The "Witnesses" Film and Church Control of Mopologetics.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Here are some critically acclaimed movies by world class directors that were much less than 1 million dollars:

President Chung, yes, a million seems a lot for this kind of movie but there are three areas where I could see those costs coming out as legit.

The first would be getting real Hollywoods stars. Imagine, for instance, Dolph Lundgren as Moroni. If they pulled that off, even *I* would probably like the film. The Institute customers would be ecstatic. I do wonder how the Book of Mormon Central folks would take that. The Brethren would at that point, be terrified.

The second would be intense action sequences. It costs about 100 - 200k for a Matrix level "bullet time" scene. Imagine a 360 with the gold plates flying through the air as Joseph Smith momentarily lets them loose from his grasp as he stumbles over a rocky cliff only to catch the stack of pure gold again at the bottom. When Moroni reveals the plates, a slo-mo 360 that gets every angle of the plates from the witness circle around Moroni would do wonders to instill the idea that the witnesses were getting this all into their heads.

A third would be hiring a full symphony and pro film scoring. Recall how much certain associated with the project love the symphony.

I've been wondering all this myself. Did they pay the "talking heads" they recruited for this? And DCP mentioned a "consulting fee," though of course, you have to wonder if their is some linguistic sleight of hand going on: he says, "I will earn no consulting fee." How's that, now? What if it wasn't "earned" but rather "taken"? He says, "None of this money, not a penny of it, will come to me or any member of my family." Well, it can't "come" if it's already in his pocket.... We have to exercise skepticism, I think, given the way he distorted the truth concerning the $20,000+ he was paid for serving as Chair of FARMS. Someone, I'm fairly certain, based on posts on "SeN," racked up rather massive travel expenses for the project.

But, back to the topic at hand. I know that they hired screenwriters who have actually movies to their credit--I believe one of them worked on the film about the missionary in some island country--The Other Side of Heaven, was the title, I believe? So, you have to wonder how big a slice is going towards that. And did they use the best possible equipment? I do wonder along with you, Dean Robbers, about the potential use of CGI to depict the supernatural aspects of the story. I bet that it will be a huge dodge, though, and that they'll just cut away at the crucial moments.

Here's a question for you and everyone else, though: How much will the content and "polish" of the film (ahem) matter to the Brethren? Will they shrug this all off if the film sucks? Or, will they want control of it regardless?

[_GameOver]

What a waste of money.

[Guest]

The film was originally budgeted at $1 million(I think?), now it's $1.2 million and Dan alludes to the actual cost ending up somewhere north of $1.2 million due to "...a few expenses (notably charges at distant film locations) came in surprisingly high, for example..." - I thought Dan was using people with experience of this kind of thing? Do they have any kind of budgetary control, or could this project rise to $2 million and still need more because they've "...somewhat expanded our vision of what we want to do with materials to supplement the film(s) proper..." (which sounds a lot like uncontrolled project creep)?

Why does a film about an event in upstate New York need to be filmed in "distant film locations"?

Is there, in fact, any semblance of control on budgets and timelines?

Has Dan put any money up himself?

Why isn't the Church's fully-staffed-and-already-funded media department making this film/docudrama/series/edupropoganda?

[_I have a question]

Deleted

[_Markk]

I've been wondering all this myself. Did they pay the "talking heads" they recruited for this? And DCP mentioned a "consulting fee," though of course, you have to wonder if their is some linguistic sleight of hand going on: he says, "I will earn no consulting fee." How's that, now? What if it wasn't "earned" but rather "taken"? He says, "None of this money, not a penny of it, will come to me or any member of my family." Well, it can't "come" if it's already in his pocket.... We have to exercise skepticism, I think, given the way he distorted the truth concerning the $20,000+ he was paid for serving as Chair of FARMS. Someone, I'm fairly certain, based on posts on "SeN," racked up rather massive travel expenses for the project.

But, back to the topic at hand. I know that they hired screenwriters who have actually movies to their credit--I believe one of them worked on the film about the missionary in some island country--The Other Side of Heaven, was the title, I believe? So, you have to wonder how big a slice is going towards that. And did they use the best possible equipment? I do wonder along with you, Dean Robbers, about the potential use of CGI to depict the supernatural aspects of the story. I bet that it will be a huge dodge, though, and that they'll just cut away at the crucial moments.

Here's a question for you and everyone else, though: How much will the content and "polish" of the film (ahem) matter to the Brethren? Will they shrug this all off if the film sucks? Or, will they want control of it regardless?

It will probably be just like the essays, an endorsed product, without the endorsement. Wiggle room is a must in most all things coming from the 15.

[_SuperDell]

Peterson is so dumb that if I were selling Pills for Stupid People he would order two bottles.

[_kairos]

My sense is some wealthy TBM came forward with the big bucks not the $20 dollar donations of thousands of "little old ladies" TBMs. Sorta fell in Dan's lap. Given the work Dan Vogel and others have done in the "witnesses" area, Peterson will never put together a bulletproof film even with the emotional background music and soft fuzzy cinematography - bottom line it will be a disaster and if the brethren preview it , their advisors will Tell them to thumbs down it and it and all copies will be burned. Dan of course will come up with excuses but face it the scholarship of Vogel and others will soundly trounce the film. Now if Dan decides to make it totally apologetic the film will portray a scene, like Martin Harris shouting "'tis true" or some other BS about seeing the plates and there will be cuts to both TBM scholars and then critics giving their takes on the scene then the film will move to the next scene and do the same thing with Dan hoping he can "outscore" the critics scene by scene . Quite frankly I don't think he has a prayer of pulling that off.

Where is Helen Whitney when you need her?

k

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

And when the General becomes able to finance his army without the King's money, then how easy does the King sleep?

Especially when that General has been stealing from the pantry and has delusions of grandeur.

[_Tom]

I am pleased to report that Mr. Richins provided an update on the Witnesses film during his postprandial remarks at the Interpreter Foundation birthday celebration last Saturday night. Fortunately, his remarks were videotaped. Beginning at about 00:00:25 of the video, Mr. Richins approaches the chapel podium while lugging an object covered with a white cloth. With a dramatic flourish, he drops the object next to the podium, producing a loud clanging noise and some disturbing acoustic feedback. He then asks if we can imagine what it would have been like for Emma Smith to have to move something like the object around. Or what it would have been like when Josiah Stowell saw something being passed through a window and caught a tiny glimpse of something in a bag. Or what it would have been like for Katharine Smith, then 14, to try to pick up something like the object.

Mr. Richins helpfully explains that the object is a 40-pound representation of the gold plates that will be used in the Witnesses film. Another replica of the plates will also appear in the film. He reports that production on the film begins September 3. After rustling the replica on the stand and asking what it would have been like for Lucy Mack or Emma to have heard such a sound and yet couldn't look at the plates, he notes that filming will begin in Upper Canada Village, then move to Massachusetts, and then come back to Utah for some interior filming. At the end of his remarks, Mr. Richins picks up the plates again and walks off to some laughter. (He never uncovers the plates.) I am not making this up.

Dr. Skousen was the next speaker. Speaking with the dry tone and enthusiasm of a high council speaker, he reports that he will be doing final proofing for part 5 of Volume III of the Critical Text of the Book of Mormon, a volume titled The King James Bible in the Book of Mormon. And then he will be doing final proofing for part 6 of Volume III, a volume titled Spelling in the Manuscripts and the Editions. By 2021, he says, all eight parts of Volume III will be published.

Noting that a graduate student found the first evidence of early modern English in the Book of Mormon, Dr. Skousen admits that he "sat" on this finding for five years because it was "upsetting." Fortunately, though, Dr. Skousen overcame these negative feelings and began searching for further evidence beginning in 2003. He reports that colleagues have sent him and Dr. Carmack dozens of alleged counterexamples to consider. One colleague, he reports, sent him 30 examples that he "could not find on the Internet." Dr. Skousen boasts that he and Dr. Carmack found all of the examples in early modern English in a two-hour search. Impressive.

The King James Bible in the Book of Mormon will examine a number of issues, including:

First, what counts as a quotation?

Second, are the quotations actually from the King James Bible? Dr. Skousen asserts that all the quotations are from the King James Bible except for one from the Bibles in the 1530s ("ships of the sea"). (He jokes that the Palmyra Library probably had a copy of these Bibles.)

Third, what edition of the King James Bible is being cited? He says it's difficult to answer this question, but the date is after the 1670s.

Fourth, did Joseph Smith give a marked-up Bible to Oliver Cowdery during the Book of Mormon translation? Dr. Skousen says "we know this is not true" because of the misspellings in the manuscript.

Fifth, how did Joseph Smith use the Book of Mormon in his New Translation? Dr. Skousen says Joseph Smith had certain passages from the 1830 edition copied into the King James translation, failing to realize all the errors in the 1830 edition.

Sixth, how many of the differences rely on the italics in the King James Bible? Only 23 percent, he says.

Seventh, what about anachronistic and cultural King James elements in the quotations? He admits that there are mistakes in the King James translation and they show up in the Book of Mormon. Dr. Skousen says he's not bothered by it, but he admits that some get upset. His explanation needs to be quoted for truth: "The Book of Mormon is being connected to the period of early modern English and the Bible of early modern English, the King James Bible, and they're just going to use the King James Bible and we just live with it." I am not making this up.

Dr. Skousen also says that the Book of Mormon is a cultural translation and a creative one, introducing elements that are not on the plates (e.g., there was no "bar of God" in the ancient world).

I won't mention anything about the other speakers or the painful hymn sung at the end.

[_Philo Sofee]

It's a testimony builder about how strong Joseph Smith was even as a mere kid, lugging those abominably heavy plates while running through the woods, jumping over logs, dashing here and there dodging trees, bushes, rocks, etc., and fighting off those who caught him! It's a wonderful illustration of the truth of the information inside the Book of Mormon to have such melodrama on stage! I am sooooooo sorry I missed the show......