How will the "Witness" be portrayed?

[_Kishkumen]

I wonder whether the documentary will include references to the witnesses seeing the plates with their “spiritual eyes” or “the eye of faith,” in other words, not with the naked eye.

[_Fence Sitter]

Or mention that John Whitmer actually did deny his testimony?

[Guest]

So, to reiterate:

1) I think the film will be a failure. Whether that is because it never gets made, or because it is plainly and simply awful (however you'd like to define that), I stand by my prediction.

2) I genuinely hope the film gets made. Make no mistake, though: it is going to be bad. If it has any polish at all to it, it is still going to be banal in the way that corporate promotional materials are "bad": neatly photographed and edited, and perhaps even "slick"-looking, but basically soulless. If the film manages to transcend the aesthetics of an infomercial, I will be impressed.

3) I agree with Dean Robbers that the "re-enactments" will likely be the most significant aspects of the film. This is, after all, where the filmmakers are going to try to milk the emotion from their target audience. I cheerfully predict that these scenes will be howlingly and knee-slappingly funny. Let Dr. Peterson prove me wrong! (He had better hope that he is the one directing those scenes. Otherwise, how can he be certain that they are "up to par"?)

Dr. Scratch,

I completely agree. The mopologists have a better chance of finding the Second Watson letter than this film has of ever seeing the light of day.

Keep in mind, this is the same guy who took a 2014 paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for his promise to use the sabbatical to finish two books. As of today, these books remain unfinished. Unfortunately for BYU and every single tithe payer, Peterson still gladly took the money. It's clear this is "film project" is nothing more than another one of Peterson's money making schemes to fund his retirement and support his lavish and voracious lifestyle.

ETA Is it just me or is the language Peterson uses oddly familiar? Peterson is now claiming that he is, "not receiving one dime" for his work on this film. Do you remember many years ago that Peterson also claimed that he is "not receiving one dime" for his mopologetics? We all know what a HUGE lie that was when Peterson was exposed by Dr. Scratch for making (and continuing to make) considerable sums for his mopologetic work.

Folks, you just can't make this stuff up.

[Guest]

So, I guess Everybody Wang Chung has accused DCP of doing the "Witnesses" film as a moneymaking scheme? That's certainly news to me. I can't recall having ever read such a thing. It's too bad that Peterson doesn't supply a link.

I believe Peterson is referring to my tongue-in-cheek comment to lostindc a few days ago. Boy, Peterson sure spends a lot of time on mormondiscussions scouring over every single post in order to find offense. What a strange and insecure individual:

I'll be your first convert and apologist. We need to spread the word fast to bring in the money. We could follow DCP's example, start a website and advertise that we need lot's of donations for some bogus film that we have no intention of ever making.

I would also like to suggest the name of your new church. I'm thinking "The Blue Oyster Cult" would be a good name if that name isn't already being used by someone.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51450

[_Sanctorian]

Didn’t Peterson promise legal action against the trailer park? Has anyone received the lawsuit or was that another one of Peterson’s attempts to pander to his god complex community?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Didn’t Peterson promise legal action against the trailer park? Has anyone received the lawsuit or was that another one of Peterson’s attempts to pander to his god complex community?

A few years ago I had some free time to waste while sitting in Stake Conference and decided to research how many different times Peterson had threatened to sue this board or certain individuals on this board.

I remember finding 12 different incidents where Peterson had threatened legal action. I'm sure it's more than that by now. Hilarious!



ETA I might post a separate OP about Peterson's many threats of litigation against this board over the years. It would be fun to reminisce.

[_moksha]

Wonder if Terry Gilliam, the illustrator from Monty Python, could be consulted for artistic direction?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I note Peterson stops short of saying Mrs Peterson won’t profit from this venture.

Absolutely.

But rest assured, Mrs. Peterson will certainly be paid a handsome consulting fee for her "work" on the film.

[_Gadianton]

I wonder whether the documentary will include references to the witnesses seeing the plates with their “spiritual eyes” or “the eye of faith,” in other words, not with the naked eye.

It's a good question, and that's part of what I was thinking about with the origin of this thread. How will camera work and CGI imply that it's objective, or subjective for a given witness?

I think it's hard to portray as fully literal and objective without quite a bit of setup. For starters, to eliminate the possibility that it's subjective, they need to show Moroni traveling through space, and well outside ground observers on earth. They could show a stream of light shooting through space (wooosh!) and we follow the light into the stars, and then see it shoot into our solar system and earth's atmosphere. But, wow, only three people saw it, huh? Maybe it turns invisible at earth, and birds move out of the way or something, to imply it's really there? But then, what about relativity? I mean, how close is Kolob, and how long ago did Moroni start the journey, given he's a physical being bound by the speed of light?

If that doesn't work, how about a "wormhole" like in Stargate? If sci fi can cheat, just follow its lead. Fine, but the light shooting through the stars avoids the problem of needing to show Moroni entering the wormhole at the other end. Let's work through it: have a planet out yonder and the words "Kolob" appear on the screen and we see Moroni jump into a wormhole at that end. Or Moroni is among other heavenly beings and jumps into the wormhole.

"No, no, no, Gad doesn't get it -- he's just trying to make it look dumb!", that's what you're thinking. Oh, but I do get it. I get that you can show Moroni pop out of a wormhole or light pillar-like thing just below the treeline such that no one else sees. But it's almost impossible to do this and also make it clear that the experience is objective. Appearing from a void or within a light or any of those queues with no other context can be mistaken trivially for seeing beyond the veil with our spiritual eyes, where Moroni and the plates aren't actually here on earth, but we're seeing into another dimension, and even the touch of the plates becomes like a vivid dream.

One possibility, is to have the witnesses hitting each other on the shoulder and pointing, implying they're all seeing the same thing, and perhaps have birds scatter as Moroni pops out the pillar or even a tree scorched or knocked down or something -- but they'd never take it that far. But the more limited the scale is of showing Moroni's appearance, the harder it is to establish it's objective, if that's the goal.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I wonder whether the documentary will include references to the witnesses seeing the plates with their “spiritual eyes” or “the eye of faith,” in other words, not with the naked eye.

It's a good question, and that's part of what I was thinking about with the origin of this thread. How will camera work and CGI imply that it's objective, or subjective for a given witness?

I think it's hard to portray as fully literal and objective without quite a bit of setup. For starters, to eliminate the possibility that it's subjective, they need to show Moroni traveling through space, and well outside ground observers on earth. They could show a stream of light shooting through space (wooosh!) and we follow the light into the stars, and then see it shoot into our solar system and earth's atmosphere. But, wow, only three people saw it, huh? Maybe it turns invisible at earth, and birds move out of the way or something, to imply it's really there? But then, what about relativity? I mean, how close is Kolob, and how long ago did Moroni start the journey, given he's a physical being bound by the speed of light?

If that doesn't work, how about a "wormhole" like in Stargate? If sci fi can cheat, just follow its lead. Fine, but the light shooting through the stars avoids the problem of needing to show Moroni entering the wormhole at the other end. Let's work through it: have a planet out yonder and the words "Kolob" appear on the screen and we see Moroni jump into a wormhole at that end. Or Moroni is among other heavenly beings and jumps into the wormhole.

"No, no, no, Gad doesn't get it -- he's just trying to make it look dumb!", that's what you're thinking. Oh, but I do get it. I get that you can show Moroni pop out of a wormhole or light pillar-like thing just below the treeline such that no one else sees. But it's almost impossible to do this and also make it clear that the experience is objective. Appearing from a void or within a light or any of those queues with no other context can be mistaken trivially for seeing beyond the veil with our spiritual eyes, where Moroni and the plates aren't actually here on earth, but we're seeing into another dimension, and even the touch of the plates becomes like a vivid dream.

One possibility, is to have the witnesses hitting each other on the shoulder and pointing, implying they're all seeing the same thing, and perhaps have birds scatter as Moroni pops out the pillar or even a tree scorched or knocked down or something -- but they'd never take it that far. But the more limited the scale is of showing Moroni's appearance, the harder it is to establish it's objective, if that's the goal.

Dean,

Those are very good points. How are they going to handle the special effects/CGI?

Maybe they should make certain scenes animated, claymation or just have the camera pan to the sky and have a voice-over by Louis Midgley?

Regardless, I hope with every fiber of my being that this film will be made. I can only imagine it will be met with howls of disbelief and knee slapping hilarity. It will definitely become an instant Mormon kitsch collectible. Much like a crappier and more unintentionally funny version of the "God Makers."