I've seen worse and better films in this genre. I was puzzled by the film's approach to Tom Marsh and why the film decided to make him the villain and the cause of almost everything bad that happened to the Saints in Nauvoo. I read a review about being cautious with these types of films that aren't produced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have mixed feelings about this. I think these types of films have their place, but also agree that if you want a real historical film then stick with church produced products.
I’m reasonably sure that a lot of the bad things that happened to the Saints in Nauvoo were caused by Joseph Smith’s bad behaviour. Does 6DIA misrepresent Thomas Marsh?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It would seem that the film is conspicuously absent from the websites that track box office information. I wonder: did the Executive Producer deliberately scheme to withhold this information in order to avoid criticism?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
The cinemark Provo 16 is showing it today in a roughly 250 seat auditorium. A very big “get” for Dan in his home neighborhood.
They have 6 tickets sold for the 3:15 show, and 0 sold for the 6 and 9PM shows.
And that’s on a Sunday - weekends are the moneymakers for films.
All signs point to this being a box office disaster for Dan.
Is attending the cinema an acceptable activity on the Sabbath?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
The cinemark Provo 16 is showing it today in a roughly 250 seat auditorium. A very big “get” for Dan in his home neighborhood.
They have 6 tickets sold for the 3:15 show, and 0 sold for the 6 and 9PM shows.
And that’s on a Sunday - weekends are the moneymakers for films.
All signs point to this being a box office disaster for Dan.
Is attending the cinema an acceptable activity on the Sabbath?
Apparently not. I guess it really doesn’t have an audience beyond the type of Mormon who would eschew Cinema on Sunday, decline a Diet Coke, and wear their garments during sex.
Its audience is the type of Mormon who would pay $15 to watch an LDS visitor center movie.
It would seem that the film is conspicuously absent from the websites that track box office information. I wonder: did the Executive Producer deliberately scheme to withhold this information in order to avoid criticism?
It makes sense. The Executive Producer has not been transparent with the financial information for Six Days, so it makes sense he would try his best to continue to be opaque as possible.
The Executive Producer's lack of transparency sure puts a cloud of suspicion over the project and tends to lend credence to the many rumors of financial impropriety.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Why would the Producer and Interpreter screen their movie in the cinema on a Sunday when they know that to attend a screening, members would need to go against the advice of the Brethren about keeping the Sabbath Day holy? Why would they screen their movie on a Sunday when to do so that means making people work on the Sabbath?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It would seem that the film is conspicuously absent from the websites that track box office information. I wonder: did the Executive Producer deliberately scheme to withhold this information in order to avoid criticism?
It makes sense. The Executive Producer has not been transparent with the financial information for Six Days, so it makes sense he would try his best to continue to be opaque as possible.
The Executive Producer's lack of transparency sure puts a cloud of suspicion over the project and tends to lend credence to the many rumors of financial impropriety.
The Executive Producer has not been transparent with the financial information for Witnesses
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It would seem that the film is conspicuously absent from the websites that track box office information. I wonder: did the Executive Producer deliberately scheme to withhold this information in order to avoid criticism?
Keep in mind that the takings up to 11th October will include the money Interpreter paid for all the tickets for the Premiere - a full 250 seat theatre screening? Plus the tickets sold for the early pre-Premiere “sneak preview” screenings.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
It would seem that the film is conspicuously absent from the websites that track box office information. I wonder: did the Executive Producer deliberately scheme to withhold this information in order to avoid criticism?
Keep in mind that the takings will include the money Interpreter paid for all the tickets for the Premiere - a full 250 seat theatre screening? Plus the tickets sold for the early pre-Premiere “sneak preview” screenings.
