It’s been more than 20 years since the LDS Church updated the temple movie for the endowment ceremony, and this time, the church has produced 3 new movies. When I first attended the temple, Gordon Jump of WKRP in Cincinnati and later the Maytag Repair Man portrayed the apostle Peter in the temple dramatization.
When the Church updated the film in 1990, opera singer Michael Ballam portrayed Satan, but now he’s out. From what I understand, as the church has introduced more temples to Africa, they’ve discovered that some African languages require more words to get explain the temple ceremony. So, the church has modified the entire ceremony, allowing more pauses to accommodate the African saints. This makes the ceremony about 15 minutes longer. Many temples had endowment ceremonies every 30 minutes, but due to the longer length of the endowment presentation, the church is encouraging temples to schedule sessions every hour. Some temples are experimenting with scheduling to see if they can do sessions more often, but this is leading to challenges.
Some temples were especially busy this week with people wanting to see the new endowment movies. Summer is traditionally busy with endowments for missionaries and marriages as people try to fit this in before school starts toward the end of August. Unaware of the change, some patrons waited for over an hour to get into an endowment session because previous sessions were completely full. (I’m sure people will adjust once the novelty is over.)
Is this correlation run amok? Why change the endowment for the entire church when it is just Africa that has a problem? Did you think the movie needed updating since it had been 20 years since it was updated? Is there anything you can share if you’ve seen the new movies?
Wheat & Tares 
I respect the need to accommodate an international audience, and the old videos could be distracting hokey, but man, I could definitely have lived with just dropping the pageant-style acting altogether for a briefer summary lecture plus the covenants and I guess the secretive stuff if necessary. But that’s just me 🙂
Actually I was very impressed by the new Endowment film. Everything from the musical score to the artwork was top class. I was also surprised to find actual acting going on by all the characters rather than just one as in previous films. Rather than being distracting, it gave a fresh new interpretation to the familiar script.
Which brings me to my one reservation. Unless they make several more films right away, or make new ones more frequently, there is a danger of this interpretation becoming the de facto official one. That’s one of the great things about the temple, in my opinion:the words are unchanging, but the interpretation can change with an individual’s needs and circumstances. I hope a single interpretation does not become standardized simply because of a single character’s line delivery or facial expression.
Too bad…Michael Ballam will always be Satan to me. When I saw his Oscar-caliber performance on my first trip through the temple, I couldn’t focus on any of the spiritual aspects of the ceremony because I was captivated watching him chew the scenery. I kept thinking (not knowing who Michael Ballam was at the time), “where did they find this guy?!”
I was also endowed during the Gordon Jump era. I thought Michael Ballam was over the top to the point of near-comedy, but I really liked the younger guy (name??) as Lucifer. Portraying him as youthful and attractive made sense, imho.
I’m told that in the first version of endowment film (which literally used licensed footage from Disney’s “Fantasia” for creation scenes!), Lucifer/Satan had dark skin, i.e. was African American. Anyone old enough to know for certain?
I was a Gordon Jump era acolyte also! I frankly liked both Michael Ballam and the other younger guy as Lucifer. But, I haven’t been to the new film yet, so I’ll reserve judgment until I see that. I would like to see some of the sexist elements of the endowment changed, but my understanding is that those remain unfortunately intact.
Not being a regular temple-goer and only endowed a few year ago, I’ve only ever seen the older one. I heard a rumor that a lot of temples stopped playing the “new” one because one of the actors had apostatized, though I don’t know if that could ever be confirmed.
I am curious about the new one, though. I found the acting bad to the point of distraction in the old one.
That 90’s temple film was really distracting with the big hair, shiny costumes and bad beards. I am excited for the new films, I hear great things about the production values of the new one, but I am dissapointed they didn’t take this opportunity to remove any of the sexist elements.
Where have you heard that there are going to be three movies? Would they be produced with a year or two’s gap between them like the last set?
Nick,
Greg Prince in the David O. McKay biography said they considered using a black man as Satan, but scrapped the plan when blacks complained. To my knowledge, it never happened, but it was under consideration.
Lovely Lauren, I know that the non-Michael Ballam film was stopped around the same time that the church removed much of the stand up/sit down portions a few years ago. I don’t know why that film was removed, but perhaps they only wanted to edit one film. I haven’t heard about apostasy of one of the actors, but I guess it is possible.
Moss, the acting in the pre-1990 version was very wooden. I remember when they added music, it was a nice addition. (Of course if you go to the Salt Lake Temple, there is no film and the actors are very wooden still.)
Orwell, A temple-worker told me there were 3 versions, but I haven’t seen them. According to my mother in law, she said that Satan is being portrayed by Corbin Allred (of Saints and Soldiers fame). The temple worker said that the new versions only are in English. For people needing another translation, the Michael Ballam version will still be used until they can get the new versions translated.
I had heard the Corbin Allred rumor, but not that there were “three versions.” I had my CES brother check with his mole in the temple department (so, second-hand, I concede) and he said there was only the one — but that he couldn’t rule out future alternate versions because they (temple department employees) are the last to know anything. Can you get a clarification from said temple worker about what he or she meant by that?
Well, this one came out of the blue for me. But I am glad to see them refresh the production. My biggest complaint about the last set of films was the overdubbing of all the voices. Not sure why they did that. One could certainly recognize Michael Ballam’s voice as his, but not knowing any of the others, you were not sure if that was their voice or someone’s else’s.
And the other thing was the make-up on the women playing Eve got heavier as they progressed through in the film. though never “Mormon girl” heavy.
And I am hoping the special effects are better. The technology is here for that to happen.
We have Stake Temple night on Friday….. So I guess we’ll be going for sure.
I haven’t seen the new film, but am of two minds about improving the acting, scenery, etc. Although the wooden/cheesiness of the older films irritated me, they did force me to remember that things didn’t actually happen that way. I fear that it will be easy to conclude that things really happened exactly as portrayed if the film is more realistic. And the last thing we need is more literalism.
I’m happy to hear about new films. I liked the older films quite a bit, but I’ve seen them both so much that I often go to sleep when the lights go down– especially with the lulling music of the 1990 film. I miss standing up frequently. It helped me stay awake better ;-).
“From what I understand, as the church has introduced more temples to Africa, they’ve discovered that some African languages require more words to get explain the temple ceremony. So, the church has modified the entire ceremony, allowing more pauses to accommodate the African saints. ”
What? This makes no sense. African temples are in English and the Church wouldn’t change the temple film for just one group of people. Yes, it was longer for translation purposes (12 minutes longer to be exact…. I’m a temple worker and this was the official word), but not just exclusively for African Saints.
The younger Satan in the X’d out picture of which Nick and hawkgrrrl make mention is Derryl Yeager. He runs the Odyssey Dance Company in SLC and has been a minor actor over the years. He also portrayed the Apostle Peter in the 90’s seminary film, later a missionary film called “To This End Was I Born”
I’d really like to see some changes to the script.
Interested in seeing the new movie though.
Changes in the script? Changes in the script? Who’s missing what here? Next time you see Joseph Smith, suggest he tweak it a bit, would you? This is not up for debate or suggestion! I am soooo glad The Twelve are too busy to review blogs and these comments….. they would blow out some ribs laughing so hard…;-)
Are you saying that the ceremony we have now is exactly as it was when Joseph Smith instituted it? That it has never changed? That the 1990 changes weren’t preceded by a massive survey of temple patrons?
You really think our leaders would find it soooooo funny that the sexism in our holiest place causes pain? I’m sure they laugh themselves silly.
jcwest, that’s funny, considering Joseph Smith tweaked his own First Vision account something like 9 times! Maybe you should read up on your history before making silly statements.
I liked the younger guy as Satan (I’m talking the ’90’s films here.) I thought Ballam was too…well…operatic in the role.
Moss, I “get” that the current endowment is not as it fell from the lips of Joseph. I’m old enough that I have lived through several tweakings. But if you are waiting for, I dunno, something like Eve to be created before ol’ Adam or some such thing, well, it ain’t happenin’ . The endowment has it’s parallels in the scriptures, and they are not currently under a revision.
😉
And we all know the scriptures are infallible. 😉
And, no, I’m not waiting for something dramatic. I’d just like the temple to reflect the equality we preach every Sunday in church and proclaim to the world and write in the Ensign.
JCWest, you might want to review the comments on Guy’s previous post on veils in the temple. The comments discuss the inherent cultural sexism within the temple ceremony that many find off-putting. If men and women are equal as both Nephi and the new OD 2 state, this equality isn’t shown in the temple.
I would just like to feel like God was willing to communicate and covenant with me directly, the way he does with men. That’s all I really want.
Orwell, I talked to my temple friend today. He said that the temple presidents visited with some of the cast of the new temple film and cast members indicated that other versions might be released. (Of course other versions might not be released too.) So I guess I’ll have to leave that as a rumor. It will be interesting to see if other versions get released, but there are certainly no guarantees.
I saw the new film, it’s no longer, the words haven’t changed but it’s emphases on things is a nice change. More heart and soul. It’s nice. It’s purpose is not to entertain or have the best actors but the ordinances. It’s beautiful if you don’t go there to critique it, just enjoy it and see the beauty of it.
Actually, there is a change in the script. A couple of statements that were previously in the dialogue are not in the current version. And the decision to make that change, I think, was a good one.
Guy T., can you send me the page of Prince’s biography that includes that detail about casting discussions? I can’t find it right off using the index of the book.
Hadn’t reached London this week.
Mary, it looks like I gave the wrong book. Here is a short snippet to the Mysteries of Godliness by David Buerger on page 169: http://books.google.com/books?id=P08mAQAAIAAJ&q=satan+inauthor:John+inauthor:David+inauthor:Buerger&dq=satan+inauthor:John+inauthor:David+inauthor:Buerger&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UcFHUazbD8-QyQGftYDgBQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
Guy T., Thank you. Two quite different books.
What’s the footnote reference (73)?
Mary Bliss, can you give us an approximation of what statements have been deleted? Some of us won’t be able to see the film for awhile.
Karen, Thank you for asking. Like most new good things, whenever possible it is better discovered than explained. And, though I do know that it’s frustrating to have to wait (I lived with tiny children a long distance from a temple when the last new version was released) my experience has taught me that it’s much more enlightening and worthwhile, and worth the wait, to enjoy the discovery in the temple, on your own or with a friend. Such is the experience I would wish for each of my sisters. So I will politely decline and hope you will be understanding.
I hope (and will pray) that the way for you to attend and enjoy will be opened sooner than you think.
Mary, the footnote refers to an oral interview that Buerger had with Spencer Palmer who played the part of the minister in the pre-1990 version of the endowment. Buerger writes,
I will note that President McKay died in 1970, so he was leading the church in 1969 when the Palmer film was published (which is why I erroneously thought the quote was in the McKay biography.) All I can say is I’m glad to hear the Polynesians complained!!!
I went yesterday. I clocked the new film at 8 mins longer and we had a full session of 60 people. The new presentation is extraordinary and the quality of the acting actually makes it much easier to understand the roles played by those involved in the story. The added length is mainly in that first portion of the film and, IMO, worth every minute.
I think you have to experience it to fully understand. The changes are very subtle but actually substantive. But you have to be very familiar with the script to detect it. I found only one the first time around. But, the difference in the presentation really comes from the improved acting.
To those who are bitter about the presentation itself, they will, perhaps remain so. But the presentation does cast Eve in a much better light, I think.
Three films? No.
There’s only one new film, and it does have Corbin Allred in it.
It would be humorous, though, if there were three films released simultaneously and we were all talking about different versions.
being a programmer and with the church using digital movies, they could have programmed it so that the film only took as long as necessary based on the languages chosen for translation. that way if the audience is english audio, then the pauses are omitted. the church has one of the best IT departments on the planet but i don’t get why they weren’t involved in making it happen this way. that way, the only temples that are affected are the ones with the african languages or when a temple has someone who needs the longer translation (and then only affected by the pause length as needed instead of fixed).
you people complaining about the “sexist elements” really are clueless and are completely missing the point of the endowment. Try reading Genesis, Moses, and Abraham lol These films are approved by true apostles of jesus christ……..at least thats what you should know to be true if you are in fact viewing the film in the house of the lord.
Trevor-
Historically, the Church has made sweeping changes to the endowment ceremony at various times, including the removal or alteration of troubling language. In a global, adaptable church, there is always room for improvement. There is no reason it cannot be changed again. You seem to be under the impression that God himself directed, produced and distributed the movie in a vacuum, when in fact well-intentioned mortal humans made it under temporal circumstances.
The endowment has great spiritual value, to be sure, but we are each allowed to make our own interpretations. Not even the prophet can dictate to us what personal meaning the endowment is “supposed” to have.
chris s. – I believe it’s because they don’t treat them as digital movies, but as full films. Sure, you could program something to change based on need, but with the current system, you can keep each film on a single flash drive and need no other software to play it. I believe they still even transfer the films (even on a drive) by hand, rather than trusting the internet.
So it seems they do it for both security and simplicity reasons, even though a seeming better option might be available with the technology.
I saw the new movie, and I have to say that I prefer the older versions. While the acting was cheesy or bland, at least it allowed me to focus on the WORDS and meaning of the content, and not focus on the “entertainment” aspect. The new movie seems over the top. Some of the styling was so bright and blinding, I couldn’t look at the screen. Yes, the acting is much better, but with the fancy camera angles, panoramic sweeping scenes, etc, I felt like I was watching a Hollywood movie instead of a sacred instruction. And, it is quite sensual. I kept waiting for a big make-out scene. I felt very awkward and uncomfortable, due to the sacred purpose of the film. So, while I appreciated the improved acting and graphics, to me, this is a case of “simpler is better.”
When you see the endowment performed live in a temple, there is no set design, no fancy camera angles or music. It is just straight forward dialogue telling me exactly what I need to know without any distractions (although I don’t like the 3 hour length!)
I can confirm that it is Corbin Allred playing Lucifer (I knew I recognized him from Saints and Soldiers), and he does an excellent job. He is beguiling and smooth, but also intense and scary. The actors who play Adam and Even do a really good job too. I think Eve’s portrayal is the one that surprised me the most. She smiled broadly at times and showed more natural responses to Lucifer and others. They actually portrayed joy and sadness with real emotion that left tears in my eyes. They were also not overly handsome (and not blonde). I was truly moved and got more out of the presentation than I ever did with the melodramatic, Shakespearean performance of Ballam and even the other guy (not as operatic as Ballam). Overall, I wanted to go back right away, so I guess it did its job. I did miss seeing the shots of Mt. McKinley in Alaska from the previous films, and the old score from the opening scenes was always very nice. I always thought it sounded just like John Williams’ score from Empire of the Sun (anyone else ever notice that?).
Totally agree with #41, sethp. Can’t agree at all with #40 Myca. While the live session is a remarkable experience,, the poor delivery and forgetfulness that occurs from time to time can be distracting.
I did like the previous music better. Though, the use of a French horn is ironic since it is not allowed in Sacrament meeting.
1. Found the acting so overrated and horrible that I thought this was a soap opera.
2. The music was as if I was watching an old silent movie where there was no dialogue and only sound accompanied it. At any moment I swear I was going to hear “dun dun dah”.
3. Now I know why it’s 12 minutes longer. For ¾ of the time they spoke sooo slowly or whispered. Makes you almost believe that in Heaven everyone talks sooo much sloooower and in a whisper. I swear my IQ kept dropping every time I was listening to them. I wanted to just scream out and finish the sentences for them.
I thought the new film was breathtaking, and the acting is better, though, as much as I like Corbin Allred, at a few spots, he seemed to over do the creepiness. I like how there is more emotion expressed–with Adam and Eve and it’s cool how we see Michael with Elohim and Jehovah IN heaven. My daughter was thrilled they got rid of the pink marble heaven. lol
Oh, and I forgot–I really have no problem with the so-called sexism in the films. It’s really a non-issue as far as I’m concerned. I know my Heavenly Father loves me and He communicates directly with me. I know He esteems women highly and with reverence. I don’t need it portrayed in a film in the temple. 😉
Jeff (42) “Though, the use of a French horn is ironic since it is not allowed in Sacrament meeting.” That is NOT what the handbook says, and any Bishop who thinks so needs to re-read his book. It is up to the Bishop to decide, so of course, it may be hard to convince them otherwise. But, if it is worshipful, then it is OK.
/rant
#46, Well it does put us well into what is a prominent or less worshipful sound debate, and I’m with your rant.
As of 2010 the handbook states: “Instruments with a prominent or less worshipful sound, such as most brass and percussion, are not appropriate for sacrament meeting.”
which is perhaps a softening on earlier versions, but still, whats with the ‘most brass instruments’? What is more worshipful than a beautiful anthem played on organ and brass? For me that’s the epitome of worshipful music. Bring in the entire brass band I say.
How are Christmas Carols by the Salvation Army band not worshipful?
Three french horns did in fact make an appearance at a General RS meeting a few years ago (so maybe we can assume that french horns as the most muted of the brass instruments do in fact now scrape a pass), playing a fanfare of all things! Because, hey that’s the only thing brass instruments are good for apparently! Fuming quietly, and obviously long…
Well, I am a percussionist (Tinkling cymbals and more) and I think any beautiful rendition of a worship piece should be allowed in Sacrament Meeting, whether it is guitar, a french horn, an oboe or a marimba.
I think a poorly played instrument or bad singing is not worshipful and I’ve heard my share of out of tune violin playing and less than ideal vocals. But then again, I am pretty picky about that.
I am not in favor of a rock band, however.
I first saw the presentation in early 1971, well before any film version. Of all the actors, I was most impressed with the consistently authentic portrayals of Satan. Later, Spencer Palmer’s low-key portrayal of Satan also impressed me.
In a Temple session last night I saw the new film version for the first time. I found acceptable all of the portrayals, except one. Were I the director, I would have asked “Satan” to take it down a few notches. His chronic face-scrunching, scowling, melodramatic pauses and angry delivery struck me not only as inappropriate, but compelled me to conclude that his primary goal was to deliver no line as any predecessor had ever uttered it before, e.g., “It will MAKE you wise.”
PS And to give you, the reader, just an inkling of who I am, I found “Lars and the Real Girl” to be one of the most authentic, poignant films I have ever seen.
This is my 3rd film version. I remember when Gordon Jump was Peter, and they had a preacher in the endowment. I really liked that film and the ones after it (with the ‘home teachers from hell’), and thought them nice. I always gained some new insight from those films. I wasn’t there for the acting, you see, but for the doctrine and inspiration.
I saw the new film yesterday, and loved it. I knew it was longer but didn’t care. Who complains about spending more time in Father’s home?
As for those thinking the temple ceremony is inherently sexist, it is obvious you simply don’t have a clue what the temple or gospel is all about…..sorry to be blunt, but you are missing the entire point….
Sixpack, sorry to be blunt, but I think you really are blind to the sexism, and are missing the entire point…. God is no respecter of persons–God is not a sexist. Sexism is a cultural product of mankind, not of God and sexism in the temple should be removed. To blame this on God makes God a sexist and is a ridiculous proposition.
The woman being subject to the man is symbolic of the body yielding to spirit.
God is the father of our spirits and the earth is our mother.
I am from South Africa and I attended a session today with the new representation and loved every minute. I will admit that I really used to struggle to focus with the previous representations, but today, I was captivated from start to end. It gave me a whole new perspective on things. With the change in emphasis, so many things made much more sense to me. I had a similar experience when attending the SLC Temple in 2007 as I didn’t know that one moved from room to room – again it gave me a whole new perspective. Today was such a wonderful experience and I can’t wait to go again. Note: most of our local sessions are in English. Other languages are French and Portuguese. I’m not aware of any translations into traditional African languages at this point in time, but perhaps that is what is planned for the future. Pure speculation from my side of course.
My wife and I went. I’m glad others like it, but the words were exactly the same, and it was much slower. I felt like the presentation dragged on. The slow down was very noticeable, IMO.
I am a woman and I don’t interpret the temple endowment as sexist. I believe there is a reason and purpose for everything as it is portrayed. I believe individual/personal learning must take place to understand why it is that way. As with all learning in the gospel, a sincere heart and contrite spirit will create the right kind of environment for that learning.
The temple isn’t sexist. If you think it is, then you don’t understand God or the temple. I am sorry for those who feel that way and wonder if it is because relationships with priesthood holders in their life have lead them to believe that sexism exists. Sexism arises not from the gospel or the church but from working with imperfect people who don’t fully understand and respect the roles of men and women. The gospel is not sexist. The temple is not sexist. Only man is sexist (man referring mortal humankind of both genders).
By the way, the new movie rocks it.
I have never liked making women “subject” to their husbands, the teachings that husbands are to love their wives even as Christ loves His Church notwithstanding (Ephesians 5:25). Never mind if a dear sister is a “confirmed spinster”, and since we teach that she should remain single if no man whom she can sincerely love proposes marriage w/o fear of ‘pulling for administering angel’, I haven’t understood the necessity in 33 years of temple attendance. Still, I accept it on faith. And bloggers here know that I’m not an “Alan Alda” type male “feminist”, certainment pas. I feel that the obligation to honor the marriage covenant works both ways, and the division of labor (e.g., does one or both do gainful employment outside the home, childrearing, etc.) and the timing and quantity of children is entirely a private matter between them and the Lord.
Likewise, if English or other Indo-European languages permit a shorter temple film, then why increase the length for everyone? This is puzzling. However, it’s an administrative issue, so unless the Church feels a need to consult those of us that have attended the Defense Language Institute, let’s just roll with it.
Gripes:
1. Too many musical interludes with repetitive, monotonous melody
2. Too much grinning
3. Too much crying. Watching a theatrical movie with crying is one thing. But a repetitive instruction film…just cut to the chase.
4. Dialogue of Satan’s role delivered with gra—ting—-ly slooooooooooooooooooow pace.
5. Removal of the word ‘generally’. 😦
6. Frank Gifford-ish (football player-like) Adam
7. Too frequent teeth baring Eve (think of Jay Leno with a brown wig)
8. Non Jewish looking Peter, James, and John
Help me brothers and sisters! Not sure I can endure the coming 25 years with this version. Give me Michael Ballam or Derryl Yeager. I had a chance to return to the temple and do another session 3 weeks after seeing this film After the 4 hour drive, I couldn’t bear (in my driver’s fatigued state) to think of sitting through this for a couple of hours.
I went to the temple this week, and it seemed like the dialogue dragged on much too slowly. Corbin Allred whispers every line in a weird, sneering way. The slowdown is quite evident, and I didn’ t like it. (The old film was slow enough, now it’s even slower.)
anon for this one,
You’ll get used to it.
People: we’re talking 12 mins longer! For pete’s sakes, have some patience and perhaps you might actually learn something. For those trapped in the world’s politically correct stereotypes, you need to have a longer view of things. Heavenly Father is not sexist, people are, if they are.
Thank you. I find the slower pace a chance to actually reflect while in the ceremony on things. I liked the new film very much, and knowing that the 1st Presidency has approved this film, feel that it is fine for me as well.
Those of you that don’t like the new movie may get a reprieve, as the Church is releasing a 2nd new movie sometime in 2014.
I welcome TOC’s claim that a new film is in the works, and hope he is correct. I don’t mind the extra length of the film, but the bizarre emphasis that the speakers place on different words in the time-honored script is distracting, e.g., 1) “It will MAKE you wise…” (rather than the logical “It will make you WISE.” and “Quick!……(two seconds later)…..Hide!” It seems as though the primary goal of the director were to have the lines delivered in a way that they have never been delivered before.
I saw the new 2014 endowment video tonight in the Dallas Temple. I really like it. The pace is a little faster. Adam and Eve are a little more plain. Satin is temptingly good looking which could be a warning about what is physically attractive may not be the real thing. I like the new Heaven Throne of God sequences. Tuesday January 15, 2014.
I saw a new video this month. What is with all the fog in the garden of Eden. That does not depict the beautiful celestial place the scriptures say it should be. The telestial world Adam and Eve are cast out into should not be brighter then the garden of Eden.
There were a lot of things about the first new film that I liked better except the actor who portrayed Satan was a little too creepy and evil for me.
I hate to admit but I didn’t like the 2nd new film that came out in 2014. To me the whole film, especially the first half of it, just gave a surreal feeling to it. The actor who played Satan, again I felt was just too evil, even more so than in the first movie. I felt it left a spirit that shouldn’t be in the temple. I will say that the 2nd half of the film wasn’t as hard for me to watch as the first half. I was happy for that.
Now, let me understand this from Ms. Ann: She says the Satan in the “golden steps/throne” opening sequence is “too evil”? Do I have the right film? The Satan that is chuckling and super friendly when he first meets Adam? “Too evil” may be your perception, but in my opinion that portrayal is precisely the way Satan should act…friendly, personal, one by whom it is easy to be mislead, etc. He and the director got it just right……except …..I regret to say…..for his over-the-top verbal explosion after he is told to “depart.”
I was referring to how Satan reacted after he was told to depart and also in the first movie after he got Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. His true colors came out then. Remember this is just my feelings on it. Others may have other feelings.
I live in Japan and I managed to see the new film over here too last week. It is nice to have a change after all these years – never realised it was 20! I liked it much better than the previous one: ‘heaven’ was much more iike it; Jesus looked more of how I thought should be like; and Eve’s acting was wonderful and touching. However, because she was acting so well, she stood out more than her companion, plus this Adam looked a bit too old to me.
Regarding the speed of the speech, you have to remember that this is shown all over the world, many where English is not the native language. I could see that even with the previous one, they spoke rather slowly than how people usually may speak, yet that was still too fast for foreigners who don’t speak English. Temple missionaries are people who are usually over 60 years old, and they need to learn the ordinance words in English (foreign language in countries like here in Japan) as well. I have very often heard that when they try to listen using their headphones, the speed is too fast.
By the way, do you have any idea where the vast green field with many trees of various kinds could be located in one of the sceneries? I would like to visit there once.
I personally love all the new films. Still can’t seem to stay awake through the sessions though, doggone.
Re No. Four, Nick Litersky: The person portraying Satan has always been white.
The principles never change, but the way they are applied and this is in accordance with modern revelations.
I know I’m probably in the minority here, but the people who think “Jehovah = Jesus” (which I realize is the official position as of January 1, 2000) and are extolling the close-up of Jehovah’s face, his reaction to the announcement that a Savior will be provided, etc., are falling into what I think is one of the main problems with this version of the film (which I have only read about and not seen, of course)… its interpretation forces altered theology which is drastically different from what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught. The hand gesture towards Jehovah in the 1990 version was even too much. Using acting and emotions to change the meaning of who is who is a sneaky tactic.
On another note, I liked Michael Ballam’s performance fairly well. I got to see Derryl Yeager’s only a few times. I wish I had been able to see it more. I can’t wait for Noah to post these three new ones.