An odd one, this. Having been reminded of this site through a non-Dwarf related matter, I thought I’d have a nose around about GNP. (Type in Grant Naylor Productions and then follow the highlighted link; the website is very badly designed, so I can’t give a direct link.) And it reminded me of something I mentioned a while ago – the company was originally formed on the 8th February 1990 under the name Spenshire Limited – and was only renamed Grant Naylor Productions Limited three months later on the 1st May.I wonder why? Did they originally come up with the name of Spenshire and then change it to the (far better) Grant Naylor Productions? Or was it a holding name of some kind?

Admittedly, there are more important things to wonder about in this world. But this is the kind of thing that keeps me awake at night, sadly.

42 comments on “Spenshire Limited

Scroll to bottom

  • A lot of companies are bought “off the shelf” with a name already, and then all you have to do is rename it what you like. Whether or not this is the case would probably involve a lot of digging, or hoping that someone from GNP spots this and knows off the top of their head.

    So it could just be that whoever set up GNP bought an existing company, and used it for what they wanted.

    I’m sure this way of working has a purpose, although I don’t really know what.

  • But if Spenshire was an established company that Rob and Doug took over, surely it would show up on that database as being older than that?

  • It was by no means an established company, just one that had been set up before hand.

    See ITV Digital Channels Limited, started life as Burginhall 857 Limited, and ITV Digital Holdings Limited, starting as Heraldbay Limited. Also, ITV4 Limited, starting as one of the many CarltonCo’s, CarltonCo 121 Limited.

    I don’t think any of the original companies did anything, they’d just been set up ready to do something.

  • I imagine it cuts down on the paperwork normally required to start a business, which can be fairly substantial. It’s probably a lot easier to change the name of an existing company than it is to start one, register with Companies House, create Articles of Association and whatever stuff there is surrounding it. I could have told you at one time but my business studies knowledge has become somewhat rusty over the years. :)

  • 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:

    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??

  • > 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…

  • 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.


  • 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?


    I don?t think Shaun of the Dead got many cinema releases


  • >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’…”

  • 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.

  • You sick or what? Bugs Bunny attractive?!

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

  • I couldn’t agree more.
    …why was I on this page again?

    Don’t be coy. It’s got to be due to that forum thread about Doug resigning from GNP.

    But thanks for bumping this, flanl3, if only to see people discussing the doomed movie project now, when a Red Dwarf movie has finally been made. Well, not really, but kind of.

    Also amused to see Seb dropping the “Donald Duck wears a towel round his waist when he gets out of the shower” contradiction like it’s a totally fresh observation. Were we really all so innocent in 2007?

  • Yeah, some absolute bellend who went off in a strop but went to the trouble of going through and editing every single comment he’d ever posted beforehand. Due to a quirk of that particular bodged-together version of G&T, editing a comment pushed it to the bottom. We didn’t allow comment editing for ages after this incident, so be thankful that you had it at all prior to the current bodged-together version of G&T breaking it. It’s also why we have a thing in the rules saying that we have the right to use your comments forever.

  • It’s also why we have a thing in the rules saying that we have the right to use your comments forever.

    Oh smeg!

  • Symes and co. are laughing all the way to the bank with our million-dollar “Idea for an episode.” pitches.

Scroll to top  •  Scroll to 'Recent Comments'

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.