The Folk Prophet

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. @LDSGator, here's another example of trying to make it (specifically in the "Mormon" world). We wrote and produced a musical based on the Children of the Promise books by Dean Hughes. (This is actually my latest completed work, and I'm quite proud of a lot of it). We got permission from Deseret Book to write and perform it. We even got Dean Hughes to attend the performance. And his feedback was quite positive. (Though that could have been mere politeness). But....we don't own the copyright. And Deseret Book, despite giving us the permission to perform, did not give us perpetual stage or performance rights. That means.... I can't even upload the stuff to youtube or spotify. It's work I did that is dead until Deseret Book says otherwise. Although we invited the Deseret Book folk to come see it as well, they didn't. And although we submitted it to them afterwards (video, recordings, etc), it seems apparent (from their replies) that they didn't even bother reviewing the materials. They just weren't interested. It didn't fit their current trend-chasing goals. So it's dead for now.
  2. Sort of. I'm not the best test case for really having "tried". Like I explained in the PM, I purposefully made other choices based on what was more important to me (family, stability, etc.) And it's entirely possible that I'm delusional and simply can't compete with the big boys. Of course it's a delusion I can more easily maintain because there is no objective standard like in your case. Your jump kick didn't work. That fact doesn't care about your feelings. But even my current lack of success on YouTube so far....well I can blame YouTube's algorithm, right? It's just not feeding my videos to the right people yet. Right? Or...who knows? But it isn't concrete evidence that my writing sucks. So I can still happily believe I'm as good as Lin Manuel Miranda or Benj Pasek and Justin Paul. (In point of fact, I'm not a huge fan of the latter (La La Land, Dear Evan Hansen, The Greatest Showman, etc.)).** There are some objective standards to measure creative art quality, of course. I mean if a million people watch a video and every single one of them clicks thumbsdown.....maybe you should consider your capabilities a bit... What I find with feedback on stuff I person loves it, it's amazing, how can I not have succeeded yet, etc.,...and then next person points out that it's just not good and I haven't succeeded yet because I suck. It always ends up feeling much more a commentary on the person giving the feedback than on my stuff. Which does make it somewhat difficult to asses things re improvement. Shrug. ** Even the big boys don't always nail it. Look at the hatred Lin Manuel Miranda's new song for The Little Mermaid received. And even huge hits like Les Misérables (Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil). You'd think those guys were golden! Their follow up, Miss Saigon, was a hit too, though not as renowned, but then they did Martin Guerre, which kind of flopped, and finally The Pirate Queen, which was an honest-to-goodness FLOP with a capital F. And they disappeared into oblivion, because when push came to shove, apparently, they couldn't actually play with the big boys. C'est la vie.
  3. I'm well aware. The idea that success can be derived from a formula isn't a correct though*. It might work, but if it does, it's as much luck of the draw as is writing something entirely original. *unless that formula is simply quality. Edit: And even then, quality is not a formula for success. So I take it back.
  4. The key is never, and will never be, to chase trends or stats or philosophies when it comes to making art and entertainment.
  5. It's easy! Just be the Osmonds, right!?
  6. Argh...just the first 10 seconds and I'm disgusted! Edit: Okay I watched it all. And.... I'm still disgusted. But.... there are some interesting points he made. Particularly, I have never understood the Church's support for LoveLoud. And similar matters. Some of his points are ridiculous though. The church's ads in The Book of Mormon musical wasn't support for or endorsement of the musical. I don't think the Church should support his movie. He's being a whiney baby man about that. And complaining about the church publicly, particularly from a position like his, is just terrible. But I do understand how he would feel frustrated at the some of the things he points out. It is an interesting thing to consider. I was telling @LDSGator in a pm earlier how I used to write exclusively church related stuff for my musicals. I always struggled a bit with that on the commercial balance side of things. One side of me thinks that profiting off of "spiritual" things in any way feels an awful lot like Priestcraft. But the other side of me thinks what better way to profit than by also sharing spiritual messages that might benefit the world. I'm still torn on the idea. I really dislike a lot of "spiritual" artists like Michael McLean and the like because it feels so much like they're selling spirituality. It bugs me. And yet...I have had some of my greatest spiritual moments in life with music from Kenneth Cope. So I'm so very torn on the matter. Either way, the "open letter to the church" video is a big thumbs down from me.
  7. I didn't even come across all that and....yeah. That's about exactly how I expect things would be. On another note re the movie trailer. What on earth is up with Zane's accent?
  8. Well, I suspect he's sincere. Just... I dunno. Likely deluded, IMHO. I could be wrong. I just don't think this movie was his purpose and why he was saved, etc. You know I'm a musician and write musical theater. I have severe delusions of grandeur and ambition. And yet I have never once allowed myself to think it's my "purpose" or some sort of holy calling. If God uses me that way then that's His purview. But as soon as I start getting all high and mighty about it like I've been ordained to that end.... That just feels off. My purpose is to be a father, a husband, a humble servant in the church, and to try to be like my Savior as much as possible, repenting when failing. Anything else is all fine and dandy. My job. My recreation. My dreams and ambitions. But they are NOT my purpose.
  9. I saw this a while back, and I can I just say for the record that the "special message" from the director totally turned me off here.
  10. Sorry. I wasn't suggesting Secondhand Lions was and Angel Studios movie. I can see how that came across though. I was just using another example of a studio that has made movies that aren't crude but are also quality entertainment.
  11. Give me Angel Studios over Daily Wire 6 days a week and twice on Sundays.
  12. Is it also ironic that that tends to be how I feel about your complaining about conservatives complaining. "There goes LDSGator again, complaining about conservatives, thinking he's all holier than them as he does exactly the same thing."
  13. It's called long-suffering and it's a virtue! Seriously...are you suggesting complacency and apathy for the sake of peace of mind would be better? Like...really? Is that what you're trying to imply. People who hope for godliness, cleanliness, righteousness, and peace on earth should just give up because it's depressing and exhausting and they can't ever win? You're the one who's phrasing it as "complaining" and applying the cynical tone to what's being discusses. I don't consider it "complaining" to state that I wish Lady Ballers wasn't so crude. I admit it can be looked at that way. But I don't really think it's legitimate to call any criticism (from the right or the left) "complaining". I mean isn't your statement that the right are never satisfied and trying to make themselves feel noble really just you complaining about the right? Would that really be a fair way for me to look at it? Someone can't even state they have a preference one thing over another without it being considered complaining? I mean it's really just shutting down debate. Any time anyone says "I don't care for _________________" you're going to accuse them of just being whiney complainers and virtue signaling to look noble? Do you really think that's all Just A Guy was doing? But anyhow... I'm sorry...certain things DESERVE to be complained about. You may be desensitized to the poop they smear on the burgers you eat, but I think complaining about poop being smeared on my burger is fully justified. It really comes across like you're response is, "Everyone likes poop on their burgers. You complaining about it makes you look pathetic. We gave you a burger without cyanide in it like you asked? Is nothing good enough for you?! Now shut up and eat the poop burger!" No thanks. I don't want poop on my burger. And I'm gonna complain about it.
  14. I think I'll stop complaining when the Savior returns.
  15. It might be your (our) age, but.... the kind of comedy this is emulating has always been one that I despise. Crude juvenile humor has never appealed to me, personally, even when I was juvenile.
  16. One of the things I dislike about the Daily Wire's approach (based on statements they've made) is that they don't see anything wrong with language, sex, violence, and the like. I think they'd love to make a Game of Thrones hit or the like. And they are completely oblivious to the fact that doing so is not going to help re-moralize or save the country's culture. Whereas I think making fun of what they're making fun of here is theoretically great, I agree whole-heartedly with @Just_A_Guy.'s extremely difficult to make good solid entertaining entertainment that doesn't include that sort of garbage. That doesn't mean it isn't doable. Heck, Disney did it for decades. It's hard, but it's doable. And, yes, I understand there are shades of grey and it's really hard to find that balance in entertainment. As it's often pointed out, a legitimate Book of Mormon or Bible movie would probably end up being R-rated. But crude humor about women with "the biggest ____ I've ever seen" is clearly not in that gray area of what sort of entertainment is morally uplifting and useful to bring people back from the grasp of Satan within which our culture is caught. Yep. The "right" as you put it, will lose the culture war because they aren't the left. That is correct. I love that the Daily Wire is trying to win back the culture. But they will not succeed. You can't bring an evil culture back from being evil by giving them a different kind of evil.
  17. But God is not. The plain scripture I mention is not the words of Satan. It is the words of God. "And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying... ...Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;" (Moses 4:1, 3) There can be no question that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. Unless one wants to argue that God was deceived by a lie.
  18. Kinda depends on what you mean by "opposition to". There's no question that he was in opposition to our having our agency for our mortal probation. That's just scriptural fact as plain as written word can be.
  19. I know we're joking around a bit.... but..... This sort of response (if used seriously, as it sometimes is) is the kind of dismissiveness that's a real problem... not in that it's dismissive, but in that it's calling something a fact without proof or even evidence that it might be a fact. I'm not arguing here, btw, just using what you said as an example to my point. You said people who say "facts don't care about your feelings" think they're right 100% of the time. But you provide no evidence. Can there be evidence? How can you, or anyone, possibly know what people think? It's just your assumption based on what seems to be a bit of bias. Then you follow that by jokingly suggesting that what you said may be a fact. (I know you're being humorously snarky...but just go with it here for the point....). Fine, right. Maybe. Sure. Maybe. But it really strikes me that therein lies the potential problem. When we assume things without evidence are factual because of how we feel ----- well by golly that's half the point of the saying. We really ought to stop "feeling" what we think is factual and use actual evidence or statistics to inform our views instead of just our "sense of the matter" (how we feel about it). As to the specific comment at hand... take Ben Shapiro, for example (after all, he's the one famous for the saying in question). Does Ben Shapiro think he's right 100% of the time? Obviously it would be easy to assume he does. He speaks as if he's that confident. His mannerisms and attitudes imply it might be true. But.... "First, let me point out that I’ve made mistakes and said dumb stuff. When this is pointed out, I’m more than happy to admit it, " - Ben Shapiro Of course this sort of thing is still only evidence. I wouldn't consider it "factual" that Ben Shapiro doesn't believe he's right 100% of the time. He may be providing nothing but lip service. It is, however, factual that he said he's made mistakes. And whether someone "feels" he's never admitted such...well he has. That's a fact.
  20. This strikes me as your bias bleeding into your view on the matter.
  21. I agree that it is often dismissive. That doesn't make it wrong, meaningless, or useless. In point of fact, it's an extremely meaningful idea that actually matters a great deal. It's unfortunate that it is often used dismissively. (Though I'd argue that it's taken dismissively more than it's used that way.) It's also often misrepresented to be saying "feelings don't matter". But it doesn't actually mean or say that. I said it in a jokingly way, but the actual fact is that facts don't care about feelings. That's an obvious truth, but one that's denied by a lot of the world. Denying truth because of feelings is a serious problem in our society. I can understand that the saying itself has become a dismissive weapon. But to take the idea behind it, the actual meaning of the saying, and disregard it because of that isn't a good idea.
  22. Not really. Facts don't care about your feelings is a fact. You're making the case that facts don't care about feelings. A true statement is true no matter how some people use it. It strikes me that you have not considered the meaning of the saying with any level of seriousness.
  23. Really? So if you just feel strongly enough that you can fly like Superman then the facts of gravity have no application in reality?
  24. Well I'm not sure how I can be more clear than I've been. So I guess we'll leave it at that. As for my being "wound up" and "snarky": As is common, I'm really significantly less emotional than I'm probably coming across. So I apologize for that. And I apologize for my other phrasing that was insensitive as well. I'm not that wound up, more just mildly huffed. But I'm clearly "in a mood". So I apologize for that and will try and do better.
  25. Of course asserting we should follow the examples and counsel of our priesthood leaders isn't a bad thing. Are you really oblivious to the fact that correlating it to certain innocuous behavior is likely to offend? That's the wide-eyed faux innocence's I'm talking about. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting that if they drink soda they're not following the prophet. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by suggesting if they don't homeschool their children their not true Christians. I didn't MEAN to hurt anyone's feelings by implying that any true followers of Christ will be clean shaven. OBVIOUSLY we should follow the prophet. That's not the concept that offends. And assuming or pretending like it is is a deflection. If someone is asked to shave by a priesthood leader then clearly they should shave. I'm am clean shaven currently. Why? Because I'm a temple worker and they asked me to shave. I have no issues with doing as we are asked to do. I have an issue with the idea that allowing others to believe that we HAVE been asked to do things that we have NOT been asked to do is a good idea. The problem is the reverse. There are those who may never get around to the challenge of giving up coffee or alcohol because they won't investigate the church because they NEEDLESSLY believe that "Mormons" look down on anyone with facial hair and can't drink Coca-Cola. It's the needless part I take issue with. And I don't think we should be driving potential investigators away needlessly. We have litmus tests to pass. Let them be the tests they're meant to be and not otherwise shut doors that should be open. And, frankly, I find the attitude that we can just write off anyone who doesn't take a look at the church because they believe things like we have to be clean shaven seriously problematic. I don't have any issue with someone coming to the conclusion that they need to be clean shaven to follow the prophet. I do have an issue with preaching to others that if they don't shave they aren't following the prophet, and even more so preaching to non-members that all faithful Latter-day Saints abstain from soda and shave.