash was also a good movie (in my opinion) that hasn't resonated with audiences. Imho, sometimes it's the future movie that pays when the ones before it aren't so good. Again, the budget does not include marketing costs. But yes, it's a franchise. And yes, I agree with you that sometimes a good movie pays for the mistakes of a bad one in the past. That was what I was talking about in my other post where I highlighted Batman Begins as an example of this. Edit: Also, I'm not sure that $297 million budget is confirmed when other reports are saying as high as $400 million. |
|
|
|
Post by longboards on Jul 18, 2023 13:42:28 GMT -5
Yes, and not a 💧 of that 'sympathy' you accused others of lacking. It was a petty shot at 'Hollywood'. Petty? Or truthful. What do you think American really wants to watch? Not 90% of the crap Hollywood is putting out. And they sure as hell don’t want to be lectured. Just like you don’t like to be lectured on Volley Talk. Are you getting it yet? Again, you criticized people for a lack of sympathy. You have shown no sympathy. Get it? |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,226 
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 18, 2023 14:26:39 GMT -5
Based on this - I think this movie passes the test on accuracy. Otherwise - we would need to pan every movie ever made based on a true story, because everyone of them will depict something that didn't happen exactly that way as in the movie. www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/sound-of-freedom/Reading through that, I agree that it seems reasonably accurate, though I'm not an expert on the events that the movie is based on. That said, I don't even really care if most movies are accurate to history as long as they're entertaining. Like The Irishman is not accurate at all, but that wasn't my issue with it. My problem is that no one told Scorsese that his movie didn't warrant a 3.5 hour runtime. A minimum of 45 minutes should have been cut. Scorsese did Casino too, and that movie checks in right at three hours. But it's a fast three hours, and there isn't a single scene that I would cut. This is all subjective to me - but for a film to be based on real events, it must pass a minimum threshold of accuracy. Once it has done that - then I am evaluating the quality of the movie. If is a subject matter that I am more familiar with - the threshold gets much higher for me. This movie involves something I don't know a lot about, so I will have a lower threshold. I enjoyed the movie - had a great message, it was well done (quality of the production). It wasn't some great movie that will make my top 500 movies of all time. Moneyball. Baseball is a subject I believe I know a lot about. Moneyball is a great book. As for the movie - I thought the movie was also great, but on a completely different scale. The movie made many changes from the book (movies have to do this) - but the theme was spot on with the book. As a movie - I thought Moneyball was great - even though they sort of changed some material facts (I have a hard time squaring the Paul DePedsta character as some overweight nerd. Not a big deal, it works in the movie as a nerd w/o altering the fundamental theme of the real events, but still annoying to me). |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Jul 18, 2023 14:33:30 GMT -5
Moneyball. Baseball is a subject I believe I know a lot about. Moneyball is a great book. As for the movie - I thought the movie was also great, but on a completely different scale. The movie made many changes from the book (movies have to do this) - but the theme was spot on with the book. As a movie - I thought Moneyball was great - even though they sort of changed some material facts (I have a hard time squaring the Paul DePedsta character as some overweight nerd. Not a big deal, it works in the movie as a nerd w/o altering the fundamental theme of the real events, but still annoying to me). Which is why they created an amalgam of several people and imbued this character with a fictional name. Paul DePodesta was a former athlete and not strictly a stats nerd. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 18, 2023 14:39:49 GMT -5
Reading through that, I agree that it seems reasonably accurate, though I'm not an expert on the events that the movie is based on. That said, I don't even really care if most movies are accurate to history as long as they're entertaining. Like The Irishman is not accurate at all, but that wasn't my issue with it. My problem is that no one told Scorsese that his movie didn't warrant a 3.5 hour runtime. A minimum of 45 minutes should have been cut. Scorsese did Casino too, and that movie checks in right at three hours. But it's a fast three hours, and there isn't a single scene that I would cut. This is all subjective to me - but for a film to be based on real events, it must pass a minimum threshold of accuracy. Once it has done that - then I am evaluating the quality of the movie. If is a subject matter that I am more familiar with - the threshold gets much higher for me. This movie involves something I don't know a lot about, so I will have a lower threshold. I enjoyed the movie - had a great message, it was well done (quality of the production). It wasn't some great movie that will make my top 500 movies of all time. Moneyball. Baseball is a subject I believe I know a lot about. Moneyball is a great book. As for the movie - I thought the movie was also great, but on a completely different scale. The movie made many changes from the book (movies have to do this) - but the theme was spot on with the book. As a movie - I thought Moneyball was great - even though they sort of changed some material facts (I have a hard time squaring the Paul DePedsta character as some overweight nerd. Not a big deal, it works in the movie as a nerd w/o altering the fundamental theme of the real events, but still annoying to me). I agree that a lot depends on how much you know about the subject matter. My brother-in-law speaks Russian, so it annoys him when movies have Russian dialogue that is not accurate or with bad accents. But I don't know any better, so that kind of thing doesn't bother me. But if I'm watching a movie about journalists, then I have a much higher threshold for accuracy than for movies about other jobs that I know little about. Edit: Do you actually have a top 500 movies of all time? I'd be curious to know what's on the list, though maybe just the top 50. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 18, 2023 15:34:43 GMT -5
More ink is probably being spilled over the mediocre performance of Indiana Jones and Elemental - not to mention the dismal results for The Flash - than criticizing Sound of Freedom.But there certainly is interest. One, because nobody really saw this coming - a film that had been gathering dust in a closet for years before being bought by a small independent production house in Utah - becoming a solid hit. Sound of Freedom is going to net these guys a very nice sum of money. Two, the investor and marketing strategy is unusual - using crowdfunding and the "pay it forward" ticket sales concept. All of that stuff has created media interest. Anyway, as for the movie content and criticism, let's note that it is currently at 72% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty good. Variety gave it a good review, as one example. Other critics hated it. This happens for virtually every movie ever released, Sound of Freedom is no different. But there are two other things at play in regard to this flick - One, its relative success has led to a spotlight put on the guy who the story is based on - and it turns out there are a lot of legitimate questions surrounding Ballard and his former organization. The other thing is that the star of the movie has - and still does - espouse QAnon stuff about "elites" harvesting the organs and blood of kids, not to mention Pizzagate. So, yeah, there's gonna be some blowback and skepticism, which should surprise no one. To sum up: Some critics liked the movie. Some critics were ambivalent. Some hated it. More liked it than hated it. Turns out the person the movie is based on might be shady. Jim Caveziel is batsh!t crazy. There is no conspiracy to kill the movie. The first few paragraphs are smart. Totally agree. I don’t agree with you. I always worry when a large group of people are against something that they are not even really that familiar with. Like Jim, I think there’s a bigger reason when that happens. I don’t think that makes anyone crazy, I think it makes them aware. And also it’s not a secret that Hollywood and the media have not been fans of this movie since day one. That I really don’t understand. Here is what is exciting. I hope this doesn’t offend you and I’m not sure how much control you have over creative content but I just don’t think they make good movies anymore. There are a few exceptions. And they are in Insanely popular because people are so hungry for good content. Here’s my question. What movies that are made today will become classics that people watch year after year after year. I’m not at all sure what you’re trying to say in the first paragraph, to but as for the quality of movies being made, that’s your perspective, and that’s fine. Personal taste is of course subjective. I think there are high quality films being made every year. There are also lots of mediocre-to-bad ones too. Same as it ever was, really. I also think that for nearly two decades now television has generally been a more creative, original, and exciting medium than feature films, but that’s another conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 18, 2023 15:37:29 GMT -5
No obviously not a 10-yr-old. That fails the basic definition of "consent". But OUR did not limit their activities to children. I have mostly been talking about the movie. There is no mention of Operation Underground Railroad in the movie (from what I am aware). The movie only showed children (very young children) being held as sex slaves for which he would work to free (by posing as a pedophile, usually). You are aware that the movie is fictional, and can show whatever the writers want to show, right? From what I understand - the movie is mostly true Oh, I guess you aren't aware of this. Well, that's how scripted movies work. They have writers. |
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,226
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 18, 2023 16:30:11 GMT -5
This is all subjective to me - but for a film to be based on real events, it must pass a minimum threshold of accuracy. Once it has done that - then I am evaluating the quality of the movie. If is a subject matter that I am more familiar with - the threshold gets much higher for me. This movie involves something I don't know a lot about, so I will have a lower threshold. I enjoyed the movie - had a great message, it was well done (quality of the production). It wasn't some great movie that will make my top 500 movies of all time. Moneyball. Baseball is a subject I believe I know a lot about. Moneyball is a great book. As for the movie - I thought the movie was also great, but on a completely different scale. The movie made many changes from the book (movies have to do this) - but the theme was spot on with the book. As a movie - I thought Moneyball was great - even though they sort of changed some material facts (I have a hard time squaring the Paul DePedsta character as some overweight nerd. Not a big deal, it works in the movie as a nerd w/o altering the fundamental theme of the real events, but still annoying to me). I agree that a lot depends on how much you know about the subject matter. My brother-in-law speaks Russian, so it annoys him when movies have Russian dialogue that is not accurate or with bad accents. But I don't know any better, so that kind of thing doesn't bother me. But if I'm watching a movie about journalists, then I have a much higher threshold for accuracy than for movies about other jobs that I know little about. Edit: Do you actually have a top 500 movies of all time? I'd be curious to know what's on the list, though maybe just the top 50. Nerd alert. I did a top 500 movies that I had seen back in the early 1990's. I updated this list about 20 years ago. Been so long - I cannot remember the exact dates. So it is very dated at this point. From memory: 1) Hustler, 2) Inherit the Wind, 3) Godfather Part II, 4) North by Northwest was my standard top 4 movies at the time I did these lists. I am a big Gary Grant and Spencer Tracy fan (but my wife refuses to watch black and white movies). More contemporary would be Denzel Washington. Also big on Capra, Hitchcock, Scorsese as directors. I am not big on Westerns or Sci Fi (although Close Encounters would be in my top 25 if that is considered Sci Fi). |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 18, 2023 16:59:02 GMT -5
I agree that a lot depends on how much you know about the subject matter. My brother-in-law speaks Russian, so it annoys him when movies have Russian dialogue that is not accurate or with bad accents. But I don't know any better, so that kind of thing doesn't bother me. But if I'm watching a movie about journalists, then I have a much higher threshold for accuracy than for movies about other jobs that I know little about. Edit: Do you actually have a top 500 movies of all time? I'd be curious to know what's on the list, though maybe just the top 50. Nerd alert. I did a top 500 movies that I had seen back in the early 1990's. I updated this list about 20 years ago. Been so long - I cannot remember the exact dates. So it is very dated at this point. From memory: 1) Hustler, 2) Inherit the Wind, 3) Godfather Part II, 4) North by Northwest was my standard top 4 movies at the time I did these lists. I am a big Gary Grant and Spencer Tracy fan (but my wife refuses to watch black and white movies). More contemporary would be Denzel Washington. Also big on Capra, Hitchcock, Scorsese as directors. I am not big on Westerns or Sci Fi (although Close Encounters would be in my top 25 if that is considered Sci Fi). I see. Your taste seems to skew a bit on the older side, which is fine. I think of those four, the only one I've seen is The Godfather Part II. I know it's a bit blasphemous, but I actually prefer maybe half a dozen mob movies and most of The Sopranos to The Godfather series. |
|
