Wow. That was quite the epic. Just think, if you devoted this kind of
energy into screenwriting you'd have a completed script by now. ;-)

As far as double standards are concerned, I have one question. Did you
see The Passion? If so, is that a double standard? Is violence just as
dangerous on screen as sex? Or is that different because the movie was
about Jesus? Just wondering.

- Dave

Alex, I really liked your short essay. But I liked it even more when it was
called Sunday
School.

Filmmaking is an expression of art. Art has no solid rules or regulations. Sex
(which you
reference quite a bit) has been used in many ways in art since the dawn of man.
It's been
used to stimulate, to offend, to disgust, and even to inspire. Sex is sex is sex
is sex. It's an
element of life and expression of this element in film shouldn't blantantly be
ignored or
banned due to the "ewww" factor.

steVen

--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Hall" <narfnarfsillywilly@...> wrote:
>
> Here's my review of some LDS responses to the HBO television series entitled
> BIG LOVE.
>
> I sympathize with the
> praise<http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/2982>that
> Angie Miske gives for BIG LOVE, depicting friendship between a
> daughter
> from a Latter-Day Saint family and a daughter from a polygamous
> family.  Angie asks others when the last time was that they felt the Spirit
> (of God) watching a TV show, implying that she did in her last watch of the
> show.  I personally believe her.  The inference is that BIG LOVE is
> influencing human behavior for the good, and it does this by depicting
> fellowship between different religions.
>
> But having said that, I am distressed with what seems like a double-standard
> romping around the LDS Film Yahoo group over the question of
> depiction.  I'll show that the oft-wielded litmus test of "did you watch
> it?" doesn't apply to forming fair conclusions about the show.
>
> I draw conclusions about depictions of sex in the show from these comments,
> from people who watched it:
>
> Angie Miske: "The first few episodes of BIG LOVE were for shock value.. Yes,
> there was the sex. Yes there was the Viagra. Yes there was all sorts of
> things that didn't need to be there but HBO threw in." - "This most recent
> episode <http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/3020> was
> totally safe in terms of sex. We never saw any sex.."
>
> Jed Ivie: "Meh <http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/
2984>....whatever...it's
> just TV...and although I disagree with the nudity and sex in it.."
>
> These comments make it pretty clear that the show depicts sex, especially
> the contrast of "[in this episode] we never saw any sex.."  If nothing is
> depicted, I'd guess it's strongly referenced.  NAUGHTY!  'scuse me.  My
> inner censor just shouted.
>
> Brief legal and doctrinal rundown: In the United States, polygamy is
> illegal.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) church,
> sexual relations outside of legal marriage are considered
> immoral.  Therefore polygamy, not being legal marriage, is from the LDS view
> either fornication or extramarital sex and therefore wrong.
>
> So we've got a show depicting (or strongly referencing) sex between a
> "husband" and multiple illegal "wives".  NAUGHTY!  'scuse me again.  The
> fact makes the logic for promoting the show from an LDS perspective fall
> apart.  If depicting interfaith fellowship promotes what it shows, how does
> depicting steamy sexual activities of illegal "marriages" not promote what
> *it* shows, which is something repugnant to LDS standards?  Yet the language
> here doesn't account for the negative power of negative depiction, and to me
> seems to excuse it: "Yes, there was sex..[but the show had so many
> virtues!]" - "..although I disagree with the nudity and sex in it.. [I loved
> the positive and good stuff]."  The impossible logic is that the
> entertainment has only good effects: depicted interfaith fellowship
> persuades for good, but depicted extramarital sex has no ill effect or can
> be ignored.  The standard for whether depiction promotes is not being
> equally applied with two subject on which it bears equal application; indeed
> near opposite application is occurring.  That's not a uniform standard,
> that's a double-standard.  In fact that very double standard comes out of
> the press defenses throughout Hollywood over awfully wicked films.  I won't
> say Hollywood is The World, or "Babylon" (again, there's a lot of good in
> Hollywood), but certainly a lot of The World is in Hollywood, and our recent
> Conference warned against buying into philosophies of the World and warned
> that many of us buy into these ideas, unaware.  I frankly believe that is
> happening here.  If an act by LDS standards is damnable, then by damn, damn
> it with your language.  It's evil.  It ain't right.  Of course the
> characters in the show (and according to National
> Review<http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200603130805.asp>,
> the creators of the show) have their own differing beliefs to which they are
> entitled.  Mormons are also entitled to our own beliefs, which we seem to
> have forgotten in the forum.  Which does on LDS person think concerns God
> more: people failing to fellowship each other or unmarried people sleeping
> with each other?
>
> A counter to this argument has been made by comparison to Mobsters and
> Mormons: Doesn't that film promote organized
> crime<http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/3015>by
> presenting a mafioso?  That comparison is completely out of context.
> The
> lead mafioso in that film ratted out his boss and reversed his penchant for
> crime over the course of the film.  Everything in the film was unsympathetic
> to his wrongs and sympathetic to his penance.  I've heard no reports of
> anything in BIG LOVE (or from it's creators) that is unsympathetic to the
> show's illegal polygamy.
>
> As for the "have you watched it?" litmus test, (which I've explored at the
> forum before), a person doesn't need to see a film that includes sexual
> depictions to rightly dismiss the film on moral ground.  Sexual depictions
> romanticize and draw the audience sympathy into saying "this is right" or
> "we should participate in this."  The existence of sexual depiction promotes
> promiscuity and voyeurism, independent of any context the film presents.  No
> disclaimer of "we shouldn't watch people having sex" can be loud enough if a
> film presents the very act.  Actions preach louder than words.  If they
> didn't want us to think it's pretty cool that this guy can have regular sex
> with three different women, they wouldn't play up that aspect - by depicting
> it or the events surrounding it.
>
> An oft overlooked question: are the actors and actresses who lie naked or
> near-naked together (if they don't just outright have sex) married to each
> other?  Nope.  The folks who made the show did some things LDS people think
> are too naughty just to make the show, let alone broadcast it to the
> world.  Buying into such entertainment encourages it (never mind that it's
> been shown that Hollywood is often determined to make such entertainment
> even if the audience isn't there).
>
> I'm all for exercising individual judgement on whether this-or-that
> entertainment promotes lascivious behavior when there is any real doubt that
> it does so.  But the public facts on this show are unequivocal.  The show
> depicts and thereby promotes unmarried sex, absolutely.  While it promotes
> virtues, the vices are far stronger, so I personally won't go near it.
>
> What effect does it have on a person to become a voyeur of behavior you
> believe to be immoral?  You can fast forward if you've Tivo'd it, sure.  And
> you can recommend it to friends under the dubious proposition that some of
> it can be ignored.  But in many modern movies and TV shows, you never know
> when a sex scene will happen, and they often catch you off guard by coming
> in right in the middle of the act.  And plainly with this show we can't
> predict which episodes will show it and which won't; the forum is advising
> on which episodes depict it vs. not.  So at the least, some have to be
> suckered into suffering voyeurism just to advise others on what to
> avoid.  Morally precarious.  I've followed series where I've thought "At
> last, they've stopped with the smut" - and then a few episodes later it
> comes out of nowhere again.
>
> I recall a prophet admonishing the Saints not to participate in or listen to
> music whose lyrics they could not agree with their whole heart to.  The
> insidiously titled show BIG LOVE is not worthy of our whole heart.  I
> strongly feel that it should be ignored.  And a final irony: earlier in the
> forum Moyer expressed great distaste for incoherent arguments he hears from
> people recommending films to each other by saying "It's a great film except
> for [this or that offensive content]".  He's absolutely right on that.  It
> doesn't fly.  But that's what we're seeing 'round the forum; we don't know
> when this show might get too naughty again.
>
> I'm sincerely open to being wrong.  Though I think to argue against my case
> someone will have to come out and say that depicting extramarital sex
> doesn't romanticize it, and doesn't arouse audience lusts after perfect
> strangers of actors.  Unless America is legally wedded to HBO.  Maybe that's
> becoming the case ;)
>
> Alex Hall
> Virulent, Petulent, Inexpugnable!
> http://www.alexandtia.com/Alex
>

Alex, come on over to my place and we'll have a Big Love marathon by
watching all the episodes on demand. I'll provide the chips and pop.
You bring your whole heart.

John


--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Hall"
<narfnarfsillywilly@...> wrote:
>
> Here's my review of some LDS responses to the HBO television
series entitled
> BIG LOVE.
>
> I sympathize with the
>
praise<http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/2982>that
> Angie Miske gives for BIG LOVE, depicting friendship between a
> daughter
> from a Latter-Day Saint family and a daughter from a polygamous
> family.  Angie asks others when the last time was that they felt
the Spirit
> (of God) watching a TV show, implying that she did in her last
watch of the
> show.  I personally believe her.  The inference is that BIG LOVE is
> influencing human behavior for the good, and it does this by
depicting
> fellowship between different religions.
>
> But having said that, I am distressed with what seems like a
double-standard
> romping around the LDS Film Yahoo group over the question of
> depiction.  I'll show that the oft-wielded litmus test of "did you
watch
> it?" doesn't apply to forming fair conclusions about the show.
>
> I draw conclusions about depictions of sex in the show from these
comments,
> from people who watched it:
>
> Angie Miske: "The first few episodes of BIG LOVE were for shock
value.. Yes,
> there was the sex. Yes there was the Viagra. Yes there was all
sorts of
> things that didn't need to be there but HBO threw in." - "This
most recent
> episode
<http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/3020> was
> totally safe in terms of sex. We never saw any sex.."
>
> Jed Ivie: "Meh
<http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/2984>....whatev
er...it's
> just TV...and although I disagree with the nudity and sex in it.."
>
> These comments make it pretty clear that the show depicts sex,
especially
> the contrast of "[in this episode] we never saw any sex.."  If
nothing is
> depicted, I'd guess it's strongly referenced.  NAUGHTY!  'scuse
me.  My
> inner censor just shouted.
>
> Brief legal and doctrinal rundown: In the United States, polygamy
is
> illegal.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS)
church,
> sexual relations outside of legal marriage are considered
> immoral.  Therefore polygamy, not being legal marriage, is from
the LDS view
> either fornication or extramarital sex and therefore wrong.
>
> So we've got a show depicting (or strongly referencing) sex
between a
> "husband" and multiple illegal "wives".  NAUGHTY!  'scuse me
again.  The
> fact makes the logic for promoting the show from an LDS
perspective fall
> apart.  If depicting interfaith fellowship promotes what it shows,
how does
> depicting steamy sexual activities of illegal "marriages" not
promote what
> *it* shows, which is something repugnant to LDS standards?  Yet
the language
> here doesn't account for the negative power of negative depiction,
and to me
> seems to excuse it: "Yes, there was sex..[but the show had so many
> virtues!]" - "..although I disagree with the nudity and sex in
it.. [I loved
> the positive and good stuff]."  The impossible logic is that the
> entertainment has only good effects: depicted interfaith fellowship
> persuades for good, but depicted extramarital sex has no ill
effect or can
> be ignored.  The standard for whether depiction promotes is not
being
> equally applied with two subject on which it bears equal
application; indeed
> near opposite application is occurring.  That's not a uniform
standard,
> that's a double-standard.  In fact that very double standard comes
out of
> the press defenses throughout Hollywood over awfully wicked
films.  I won't
> say Hollywood is The World, or "Babylon" (again, there's a lot of
good in
> Hollywood), but certainly a lot of The World is in Hollywood, and
our recent
> Conference warned against buying into philosophies of the World
and warned
> that many of us buy into these ideas, unaware.  I frankly believe
that is
> happening here.  If an act by LDS standards is damnable, then by
damn, damn
> it with your language.  It's evil.  It ain't right.  Of course the
> characters in the show (and according to National
> Review<http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200603130805.asp>,
> the creators of the show) have their own differing beliefs to
which they are
> entitled.  Mormons are also entitled to our own beliefs, which we
seem to
> have forgotten in the forum.  Which does on LDS person think
concerns God
> more: people failing to fellowship each other or unmarried people
sleeping
> with each other?
>
> A counter to this argument has been made by comparison to Mobsters
and
> Mormons: Doesn't that film promote organized
> crime<http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/3015>by
> presenting a mafioso?  That comparison is completely out of
context.
> The
> lead mafioso in that film ratted out his boss and reversed his
penchant for
> crime over the course of the film.  Everything in the film was
unsympathetic
> to his wrongs and sympathetic to his penance.  I've heard no
reports of
> anything in BIG LOVE (or from it's creators) that is unsympathetic
to the
> show's illegal polygamy.
>
> As for the "have you watched it?" litmus test, (which I've
explored at the
> forum before), a person doesn't need to see a film that includes
sexual
> depictions to rightly dismiss the film on moral ground.  Sexual
depictions
> romanticize and draw the audience sympathy into saying "this is
right" or
> "we should participate in this."  The existence of sexual
depiction promotes
> promiscuity and voyeurism, independent of any context the film
presents.  No
> disclaimer of "we shouldn't watch people having sex" can be loud
enough if a
> film presents the very act.  Actions preach louder than words.  If
they
> didn't want us to think it's pretty cool that this guy can have
regular sex
> with three different women, they wouldn't play up that aspect - by
depicting
> it or the events surrounding it.
>
> An oft overlooked question: are the actors and actresses who lie
naked or
> near-naked together (if they don't just outright have sex) married
to each
> other?  Nope.  The folks who made the show did some things LDS
people think
> are too naughty just to make the show, let alone broadcast it to
the
> world.  Buying into such entertainment encourages it (never mind
that it's
> been shown that Hollywood is often determined to make such
entertainment
> even if the audience isn't there).
>
> I'm all for exercising individual judgement on whether this-or-that
> entertainment promotes lascivious behavior when there is any real
doubt that
> it does so.  But the public facts on this show are unequivocal.
The show
> depicts and thereby promotes unmarried sex, absolutely.  While it
promotes
> virtues, the vices are far stronger, so I personally won't go near
it.
>
> What effect does it have on a person to become a voyeur of
behavior you
> believe to be immoral?  You can fast forward if you've Tivo'd it,
sure.  And
> you can recommend it to friends under the dubious proposition that
some of
> it can be ignored.  But in many modern movies and TV shows, you
never know
> when a sex scene will happen, and they often catch you off guard
by coming
> in right in the middle of the act.  And plainly with this show we
can't
> predict which episodes will show it and which won't; the forum is
advising
> on which episodes depict it vs. not.  So at the least, some have
to be
> suckered into suffering voyeurism just to advise others on what to
> avoid.  Morally precarious.  I've followed series where I've
thought "At
> last, they've stopped with the smut" - and then a few episodes
later it
> comes out of nowhere again.
>
> I recall a prophet admonishing the Saints not to participate in or
listen to
> music whose lyrics they could not agree with their whole heart
to.  The
> insidiously titled show BIG LOVE is not worthy of our whole
heart.  I
> strongly feel that it should be ignored.  And a final irony:
earlier in the
> forum Moyer expressed great distaste for incoherent arguments he
hears from
> people recommending films to each other by saying "It's a great
film except
> for [this or that offensive content]".  He's absolutely right on
that.  It
> doesn't fly.  But that's what we're seeing 'round the forum; we
don't know
> when this show might get too naughty again.
>
> I'm sincerely open to being wrong.  Though I think to argue
against my case
> someone will have to come out and say that depicting extramarital
sex
> doesn't romanticize it, and doesn't arouse audience lusts after
perfect
> strangers of actors.  Unless America is legally wedded to HBO.
Maybe that's
> becoming the case ;)
>
> Alex Hall
> Virulent, Petulent, Inexpugnable!
> http://www.alexandtia.com/Alex
>

Mobsters and Mormons will be availabe on demand through Comcast Cable
starting April 10th. I just heard that from HaleStorm, I imagine it's
only a regional on demand showing. I haven't spoken to Bryce yet about
all the details.

If you live outside of the Jello Belt, Mobsters and Mormons is
available at Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, and Netflix. It's available
for purchase at walmart.com.

We have also secured a foreign rights deal which I am thrilled about!

Thanks for all the support!

The podcast will be up in a few days. I'll let you know when.

thanks!
John
www.johnmoyer.com

> Our guests included legendary comedian Johnny Biscuit who really
> provided us with a nice rant about commericalism and the LDS people.
> Also Kurt Hale who had a slightly different perspective.
>

Yes. Yes, I imagine he would.

Eric



********
Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark" -- a weekly e-mail of movie reviews,
recommendations and general frivolity -- and it's free!
http://www.ericdsnider.com/view.php?rankey=35

Alex, no harm done. Until next time... Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel...

steVen


--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Hall" <narfnarfsillywilly@...> wrote:
>
> Since I'm done openly detesting your previous words (and calling you
> names), I'll openly say that I envy you.  That's very cool about your
> developing project.
>
> Alex Hall
>
> On 4/5/06, middle_of_mayhem <tdsutah@...> wrote:
> > Ivan (hi, by the way) to answer your questions...
>

Good to see we've got some brotherly love going on.

By the way, I hope to have the podcast up in a few days. I have to get
the files from the studio and polish them.

Our guests included legendary comedian Johnny Biscuit who really
provided us with a nice rant about commericalism and the LDS people.
Also Kurt Hale who had a slightly different perspective.

thanks,
John



--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Hall"
<narfnarfsillywilly@...> wrote:
>
> Since I'm done openly detesting your previous words (and calling you
> names), I'll openly say that I envy you.  That's very cool about your
> developing project.
>
> Alex Hall
>
> On 4/5/06, middle_of_mayhem <tdsutah@...> wrote:
> > Ivan (hi, by the way) to answer your questions...
>

Since I'm done openly detesting your previous words (and calling you
names), I'll openly say that I envy you.  That's very cool about your
developing project.

Alex Hall

On 4/5/06, middle_of_mayhem <tdsutah@...> wrote:
> Ivan (hi, by the way) to answer your questions...

Ivan (hi, by the way) to answer your questions...

ONE PLUS ONE just got reader's coverage at William Morris Agency in LA with very
positive
responses. The Sundance contacts include 2 wealthy businessmen in the oil
industry and
they are still in our back pocket for funding. The two BIG companies that are
currently
reviewing ONE PLUS ONE are in Seattle and Los Angeles respectively. One just won
an
Academy Award a few weeks ago. They are very interested in the project. I just
can't say
who right now.

In other news, I am flying to Hong Kong in 2 weeks to screen THIS DIVIDED STATE
at the
Hong Kong International Film Festival. I'll be staying out there for a week. And
the festival
was kind enough to pay for everything. I'll fly with my producer, of course,
since it's a
freaking 22 hour flight.

I also just worked on a TV Pilot for FOX called BEYOND. We shot up in the
Strawberry
Resevoir. It was very cold but very worth it.

Cheers,

steVen


--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, "Ivan Bird" <afpdbird@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve....thats better....so when your not being a smart A..  How is
> your new project going?  I remember you saying something about getting
> funding, I think it was around Sundance time.  I may have missed it but I
> didn't hear any more about it.
>
> Ivan
> Oh and thanks on the info about Kubrick.
>
>
> On 4/4/06, middle_of_mayhem <tdsutah@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, OK. Got it.
> >
> > steVen
> >
> >
> > --- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, Alex Hall <narfnarfsillywilly@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Correction: that's "McSatan" I called you.  After you mocked Robford as
> > > "McProphet."  And you can't play innocent with me.
> > >
> > > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/3006
> > >
> > > Alex "McOffended" Hall
> > >
> > > middle_of_mayhem wrote:
> > > > P.S. Alex Hall is currently calling my "Satan" on the LDSFILM FORUM
> > and Robford is not
> > > > deleting HIS comments...
> > > >
> > > > P.S.S. Sorry for the drama. No more.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >    -  Visit your group "mormonmovies<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
mormonmovies>"
> >    on the web.
> >
> >    -  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >     mormonmovies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mormonmovies-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> >    -  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >    Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
>

Oh, OK. Got it.

steVen

--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, Alex Hall <narfnarfsillywilly@...> wrote:
>
> Correction: that's "McSatan" I called you.  After you mocked Robford as
> "McProphet."  And you can't play innocent with me.
>
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/3006
>
> Alex "McOffended" Hall
>
> middle_of_mayhem wrote:
> > P.S. Alex Hall is currently calling my "Satan" on the LDSFILM FORUM and
Robford is not
> > deleting HIS comments...
> >
> > P.S.S. Sorry for the drama. No more.
>

Stanley Kubrick made 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968. The story, in essence, is
about the
natural evolution of mankind. The camera movements also "evolve" during the
film. You'll
notice that in the beginning, there are mostly simple pans and still shots. As
the film
progresses into the future, the camera angles and editing cuts begin to increase
and
become more frequent and unique. Very smart move by Kubrick, but missed by those
not
paying close attention....

Ivan, there you go.

steVen


--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, "Ivan Bird" <afpdbird@...> wrote:
>
> So when do you guys think we'll be discussing any cinematic topics?  I mean
> this frivolous banter is very compelling and all...
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On 4/4/06, Alex Hall <narfnarfsillywilly@...> wrote:
> >
> > Correction: that's "McSatan" I called you.  After you mocked Robford as
> > "McProphet."  And you can't play innocent with me.
> >
> > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/3006
> >
> > Alex "McOffended" Hall
> >
> >
> > middle_of_mayhem wrote:
> > > P.S. Alex Hall is currently calling my "Satan" on the LDSFILM FORUM and
> > Robford is not
> > > deleting HIS comments...
> > >
> > > P.S.S. Sorry for the drama. No more.
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> >    -  Visit your group "mormonmovies<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
mormonmovies>"
> >    on the web.
> >
> >    -  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >     mormonmovies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<mormonmovies-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> >    -  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >    Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
>

Correction: that's "McSatan" I called you.  After you mocked Robford as
"McProphet."  And you can't play innocent with me.

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/ldsfilm/message/3006

Alex "McOffended" Hall

middle_of_mayhem wrote:
> P.S. Alex Hall is currently calling my "Satan" on the LDSFILM FORUM and
Robford is not
> deleting HIS comments...
>
> P.S.S. Sorry for the drama. No more.

Holy-Robford-Is-A-Poopy-Head, Batman! I posted maybe 4 sentences after Robford's
big
"no moderation" announcment and then he deletes both my comments and my
membership. I swear I didn't say anything offensive or vulgar, blah, blah, blah.
Looks like
the LDSFILM FORUM has become ROBFORD'S FORUM. Blehhh....

Anyways, I'm here. Hello everyone! I hope to be able actually say something
here. Thanks
John Moyer for starting this new one!

P.S. Alex Hall is currently calling my "Satan" on the LDSFILM FORUM and Robford
is not
deleting HIS comments...

P.S.S. Sorry for the drama. No more.

Hey... we so didn't even have a chance to get to so much that I
wanted to durring the podcast! We went for an hour and fifteen I
think, but we just didnt have time to do all that I wanted. But I am
sure it will prove to interesting none the less....

But as far as your question about roll out to dvd... that's pretty
much industry standard now to go to quick roll out. the time has
dropped to about three months. and steven sodenburg just released
theatrically and dvd the same day. so thats not just an lds film
issue, it's a hollywood thing too.

for me it worked great with mobsters and mormons. i mean, that was
the best thing in the world to hit before christmas.

i'll revisit your other questions a later on.

but the podcast will be up in a few days.


--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, Tyler Ford <toolerslp@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello John,
>
> I would like to hear a discussion about the following questions:
>
> -Are LDS film distributors hurting theatrical attendance because
of the quick roll out of the video/dvd?
>
> -Is Excel Entertainment going to produce any feature films?
>
> -Why "Suits on the Loose" and "States of Grace" bombed at the
boxoffice?
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Tyler
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> comedytheorem <john@...> wrote:    Hey, we are recording another
PodCast tomorrow... The last podcast got
>  over 3000 downloads!
>
>  We are going to have on the big show some very interesting guests
with
>  very interesting and some edgy insight. If you have any questions
or
>  topics to be addressed, please email me and let me know. john at
>  johnmoyer.com
>
>  thanks,
>  John Moyer
>  www.johnmoyer.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>     Visit your group "mormonmovies" on the web.
>
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  mormonmovies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC
and save big.
>

Anyone following the fun at LDSFilm?

Drop Moderation and BLAM!

Rick Miske

Hey, we are recording another PodCast tomorrow... The last podcast got
over 3000 downloads!

We are going to have on the big show some very interesting guests with
very interesting and some edgy insight. If you have any questions or
topics to be addressed, please email me and let me know. john at
johnmoyer.com

thanks,
John Moyer
www.johnmoyer.com

>--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, Tyler Ford <toolerslp@...> wrote:
>Once one of us gets our head screwed on straight and makes the or
many "cross over" films like a "Big Fat Greek Wedding" that film(s)
will do more and bring more understanding to the world of who we are
as Latter Day Saints, then the 60,0000 missionaries could ever hope to
>accomplish.

...seems we're down to 52,000 (from the conference report this
weekend), and while I'm excited for heads to get screwed on straight
(and to watch the resulting LDS films that follow), I just couldn't
pass up sharing this thought:  ever since seeing My Big Fat Greek
Wedding and Fiddler on the Roof, I've struggled to decide which group
I understand better, the Greeks or the Jews...

...both films were so completely enlightening that there seems little
left to learn about either (and I'm completely confident I have no
misperceptions about Greeks or Jews).  I've been Mormon my entire life
(and now have 11 little mormons to feed--okay half of them are
teenagers now, with the oldest being one of those 52,000 so they're
not so little I suppose)--anyway, maybe this yet to be made film will
finally help ME understand who we are... :)

Kent

Hey, we are recording another PodCast tomorrow... The last podcast got
over 3000 downloads!

We are going to have on the big show some very interesting guests with
very interesting and some edgy insight. If you have any questions or
topics to be addressed, please email me and let me know. john at
johnmoyer.com

thanks,
John Moyer
www.johnmoyer.com

Yes! Just as all good drama must have a protagonist and an
antagonist and drama... this group seems to be having that as well.

Finally! The LDS Film group I have been longing to be a part of once
again!


--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, Tyler Ford <toolerslp@...>
wrote:
>
> Pat,
>
>  I am all about water testing however.  It just ruffles my
feathers when attacks on LDS film makers are made.  As a whole I
think people just truly don't understand how powerful this movement
is. As impressive as conference is with all the people watching and
participating in it.  The audience that saw Napoleon Dynamite is
much much bigger. Once one of us gets our head screwed on straight
and makes the or many "cross over" films like a "Big Fat Greek
Wedding" that film(s) will do more and bring more understanding to
the world of who we are as Latter Day Saints, then the 60,0000
missionaries could ever hope to accomplish.  And as filmmakers or
whatever the case may be  we need to be help this movement along as
much as possible.
>
>  Tyler Ford.
>
> Pat Blazer <filmfan1977@...> wrote:    Just testing the waters of
the new group... I couldn't help it. It's
>  not like I could say anything remotely close to that on
that "other"
>  group.
>
>  See this is place is already getting more interesting.
>
>
>
>
>
>         SPONSORED LINKS
>
Lds
Movies
>
> ---------------------------------
>    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>     Visit your group "mormonmovies" on the web.
>
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  mormonmovies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC
and save big.
>

Just testing the waters of the new group... I couldn't help it. It's
not like I could say anything remotely close to that on that "other"
group.

See this is place is already getting more interesting.

Just testing the waters of the new group... I couldn't help it. It's
not like I could say anything remotely close to that on that "other"
group.

See this is place is already getting more interesting.

I think Dutcher's office going up in flames is symbolic of his last
movie.

LOL.... Try saying that on the LDS Film groups! I love this place!!!!!

Pat

I think Dutcher's office going up in flames is symbolic of his last
movie.

LOL.... Try saying that on the LDS Film groups! I love this place!!!!!

Pat

While that article won't come up, what burned down?

Alex Hall

p.s. Hi John.  I've joined the dark side and gone all high and mighty.

I love my new pants! http://www.alexandtia.com/Ussins/2006/03/pants.php


--- In mormonmovies@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Laurence" <claurence@...>
wrote:
>
> http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3656155
> Mapleton Assistant Fire Chief Derald Olsen said the state fire marshal
> determined the blaze was accidental as a result of "spontaneous
combustion"
> from the renovation work.
>
> Uh-huh. How much was it insured for? Just kidding.
>
> (That ought to get some more signers up to defend Richard).
> --
> http://home.comcast.net/~chrislaurence/
>

Welcome to the group. Now say something of consequence.