BuckSwope

No, it's not a new thing - it's a rare thing. It's not the only movie to ever do it. I think it would take us quite a while to name any others though, and we could start rattling off "based on.." moives. They are incredibly common. Like above, you are close. It's not because it's a right "cause" it's because the people behind it far right views and open Q ties. So you are correct - the liberals largely avoided that. Not because they just love the pedos like you dorks like to claim, because (like you all do with movies) they voted with their wallet and didn't go or trashed the movie. You are correct, more times than not it's not the liberals reacting like this because most movies lean that way. Most of the time it's the right acting like this.

Yes, they are - as I said, they are biased and slanted. It just means it uses real footage, interviews, etc. A documentary can be straight down the middle or politically biased. You are right, technically it's no different than any other movie that uses it "based on true events" as a label. The director and writer pretty much have free reign. See we basically agree. Where I seem to lose you is that what makes this slightly different than most is that it's actively asking for $ at the end of it, and people are talking about the importance of the message/info in the movie and how that should influence your government and your vote. If you read my posts, I also made that distinction above. So that's what makes it different than most of the other dumb examples you can throw at me. Can't we even agree that if that's the case we should at least look into where that $ is going, and that the people are getting good info to base their vote on. Me, I think it's idiotic to suggest people base decisions in life on a fictional movie, but that's just me.

Correct, my point is simply average movie watcher overestimate the accuracy of "based on true events" movies. I've seen it for countless movies. Most of the time it's not a big deal, but when people are talking about donating $ because of it, being important to for voting, etc. Little different than say Ford vs Ferrari or countless other movies based on something in RL.

No, it's not. No, my point was not that it was simply a "must see" movie. No, I don't have an issue with Barbie being described as "must see". No, I don't think Barbie is a documentary.

They all seem to think that the charities and organizations do not do much on this topic, but doesn't that point to this being even more of a grift as they ask for money to their organization at the end of the movie? Correct, Moore's movies are documentaries. While bias and slanted, there is still a much higher bar to clear to be a documentary vs. a "based on true events" movie. That really doesn't mean sh1t, and I have seen movies all over the spectrum of accuracy in that subgenre. Hell, Texas Chainsaw Massacre used that descriptor because it was 'based" on Ed Gein. It's largely a marketing ploy. Usually what happens is because of flow and narrative, they will combine personalities into one person, focus on more "exciting" and cinematic things vs. reality, things like that. You know, what some of the reviews have beeen critical of. The issue is when the audience doesn't know or realize these things and walk away thinking the know (accurately) about the subject matter. Especially when it's combined with movie like this getting a lot of praise and is being touted and important and "must see".

Which is fine, but is also why I asked about the breakdown and if it included % of income or time, since the first sentence focuses on total $ amount. I was curious for a deeper dive.

How much of that ties to church, and how much is just $ vs. time and contributing that way? Does it factor income levels or % of income given? It would be nice to have a full study here, I'm not sure what of my questions get answered. I've seen that study and that concept posted a few times, but never seem to get to dig into it - it's an interesting idea. Odd that you cut off the bolding at the However, too. You are right, about the theaters not making a ton on empty seats. Mostly what that does is just make a movie look more popular than it is when you look at ticket sales.

My old ass can't figure out video links. I recommend TUBI a lot to people. The ads can be a tad annoying, but I have found so many oddball 80s movies on there that aren't on other services - Meatballs, Joysticks, High School USA, all sorts of crap.

It is though, again - look around at the reaction and rhetoric. It's inevitable. Both sides are doing it, and it's already political like damn near everything else. I don't disagree with you, I am just pushing back on this idea of "awareness". I don't think the government gives two craps about what we care about or the border, so I think the idea that this movie is going to largely move the needle on that front misguided. IMO it's either going to be played for political points - dems didn't see the movie because they support pedos and traffickers! or two move the needle like you suggest it would take a more bipartisan effort and things like I posted above - also writing to politicians, or being more active that way to make them take note. I don't think they are going to say - oh , Sound of Freedom made $300M - we better take this issue seriously!

Do you not have the internet? What side of the aisle is promoting this movie and going in groups? Hell, just read the posts in here. Do I have a scientific study to link to, no I don't. Yes, it's my opinion, but I think it's not a controversial one. I've worked in theaters and video stores many years as well - I knew the customers and this stuff is not new, and I saw it with other movies I listed.

I don't care why people see it, but I also don't know why it is controversial to say that it's largely MAGA promoting it and going to see it in groups like this. I've seen similar with Passion of the Christ, and movies that cater even more left than typical movies do - there are certain groups of people that are more likely to see it and make a big deal about it. It's just an observation. My "objection" is not that people are going to see a movie. It also sounds to me like this is a great way that people could use this movie politically like you bolded. I would guess your follow up would be that if you want to make a change you have to vote a certain way, and I think that is also misguided (and a great way to turn a supposedly non-political issue into one).

Do you have problems with Michael Moore's films?

This is what I am talking about a bit above though. You aren't powerless - write representatives, donate time and money to an effective organization, etc. Most of what this becomes is performative signalling - look, I went to the movie too! look, I bought the ribbon too! There are great and effective ways to use this movie and get people 'aware' and also organize them to do something.

My point is, and I think Gutter is getting to this as well, is that overall I am a bit tired of everything being about "bringing awareness" to things, and often times it's paired with money going to wasteful causes where a ton of money goes back to CEOs, advertising, etc. Mostly what happens is we are happy wearing the ribbon and watching the movie, but not much actually gets DONE. To me all this is more of the same. Do any of these screenings come with discussions, suggestions for how to donate to a charity like you suggested - anything? If I were your buddy or somebody who things the movie is that important and the cause is that great, I would wait until the movie is streaming or on disc, and host watching parties of the movie with jars out and/or literature about quality ways to help and get money to causes that use it well. I know you understand that part of the concern is where all this money is going.

No, there's not. I just never think "based on true events" movies are the best way to do that. However, it can be effective because people typically aren't going to read a book or watch a documentary. I would be curious if they have studied how much activity to charities and causes climb after a movie like this.

This is mostly it - the cynic in me thinks this because this is America, mostly what will happen is people see the movie and then call it good. They did their patriotic duty by watching this "important" film. But I've seen this on both sides of the aisle over the years - each has movies they lift up more than others. IMO this community effort we are seeing here happens more from the right, well because there are fewer movies coming out marketed to them. Saw it with Passion of the Christ, American Sniper, Inconvenient Truth, and others. I think church groups were the biggest organizers from the right - they would rent for showings there or buy out a screening.

No problem. Do you want me to describe the other people now too?

Not sure where I said that, but ok. More like all politicians are crap and working for the 1%. My distinction is that I hold equal distain for both parties, but still would take both over Putin.

Fair enough. Have a good weekend.

I blame people all the time, and I am no champion of Biden's or fan of his. Claiming Putin is better than what we have in office is just nonsense.

Then I can honestly say I think you have gone off the deep end, gb.

It's a sad day when multiple people start believing and posting this in here.

I'm jealous, here in WI it's filled with morbidly obese people, often in two-pieces.

Did sea pee on wee's Bible or something?

I don't get it. So, when one person reports another, it goes where? It's funny how nobody owns up to it and everybody just points at each other.