Talk:Mormon cinema

message: If the definition of LDS cinema included here is to stand, then it would seem to include older moview like Brigham Young (1940). And surely, Latter Days (2003) would qualify under this standard, even though it's not BYU Date-Nite material, because it deals with Mormon themes. And what about documentaries? If we want to include all cinema on LDS themes, we have to include the good, the bad, and the ugly (not the Clint Eastwood movie, of course). COGDEN 01:47, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
:The problem (and advantage) of word meanings in English (as opposed to other major languages) is that they are really defined by usage. The meaning will drift over time, sometimes becoming the opposite of what the word originally meant.  I'm trying to say that some definitions are worse than trying to nail unset Jello to a tree.
:With that said, let's get out the hammer and nails.  First of all is the definition of "Mollywood".  It would seem to include the upright and uplifting LDS cinema.  But we're trying to define "LDS Cinema" itself which can easily go beyond Mollywood.  There are two ways we can start to define a definition: Start with those that are put in the category, or start with the definition.  Step-wise, cyclic refinement can then be done until we get to something we consider good enough to put in the article itself.
:A platypus is a mammal even though it lays eggs. A shark is a fish even though it gives birth to live young.  Snakes are reptiles even though they also give live birth to their young.  Do we want to craft a definition like science has done that has a myriad exceptions, or do we want to divine the meaning based on usage (like the English dictionary publishers do)?
:I'm throwing things out for consideration without hammering the first nail.  But I do trust you enough that I'll hold the nail while you use the hammer.  Now, you find some Jello for us.  Val42 02:35, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
::Nailing Jello to a tree is a good analogy, especially when you're talking about Mormon culture. I hate to try and "steer" a definition in a particular direction unless there is already a well-established usage out there, so I'm inclined for the article to reflect common usage. I would suspect that LDS Cinema generally refers to Mollywood movies only. But what do you call non-Mollywood films that explore Mormon themes? If people would also refer to these other films as LDS Cinema too, then there's a problem of ambiguity. But I don't know. Maybe the Deseret News of the Salt Lake Tribune have some standard usage that makes more sense. COGDEN 06:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd is in the category of LDS cinema.  This is contrary to the definition given in the LDS cinema article.  I think that movies produced by the LDS Church for proselytizing or seminary use should be in a category of their own.  This is a category that the short movie Johnny Lingo would be in but the full-length motion picture would not be. What about these categories:
*LDS cinema: Movies produced from a Latter Day Saint perspective for commercial purposes.
*LDS something: Movies produced by a Latter Day Saint church for non-commercial purposes.
*LDS film portrayals: Movies that feature Latter Day Saints that don't fit the above categories.
The first definition may or may not include Napoleon Dynamite, The Other Side of Heaven and Saints and Soldiers depending on subleties to be determined. (Personally, I think that the first doesn't but the others do.)  The second definition would include the LDS Film Classics that have recently come out on DVD because the films were made at BYU for church purposes even though they mostly don't have people identifiable as LDS.  The third definition would include commercial portrayals where a main character can be identified as mormon, and anti-Mormon films.  When the category pages are produced, the category pages should be interlinked.  Val42 02:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the definition of "LDS cinema" only include Mollywood movies? 

message: I'm going to be writing up an article for "Sons of Provo".  This article lists the release date as 2005 whereas the IMDB lists it as 2004.  Which is correct? Val42 20:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sons of Provo

message: Since they are presumably going to make one movie for each book, there will be nine entries.  Should we continue to list movies strictly chronologically?  I have another suggestion: For movies with multiple installments, they can all be listed as an indented list under the first (released) movie.  So far, this could also be applied to God's Army.  It will soon be applicable to The Singles Ward, and hopefully The Book of Mormon Movie.  Val42 05:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie series

message: Yesterday, I created the article for the "Down and Derby" movie.  It is related to LDS Cinema (because it is distributed by Excel Entertainment Group) but is definitely not in this category.  But I figured that people who are interested in this category would also be interested in this movie.  Please review the article.  Val42 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Down and Derby

message: This movie belongs here in some category.  And it needs its own article.  -- 66.89.103.34 23:29, March 13, 2006 (UTC)
:We have had a discussion about definining the category (No!) or documenting the usage of the term (Yes!).  Therefore, we've done our best to document usage of this term.  Plan 10 from Outer Space does deserve its own article (you're welcome to write it), but the article doesn't belong in this category. Val42 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan 10 from Outer Space

message: This movie is a HaleStorm production, stars Kirby Heyborne, Corbin Allred and several others who have been in other LDS cinema productions, but there are no LDS characters in the film.  I think that this was aiming for a larger audience.  But does this still belong in this category? If not, where would you suggest that it go? Val42 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could go several places, such as the article on Kirby Heyborne or Corbin Allred or the article on the production company.  Either way, it should belong to the category for the year it was produced, such as :Category:2005 films. HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the article.  It is not in this category, but I figure that people who care about this article will want to check out the article.  Val42 14:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Take a Chance

message: The article as it stands at present (2007 May 10) carries this text: "The Other Side of Heaven — 2001. Not by an LDS studio. Although special pains were taken to remove overt LDS references, it is often counted as LDS cinema because it was brought to fruition by an LDS producer." This doesn't seem quite apt.  The movie is about an LDS missionary in Tonga. I don't see how anybody could watch the movie and be unaware of this, unless they slept thru the whole movie.  I suggest that the above text should read instead, "The Other Side of Heaven — 2001. Not by an LDS studio, but it is often counted as LDS cinema because it is about an LDS missionary."Friendly Person 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that they tried to remove many references, but they obviously couldn't remove them all without significantly changing the story.  ("Based on a true story" anyone?)  I think that this information is on the DVD in one of the extras.  But since there isn't a source for this information, and I don't know where it is, make the change.  Since you came up with the wording, I think that you should make the change.  Val42 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Other Side of Heaven 

message: What about the forthcoming film Meet the Mormons (released 10/10/2014)? Produced by the LDS church, does it qualify as "LDS cinema"? Source: http://meetthemormons.com/ — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 23:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the first movie in the modern era that the church has produced to be released thru the standard film industry distribution system, and it has a MPAA rating. I'd say that it does qualify. —Asterisk*Splat→ 00:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that LDS cinema films are independent, whereas this is produced by the LDS Church. I think listing on LDS Films is sufficient. —Eustress 16:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Meet the Mormons''

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:LDS fiction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress