Sound of Freedom (2023)

Chukzombi said:

yes, thats what i said. they didnt shelve it because they are involved in child trafficking or their buddies in Hollywood are. they had no interest in it. so they got an offer and passed it along. why they passed on it is up for debate, but if they were trying to hide the movie from release for some nefarious reason, that doesnt seem to be the case here. the takeaway is. Disney didnt make this film. they wanted no part of this film and so they sold this film. its not "The Film DIsney DIdnt Want You To See"

Click to expand...

The article doesn't mention anything about Disney owning any rights to the movie besides the distribution. Which had a grace period if they pass on it. They passed, and the period of 12 months was required to revert it back to the filmmaker.

I haven't seen anything to indicate Disney sold the movie. Just a lapse in rights. If you got something, drop it.

jayrebb said:

The article doesn't mention anything about Disney owning any rights to the movie besides the distribution. Which had a grace period if they pass on it. They passed, and the period of 12 months was required to revert it back to the filmmaker.

I haven't seen anything to indicate Disney sold the movie. Just a lapse in rights. If you got something, drop it.

Click to expand...

i saw it on Midnight's Edge's video tonight on youtube.
even if the movie could be sold it doesnt mean they have to take any offer. its obvious that whomever owned the rights to it. sold it to Angel Films and have released it.

Chukzombi said:

i saw it on Midnight's Edge's video tonight on youtube.
even if the movie could be sold it doesnt mean they have to take any offer. its obvious that whomever owned the rights to it. sold it to Angel Films and have released it.

Click to expand...

But how do you know the filmmaker didn't own the entire movie the entire time and that Fox was only ever acting as distributor? Angel Films got the distribution done, but I think the filmmaker just reached an agreement to distribute independently. I'd probably be willing to bet money the filmmaker/investors sold his own movie to Angel Films and both Fox nor Disney ever owned the actual rights to Sound of Freedom besides the right to distribute it.

AFAIK Disney had no part of the movie after passing on distributing it and the filmmaker retained full rights. Doesn't sound like it was Disney's movie to sell.

Lanx said:

oh come on Chukzombi , youre old enough to remember this controversy

disney branded actor

same actor in the seediest movie of 1994

what is hollywood pictures?

Click to expand...

That hasn't existed since it went under in 2007. Disney doesn't release movies like this now. I hate Disney now, but I'm not gonna just make up shit about them when I know better. Disney has a lot of shady dealings under their belt, probably with their merch being produced by children in sweatshops overseas. They also employ lots of perverts with their own agendas to fuck or fuck with children. That still doesn't mean that's why they passed on releasing this film. I have no doubts Disney has a lot of shelved films.

angel studios payed disney to buy the movie back, they crowd funded the money to do it


their previous venture would take movies released by other studios, cut out all the swearing/violence/etc and re-release the film as a christian version. they got sued by the studios and had to file bankruptcy, and pivoted in a new company to distribute christian movies

My brother had their VidAngel stuff, it was good... I didnt have older kids then, but I do now- I wish it was still up and running. But I see why they got sued for it- as they would take X movie, cut out the bad stuff and release it on their network. If they didnt play the proper rights game, then thats on them... their lawyering excuse was about of solid as us internet broz "making a backup copy" of our warezgamez

Pretty impressive that they had an $18M weekend after a $5M Friday. A 3.6 multiplier is pretty good for an opening weekend (even when considering it opened during the week).

Indie movie version of Taken is pretty fair. It was good though…worthy of the praise it’s getting and definitely important to raise awareness.

After watching the movie the cynical as fuck critic reviews give me an extra special sparkle of hate towards the authors.

Siliconemelons said:

My brother had their VidAngel stuff, it was good... I didnt have older kids then, but I do now- I wish it was still up and running. But I see why they got sued for it- as they would take X movie, cut out the bad stuff and release it on their network. If they didnt play the proper rights game, then thats on them... their lawyering excuse was about of solid as us internet broz "making a backup copy" of our warezgamez

Click to expand...

So they would steal movies, chop them up and post them as christian movies....

Rajaah said:

It isn't just The Guardian, pretty much the entire American mainstream media has "rallied against" it in the form of basically lockstep negative articles about it.


This video has a ton of clippings of headlines doing exactly that. You've even got some footage of "Mike Rothschild" (whoever that is) on CNN talking about how dangerous the movie is.

I don't think this is an imaginary controversy that people are whipping themselves into a frenzy over, I think we're legitimately just wondering why the news media hates this particular movie. The last time I saw these companies going all-in to futilely try to tank a movie, it was Joker, and it was just as weird then.

Click to expand...

The Joker was a movie about a white man escaping repression and acting outside of political control. There's no specific story elements or rational basis, just like this one it's all instinctual and emotional. They just don't like their enemy releasing a film denigrating their friends.

Sevens said:

So they would steal movies, chop them up and post them as christian movies....


View attachment 481954

Click to expand...

"Post them as christian movies..." Not really, they didn't take, lets say, "Saving Private Ryan" - censor it then release it as "Getting Billy Back from The War" and say its a "Christian version of X"- as your statement infers. They just released it as "Saving Private Ryan" a la "TV Edit of the 1990s" type thing... It really was just basically watching the "TV" or "Broadcast" version of movies, but because even "TV" edits now days have language and visuals that "most" conservative parents, interested in this service, would not agree with- it kept to the higher standard.

What they didnt do was purchase /all/ of the broadcast rights in the form the movie people wanted, some of them they DID buy the broadcast / streaming rights to- and the movie folk didnt not like them censoring it - I only casually read the articles and suits etc. back when it was happening - but they essentially had 2 complains. 1) You didn't pay us (in the way we think you should) and 2) Even if you paid to distribute / stream / show our movie, you cannot "Edit it". The #2 arguments literally were Hollywood didn't like christian company so they are going to crush you. They actually were winning that argument, as obviously there were "TV versions" of movies, Hollywood argued /they/ did the edits and /approved them/ but VidAngel basically got a list of 100's of movies if not 1000's that had TV versions and said "Your productions companies made all of these and approved them?" and they said "um akshuly local stations sometimes do it on their own...or I mean, sorry, they do it FOR US... and no we didn't tell them they could...but.. but but your bad because your not us!"

I believe it was all settled and not judged on - because it was also right around the time streaming services became big and the industry itself did not have a good handle on distributing rights of stream v broadcast v public showing etc. etc. And... only based on what my brother had, you like had to buy the DVD of a movie, then put it in their player...and something something, censored version played. Again I am no expert or remember fully what happened. But really in the end of the day, Hollywood was butt-hurt that a Christian company was doing something... just like they are now.

it was the #1 movie on Monday again. only a 45% drop since 4th of July. grossed 45 mil so far.

Chukzombi said:

it was the #1 movie on Monday again. only a 45% drop since 4th of July. grossed 45 mil so far.

Click to expand...

Brotato, it grossed 14m on July 4th. It grossed 4m on Monday. Now, I know New Jersey isn't big on education, but that's not even close.

That said, it is showing good legs. I'd say it has a shot at 100M thanks to all the religious fervor around this movie.

DickTrickle said:

Brotato, it grossed 14m on July 4th. It grossed 4m on Monday. Now, I know New Jersey isn't big on education, but that's not even close.

That said, it is showing good legs. I'd say it has a shot at 100M thanks to all the religious fervor around this movie.

Click to expand...

if you're going to be a horses backside, at least try to understand what i posted. it was the #1 movie on monday. Insidiuous #2 and Indy 5 in 3rd place. 4 million topped the 3 million by those two movies.

Chukzombi said:

if you're going to be a horses backside, at least try to understand what i posted. it was the #1 movie on monday. Insidiuous #2 and Indy 5 in 3rd place. 4 million topped the 3 million by those two movies.

Click to expand...

How does any of that affect you saying a 45% drop since July 4th? 14M to 4M is more like 70%+. There's no other sensible way to read that statement.

Face it, you just misread some article or went full retard because it was a 45% drop from Sunday.

DickTrickle said:

How does any of that affect you saying a 45% drop since July 4th? 14M to 4M is more like 70%+. There's no other sensible way to read that statement.

Face it, you just misread some article or went full retard because it was a 45% drop from Sunday.

Click to expand...

yeah whatever. it was still #1 for monday. its not dropping in numbers compared to the others. good for them. with a 14.5 million budget its doing incredibly.