08-05-2023, 02:51 AM
(08-04-2023, 08:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: The movie is a Q fever dream.
Have you seen it to make this judgment?
Quote:That's why the MAGA folks flocked to it.
Do you have demographic information about the audience that isn't available to others?
Quote:The issue is one worth fighting for. The fantasy aspects of the film are typical of a film trying to glorify something or someone.
It's a movie. As I said, I haven't seen it. But, exaggeration of true events is Hollywood's bread and butter.
Quote:The problem is the cult members believe it is 100% true and, as you pointed out, the folks behind it or more than a little shady.
Folks? As in plural? Do you have evidence of nefarious activity of others involved in this film? Harvey Weinstein was intimately involved in many of Tarantino's films, does that make them bad films?
(08-04-2023, 08:57 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Just to add some context; Ballard has been using his war on sex trafficking mantra as his primary fundraising tool for the past decade, yet he has repeatedly refused to opened the books of either OURS or The Nazarene Project, to show where the money has gone and how it's been used. Furthermore, there are curious "missions" that can't be verified to have ever happened. With the scrutiny over those things increasing, he has opted to leave both groups for undisclosed reasons. Ballard's history with the truth has rather precarious, to say the least.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the organization. I have no idea if people involved with it were, or are, shady on any level.
Quote:I agree with you that any awareness raised concerning the issue of sex trafficking is beneficial.
I never doubted your intent in that regard
Quote:However, whatever the movie's intent, the actual topic of sex trafficking took a backseat rather quickly after it's release; with the focus becoming more about inane conspiracy theories.
This is where I start to tune out on the arguments against this film. Let's say some of its proponents use it to gin up conspiracy theories. How does that detract from the film's message? It's like saying J.D. Salinger had a hand in John Lennon's death. Once a piece of art/fiction is released it's subject to the interpretation of those viewing it. Unless someone can show that the filmmaker's intent was to propagate pizza gate style conspiracy theories the opposition to this movie does not make its detractors look very good. Can this be done?
