On 9/16/06, Chris Heimerdinger <cheimerdinger@???> wrote:
> as well. Some folks, I've discerned, have decided "Who cares! Why should
> Latter-day Saints make movies strictly for Latter-day Saints anyway?" Thom
> Duncan seems keen on this.
If I'm reading this correctly, you are attributing to me an attitude
of indifference toward LDS films. I have failed to make my position
clear. I have one toe in your camp on this issue: I deplore the recent
desertion (spoken or real) or LDS filmmakers more interested in making
money than continuing their vision. We just disagree on the nature of
the LDS films we would like to see made.
>But on this argument I would be lost me entirely.
> It would mean that the genre Dutcher created is doomed to die. I've
> sometimes heard the suggestion (from a very uninspired segment, I feel)
> that, "Maybe there's just not enough stories that could cater just to
> Latter-day Saints."
>This is completely untrue. No question.
When we started Nauvoo Theatrical Society, uninformed people told us,
"How are you going to survivie with only two plays?" Referring to
Saturday's Warrior and My Turn on Earth. In reality, there are enought
extant quality LDS plays that we could go half a dozen seasons and
never repeat ourselves. The mine for relevant Mormon stories is
fertile and shows no sign of letting up.
Our unique
> religious worldview is more fertile than any other venue I've ever explored
> for the creative mind. Or I've heard others suggest, "Making movies that
> expand outside our religious niche is a perhaps a more noble cause." Eugene
> Woodbuy might favor this. But on this I passionately disagree as well.
As do I, actually. We don't have anywhere near enough films for our
own people and probably never will. We've got to find a better way to
make them inexpensively, and distribute them cheaply.
We can't abandon ship yet.
--
Thom Duncan
