Spenshire Limited

I think i’ve found something rather strange, here!

I typed in “Grant Naylor Productions Spenshire” and it cqame up with a result fro the British Film Institute which after clicking “Filmography” came up with this page:

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/organisation/139263?view=credit

LIsting among other things:

“Spoof Kennedy Assassination Footage Cour: DEAD RINGERS: DEAD RINGERS[2004/12/13] (2004)”

Did ‘Dead Ringers’ use the footage from Tikka To Ride in one of their episodes??

> Did ‘Dead Ringers’ use the footage from Tikka To Ride in one of their episodes??

Yes, they did.

> That’s quite interesting.. so what’s Red Dwarf Limited?

Well, that means that they haven’t got much money, so it stops them from doing what they want to be able to do…

I *think* ‘Red Dwarf Limited’ is one of the companies set up for the Movie.

Yeah, Winchester Films - which became ContentFilm - were involved at some point; we reported on it a while back. It was ages ago though - no idea whether they’re still potential partners or not.

As for BBC Films - in Doug’s statement at DJ a couple of years ago, he said that they’ve already approached them, and they weren’t interested.

I wonder how many Red Dwarf fans would chip in, say, 20 quid?

150,000 = 3 million quid, or 6 million dollars. That’s gotta buy a fair amount of stuff.

*sounds a QI-style klaxon*

Surely the lottery, or the arts council can help here.

OH YEAH, THEY HADN’T FORT O DAT!

And the Duke of Manchester…

Sarcasm’s Ian Symes, there.

Not-having-seen-Spaced’s Matt, there.

And the QI-style klaxxon was because… well… if you spend more than five minutes on the Webboard, you’re sure to encounter the latest new poster who’s arrived with their stunningly brand new and original suggestion of getting “TEH FANS” to chip in a tenner each to get the movie made. It’s got to the stage where it’s almost insulting to ask Andrew to explain YET AGAIN why it’s simply not practical…

Wasn’t this attempted before with a publicly funded sci-fi movie? Legionnaires or something. Should be getting a cinema release on the 5th of Never.

Does it need to get a cinema release to be a successful movie?

Yes.

I don’t think Shaun of the Dead got many cinema releases

Wrong.

>According to IMDB, SotD - 367 screens vs Spider Man 2, same year 507.

Comparing it against a blockbuster doesn’t really prove anything. Shaun was a global release and therefore was able to become a great success. They also did quite a lot of advertising here in the US (a wise move since 99% of America hadn’t heard of anyone involved with the project) and it paid off in spades.

Of course, that requires an even larger budget. Production is a huge chunk of the financing required, but it’s by no means all of it.

>movies like Shawshank Redemption - didn’t do well at the cinema, did great on home release.

But the fact that it WAS released in theaters meant it was advertised, talked about, etc. Sure, it blossomed on home video, but only because a) people who had seen it were telling others how good it was and b) people were looking for something to rent and remembered the commercials.

I can guarantee that Shawshank would have done far worse if it had just been a straight-to-video release, because it wouldn’t have had any kind of pre-existing advertising or recognition to fall back on.

And I don’t mean it would have done a little bit worse. I think it’s perfectly fair to say about 90% of its current fans would never have seen it.

Wow, I just caught up with this one!

> According to IMDB, SotD - 367 screens vs Spider Man 2, same year 507. That’s a fairly significant drop

It’s clearly just me, but a low-budget British comedy being shown on 367 screens is an AMAZING number. Spider-Man 2 (it’s hypehanated, y’know) took the opening weekend record when it launched. Shaun less than 150 screens behind is fucking fantastic; much kudos is due to Universal.

Everything Phil, Pete, Seb and Symes say is correct. Particularly about a cinema release, and its related advertising, absolutely contributing to the word-of-mouth and subsequent home video success.

I think what we’re all learning here is that persistent investigation (or ‘stalking’) on the internet is one thing, but unless you’re able to make sense of the facts you’re finding it’s like watching a well-meaning goat programme a VCR.

(it’s hypehanated, y’know)

And I thought I was the only person who got pedantic about that, and who HATED it whenever people say “Spiderman”…

“It’s not his last name. It’s not like ‘Phil Spiderman’. Like Goldman is a last name, but there’s no ‘Gold-Man’…”

>‘Phil Spiderman’

Rats! They’re on to me…

Whenever I see someone’s written it hyphenless, I do actually read it out pronounced like Phil Spiderman, just to make the point.

Also : Donald Duck never wears pants… but when he gets out of the shower, he puts a towel round his waist. How come?

To sop up the dripping water, obviously!

I’m sure Disney was self-aware of the absurdity of that, and it was at least a small joke on their part. Bugs Bunny did it, too. And, more recently, Bender, who is always completely naked, tends to wear swimsuits or towels if those around him are doing the same thing. It’s a long-standing tradition of unnecessary cartoon modesty.

Also: Donald Duck is a duck. Yet he lives in a house and bathes in a human bathtub. How come?

:-)

Did you ever find Bugs Bunny attractive when he put on a dress and played girl Bunny?

You sick or what? Bugs Bunny attractive?!

Lola Lapin or Minerva Mink on the other hand, hellooooooooooo nurse!