MOVIE PLOTLINE EXCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE WOW News Posted by John Hoare on 25th April 2007, 01:59 Or something like that, anyway: “Such is the intensity of Graham’s performance that the fact he does look a bit like Craig Charles is put to the back of your mind. Indeed he reveals to me that he was once approached to play Craig Charles’ son when a Red Dwarf spin-off movie was in the pipeline.” Look, I’ll take anything I can get these days. Fuck you.
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. :-)
>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.
> 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. I guess the only other sci-fi comedy that I’ve heard of recently is Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel. It will be interesting to see how that does and I wonder what sort of budget it had. > 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. I doubt whether any money men care about the quality of either film. They only care about how many people bothered to watch it. > If I was doing the Dwarf film I would kill Kochanski and replace her with a hologrammatic Heather Mills-McCartney. Killing Kochanski sounds like a good idea and would probably be a crowd pleaser but I’m not sure how the introduction of Stumpy would help matters.
> 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.
> 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? Oh sure, but when I said recently I meant movies that were either released in the very recent past or those that are currently in production. Frequently Asked Questions… seems to have quite a bit in common with Dwarf in that it has a first time movie writer, a first time movie director, a largely British cast and presumably quite a small budget. I’m not saying that it’s success or failure will have any bearing on whether the Dwarf movie will be made but it will be interesting to see what sort of a market there is for this type of film anyway.
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, then surely it would be exceedingly pant-messingly cool to publish it in some shape or form, ie. book, graphic novel, storyboard episodes or something, otherwise it would seem the whole thing has been painstakingly written and worked on for years only to be left somewhere on a shelf due to lack of funding. Also, this would be the most spectacularly magnificently cool event in Red Dwarf History for about 9 years, besides the awesome DVDs. “What a Senseless Waste!”
>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!
> 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! There is one massively important difference between a lot of the movies that Andrew and others have mentioned and the Dwarf movie though. For example, Andrew has in the past used the example of Peter Jackson’s ‘King Kong’. Now the only reason that movie got funding was because the director’s situation changed. He changed from being a cult director to being one of the most famous and successful directors in the world. Lots of the other films were only made because they changed the core of what they were offering (director, script, cast etc.) as well. Now Dwarf clearly isn’t going to change the core of what it is offering. Doug is still an unproven director and a first time writer and the cast are still relative unknowns. The only reason why the money men should change their minds about the Dwarf movie therefore is if outside factors change. 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. If these things don’t happen then there is no reason why the money men should change their minds. All the time the cast get older and the series become more of a memory.
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!
> 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? Do you mean that Doug will become more proven as a director or movie writer? It was my understanding that Doug is busy trying to fund the movie so isn’t doing anything else. Obviously if he is working on other high profile projects then that changes things. 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. The same problem would come when hiring an actor to play a villain at the end of the movie I guess. > 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!) But that has been the case for years so won’t be the reason why somebody would change their mind about funding the movie. > 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. > Oh, and tax laws change all the time. As we know – they changed the wrong damn way just as we were gearing up! Absolutely. That’s the point that I was making. The fact that these things change would be the reason why Dwarf may get funding. The comparison with ‘King Kong’ doesn’t hold water though.
> 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’.
Where is this other movie which is going to make Doug’s name? I’ll be interested to hear about it. Your intolerance to anybody else’s opinions surrounding the movie is quite sad Andrew. 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.
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?
