Skip to content

What is the true story behind “Sound of Freedom”?

What is the true story behind "Sound of Freedom"?

What is the true story behind “Sound of Freedom”?

“”Sound of Freedom” is a movie based on true events. It tells the story of Tim Ballard, a former Department of Homeland Security agent who quit his job to found Operation Underground Railroad (OUR). OUR is a non-profit organization dedicated to rescuing and rehabilitating children from human trafficking.

The movie focuses on Tim Ballard’s efforts to rescue a young girl from a trafficking ring in Colombia. While the overall premise and the work of OUR are based on real events, it’s important to note that movies often take creative liberties for dramatic effect. Therefore, certain aspects of the story might be fictionalized or exaggerated.

To get a more accurate understanding of the real-life events and the work of Operation Underground Railroad, it is recommended to refer to official sources, documentaries, or interviews with Tim Ballard and members of the organization.”This is a movie based on true events. It tells the story of Tim Ballard, a former Department of Homeland Security agent who quit his job to found Operation Underground Railroad (OUR). OUR is a non-profit organization dedicated to rescuing and rehabilitating children from human trafficking.

The movie focuses on Tim Ballard’s efforts to rescue a young girl from a trafficking ring in Colombia. While the overall premise and the work of OUR are based on real events, it’s important to note that movies often take creative liberties for dramatic effect. Therefore, certain aspects of the story might be fictionalized or exaggerated.

To get a more accurate understanding of the real-life events and the work of Operation Underground Railroad, it is recommended to refer to official sources, documentaries, or interviews with Tim Ballard and members of the organization.

Why are liberals so afraid of the film “The Sound of Freedom”? Netflix and Amazon won’t carry it, but it is pretty good and not very political.

This is an excellent example of “paltering:” lying without uttering a technical falsehood.

It is technically true, if you squint, that “Netflix and Amazon won’t carry The Sound of Freedom.”

They won’t carry it because they can’t. The producers never offered it to them. They were never allowed to bid on it.

Angel Studios only made it available on their streaming platform and the Angel app.

I don’t know if you’re intentionally paltering, Steve, or if you simply swallowed other people’s lies without fact-checking. Based on your answer to your question, I’m guessing it’s the latter—you read a Web article about Amazon and Netflix “refusing” to stream it, and you simply swallowed it without doing your research.

None of the Angel Studios movies are on Netflix or Amazon. They are all on Angel’s private streaming service, which advertises itself as a “wholesome Christian streaming service” that “amplifies the light.”

Why are liberals so afraid of the film “The Sound of Freedom”? Netflix and Amazon won’t carry it, but it is pretty good and not very political.

Netflix and Amazon won’t stream it because the company that made the movie, Angel Studios, decided to stream it exclusively on the company’s streaming platform and app. Netflix, Amazon, and the other streaming platforms weren’t even offered the opportunity to stream it.

I saw the movie, and I’m not even remotely afraid of it. I’d describe it as a very mildly interesting action thriller, the kind of movie that you kind of enjoy while watching it and then completely forget about it within a couple of hours.

My main problem was that the movie relies too heavily on the “White Savior” narrative, where the noble and god-fearing white man saves the helpless brown children from their evil brown captors.

Why is the left-wing media desperately trying to censor and cover up Sound of Freedom?

As much as everyone hypes up “Barbie” and “Oppenheimer” for their spectacular box office performances and great marketing campaigns… I think congratulations are in order, too, for Sound of Freedom. Because it’s performing brilliantly right now. The producers behind the movie did everything right.

First, they got Jim Caviezel to play the lead—Caviezel, who played Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. This is a man with a huge pull in Christian-conservative circles, and this helps a lot. Then, they did pretty much zero marketing for the film and spread a narrative of how “they” or “the powers that be” are trying to censor the film, which only increased interest.

People are trying to see the film all the more because “the authorities and media are trying to get them to not see the film.”. It’s like the classical parenting trick where you pretend to dislike the very thing you try to get your unruly small child to do. Who subsequently will eat his veggies or brush his teeth? It works well with movie-going audiences, too. And then there’s, of course, the connotations of abuse. In conservative QAnon circles, it’s been quite popular to push this theory of how a cabal of child-sacrificing Satanists runs the “deep state” and is behind all that ails society.

The real Tim Ballard is a man who saved children from abuse in Latin America. It is a noble endeavor, no doubt about it. The movie itself stays clear of political controversy. But you hype up your audience, whip them into a frenzy with the notion that they’re somehow being “suppressed,” and you get yourself an enduring hit that will continue to draw huge crowds who will consider the very act of going to see the movie as making a statement. This, too, will increase ticket sales massively.

Last but not least, I’ve heard from friends who’ve seen the movie that it’s pretty good. I can’t even see it in Europe, as it only shows up in America. But it’s killing it at the box office right now, considering the low budget and the fact that it’s not made by a major studio. People like supporting an underdog, too, which helps. Even apolitical folks. Sound of Freedom isn’t censored by anyone, but it sure benefits enormously from pretending it is.

Why do you think Disney sat on the movie “Sound of Freedom” for 5 years?

What’s remarkable isn’t that Disney sat on it; rather, it’s that a major studio made the film in the first place.

The major studios haven’t been in the low-budget action thriller business for a long time. They don’t know how to market anything anymore except for giant-budget, effects-driven action spectacles based on familiar titles and characters. These movies cost a ton to make and to market, but when they work, they return hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, to the studios. Low-budget films, even though they have a much lower bar to clear to become profitable, aren’t part of the major studio business model anymore because they don’t return that kind of cash and because they’re generally not merchandisable through other revenue streams. No studio was ever going to be able to capitalize on “Sound of Freedom” by making a sequel, a Tim Ballard action figure, or a theme park ride.

So it’s mind-boggling that 20th Century Fox greenlit the movie in the first place—mind-boggling not because its subject matter is political or controversial, but because a low-budget revamp of “Man on Fire” that stars Jim Caviezel instead of Denzel Washington wouldn’t be any studio executive’s idea of a swing-for-the-fences profit generator.

It’s much less surprising that, when Disney bought Fox in 2019, it let the completed movie languish on the shelf. After all, the topic of child trafficking is so creepy that it seems like a natural turn-off to mainstream audiences, not to mention running counter to Disney’s brand as a studio that caters to children and families. The fact that the story isn’t based on familiar intellectual property would have been another marketing challenge, at least for a mainstream studio accustomed to selling tickets to the broadest possible domestic and international audiences. When COVID closed most movie theaters throughout 2020, that was another reason “Sound of Freedom” wasn’t going to find a release date; as theaters did finally reopen, the studios realized that only the biggest of “event movies” was going to lure reluctant patrons back to the multiplex, and they doubled down on their existing blockbuster-only strategies.

All credit goes to Angel Studios then, not just because they have experience successfully selling this sort of thing to niche audiences, but also because they were persistent enough to collect the money necessary to buy the film from Disney and endure what was surely a lengthy negotiation process. Plus, besides knowing how to reach their “faith-based” audience (made up largely of religious conservatives who generally avoid mainstream Hollywood movies), they came up with the clever “pay it forward” gimmick, urging patrons to buy extra tickets for friends to attend later showings. It didn’t matter that a lot of those tickets went unclaimed and a lot of showings were underpopulated; a sale is a sale.

I don’t think even Angel Studios expected the movie to have done as well as it has, playing on 3,000 screens and earning on par with some saturation-marketed Hollywood summer blockbusters. Part of the movie’s success, unfortunately, is that it has become a political football, something conservative audiences feel they have to see just to own the libs. I don’t believe this was Angel Studios’ intention; indeed, the distributor has been vocal about debunking conspiracy theories that some secret leftist cabal is trying to suppress the movie by sabotaging screenings at AMC theaters. But they’re still fine with the movie being a conservative cause celebre. Disney’s business model is selling broadly appealing movies to the broadest possible audience; Angel’s is selling sermons to an audience that expects to be preached to.

Why are liberals in denial about the sound of freedom?

I’m mystified. Do you think the “sound of freedom” is multiple AR-15s being fired at once? Or the sound of a child dying trying to cross the border?

What exactly is this “sound of freedom” that liberals are in denial about?

Oh, you mean that crappy movie, don’t you? Most of the people charged with child trafficking are conservatives.

Why are certain movie critics giving negative reviews for “Song of Freedom” and trying to compare it to QAnon? Which side are they on?

I would not read a movie review or stop reading it as soon as I saw the word QAnon. I simply would like to know whether or not it is a good movie, and politics should not enter into a movie review. I do not refuse to see a World War II movie because it mentions or has Hitler and Nazis in it. I could care less if the film is propaganda or not. I just want to know if the story it tells is worth seeing and entertaining. The same goes with all the propaganda films that Disney makes today. I’m more than willing to see a woke film if the story is told well, but I do not want to see it just because it is woke or because they made some sort of race, gender, or sexual preference swapping of the main character. I am not voting for a political candidate; I am going to the movies to escape the real world, and I do not care to see a movie in which I am preached to. If the story is told well, I could care less what the subject matter is. No one seems to be able to review or discuss a movie today without entering politics into the discussion. Complaining about the movie Sound of Freedom and basing your complaints on QAnon just makes one appear to be a pedophile who feels threatened by the movie. What I would like to know is if the movie is poorly filmed and amateurish with horrible acting, an unbelievable plot, and other relevant aspects regarding filmmaking. I don’t care about the motivations behind why the film was made; I just want to know if it’s good or not. I don’t see movies to express what side I am on. If I want to show what side I am on, I do so when I vote on election day or get involved in local politics. I don’t give people money to see a political ad.

Why was “Sound of Freedom” shelved by Disney and later bought back for independent distribution?

Disney has only gone public with the response, “We refuse to release the film.” Or “we can’t release the film.”

With no explanation.

Those who see this fantastic movie, a truly heroic story, of a Homeland Security and FBI agent who catches pedophiles and ends up saving an eight-year-old boy who asks him if his sister will be alright since his keepers had threatened him that if he didn’t do what they wanted, they’d kill his sister, who had also been abducted, and the agent then throws himself into the dark to find and rescue the boy’s sister, can’t help but like it.

It is such a truly heroic story about the resolve of a good man, a family man, saving children from real-life horror that it begs the question as to why Disney refused to release the film!

The Sound of Freedom was produced independently, which means it needed a distributor. Fox decided to take it on, but before they could release the film, Disney bought Fox and then shelved the Sound of Freedom, relegating it to a dark, dusty corner of oblivion where they were determined it would stay for undisclosed reasons.

The production team went out and found Angel Studios and some additional cash, which they used to purchase the film rights back from Disney, though they had to fight for this, and finally gave it to Angel Studios for release. Which is how it became possible to see it in theaters today. And it’s performing well! Everyone who sees it can’t help walking away feeling inspired, though, maybe through bittersweet tears because of the subject material.

Why would Disney refuse to release this film?

There are many possible reasons. Let me list them from the most reasonable to the most radical:

  1. Disney didn’t believe it would make a profit. While this reason seems the most reasonable, when we consider the substantial losses Disney has been willing to take just to release a move for “the message” in it, this reason for shelving it becomes laughable and one of the most unlikely.
  2. Disney didn’t like its political associations. The movie has been labeled a “right-wing” film by certain commentators, even though it has absolutely no politics in it at all. It’s just the story of a heroic father who is passionate about saving lost and abused children. It’s not about right versus left. It’s about good versus evil. Is it truly true that a movie with a strong, heroic, good man can only be associated with the political right? And if that’s the case, shouldn’t Disney, who is supposed to be pro-family, want to endorse this idea?!
    1. This may be because many so-called conservatives have gone public about supporting this film, like Elon Musk and that woman—what’s her name?—Ivana Trump.
    2. There’s a QAnon conspiracy theory that Hollywood elites and a band of other worldwide political elites have formed a pedophile sex-trafficking cabal. In more radical groups, they even say these elites are using children to harvest oxidized adrenalin from children (you need a living host) to make the psychedelic drug Adrenochrome. Because this movie testifies that there is a major problem in the world with child sex traffic, it seems to support these radical QAnon theories and, therefore, seems to be right-wing supportive and therefore political, from a cowardly point of view. None of these theories are in the film.
  3. Disney didn’t like Jim Caveziel’s promotional tour for the film, where he goes into Adrenochrome theories while discussing the subject material. They may have felt he was being radical and generating bad press that they didn’t want to be associated with.
  4. Disney really is part of an elite pedophile cabal, and they don’t want people to be enlightened about that demonic business and the insane profits it makes every year off child abuse, which this movie exposes.

While the last one would seem to be the most implausible, when we’ve uncovered Jeffrey Epstein’s island, which was real, and there are stars like Corey Feldman out there saying the number 1 problem in Hollywood is pedophilia, and several Disney employees have been uncovered to be sex offenders, it does make you wonder what dark connections Disney might have to that industry. After all, their target audience is children, and, as we all know, pedophiles are drawn to all places where children are, from your local neighborhood park to theme parks catered to children, and even Disney executive offices. Why wouldn’t pedophiles want to work at Disney when they want to work everywhere else children are? There’s no doubt pedophiles would be attracted to Disney, but has Disney embraced pedophiles? That’s the question.

Considering all their movies lately have themes of everything except embracing the traditional family and the father being the hero and protector of it, it does make you wonder just who is running things over there and what their real agenda is.

The good news is that the Sound of Freedom has been released and is quickly becoming a major hit! One of the all-time must-sees. The story is well-written, the plot pacing is perfect, the performances are riveting, and the fact that it’s based on a true story just makes it even more compelling! Plus, you can gift tickets for it to anyone who wants to see it but can’t afford it. That’s nice!

What role does faith play in the movie “Sound of Freedom”?

Faith plays a subtle but important role in The Sound of Freedom.

On the most subtle level, if you research a little bit about the main character, Tim Ballard,

You’ll realize that his Mormon faith is central to his worldview, including his view of child exploitation.Related to that, and even more subtle, is the role that Glenn Beck played in getting funding for Tim Ballard when he quit his job with the American Department of Homeland Security. Beck, for the uninitiated, is also a prominent Mormon (or adherent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and has been a prominent and controversial radio talk show host. Interestingly, this subtle faith link was explicitly in the original script but did not make it to the final draft.

Understanding this level of awareness requires studying the context of the film more than the film itself, as I like to teach my students.But there is a more obvious and important level of “faith” observance in the film itself. The word “God” arises once or twice, especially in the quote: “God’s children are not for sale,” as spoken by the Tim Ballard character when he is confronted with a child trafficker. And the film’s distributor, Angel Studios, is known for supporting faith-based programming such as the popular TV series The Chosen, about the life of Jesus Christ.

But probably the most controversial and obvious injection of faith revolves around the main plot point. Many characters in this film do not have faith in their governments (of multiple countries, including the USA) and police towards deterring child trafficking. Instead, a rag-tag team of former gangsters, millionaires, and former Homeland Security agents (at least one, not to give anything away) come together to intervene in what governments seem unwilling or unable to stop (and maybe even complicit in allowing).

The most important element of “faith” in this film is the individualistic religious viewpoint that is an underlying assumption of its theme, which involves worshiping individual heroism in contrast to the ineffectual governments’ efforts. It’s ultimately an anti-government theme. The film is ultimately about trusting that people like Tim Ballard are more reliable as heroes in comparison to the American government. And finally, it’s implicit in this film that we can trust organizations like Operation Underground Railroad (which is never mentioned in the film itself) more than our elected leaders and international organizations like UNICEF, the United Nations, and Interpol, again none of which are named. This has also arisen since the release of this film, where people involved in the making of it have been badmouthing the big, impersonal company that they say is Disney (which used to own the finished film) and praising the director (Alejandro Gómez Monteverde) along with Angel Studios, who have been doing a highly unusual “pay-it-forward” system of selling tickets.

To summarize, the key to “faith” as seen in this film is individualism, especially as opposed to faith in governments, although collective action via individually heroic people is still celebrated.

What true story is the Sound of Freedom based on?

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, “Sound of Freedom” is a film based on real events. The movie tells the true story of Tim Ballard, a former U.S. government agent who left his job to start Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.). O.U.R. is a non-profit organization dedicated to rescuing children from human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Tim Ballard and his team at Operation Underground Railroad work to infiltrate human trafficking operations, rescue victims, and bring traffickers to justice. The organization collaborates with law enforcement agencies and operates globally to combat child exploitation.

Please note that there may have been further developments or additional information about the movie and the organization since my last update in January 2022. If you are looking for the most recent and accurate information, I recommend checking the latest sources or official statements from the individuals and organizations involved.

What is the controversy with the Sound of Freedom?

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I am not aware of any specific controversy surrounding the film “Sound of Freedom.” It’s important to note that controversies can arise for various reasons, such as the portrayal of real events, the accuracy of the story, or ethical concerns related to the subject matter.

If there have been developments or controversies related to the movie since my last update, I recommend checking more recent sources, news articles, or reviews for the latest information. Keep in mind that public perceptions and controversies can evolve over time, and new information may become available after my last update in January 2022.

Who is the real man behind the Sound of Freedom?

“Sound of Freedom” is a film based on the real-life experiences of Tim Ballard. Tim Ballard is a former U.S. government agent who left his position to co-found Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.), a non-profit organization dedicated to rescuing children from human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Tim Ballard and his team at Operation Underground Railroad work to combat child exploitation by infiltrating human trafficking networks, rescuing victims, and collaborating with law enforcement agencies globally. The movie “Sound of Freedom” aims to portray Tim Ballard’s efforts and the work of the O.U.R. in combating human trafficking.

If there have been any updates or changes regarding the real man behind “Sound of Freedom” since my last knowledge update in January 2022, I recommend checking the latest sources for the most current information.

Was the girl from Sounds of Freedom ever found?

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I don’t have specific details about the individuals or cases depicted in the film “Sound of Freedom.” The movie is based on real events, particularly the efforts of Tim Ballard and Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.) in rescuing children from human trafficking.

If the film portrays a specific rescue mission or case and you are inquiring about the real-life outcome of that particular case, I recommend checking the latest and most reliable news sources or official statements from Operation Underground Railroad for updates. Keep in mind that real-life events and cases can be sensitive, and information may not always be readily available due to privacy and security concerns.

What is the true story behind “Sound of Freedom”?

What is the process for an indictment? complete guide 2024

How did the British expression “bag of pants” mean “rubbish”?

What are the activation code issues on Tubitv.com/activate?

Where can I watch The Vampire Diaries for free?