Meet the Mormons

[Katy Lied]

Lol2 @ LC.

Since CC seems obsessed on the "proceeds" question, it is common for some movies to donate "a portion of the proceeds" to some charity. So when the church is saying "all proceeds," they are differentiating themselves from these movies that donate say, 5% of the net. Not really saying that all gross proceeds will go. I think that "net" is implied because most movie production companies are for-profit, and it would be unthinkable to donate gross proceeds. Plus everyone up the distribution chain would be thinking "Gee am I gonna get my money back for distributing this puppy or is it going to the Red Cross?"

The only reason why we are even discussing this is because the Church could afford to take a total loss on this film, which they would do if they donated gross proceeds. Most people, inside and outside the biz, would automatically think total net, Pia Zadora vehicles notwithstanding. (This last reference is for you PAC)

[All-American]

Just was looking through my spam email and saw the letter from my stake saying "all proceeds from the film go to the Red Cross."

Was thinking about the three ways this idea could be communicated with varying levels of honesty:

1. All proceeds from the film go to the Red Cross. (Just plain dishonest.)

2. Net proceeds from the film go to the Red Cross (this is the most honest the Church has been -- intentionally misleads people who will skip right over the word "net" or don't understand what that word means.)

3. The Church will use proceeds from the film to pay for the film's production. Any profit after the Church recovers expenses related to producing the film will be given to the Red Cross. (Unambiguous and completely honest in my opinion.)

http://i.word.com/ithesaurus/proceeds

[jay santos]

Lol2 @ LC.

Since CC seems obsessed on the "proceeds" question, it is common for some movies to donate "a portion of the proceeds" to some charity. So when the church is saying "all proceeds," they are differentiating themselves from these movies that donate say, 5% of the net. Not really saying that all gross proceeds will go. I think that "net" is implied because most movie production companies are for-profit, and it would be unthinkable to donate gross proceeds. Plus everyone up the distribution chain would be thinking "Gee am I gonna get my money back for distributing this puppy or is it going to the Red Cross?"

The only reason why we are even discussing this is because the Church could afford to take a total loss on this film, which they would do if they donated gross proceeds. Most people, inside and outside the biz, would automatically think total net, Pia Zadora vehicles notwithstanding. (This last reference is for you PAC)

"Give proceeds to charity" is common speak in our society. Only stupid people actually believe it means anything. Not an issue. You only say "give proceeds to charity" when you know there will be no proceeds. If there are going to be significant proceeds, you keep it yourself. Next.

[Northwestcoug]

The 'proceeds' issue is not a big deal for me, although I think you could read something into the fact that the church made a pledge for charity in the first place. Why make that pledge, unless to someone it looked less 'churchy' to be making a movie like this.

If there's any deception in this, it's the continued 'this is not a proselytizing effort' statement, even coming from Elder Holland. Of course it is. Even if there is some unknown connection that a movie has to make money in order to be distributed through Netflix, what's the end game? It is proselytizing. There should be no shame in that, for a church that focuses so much on sharing its message. Then why deny it?

[Shaka]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were sold out showings in L.A. and N.Y.C. There are significant numbers of people in those cities that go to every movie that hits theaters.

[All-American]

The 'proceeds' issue is not a big deal for me, although I think you could read something into the fact that the church made a pledge for charity in the first place. Why make that pledge, unless to someone it looked less 'churchy' to be making a movie like this.

If there's any deception in this, it's the continued 'this is not a proselytizing effort' statement, even coming from Elder Holland. Of course it is. Even if there is some unknown connection that a movie has to make money in order to be distributed through Netflix, what's the end game? It is proselytizing. There should be no shame in that, for a church that focuses so much on sharing its message. Then why deny it?

I agree to a point. Yes, the underlying point is to share the church's message. But it would be pretty misleading to call it a proselyting movie, too, given the reported lack of any doctrinal substance in the film. If the church out out a movie called "Join the Mormons," it'd be a different story.

[CardiacCoug]

I agree to a point. Yes, the underlying point is to share the church's message. But it would be pretty misleading to call it a proselyting movie, too, given the reported lack of any doctrinal substance in the film. If the church out out a movie called "Join the Mormons," it'd be a different story.

Huh? The best way to proselytize is not to talk about the wacky "doctrinal substance." You can't present what Mormons believe without it seeming totally bizarre so just show some cool Mormons doing totally normal things.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The "all proceeds" language is up there with "based on a true story" in terms of artistic license. Any chance Meet the Mormons dropped both?

[All-American]

Huh? The best way to proselytize is not to talk about the wacky "doctrinal substance." You can't present what Mormons believe without it seeming totally bizarre so just show some cool Mormons doing totally normal things.

In other words, a "proselyting" movie (in the more traditional sense of the word) would be wildly ineffective. I don't disagree.

[Northwestcoug]

I agree to a point. Yes, the underlying point is to share the church's message. But it would be pretty misleading to call it a proselyting movie, too, given the reported lack of any doctrinal substance in the film. If the church out out a movie called "Join the Mormons," it'd be a different story.

The 'step one' of this non-proselytizing effort is to show how normal Mormons are. Once people are convinced of that, then they are hit with the doctrine.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I hope that the movie makes it into the second weekend just so I can watch the numbers crash in the second weekend after all the devouts went opening weekend.

[All-American]

The 'step one' of this non-proselytizing effort is to show how normal Mormons are. Once people are convinced of that, then they are hit with the doctrine.

Right. We can expect all that overt proselytizing in "Join the Mormons," the forthcoming straight-to-DVD sequel to the 2014 smash hit.

[SoonerCoug]

I agree to a point. Yes, the underlying point is to share the church's message. But it would be pretty misleading to call it a proselyting movie, too, given the reported lack of any doctrinal substance in the film. If the church out out a movie called "Join the Mormons," it'd be a different story.

People very rarely are Mormon or become Mormon because of doctrine. You're not Mormon because of doctrine. You're Mormon because you were born into a Mormon family and you decided to stay Mormon because that's what is most convenient or enjoyable for you.

Converts aren't Mormon because of doctrine either. They are usually Mormon because they had a friend who was Mormon or enjoy the social aspects of Mormonism.

The first Mormon male in my ancestry converted because his girlfriend wouldn't marry him otherwise. That ain't doctrine. That's social pressure / marketing.

Staying in the Church is also marketed, right? There are so many incentives created by the Church NOT to leave. Eternal family, for one.

If you were born in India as descendant of a guru, you'd be a proud Hindu. Consider stepping out of the bubble for a bit and seeing things for what they are. The movie is a bizarre attempt to spread the religion. People get involved in the religion slowly and next thing you know, they are dressed up in white robes watching even more B movies. Movies like Meet The Mormons are a gateway drug to bad Mormon movies.

[All-American]

Meet the Mormons

People very rarely are Mormon or become Mormon because of doctrine. You're not Mormon because of doctrine. You're Mormon because you were born into a Mormon family and you decided to stay Mormon because that's what is most convenient or enjoyable for you.

Converts aren't Mormon because of doctrine either. They are usually Mormon because they had a friend who was Mormon or enjoy the social aspects of Mormonism.

The first Mormon male in my ancestry converted because his girlfriend wouldn't marry him otherwise. That ain't doctrine. That's social pressure / marketing.

Staying in the Church is also marketed, right? There are so many incentives created by the Church NOT to leave. Eternal family, for one.

If you were born in India as descendant of a guru, you'd be a proud Hindu. Consider stepping out of the bubble for a bit and seeing things for what they are. The movie is a bizarre attempt to spread the religion. People get involved in the religion slowly and next thing you know, they are dressed up in white robes watching even more B movies. Movies like Meet The Mormons are a gateway drug to bad Mormon movies.

On tapatalk, the word "Mormon" is the first word of lines 2-6. Kind of funny. Just thought I would mention that.

[Moliere]

On tapatalk, the word "Mormon" is the first word of lines 2-6. Kind of funny. Just thought I would mention that.

I noticed that. Just another awesome reason to be mormon!!