Talk:Scientology filmography/Archive 1

Archive 1

1996

The article is referencing to personal opinion on a personal website. The second sentence of that webpage states: In November 2002, the ever-paranoid Church of Scientology ... Can we REALLY expect our readers to consider such statements to be good references? We want good information. When we cite personal websites that sound like newsgroup chatter, i.e. "the ever-paranoid Church..." we do a disservice to our readers. Terryeo 04:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Time Magazine, no less, called Scientology a "cult of greed", among other, even less flattering things. You can't discount any source just because it says things you don't like. wikipediatrix 04:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Documentably, the cofs is extremely paranoid. What are there now, over 150 cameras they have mounted around downtown Clearwater? --Fahrenheit451 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. And that makes businesses and most of the city of London paranoid because they likewise have mounted cameras. Therefore our London article should begin, The paranoid city of London ..... And likewise with many many other facilities. Terryeo 08:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are free to edit the London, England article, Terryeo, go for it!--Fahrenheit451 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My statement was toward delineating the relationship of mounted video cameras and paranoia. Terryeo 09:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. That's well done. Pass.--Fahrenheit451 09:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I guess Time magazine did get their epithet for the cofs wrong. Perhaps it should have been "the paranoid cult of greed"! :-)--Fahrenheit451 08:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The external links

Hubbard's official site lists him as "filmmaker" on many of these films, even ones made over a decade after his death and which his own only involvement was that his writings and recordings were used. Says the trailer to the link to IronHubbard.org. Yet Hubbard was the force which created Golden Era Studios which creates those (even after his death) and wrote the policies by which it creates films and wrote the techniques, and a lot of other information about producing those films, according to the Church. So what source of information says that Hubbard's ONLY involvement was that his writings and recordings were used? Terryeo 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't even begin to take this argument seriously. If I start a film company, and they make films after I'm dead, I'm still the "filmmaker" who created them?? Oooookayyyyyy. wikipediatrix 03:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a little fluffy because "filmmaker" isn't a standard title in movie-making, but in common usage the filmmaker is the film director, a job that usually requires the person doing it to be alive. Vpoko 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't I recall that Hubbard also authored books after dropping his body? BTfromLA 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He apparently wrote "Clear Body Clear Mind" after his death, since it's credited as "by L. Ron Hubbard" and not a BOTWO book. wikipediatrix 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Though... now that I look at it more, I think it would be better to leave it at Hubbard's official site lists him as "filmmaker" on many of these films, even ones made over a decade after his death. Not that the rest of the sentence is wrong or unjustifiable, it just sounds a bit whiney (it feels like a small swipe at Hubbard). And in any case, the reader will come to the same (IMO correct) conclusion (that the church is BS attributing works to Hubbard). Vpoko 01:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't see it as whiny: the portion of the sentence you suggest we delete is actually only there to help show that at least Hubbard did have something remotely do with the films, even if posthumously. But hey, no problem, I'll excise it right now :) wikipediatrix 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "only" in the 2nd half of the orig text was what gave me a slight feeling like it was meant to reduce Hubbard's apparant contribution. But we're splitting hairs and I don't feel strongly either way. Vpoko 05:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the criticism is unfair. CoS credits Hubbard as filmmaker for two reasons. 1. Never credit any Scn material to another person than Hubbard (it's a Hubbard policy) 2. Hubbard wrote all the film scripts and treatments in the late 70's. CBCM is entirely compiled from HCOBs dealing with Drugs and the Purification Rundown. The only non-LRH parts are the introduction, the success stories and the doctors assesment of the program. The manuscript for translation was delivered with a complete list of where the text was taken from.

I came here to update the article. All of the training films (except the TR Course) have been entirely redone (reshot with new actors). They deserve a new entry just like any remake. Many training films are missing from the list (there are 27 of them). The Married Couple has also been entirely redone. I don't know how to find the dates, though. Any pointers, someone? In 2005-2006, CoS was producing short films (about 20-30) illustrating Dianetics principles. Has any of this been released? --Leocomix 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"An Announcement of Epic Proportions" DVD

Leocomix, do you know what year this DVD came out? wikipediatrix 05:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just from the title, no. Do you have a picture or an idea of the content? If it's a DVD, it's from the 2000s. Unless it's a new DVD of an older event like 1993 IAS recognition of the New Year 2000 event. The only two things in the 2000s that would fit this hype could be March 2005 Golden Age of Knowledge and June 2007 OT Summit 2. --Leocomix 07:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Epic" is on MV2. Just my 99 cents. Misou 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material and WP:OR violations removed from the article

Unsourced material was removed from this article. If you can find secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V, please feel free to add that material back into the article. The prior version may be seen here. Cirt (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Will next begin to remove information only backed up to self-referential, primary sources (can't build an entire article out of that now, can we?) and other dubious sources. Cirt (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)