I took a bunch of notes during the film. The main takeaways are similar to what others thought.
The score is pleasant, the cinematography is pleasant. The last 30 minutes of the film are the eponymous six days in August. They fly by so fast that they even skip day 3!
I found the last 20 minutes of the film to be the most engaging, so much so that I stopped taking notes.
I also found myself at the end wishing for a film that had begun with the last 20 minutes and continued on to tell the frontier tale of the Mormons heading west. The rest of the film was essentially Witnesses part 2, and I found it fairly boring.
Thank you for the report. I'm quite surprised that day three was skipped. (Incidentally, I haven't read or heard an explanation of the film's title. Was it simply taken from the title of Ron Walker's article?)
Remembering that the title of the film is Six Days in August, Rupert complains that we completely omitted Day 3. It seems, though, that he must have nodded off or gone to the restroom at about the one hour and thirty-two minute mark.
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.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... tures.html
I’m not sure I’d have posted this image in support of the film. The lady sat next to Oaks is clearly stifling a yawn, and many people look close to nodding off. You’ll notice the image is focussed specifically on Oaks, as if to suggest that is de facto support for the film by The Church. One assumes they checked that he was happy to be photographed during a period when he had a right to expect privacy. Have the others in the audience signed waivers to okay the use of their image rights?
You’ll also note quite a few empty seats, and this is the film’s Premiere!
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.
We never imagined that Six Days in August would rival the Marvel Cinematic Universe; we've always understood that the primary appeal would be to the Latter-day Saint community. It was always a niche film.
If that’s true, that he always felt the film was for a very niche audience of Latter-day Saints, then the decision to go for a general theatrical release makes absolutely no sense. It also makes zero financial sense to spend $2 million on such a niche film. It further makes zero sense to do so outwith the auspices of the Church.
His comment also runs contrary to his other comments about being surprised at people generally not being interested in his film.
It seems to me that he is belatedly attempting to draw a target around where the 6DIA arrow has disappointingly fallen. I wonder what the donors that stumped up the $2 million are thinking at the moment?
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.
I haven't been following the aforementioned blog, but how was it being reported before it was released? Was it always promoted as primarily aimed at members? Or was it said the goal was to arouse the interest of outsiders also? Maybe it has been consistently billed as a member film. Of course, it's possible this is reasoning after the fact. On the one hand, you can shame fellow members for not attending, but also save face by saying one never expected to do that well, to avoid appearing as if one's hopes had not been dashed. Like, I applied to Harvard but I didn't expect to get in; just figured why not?
We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have. They get rid of some of the people who have been there for 25 years and they work great and then you throw them out and they're replaced by criminals.
I haven't been following the aforementioned blog, but how was it being reported before it was released? Was it always promoted as primarily aimed at members? Or was it said the goal was to arouse the interest of outsiders also? Maybe it has been consistently billed as a member film. Of course, it's possible this is reasoning after the fact. On the one hand, you can shame fellow members for not attending, but also save face by saying one never expected to do that well, to avoid appearing as if one's hopes had not been dashed. Like, I applied to Harvard but I didn't expect to get in; just figured why not?
I think a faith promoting film not doing well among non member cinema-going folks is one thing. But not doing well among faithful Saints within the religion’s heartland, well that’s a disaster. It’s a clear message.
Last edited by I Have Questions on Tue Oct 22, 2024 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 audience I saw it with was small, maybe 7-8 others besides my wife and I. They all waved at each other as they took their seats, likely attending as a ward activity announced in the bulletin. It had the same feel as temple attendance, reverent but unexcited.
At the end of the movie no one clapped or seemed exceptionally impressed.
I wonder if theater owners were told that one of the 3 major moviegoing weekend days was going to be basically zero attendance for this film. Chick-fil-a can afford to be closed on Sunday, but your average theater cannot.
Forgive me a question but how much of a movie's sales actually get back to the makers of the movie? I imagine the theaters and other middlemen get some percentage.
Forgive me a question but how much of a movie's sales actually get back to the makers of the movie? I imagine the theaters and other middlemen get some percentage.
I believe it’s typically 50-60% depending on the deal with the cinemas and distributors. In the case of 6DIA I’d speculate it will be a lower percentage as the cinemas would need greater inducement to screen a film of this nature with its inherent lack of pedigree.
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 same production company made The 2024 film Escape from Germany, which grossed $2,616,475 at the box office.
This was also an LDS film, which even had the same lead actor.
The evidence is piling up that DCP’s choice of subject matter is the clear loser for this film.
Escape from Germany had less than half the budget 6DIA used, even less than Witnesses.
With the film's budget being under $1 million, some of the funding needed for its making came from a private investor in Dallas who was also a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Have Peterson & Interpreter & the donors been taken for a ride? Where has all that additional budget gone?
Escape From Germany also used the same distributer…
The film was released in select cinemas in the United States on 11 April 2024 by Susan Tuckett Media.
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.
