MOVIE PLOTLINE EXCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE WOW

Can someone from GNP comment on the accuracy of this statement?

If it’s false, Andrew would say it’s false. If it’s true, Andrew will probably have to remain silent.

> If it’s false, Andrew would say it’s false. If it’s true, Andrew will probably have to remain silent.

We’ll, no, not really - I’m contracted not to make revealing statements about the movie at all.

I will say this is bollocks, though. :-)

STEPHEN GRAHAM OR KALEEM AFTAB ARE LYING SCUM

>I will say this is bollocks, though. :-)

Well then, one thing’s for sure…everyone who’s seen the script has been extremely tight-lipped. Has ANYTHING leaked?

Actually, this is a very good point. The script really has been *very* tightly-controlled, hasn’t it? Not even so much as a sniff of a leak. The only think I can remember was something someone posted on Groovetown ages ago offering the script, and I’m pretty sure he was lying.

> Not even so much as a sniff of a leak.

True, although we had to come clean on the Sapienoids (SO cool) outline after the film festival flyer appeared on AICN.

Everything else, I’m glad to say, has been coming out as we’d want it to - things the storyboards, etc.

> although we had to come clean on the Sapienoids (SO cool) outline after the film festival flyer appeared on AICN.

I remember being pretty excited that day. You’d have to be an idiot not to want to fund this film. You hear me, you rich bastards?! You’re all NUMB FUCKS who probably think a sci-fi comedy film wouldn’t work. Well you’re bang wrong. Who cares if the Hitchhiker’s Guide movie left a lot to be desired (apart from Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast and Alan Rickman and Stephen Fry’s voices), the Dwarf flick would be loads better, and having Holly or Kryten on hand is a lot better than the Guide.

If I was doing the Dwarf film I would kill Kochanski and replace her with a hologrammatic Heather Mills-McCartney.

> the only other sci-fi comedy that I’ve heard of recently

Hitch-Hikers, MIBs one and two, Evolution, Galaxy Quest (did you know there was a character named ‘Hollister’ in an early draft of this, and that there’s a 10%ers episode called “Galaxy Quest 8”?), etc. etc, - but the best examples for me are all 80s movies - Back to the Future (Oscar-nominated screenplay!), Ghostbusters…

> I doubt whether any money men care about the quality of either film. They only care about how many people bothered to watch it.

This is exactly right.

>I can understand GNP keeping quiet about the movie script, but if it’s not going to happen, and it’s starting to look that way

See the numerous posts Andrew and others have made about movies that were stuck in ‘Development Hell’ for years. Saying at this point that ‘It’s not going to happen’ seems to show a lack of knowledge about how the movie industry works. It’s not even been a decade yet!

I don’t think anything you’ve written makes the previous examples redundant. What makes you think Doug’s situation can’t change? Or that the right mainstream actor coming on-board as a villain, say, wouldn’t change some attitudes?

> If British comedies and sci-fi movies become massively successful or if the tax laws change then there would be more chance of the movie being funded.

But both of these are happening right now. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are making great financial headway for British genre comedies, AND the cast and crew come from a TV background. Brit rom-coms with the odd Americasn cast member are taking money.

And SF/fantasy is the biggest, biggest genre in cinema bar none - the top grossing movies of all time include the Star Wars, Pirates, Potter, Matrix, MIB and Lord of the Rings films, ET, Jurassic Park, etc. etc. Not to mention Spider-Man, Batman and the various other comic book flicks. (Yes, they’re SF!)

Oh, and tax laws change all the time. As we know - they changed the wrong damn way just as we were gearing up!

> It was my understanding that Doug is busy trying to fund the movie so isn’t doing anything else.

Yes, that’s right. On days when there are no calls he just sits in a cupboard, rocking gently back and forth. Don’t be so bloody daft.

> But that has been the case for years so won’t be the reason why somebody would change their mind about funding the movie.

“If British comedies and sci-fi movies become massively successful” was the statement, and my point was merely that SF films are ALREADY considered a box-office draw. Nothing more.

> I seem to recall you discussing on another board the reason why Chloe Annett was hired as Kochanski. Namely because a big name actor wouldn’t want to be only a small part of a British movie.

What?! That’s not even close to anything I’ve said. She was hired, as Doug has often said, to provide a strong, attractive female character for the series AND the movie - something that would help SELL the movie.

They’d never connect a ‘big name’ idea with the Kochanski role. It was cast for the SERIES first, to be an established actor/character with the franchise by the time of the film - someone audiences were already attracted to. Call it the Gillian Anderson factor.

Big actors have always been talked about, in a movie context, as cameos and as villains. A counterpoint to American movies using British actors as bad guys, and a great way to have a scene-chewing leading role given to a big name without compromising the core cast.

There have been some REALLY cool names interested behind the scenes. I hope one day we can tell you all about it…

> The comparison with ‘King Kong’ doesn’t hold water though.

Get over yourself. At the time I gave it, it was an example of a movie that took forever to get made - THAT was the example. Not ‘and it will get made for the same reasons Kong did’.

I’m mostly intolerant of being misquoted and taken out of context. My entire last post was about that, and the implication that SF movies aren’t currently successful, not about faith (or not) in the film.

If you’d care to scroll up, we’ve actually agreed on several points in this thread!

But did I say “King King’s story proves the Dwarf movie will get made”? Did I fuck.

Did I say “a big name actor wouldn’t want to be only a small part of a British movie”? Certainly not.

Which of these is about me not respecting your opinion of ‘the movie’? Because, to me, they’re both about me correcting your misquoting.

> Where is this other movie which is going to make Doug’s name?

Idiotic.

> Even you would have to agree that for every film like ‘King Kong’ that takes years to get funding, there are hundreds of others that are never made.

Presumably you can quote where I claimed the opposite?

Give it a rest, Fuckhole.

I like that your name is an insult so I don’t have to come up with one.