Bill “Papa” Lee Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 If you did not know here is the link… Enjoy. In a Church released article it says it has changed from the original one I saw in SLC…In what way? HereMaybe FAIR could provide a permanent link; If permissible.
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) I documented all the significant changes I noticed on my blog hereThe story segment of young Joseph’s leg injury has been removed to focus more on the development of Joseph’s prophetic career.There are additional subtle details (in some cases taken from Lucy Mack’s book) that are noted in this version that were not present in the original, such as the general story of the Book of Mormon record being known to Joseph before the translation process began, and relating such details to his family.The Minister figure is viewed as being significantly more sympathetic, and less of a cardboard antagonist. Additional scenes show him having genuine concern for Joseph’s spiritual development and growth (he encourages him and assists him in studying the scriptures), and is shown in a scene showing him expressing genuine sorrow and concern for his conviction that a dying Alvin, without having been baptized, will be eternally lost.A brief context-setting scene is shown of Joseph’s early attempt to translate at the Hale home, right before the death of Joseph and Emma’s first child.Brigham Young is given a more substantial introduction. Still no sign of Sidney Rigdon, though.Better context is given to Joseph’s imprisonments. In the originally, he was shown being arrested, or in jail, but never really explained why. Here, the actual charges are often presented. Much better context for the journey to Carthage, for example, is now presented.No, "O Lord My God" cry for help as Joseph dies.The film ends with Brigham Young leading the exodus, (even though Lucy Mack states in the film that she’s not going along) which fades to the modern Temple Square, with a statement of the Church expanding to become an international Church throughout the world. Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow 1
kolipoki09 Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 If my memory serves me correctly, Bryce Haymond of Temple Study worked as one of the extras in the updated version of this film, or another church history-related film due to be released soon.It's been a while since I've seen the movie (pre-mission, 2006-ish). As much as I enjoyed it then, I think I'd be more apt to openly criticize it now, which may be one of the reasons why I haven't seen it in such a long time. For some reason, I think seeing Joseph actually defend himself at Carthage would give a better context for the martyrdom, even if they leave out the cigars, pipes, and wine.
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I've never seen the film, but those sound like interesting changes.I documented all the significant changes I noticed on my blog here[*]A brief context-setting scene is shown of Joseph’s early attempt to translate at the Hale home, right before the death of Joseph and Emma’s first child.Not to open a can of worms, but how is this scene presented? Is he behind a curtain? Does the audience see the plates?[*]Brigham Young is given a more substantial introduction. Still no sign of Sidney Rigdon, though.Are you saying the film doesn't mention Sidney Rigdon at all? Do they show events where Sidney Rigdon was present?
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) I've never seen the film, but those sound like interesting changes.Not to open a can of worms, but how is this scene presented? Is he behind a curtain? Does the audience see the plates?Are you saying the film doesn't mention Sidney Rigdon at all? Do they show events where Sidney Rigdon was present?Never mind. Here's a screen grab of the scene. This must have been the part of the translation where Joseph didn't use the seer stone or Urim and Thummim, and had the plates sitting on the table where Oliver could see them. Edited June 17, 2011 by cinepro
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Not to open a can of worms, but how is this scene presented? Is he behind a curtain? Does the audience see the plates?It's a very, very short close cropped shot of Joseph, with the plates cradled in front of him. You can't see enough around him to see if there's a curtain. It immediately cuts to a shot of an angry Isaac Hale telling Emma how much he distrusts and doesn't like Joseph.Are you saying the film doesn't mention Sidney Rigdon at all? Do they show events where Sidney Rigdon was present?I know he's never mentioned by name, or given any speaking lines. I don't remember if there's someone supposed to represent him or specific events where he's supposed to be there actually presented. Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Never mind. Here's a screen grab of the scene. This must have been the part of the translation where Joseph didn't use the seer stone or Urim and Thummim, and had the plates sitting on the table where Oliver could see them.Oliver wasn't on the scene yet. This is where Emma was the scribe, if I remember correctly.
Palerider Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Never mind..........if I say what I'm thinking I'll probably get banned. I could say this though! Very well produced. Fairly good acting, good filming, beautifully scored......good set design and costuming......Could you hand me that bucket quickly....... Edited June 17, 2011 by Palerider
Questing Beast Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I documented all the significant changes I noticed on my blog hereThe story segment of young Joseph’s leg injury has been removed to focus more on the development of Joseph’s prophetic career.There are additional subtle details (in some cases taken from Lucy Mack’s book) that are noted in this version that were not present in the original, such as the general story of the Book of Mormon record being known to Joseph before the translation process began, and relating such details to his family.The Minister figure is viewed as being significantly more sympathetic, and less of a cardboard antagonist. Additional scenes show him having genuine concern for Joseph’s spiritual development and growth (he encourages him and assists him in studying the scriptures), and is shown in a scene showing him expressing genuine sorrow and concern for his conviction that a dying Alvin, without having been baptized, will be eternally lost.A brief context-setting scene is shown of Joseph’s early attempt to translate at the Hale home, right before the death of Joseph and Emma’s first child.Brigham Young is given a more substantial introduction. Still no sign of Sidney Rigdon, though.Better context is given to Joseph’s imprisonments. In the originally, he was shown being arrested, or in jail, but never really explained why. Here, the actual charges are often presented. Much better context for the journey to Carthage, for example, is now presented.No, "O Lord My God" cry for help as Joseph dies.The film ends with Brigham Young leading the exodus, (even though Lucy Mack states in the film that she’s not going along) which fades to the modern Temple Square, with a statement of the Church expanding to become an international Church throughout the world.Those all sound good! I was not impressed with the film as I saw it here in SLC. Parts I thought were well done. But all the changes you've listed addressed quite a few of my annoyances and disappointments. I will have to give this a looksee. Thanks for sharing....
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Those all sound good! I was not impressed with the film as I saw it here in SLC. Parts I thought were well done. But all the changes you've listed addressed quite a few of my annoyances and disappointments. I will have to give this a looksee. Thanks for sharing....While still not a perfect film, I do agree that the changes make it a much better film. There are still some segments that were a little annoying, and I wish were portrayed differently, but I definitely think this presents a move in the right direction, a few steps at a time.
LeSellers Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Very well produced. Fairly good acting, good filming, beautifully scored......good set design and costuming......Lessee, that's five Oscars. Almost as good as The Book of Mormon, right?Lehi
Walden Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Never mind. Here's a screen grab of the scene. This must have been the part of the translation where Joseph didn't use the seer stone or Urim and Thummim, and had the plates sitting on the table where Oliver could see them.Do they show the head in the hat translation method in this movie?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Do they show the head in the hat translation method in this movie?You know, they should show that. I don't see why people think that takes away from the translation process any more than the U&T would take away from the process.
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) You know, they should show that. I don't see why people think that takes away from the translation process any more than the U&T would take away from the process.No, it doesn't show it.And honestly, I don't think it would have been useful in the context of the film as presented. I do think it would have been useful in a film such as this, which focuses on that particular time period (and looks to be an otherwise very well done and useful production!). But it appears to be a missed opportunity of several things. If significant context had been given to Joseph's pre-prophetic scrying career (which appears to be subtly alluded to), it could have been used as a powerful visual symbol of his transition from village seer to prophetic translator.I think this is a significant aspect of understanding Joseph's past and development that is sadly usually left to antagonists to interpret and present.I do think the head-in-hat, if presented, needs to be preceded by the context of Joseph's earlier uses of stones in a hat to show why this was something that would have been a natural way to 'see' to Joseph. Otherwise, it's a strange curiosity. Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Oliver wasn't on the scene yet. This is where Emma was the scribe, if I remember correctly.Oliver is shown in that scene as the scribe (it's right before they are baptized), and there's a point where Joseph appears to look directly at Oliver while translating, implying there is no curtain.As I've said before, the best solution isn't for the Church to show the Urim and Thummim/seer stone. The best solution is for the Church to stop showing the translation process at all. No more pictures or films. Edited June 17, 2011 by cinepro
Palerider Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) Lessee, that's five Oscars. Almost as good as The Book of Mormon, right?LehiYes! The church has come a long way (technically) since I used to show the old Lorenzo Snow tithing film to investigators. And yet some things never change......... No Oscar for best documentary... Edited June 17, 2011 by Palerider
David T Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Oliver is shown in that scene as the scribe (it's right before they are baptized), and there's a point where Joseph appears to look directly at Oliver while translating, implying there is no curtain.We're talking about a different scene - we're talking about the scene right before the death of Joseph and Emma's first child, in Harmony Pennsylvania.Although the Oliver scene is, I think, one of those most problematic and frustrating scenes in the production.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted June 17, 2011 Author Posted June 17, 2011 Yes! The church has come a long way (technically) since I used to show the old Lorenzo Snow tithing film to investigators. And yet some things never change......... No Oscar for best documentary...Maybe we should all have input and they could produce a 60 hour long movie that nobody would ever watch. To use your icon…
Palerider Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Maybe we should all have input and they could produce a 60 hour long movie that nobody would ever watch. To use your icon… I'd watch it.
AeonJ Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 How come the movie didn't show Joseph firing gun shots back at the mob?
LeSellers Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) How come the movie didn't show Joseph firing gun shots back at the mob?Maybe, if any of the three rounds that went downrangestairs had had any real effect, they would have. But since the little revolver (a six-shot pepperbox pistol) was more a noisemaker than a weapon, it was wholly immaterial to the outcome. Lehi Edited June 17, 2011 by LeSellers
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 We're talking about a different scene - we're talking about the scene right before the death of Joseph and Emma's first child, in Harmony Pennsylvania.Although the Oliver scene is, I think, one of those most problematic and frustrating scenes in the production.From what I can tell, Joseph and Emma are married at 17:18, then Joseph is shown getting the plates. There is one shot of Joseph sitting at a table with the plates at 17:35, but no scribe is shown. Then Isaac Hale gets mad at Emma and her mom says he'll change his mind after the baby comes.Then, they're shown burying the baby at 18:26. The next scene is Joseph with Oliver at 18:44, with Joseph sitting with the plates at a table (my pic above), and Oliver sitting across from him writing down the dictation ("All men must repent...and be baptized in his name"), at which point Oliver looks up and asks "How are we to be baptized?" Joseph looks at him across the table and says "I don't know".Since they're never shown in the same shot, it's possible there is a curtain in between them and when it appears they are making eye contact they're actually staring up at the curtain.
cinepro Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 (edited) How come the movie didn't show Joseph firing gun shots back at the mob?From a narrative standpoint, showing Joseph firing a gun would raise way too many questions and be far too distracting. Viewers would probably be scratching their heads about where the heck Joseph got the gun from, and whether anyone was hit or not. And it would totally change the dynamic of the scene from a solemn martyrdom to . Frankly, I think the martyrdom scene is extremely well done (especially for a Church film). I'd be curious to see the previous version. Edited June 17, 2011 by cinepro
AeonJ Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I believe all three shots hit people, and two persons may have been killed. Even if that wasn't so, the depiction in the movie wasn't historically accurate. Joseph not having the gun takes the scene out of context just to make Joseph seem more of a martyr than history gives him credit for.
Recommended Posts