OT: Barbenheimer SPOILER THREAD
This is the thread for people who have seen BOTH Barbie and Oppenheimer.* I thought both were excellent.
Two non-spoilery thoughts:
- I can't believe they did Matchbox 20 like that.
- U.S. secretary of war Henry Stimson actually took Kyoto off the list of potential drop sites because he honeymooned there, that part's true.
*Or if you've seen one but don't give a shit about the other one.
Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima because it was more humane than sending Chuck Norris
Minor correction: Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima because the technology for developing Michael Barrett wasn't available yet.
Nah-ah. They scored 3 points.
I saw both and likewise thought they were both excellent movies. It was kind of great to be able to go see two stellar movies in the same weekend. It almost never happens anymore
Can someone explain the humor of the Matchbox 20 guitars at the beach scene? Some folks thought it was hilarious, and I just wasn't getting it.
I didn’t get it either when I was watching Oppenheimer
It seemed funny to me that it was the Kens’ choice of like a heartfelt intimate song, when the lyrics have references to casual softcore violence. Not the kind of song you would ever put on a girl’s mix tape.
Also the visual of all the Kens doing it too, saying something about conformity.
Not to get too meta but also it’s funny because it is not a very chivalrous or patriarchial song. Makes men look bad. Not virtuous. And the Kens were trying to convince the Barbies to adopt a male-dominated social order. With “Push” as the anthem. It’s a clueless choice showing how feckless their Ken takeover is.
I saw The Sound of Freedom. Do adult men really watch Barbie movies?
It’s a whole-ass cultural event bro
one of the movies you listed here is mindless crap, and it ain’t barbie.
Sound of Freedom, a movie about child sex trafficking, is mindless crap? How so?
1. As, like, a movie, it's frankly pretty boring.
2. The actual guy it's based on's foundation functionally buys child slaves and frees them (which is depicted in the film, actually). So like when you donate money to them some of it goes to that. Which sounds like it could be a good thing in a vacuum (I'm sure individual trafficked children have been saved this way), but there is evidence that it actually increases demand for child slaves and leads to more children being kidnapped and trafficked. There's a ton of other issues including them not actually spending the vast majority of their money on rescuing children and the fact that their "rehabilitative" efforts towards rescued children are specifically very religious (the guy is a devout Mormon).
3. The actor who plays the lead is a Qanon guy and openly promoted Qanon stuff in the run up to the film.
1. Disagree. I found it to be a pwerful story - well written, with very good cinematography, music, and acting.
2. I believe the people behind this movie are actually trying to impact child trafficking which is more than I can say about most people in Hollywood or at the higher levels of our government.
3. What is a "Qanon guy"?
1. Okay. Agree to disagree.
2. It is not in dispute whether the people in O.U.R. believe that they are helping victims of child trafficking. I'm sure they do. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And I agree with you wrt the government, whose job it should be to prevent human trafficking, but what do you mean "most people in Hollywood?" The entertainment industry is just that, an industry. That's like saying "what's the finance industry doing to impact child trafficking" or "what's Big Agriculture doing to impact child trafficking?"
3. Google Qanon, it'd be too much to type out.
Well, I guess I can no longer enjoy The Count of Monte Cristo since the title role is played by a Qanon guy.
The Count of Monte Crisco? By Alexandre Dumbass?
Why focus on the message when it is so much easier to shoot the messenger.
1. The movie has nothing to do with Qanon, and it's actually kinda creepy that some are trying to link it to that. in fact, it was written several years before Qanon was a thing.
2. Chuck Norris would never say such a thing nor would Chuck Norris start this thread. Delete your account.
I haven't seen the movie but a friend of mine works for the Chicago Children's Advocacy Center, which helps abused and trafficked children. She cautioned me about this movie, saying that the people behind it (money, producers, Tom Ballard) are politically motivated, and not helpful to their cause. Their agency has had to distance itself from several people involved in the project. She believes this issue should not be politicized from any side and doing so undermines their efforts. I trust her. She has devoted her professional life to this.
I strongly agree that the issues should not be politicized so it's good that the film doesn't even come close to politics.
I guess it's important to you that what I said isn't true.
Wendy I know the truth and just the truth (not my truth not your truth just THE truth) is of the utmost.
"It’s great that [the film] is raising awareness,” said Suzanne Lewis-Johnson, a former FBI agent who worked on child trafficking cases in Ohio for a decade. “But if we become too hyperfocused on what we think trafficking looks like, we miss the real thing."
“We’ve had survivors say to us, ‘I didn’t know I was trafficked because it didn’t look like what it looks like in the movies,’” said Beck Sullivan, the chief program officer at Restore, an anti-trafficking organization that works in New York City. Sullivan, too, thought the movie was good for raising awareness, and she appreciated the closing text in the film that notes that the US is among the largest consumers of child sex, showing that the demand problem is domestic."
"Bob Rodgers is the CEO of anti-trafficking ministry Street Grace, which is focused on helping children in Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas. Street Grace has partnered with OUR in the past. He thought the film was well done but that it depicts a “sliver” of what trafficking can look like."
The film is not political. THAT IS THE TRUTH.
Do you know how many times I heard "HOW CAN ANYONE POLITICIZE A PANDEMIC?!" From the same people who admonish a film about child sex trafficking
So what exactly do you want Brutus? Consistency?? It's all about how can I score points for my tribe today. Whatever may have been said a year ago is...in the words of the immortal Ron Ziegler...no longer operative.
This is kind of funny, because y'all took a thread about Oppenheimer and Barbie and turned it into a discussion of the Caviezel movie--AGAIN--and have attacked anyone that doesn't speak in worshipful tones about it. So now you act like persecuted victims, as if we hijacked your thread.
Everyone is politically motivated.
Sounds like your friend puts politics above all else, even the plight of trafficked children, so chooses to politicize the movie because of the political beliefs of those who were involved in making it.
Yes, Wendy, your friend who does this for a living and has dedicated her life to the well being of these children doesn't know shit because noted experts such as (checks notes) "The Oracle 2", "Evenyoubrutus" and "Hail 2 Victors" say so.
I'm really happy to see you have finally come around.
I’m sure she does know “shit,” but it sounds like she is also of the mindset that there can be no agreement, about anything, with anyone whose politics differ from hers.
Or maybe we all know that the party that supports Matt Gaetz and child marriage doesn't care about child sex trafficking, and that all of your outrage is performative and disingenuous. If you actually cared, you'd listen to the opinions of experts on the subject.
You know, actual facts.
“I haven’t seen the movie but a friend of mine that does this for a living said it’s bad.”
It’s such an appeal to authority with no critical thought. If you watch the movie, which I’m guessing you won’t, there is 0 politics involved. But yeah, Tom Ballard has views that you don’t align with so the movie must have bad motives. And your friend that does this for a living concurs. Like WTF is this line of thinking.
It’s such an appeal to authority with no critical thought.
Aren't you kind of describing your own process? "Don't believe your friend, who is an expert with years of experience and unimpeachable credentials. Instead, believe the Jim Caviezel movie--a work of fiction btw--that I just saw down at the metroplex." How much critical thought is there in that?
Lol not even close… my “process” is that I’ve watched the movie and know there is no political motivation. It’s not complicated.
Also, just because you worked in the same business doesn’t make your opinion “unimpeachable”. That’s my point. I work in the finance/investment world. My opinion on the market is certainly up for debate and should be challenged. I could be right or wrong in many instances and it would be so arrogant to think my word is truth. You are a clown and your opinion should be treated as such— signed a best friend that is unimpeachable because I’m a subject expert on everything.
You've accused someone of failing to engage in critical thinking. So let's try to break down what you said here. The question I'm asking is what is critical thinking to you?
First, you've mischaracterized what I've said. Opinions are not unimpeachable. Credentials are. And those credentials--education and experience in a given field--lend your opinion greater weight than someone lacking those credentials. This is the concept of ethos. It doesn't mean that person is correct or even truthful. It does mean that when we engage in critical thinking--which most would define as considering a variety of sources--we give experts in their field greater weight than people who are not. And we regularly place our trust in authoritative sources without engaging in the research process I've described; we trust the word of medical doctors, accountants, writers on football blogs (the UFR!), etc. So, when it comes to finance wouldn't you say that your opinion should have greater weight than someone who does not work in that industry? If not, why would I allow you to invest my money in the first place?
So, again, what is critical thinking to you?
Wendy, why don't you go see it and develop an opinion the old-fashioned way? That's the problem today, too many people being manipulated by everybody else. Just see it for yourself and let us know what you think.
Re-read what I said. Jim Caviezel, who plays the lead of the movie, promoted Qanon ideas during the run-up to the movie during promotional interviews and stuff. You can google it if you want.
Jim Caviezel took a stand against child sex trafficking, which Blue-anon tragically tried to politicize. Seriously why is your username Chuck Norris. It's really weird.
I will once again point you to google. It's all out there, and very clear.
Chuck Norris contains multitudes, friend.
Every time I try to Google something it just tells me what I should care about and what I should be feeling. Way too reminiscent of my marriage. Is there another search engine you recommend
I'm sorry about your marriage.
Many thanks my brother 🙏
If you should ever find such an alternative search engine, please let me know
You are so triggered by a user name.
Not sure how he “took a stand.” Literally no one is out there saying “trafficking is good.” He isn’t making some brave stance against anything. What an odd way to characterize a film that ends by telling you buy more tickets. It’s a shameless money grab.
Anything that dishonors Chuck Freaking Norris triggers me
If the movie has nothing to do with qanon then explain why Cavaziel was talking about adrenochrome?
Also explain why he was a speaker at a qanon conference. And further explain his antisemitic quote: “It’s like an octopus with arms, many many arms, but you got to go after the head of the octopus. Who is it? The central banks, the [International Monetary Fund], the [European Central Bank], the Rothschild banks? We have a Rothschild pope.”
Edit: Also explain to me how Cavaziel is taking a stand against child exploitation while simulatenously appearing at events with Jim and Ron Watkins, two people who have profited off child exploitation.
I'm sorry but you can't criticize adrenochrome until you've tried it. And can you please help me find tickets to a Qanon conference? I cannot begin to describe how desperately I want to attend one of those.
You’ve deflected and haven’t answered the questions.
but it’s called For God and Country: Patriot Roundup. It’s organized by a guy known as “Qanon John”
edit for carpetbagger below: look up the conference. certainly some people are attending it. You can find pictures of mugs with the phrase WWG1WGA.
I mean I could spend all night posting links to refute your arguments and then you could challenge my logic with your totally credible links and refute my arguments and then we could compare upvotes to downvotes and see whose is bigger, but I have way better things to do. So I'll surrender, you win. Qanon is still alive and strong and has manifested in a Jim Caviezel movie meant to raise funds for Donald Trump's campaign. Congratulations.
I've literally never met someone on the right who knows anything about Qanon they didn't hear about from someone on the left.
I've put it in the same bucket as "dog whistle". Which only seem to be heard by those pointing it out for.... reasons.