A New Trailer Drops for the "Witnesses" Movie

[Lemmie]

I hope someone asks about this at the panel this evening. Will the panel be videotaped, I wonder?

Hold the phone—What’s this about a panel this evening? Where and when may I attend, assuming it’s open to the public?

See here:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=53080

It starts 5 pm MST I think

[Lemmie]

If you go, please ask him why his Trailer still uses scenes from older films, also made by his current film crew.

[Lemmie]

So, the video is connected to pella media’s Vimeo account where they posted, over a year ago, Trailer #2, which was according to Peterson, composed of interviews and older clips from previous movie efforts regarding the witnesses.

The problem is, that is you look at the most recent trailer, apparently from the new filming done last fall, there is a scene where they all reverently touch the plates, however, this scene is IDENTICAL to the scene from the trailer posted a year ago.

Compare 1:04 of the trailer last year,
https://vimeo.com/314347484

With 1:33 from the new clip,
https://vimeo.com/394108007

IT IS THE SAME CLIP.

What on earth is going on? Why is Peterson presenting this trailer as coming from his million dollar movie, when it still has clips from older movies in it?

Here is Peterson’s explanation, from Feb 2019:

The current “sizzle reel,” as film people call it, is a temporary placeholder. That is, it isn’t yet really a “trailer,” strictly speaking. The interviews that are featured represent some of the material that we have recently developed for this project. The dramatic scenes and the music, though, are borrowed from an earlier film created essentially by this same crew.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... esses.html

So the trailer for Peterson’s film contains “borrowed” scenes from a previous film.

Using film from old movies would explain why the plates don’t match.

[I have a question]

I suspect there are college students doing media studies that could have fulfilled the brief with their cellphones to a higher standard (if this trailer is any measure of the final product) and for a lot less than $1 million. I wonder if the film will seek to portray the plates (set A or set B with the bigger D rings) as being used to directly translate the Book Of Mormon from them.

[Lemmie]

Peterson has weighed in on the comments on is thread, with an entry quite aptly titled:

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -rest.html

He spends the majority of his blog entry explaining why the comment that a mike pac is showing at 1:03 is wrong. With regard to the title, this explains then why he is NOT commenting on:

-the use of clips from older movies, copied from a year old trailer, in his Trailer for the movie almost complete

-why two different sets of plates are represented in the trailer as the same thing (see above for the reason why.)

-the scene where the plates are used in the daytime to hit an assailant, even though they are represented as hanging out of a torn bag, when the history specifically states the attacks were at night, and there is no mention of hitting anyone with the plates.

-how 50 pound plates can be thrown around so easily pin a fight scene

-why the original sound for metal plates hitting a human face was represented with a standard skin on skin “kapow”

-why the bottom of the plates are wrapped in one scene with what looks like brown duct tape, but then are shown with no tape in the next.

-etc etc etc.

Fixating on one detail while ignoring all the rest, and then claiming victory is pretty embarrassing.

For the past couple of days, these dedicated critics have focused their fire on a new video sampling, drawn from both the theatrical film and its accompanying documentary, that we’ve posted on the Witnesses website. Their unanimous consensus, of course, is that the movie will stink because the preliminary trailer stinks...

Unfortunately the “new video sampling” still contains at least one scene from older movies. Is this his film version of plagiarism?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Using film from old movies would explain why the plates don’t match.

Wow! How dishonest of Dan to pass this off as an original film. I wonder if they are just going to mix the two films together due to budget constraints?

I’m not surprised, given Dan’s extensive history, that the Witness film is just a cut and paste of other works.

[Markk]

Maybe I am missing something here, but didn’t Ann Taves say that the story of the plates was an inspired story at the best, and BS at the worse? Her smirk and carefully chosen words seems to hint towards the latter.

DCP, or who ever had final say on the trailer production, are clearly leaving wiggle room for the different theories of the plates and the Book of Mormon story, and trying to appease the different folks.

Black, hard core conservative view...Critical thought is not an option.

Givens, the dramatic saint, one who writes down his opening prayers on a sheet of paper and rehearses them for a week. Speaking to those that need a testimony boost

Roper, the Mopologist that knows something is wrong, and is trying to convince himself... a la Brian Hales...”yes he was screwing a lot of women, but he did not enjoy it. “

Turner, not sure...is he even LDS?

...and Don Bradley a spokesmen for high fashion, and the “anti bleach on our garments crowd.”


My two cents

[Tom]

Maybe because I looked at it on a different device, because I didn’t see this before, but did anyone else notice that the trailer is titled “Witnesses Project Overview” ? Was it named that when it first was posted?

I don’t recall seeing the title when the trailer was first posted.

[Doctor Scratch]

Peterson has weighed in on the comments on is thread, with an entry quite aptly titled:

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -rest.html

He spends the majority of his blog entry explaining why the comment that a mike pac is showing at 1:03 is wrong.

Yes. It's worth pointing out that he leads off the entry with a picture of Harris as seen from behind, and Harris is wearing a "vest" that gets tied in the back. So, is it this tied-up "cinching" that actually looks like the alleged "wireless mic"? It could be! I'm willing to give Dr. Peterson the benefit of the doubt. But if you look very closely at the trailer, it still looks like the object in question is clipped on to the back of the Harris actor's trousers. And it looks like there is a solid, black, plastic object that is sort of "leaning" away from his body, with wires trailing from it. Is it unreasonable to think that this looks like a wireless mic? No, I don't think that it is. It still could be: DCP could be lying. (Remember how he lied about getting paid more than $20,000 for Mopologetics?) But I think we all need to concede that it could also be this lace-up back to Harris's vest.

As Peterson puts it:

But we didn’t use such wireless microphones and wires. We used boom mikes. Or, if you prefer, “boom mics.” (I really dislike that spelling, which seems to be prevalent despite my opinion of it.) What these ardent critics are seeing isn’t a wireless microphone and wire, it’s a vest that ties in the back.

In that case, does this mean we can expect to see one of the boom mics dipping down into the frame at some point in this movie?

Ha ha ha. Just kidding. I'm sure the filmmakers will make sure that that doesn't happen. In the meantime, did anyone manage to make it to the free panel?

[Lemmie]

Peterson:

For the past couple of days, these dedicated critics have focused their fire on a new video sampling, drawn from both the theatrical film and its accompanying documentary, that we’ve posted on the Witnesses website.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -rest.html

Actually, I’m far more interested in hearing why the “theatrical film” trailer still contains a scene from an older movie. It uses a different set of gold plates for a prop, obviously, because it came from a different movie. Peterson reads here obsessively, and was quick to explain how a costume can look like wire and electronics, so why can’t he explain why the trailer for his million dollar movie contains an uncredited scene from a previous movie?

[I have a question]

I don’t understand why the testimony of some associates and family members is written into a book that wasn’t produced using the artefact they claim to have witnessed. In fact, a testimony of witnesses to plates to add authenticity in a book that wasn’t produced using those plates, is dishonest.

[moksha]

Our panel discussion marks, in a way, the debut of our publicity campaign for Witnesses. Starting now, but picking up pace through the summer and into the fall, you’ll be seeing more and more of and about our effort, although — alas! — we’ll have nothing approaching the advertising budget or the sheer power to irritate of, say, Michael Bloomberg. (Our first priorities will be the creation of an official movie trailer and the creation of an official theatrical poster.)

Accordingly, afterwards, my wife and I went out for dinner with friends at TruReligion Pancake and Steakhouse in Orem. I don’t know what the others were thinking about but, to me, it was something of a celebration.

[I have a question]

Many know the story of the witnesses but few know why three men who, though intimately involved in the beginnings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, chose to leave it.

https://witnessesfilm.com/

The feature film is supposedly going to explain why 3 of the witnesses left the Church. Which actresses have been picked to play Fanny Alger and Helen Mar Kimball? I hope the barn scene is tastefully done...

[Lemmie]

The “Witnesses Trailer” has now become a “sampler”. From a blog entry dated Feb. 29th:

We had a respectable though not huge audience for our panel discussion earlier this evening at the 19th Annual LDS Film Festival, and I think it went well. We led off with the video “sampler” that now appears on our Witness film project website, which is made up of mingled footage from our theatrical movie (still temporarily supplemented with some material from an earlier film that was created by our same team) and from the documentary film that will accompany it.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... tival.html

And this...

[one of] Our first priorities will be the creation of an official movie trailer ...

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Boy, that Mr. Peterson is so obsessed with this board. How many times a day do you suppose he clicks on threads here, consumed with getting his ‘fix’, as it were? Anyway. Is Mr. Peterson the executive producer? Between all the bad decisions like using an uncredited film sample, to bad sound editing, to using the golden plates as a bludgeon (take that anti-Mormons!) this certainly feels like he’s the executive producer. One would think someone who has the ability to make on the spot corrections like he’s done would be, I dunno, spending more time obsessing over his own project rather than reading message boards and seething with anger when obvious flaws are identified.

Such is life for the poor Mopologist, I suppose. Always half-assing things and acting out like toddlers when their amateurish work is rightfully derided as a hateful rubbish. What are ya gonna do? Soldier on I say! The sad sacks over at the Interpreter will not stand in the way of Cassius U!

edit: I was on my ipad when I made this post, and for whatever reason I couldn't see any information populated to the Witness-whatever-it's-called homepage. Now that I'm on my pc I see he is, in fact, an EP. Holy cow what a terrible EP he is!

- Doc

[I have a question]

The “Witnesses Trailer” has now become a “sampler”. From a blog entry dated Feb. 29th:

We had a respectable though not huge audience for our panel discussion earlier this evening at the 19th Annual LDS Film Festival, and I think it went well. We led off with the video “sampler” that now appears on our Witness film project website, which is made up of mingled footage from our theatrical movie (still temporarily supplemented with some material from an earlier film that was created by our same team) and from the documentary film that will accompany it.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... tival.html

And this...

[one of] Our first priorities will be the creation of an official movie trailer ...

Gaslighting

[Gadianton]

And it looks like there is a solid, black, plastic object that is sort of "leaning" away from his body, with wires trailing from it.

Could it be a walkie talkie? I heard they use these still on sets and makes sense in a secluded area.

[canpakes]

As Peterson puts it:

But we didn’t use such wireless microphones and wires. We used boom mikes. Or, if you prefer, “boom mics.” (I really dislike that spelling, which seems to be prevalent despite my opinion of it.) What these ardent critics are seeing isn’t a wireless microphone and wire, it’s a vest that ties in the back.

This seems like a peculiar hangup for a man who is headlining the trailer with the odd banner phrasing, “Dramatic Film in Theatres October 2020”.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

From the executive producer's blog, an update about the evening:

Accordingly, afterwards, my wife and I went out for dinner with friends at TruReligion Pancake and Steakhouse in Orem. I don’t know what the others were thinking about but, to me, it was something of a celebration.

Seriously, why is he compelled to always let people know he's shovelling food down his gullet at every opportunity? What a weird thing to note with regard to the project.

- Doc

[Doctor Scratch]

And it looks like there is a solid, black, plastic object that is sort of "leaning" away from his body, with wires trailing from it.

Could it be a walkie talkie? I heard they use these still on sets and makes sense in a secluded area.

It definitely could be. Maybe it was intended as an "easter egg"? You know, like how you can supposedly see "inappropriate" things in Disney films, such as the priest sprouting an erection in The Little Mermaid? Critics will be able to eternally point to that scene in the film, and no one will be able to tell whether it was a wireless mic, a 'walkie talkie,' or merely the ties from the Harris character's costume vest. I mean, has anyone from Disney ever officially stated/admitted that the priest really is getting a chubb? Can you dismiss it as just a "fold" in his vestments? In the end, everyone just eventually settles into a detente where all parties wind up agreeing that, yes, there is some ambiguity at play. I think the challenge to the filmmakers going forward will be one of interpretation (this is allegedly a production supported by an organization that rather vainly calls itself "Interpreter"), or, rather, the control thereof. There are definite means of controlling whether or not viewers see--or *think* they see--a wireless mic clipped to the back of the Martin Harris actor's waistband. Indeed, those methods have been discussed--including CGI. But there is another, cheaper road forward, of course: one where you just shrug; or you try to say that anyone who makes this criticism is a "jerk"; or whatever else.

That said, just look at the clip/"trailer." There is no denying that, even if it *is* Harris' vest-tie, it's very easy to mistake it for something that contemporary viewers would have far more commonly seen--i.e., a wireless mic. I mean, I don't consider myself an expert on men's fashion--from any era--but I do believe that is the first back-laced vest I have ever seen on a man. And I know the basic premise is there (I can't help but think of that awesome, cream-colored suit jacket with back-belt that Jack Nicholson sports in an early scene in Chinatown). So, I guess they've got to rely on the very dumb logic of filmic communication: Can they assume that, because they've shown an earlier scene w/ Harris running, and with (odd, to me at least) back-tied vest, that viewers will then continue to assume that back-tied vest w/ strings visible, is indeed the back-vest, and not a goof-up on the part of the filmmakers, by "accidentally" leaving a wireless mic in the scene?

Look: this is a controllable thing. It's going to come down to how much they care. DCP can try to write us off as hostile "nobodies" if he wants. But if he does that, this ambiguity will remain in his film.

ETA: were requests for donations made at the end of the free panel event--i.e., the one that was not part of the official LDS Film Fest (which actually required the purchase of tickets(, but was "tacked on" to the end of it?

[Gadianton]

ETA: were requests for donations made at the end of the free panel event--i.e., the one that was not part of the official LDS Film Fest (which actually required the purchase of tickets(, but was "tacked on" to the end of it?

You mean from the Q&A meeting held in Orem, as Mr. Midgley aptly and truthfully put it?

It's a good question. I don't know the answer, but my guess, for what it's worth, is "yes".