Roswell 1847 production log

[Phil]

Not really. But kind of. It’s a telling insight into the filmmaker’s mentality, at least.

http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29800&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=

Read it. Enjoy. Note the reactions to the news of the film and compare them to the reactions to the trailer when that’s posted. Watch the filmmaker have a nervous breakdown in the middle of a forum squabble. And definitely stick around for all the “my 13 year old daughter can outspell you!” nonsense that you’d come to expect from a thread like this.

[Jonathan Capps]

“I can make excellent films”

Now, let’s not be too hasty…

“critasisium (spelt wrong I know)”

I’d say!

[Phil]

Ha. You’re not the only one to get on his case about that. :-)

I skipped around a lot once I was able to “predict” the collapse of the discussion (actually, maybe it’s discussion that should be in quotes) but I intend to read this fully, with a hot beverage, and a big smile. I love forum-fights, especially when I’m not part of them.

[Tanya Jones]

Ah, that was amusing. We’re evil bastards :)

[TheLeen]

It’s never “Norman Lovett”, it’s “Norman Lovett from Red Dwarf”.

> p.s.
> selling off cowboy costumes etc, if anyone is interested.

*g*

[Ian Symes]

If not, it’s “Norman Llovett”.

When I read the initial post saying it was shot in five days on twenty grand, I thought “oh, it’s a short, then. I thought it was a feature. God, I hope it’s not a feature on that budget and timescale”. Then it turns out it’s NINETY MINUTES LONG. Jesus Christ. You could make a great short for that money in that time. I know people who have made great shorts in less time for no money. You can’t make anything other than a massive pile of shit if you try and shoot ninety minutes in that time. That’s what, eighteen minutes in the can each day? Impossible.

Also, I like the fact that the Making Of DVD lasts for “5-6 hours”. See, what you’ve got there is not so much a “Making Of DVD”, more “loads of rushes on a disc”.

[Jonathan Capps]

> Also, I like the fact that the Making Of DVD lasts for ?5-6 hours?. See, what you?ve got there is not so much a ?Making Of DVD?, more ?loads of rushes on a disc?.

*masturbates furiously*

(This would be funnier if I could post as ‘Squidy’.)

[pfm]

Regardless of whether he appears in the Christmas Special or not, at least Norman got some work here.

[Phil]

Googling Roswell 1847 is disastrous for one’s mental health.

See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXPX2VPTQs&feature=related
A music video for the film. The shittier you like your songs, the more you’ll enjoy this. (Also plenty of footage, including the aliens! Kinda! Maybe!)

And to tie it back to Red Dwarf:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHS_nyGnzwY&feature=related
Norman being interviewed about his involvement in the blockbuster masterpiece.

Norman apparently plays Alein. Sic fucker.

In the second clip you can actually see extended segments from the film, including a scene with two Normans, one of which speaks intermittent alien nonsense. Huzzah!

[ChrisM]

Oh dear. I didn’t want to be pessimistic about this. I actually like the idea. Western: cool (apart from the old ones with the dodgy acting. Ha ha, just kidding.). Sci-fi: cool.
Western+sci-fi: yes please.

But that exchange between the woman and the kid? That was terrible, terrible acting. Maybe it’s supposed to be though… we’ll see. Ok… I paused at that bit, will watch on further…

“Well we’ve obviously got Norman Lovett from Red Dwarf. And other things as well…”
Why does that make me smile? I’m not a Lovett hater like many here seem to be (sure he’s a grumpy sod, but I rather find that amusing) but that line just sounds funny…

Heh,heh.. Just saw the crimson affects when Norm duo ‘materializes.’ Terrible. Still considering the budget that’s not surprising… (Why does the flash for the second flash widely compared to the first?)

Ok, I didn’t mind the Norm bit. Silly alien speak aside. Unrealistic acting (*ducks Andrew’s hammer*) but the amusing laconic delivery he does well. Bogey, eat your heart out. (*Hoping that hammer doesn’t have a bent handle.*)

Still worth a look I reckon. A lot of the acting looks dire, but the story sound interesting.

[Andrew]

> That was terrible, terrible acting.

*refrains from obvious comment*

[Pete Part Three]

>Still worth a look I reckon.

No

>A lot of the acting looks dire,

Yes

>but the story sound interesting.

No

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

Thank you for the messageboard link, Phil. I’m only on the third page, but the schadenfreude is already making me feel all warm and tingly inside.

My connection is such that video isn’t often all that feasible an option for me, but I’ve seen a couple of photos of production posted in the thread so far. Seems like kind of a Mickey Mouse operation to me. The costume on the lady I assume is supposed to be Native American/American Indian (not quite sure which is the preferred term) looked like a mediocre Halloween costume. I mean, I’m sure I saw pink and purple feathers in her headpiece. There’s “fast and loose with continuity” and then there’s “insulting everyone’s intelligence”.

“I can make excellent films”

I can too–with the power of my imagination![/snide] I expect I’d have a hell of a hard time translating that inner vision to film, however, and I’d be the first to admit it.

“…you’ll find that anyone with half a mind will quite easily agree that you’re talking pubes. And as we all know, pubes are useless and at best, just annoying.”

Words to live by, there.

[Ian Symes]

Apart from anything else, I’m pretty sure (I’m not looking it up at work) that pubic hair actually DOES have a purpose, otherwise it would have been evolutioned out by now.

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

…or at least it did have a purpose at one point, but it doesn’t now (if for no other reason than that we wear clothing). My understanding is that evolution kinda makes do, it doesn’t optimize. There’s a lot of little pointless and/or redundant things about the human body that haven’t been removed entirely from the gene pool basically because, while they don’t help a species live longer and have more offspring in its environment, they don’t actually hurt either.

[Phil]

I read another one of this guy’s threads and I’ll bet you $2,000 that Norm should have been credited as “Alien,” but this bonehead spelled it wrong in his press-kit.

I have a new favorite film-maker, folks.

>??you?ll find that anyone with half a mind will quite easily agree that you?re talking pubes. And as we all know, pubes are useless and at best, just annoying.?

Sometimes I think Cappsy’s forum name should be Talking Pubes.

[Ian Symes]

?or at least it did have a purpose at one point, but it doesn?t now (if for no other reason than that we wear clothing).

Speak for yourself.

[ChrisM]

?or at least it did have a purpose at one point, but it doesn?t now (if for no other reason than that we wear clothing).

Speak for yourself.

I bet the work colleagues are loving that.

[Ian Symes]

We’re allowed to be naked, we’re just not allowed to look up pubes on Wikipedia.

Speaking of which:

Various theories concerning the function(s) of pubic hair include:

* visual indicator of sexual maturity
* collection of secreted pheromones
* reduction of external friction during sexual intercourse
* warmth

So there we go. I like the fact that the first bullet point is essentially the same as saying “if there’s grass on the pitch, let’s play”.

[Phil]

Are you coming onto me?

[John Hoare]

Bald fannies look wrong anyway.

[Phil]

This is not a productive area of discussion.

[pfm]

I quite like it shaven but pubic stubble is a bit of a turn-off. It’s like fucking a man’s mouth.

[Jonathan Capps]

> It?s like fucking a man?s mouth.

He read that… somewhere.

[Arlene Rimmer BSc SSc]

This is not a productive area of discussion.

Oh, but it’s ever so much fun.

[Phil]

This guy also sells a DVD of your child’s face in a CG theme-park.

I can’t explain it. You have to see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tErL_aOCEBM&feature=related

You…fucking…will…have…nightmares.

[Danny Stephenson]

That’s… just bad. The looping of the screams are quite haunting as well.

[Phil]

Seriously! The screams are okay (comparatively) when they show a ride full of children…but when it’s just an overview of the park, or the kid standing still…and the music volume drops…the screaming continues, and you expect it to turn into a trailer for a horror film.

And, to be honest, this trailer is scarier than most.

[TheLeen]

Yeah, the entire thing says “carnival of corpses”… as if fun fairs weren’t kind of horrorly-scary to begin with.

The trailer freaks me out.

[John Hoare]

ADIUHADSUIHDUIHDSAUIHSADUIHSADUIHASDUIHASDuihasd

dasiojasdoijasdiohdasiohsadiudhasiudashida

ASDIOHAJOIWJWDIOWQDJWOSIDSAODISADIOJIODSAJDWIO98Q3W289329828292\2EW]E2

DWQOIPFewhiufwe]qw
pej io[w
weffgeriojfeio[erg
ergoiregjigreoiiorweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[John Hoare]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzpoDKYr7eU

Oh, Jesus Christ. Let’s make a Carry On, but without the things that made the Carry Ons *actually* funny. Like good jokes, or that pesky superb comic acting. Or just generally not being fucking dire.

At least Carry On London has to be better than *this*, at least…

[ChrisM]

That was odd. Like they were trying to take off the carry-ons, (particularly the style of speech, whoops-a-daisy humor etc…)

Apart from the laughs as you say.

I suppose the old guy spinning around the pole was vaguely amusing. Oh and the fart. Not saying much when just the fart bit is funny though is it (and I’ve seen funnier fart sequences to be sure.)?

[Tanya Jones]

AGGGHHHH! You need to *act* to be able to carry that off…

[Phil]

Ian Paterson made a unique move in releasing all of his movies at the same time.

http://www.freewebstore.org/Superteam/storepage45172.aspx

So Roswell 1847 is officially “out.”

Anyone…planning on reviewing it?

[Ian Symes]

Ian Paterson made a unique move in releasing all of his movies at the same time.

We should do the same with our Dwarfcasts.

[ChrisM]

Someone called ‘Darren’ has done a positive review already. ;) Yeah ok, that’s just 1…

Can I ask that anyone here who does do the review at least approaches it with an open mind. If it turns out to be rubbish, by all means say so, but don’t just go in with the idea it’s rubbish and watch it through, erm, poo stained spectacles.

I say that cos everyone seems to have decided it’s gonna been crap from the start. True, I’m not surprised based on the clips I’ve seen etc but even before anything was shown on the web everyone was ridiculing it. Come to think of it most people seemed to think it crap knowing Norman Lovett was involved.

Oh, and the minute budget. Gotta admit that’s probably a biggee. (Like all low budget films are bad…)

At least that was the impression I got, although in the early days it might’ve just been kidding about.

[hummingbird]

Personally, I’m looking forward to Iain Lee’s review.

[Phil]

>Oh, and the minute budget. Gotta admit that?s probably a biggee. (Like all low budget films are bad?)

It’s only a problem because he was too ambitious with it. Obviously I haven’t seen the films, but I have seen the effects shots in the clips and trailers. Basically, if you have a teeny tiny budget, you do what you can not to draw attention to it. At least you should. Because if you try to include complicated effects shots that don’t look good, all you’re doing is reminding your audience that you’re watching a film.

With a low budget you can still do amazing things. You don’t need to do anything more complex than Coffee and Cigarettes (minus the starpower) or Slacker. What you really need to concentrate on is making the movie itself good. I still have yet to see a single movie that is good BECAUSE of special effects. There’s always something stronger at the heart of it that renders good special effects a bonus.

But this guy seems to think that the only way to make films is to ape bigger-budget productions, creating low-rent alternatives to what’s already out there. Which defeats his own purpose. If he wants to develop a real name for himself, he’s either got to put together a truly great visual package (which seems to be out of reach of both his budget and abilities) or work on honing more important things, like writing, editing, acting, and so on.

If you click the ordering link above you’ll see all of his films. Go to World of Chaos or whatever it is and watch the clip of one of this guy’s friends fighting a CGI skeleton, then come back and tell me whether or not you agree that he’d be better off focusing his talents on other aspects of film.

[ChrisM]

With a low budget you can still do amazing things. You don?t need to do anything more complex than Coffee and Cigarettes (minus the starpower) or Slacker. What you really need to concentrate on is making the movie itself good. I still have yet to see a single movie that is good BECAUSE of special effects. There?s always something stronger at the heart of it that renders good special effects a bonus.

I totally agree. (I don’t think I’ve seen those films you mention but I know what you mean.)

My line:

>Oh, and the minute budget. Gotta admit that?s probably a biggee. (Like all low budget films are bad?)

was phrased poorly. I was basically saying that for a sci-fi film (or any film for that matter) a low budget could cause major limitations (not just for the special effects mind, just not being able to do all they want to do) but I agree that not all low budget films are bad (I was being sarcastic in my ‘like all low budget films are bad’ comment). We all know plenty of high effects films that are pretty bad. In fact the very fact that a director can’t rely on those shiny spangles could cause them to channel their energies the right way into creating a decent film. Which pretty much goes back to your quote above.

That’s just a general assessment though, not being acquainted with this particular guy’s work. Which doesn’t sound good so far…

[Phil]

Figured I’d google for a review, but this is the only one I found:
http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/reviews.cfm/id/1433/page/santa_fe_film_festival_____.html

“Despite not having the stomach to sit through this film?s entirety […]”

“[…] piss-poor production values, which were akin to some nitwit turning on his archaic camcorder and asking his friends to vamp with little, if any, conviction.”

“[…] the best performance was by a black chick pretending to be an Indian. She did little but sniff horse dung and dash about without direction, but she did her best with an obnoxious role.”

I really want a G+T review.

[Pete Part Three]

Sod the review, I want a Dwarfcast!

[Phil]

Seconded.

[hummingbird]

>Figured I?d google for a review, but this is the only one I found:
>http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/reviews.cfm/id/1433/page/santa_fe_film_fe…

For the first time I have a perverse desire to see this film.

We should arrange a private viewing.

.

[ChrisM]

From the review it actually seems rather entertaining.

Possibly for the wrong reasons but…

[BillC]

I think you will like the film Yes it’s a B film was it shot in five days NO. Thats how long the cowboy set was used. Other parts filmed at other locations.
At the cowboy town three camera crews shot scenes in diffent parts of the town with diffent actors. So yes a lot of filming went on. Besides the UK cast four US pro actors were in the film. The budget was misreported in the interview they never accounted for the US funding from Cheney Films Company and only stated the UK funding.
I hope this helps the debate.
The films offical release Date in The USA is OCTOBER 22 2008 At Target and on amazon.com Can be pre ordered
There is a glitch in the release date Indyflix will have the film October 21 2008
For DVD sales and Pay for view.
Also the film will be avalible other places late October early November.
The Amazon UK release date is October 27 2008.

Other films that have been released have done well. Recon 7 Down with Dirk Benedict, Already on Amazon.com and Target and Headed to indyflix on OCT 21, And Best buy, Barns and noble ect at a latter date.
We have had no Bad reviews on Recon 7 Down and the production values are even better on Roswell 1847

Enjoy the films if you want to. it’s hard to judge a film if you have not viewed it.

[Phil]

Hey Mr. Cheney. It’s good to hear from you again. But why didn’t you use your other account?

It is definitely hard to judge a film that I haven’t seen. I agree with you. But it’s not difficult to judge a trailer that I HAVE seen. Drawing conclusions from that might seem unfair–and, hey, on some level it is unfair. The trailer for Hamlet 2 made it look like a load of shit and it was actually really great. But drawn conclusions are somewhat inevitable. As a man “in the business” I’m sure you understand.

In the interests of complete fairness, I would be happy to write a full-length, fair and balanced review of the film for noisetosignal.org if you would care to supply me with a review copy.

I will assess it entirely based upon its own value as a film, as distinct from its trailer, budget, previous reviews and production logs.

[BillC]

Phil
I could not remember the other acount password Have not been on in a year or so been kinda busy releaseing things. 5 dvds to get out befor holidays. What films you want. Best way to contact for a copy is goto http://www.superteamfilms.biz join the forum and Pm Me With an adress. As i don’t give out email adresses that I actilly check on forums thoses darn spam bots really bugger the email up.
As far as the trailers they are very english Ian did a nice job not really geared twords a US market. But He also did the one for Recon 7 Down and it had last I looked about 35,000 views and the DVDs are selling well. On release day (Recon 7)Amazon/Target sold out by noon they have sense place two more good sized orders.

If Forum Members want I’ll toss up A sales link for a discounted price on Roswell 1847 and Recon 7 Down DVDs from now to the end of the month If theres any intrest in a dicount for forum members let me know. All dvds are region 0 and play world wide if your DVD player is not like over 5 years old.

William Cheney

[TheLeen]

> In the interests of complete fairness, I would be happy to write a full-length, fair and balanced review of the film for noisetosignal.org if you would care to supply me with a review copy.

Yes please.

[Phil]

William: thanks. I’ll try to get you an address at some point this weekend.

[Phil]

Mr. Cheney: check your superteam PM box.

[BillC]

Yes got that PM.
I have a clip of another film you may enjoy.
Heres a pay for view and pay for burn to DVD site for recon 7 Down. A bit cheaper than buying the DVD at stores.
https://www.FlickRocket.com/eshop/Catalog.aspx?SCID=1387&CID=1387

And heres a clip I found on another site.
http://www.indieflix.com/ViewVitalClip.aspx?filename=18642_clip&ti tle=Recon+7+Down

[hummingbird]

>And heres a clip I found on another site.
http://www.indieflix.com/ViewVitalClip.aspx?filename=18642_clip&ti tle=Recon+7+Down

It would be interesting to know if that’s a fair sample of the film as a whole.

[BillC]

No thats not a good sample Indyflix.com took that part from the film (I never really cared for that scene to be honest the film has to have it).I would rather see action in a clip not three guys standing by a plane. I told them to take a 2 1/2 min clip certain time range about 2 3rds of the way in the film. Plus they have the price alot lower than the DVDs should be I don’t think they will have it fixed till monday Recon and Roswell are priced at 9.99 Recon should be 19.99 and Roswell 18.99. So if your a bargan hunter darn good price. Recon has done well Priced at 22.99 on Amazon.com and target and at Ny stores ect.
Also they have yet to put up any Roswell clip. It seems all the places bugger the price The Download price For Recon on another site is $4.90 to see the film and like S19.00 to burn a copy It should be 2.99 and 8.99 Oh well Lots of phone calls to make to fix it in the Morning.

[BillC]

Phil Yes I recived your PM I’ll mail a copy out, end of week. I am busy the first 3 days of the week with the election Ra Ra suff.

[Phil]

Thanks Mr. Cheney. I’ll be on the lookout for it in the next week or so, and shoot you a PM when it gets here.

[Phil]

Mr. Cheney:

If you’re still popping in here, I haven’t heard back from you on the superteamfilms board. No DVD has arrived and I’m concerned that it might have been lost in the mail. (My postman was observed eating a lolipop that I have to assume he stole from a child’s care-package.) Let me know if you sent it.

Also: You guys managed to get the license for the Starship Troopers franchise?
http://www.superteamfilms.co.uk/product45173_103655.aspx

Congratulations!

[Jonathan Capps]

> Also: You guys managed to get the license for the Starship Troopers franchise?

Finally, the franchise is saved!

> A handfull of people are selected to go on a mission to help colonists on another planet, they are getting attacked by giant bugs.

A brave new direction.

[Dave]

>new direction

Filth

[Pete Part Three]

“Superteam produce their own feature films, you can buy them direct from us or you can pay a higher price and buy them from stores.”

What were the options again?

[hummingbird]

I hate these either/or questions.

[Jo]

Phil, did you ever hear from him then?

[Phil]

Just checked my PM box on their forums and the answer is…no!

Gah. I’m really saddened by this, actually. If Mr. Cheney is still buzzing around out there, rest assured I would have given this film a fair appraisal. If you feared that a negative review would be automatic…well, I’d understand that, based on some of the views expressed in this thread. But by not giving me the chance to view the entire movie, you basically cement this premature appraisal as “the last word.”

Also, I’d buy the movie for myself it wasn’t around $20. I can get entire seasons of The Simpsons for that price right now, and I’d probably be overcome with self-loathing when I see the superteam.biz entry on my bank statement at the end of the month.

[TheLeen]

I was looking forward to the review, too.

[Phil]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_true_that_Norman_Lovett_is_in_a_new_film_called_Roswell_1847_with_William_Cheney_from_Star_Trek

[Phil]

doctorkickles (5 days ago) Show Hide
Reply | Remove
I can’t get this on Netflix but I want to do a Condensed Film of it. Can I get a copy?

b4uaskimagod (5 days ago) Show Hide
Reply
Hi,
It’s on Amazon, but as the copyright owners we can’t allow people to condense the film, sorry.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that another one of their films WAS available…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DVM4Y9yyJ8

[Will]

The link phil posted above was removed from youtube for violation of copyright.
Heres what was recived today from phil.You will also see he states he did not get the film from Netfilx. His email In law terms, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written publications), slander (for spoken word), and vilification. MR. Cheney was injured befor the new year and is unable to deal with this direct.
To Phil your email from you tube is being reported to proper authorities for Harassment Charges. We felt you should all know what kind of person Phil is.

Re: William Was called. Ripping footage from a DVD and uploading to the net is Illegal you first should have asked permission. Re: Re: William Was called. Ripping footage from a DVD and uploading to the net is Illegal you first should have asked permission.
Good morning Mr. Cheney. You’ll be happy to know that the review has been re-edited so as to include no actual footage from the film. In order to retain my narration, however, I’ve padded it out with still photographs of yourself that I was able to dig up online, along with entertaining captions suggesting that you get up to various unsavory activities. (Voyeurism, bestiality, Taiwanese prostitution, assaulting police officers, a conviction for dealing drugs to school children…) It seems that this sort of thing is actually allowed by youtube as long as I make clear that my accusations are false and are made for the sake of parody, which I’ll probably do at the very end, when nobody’s watching.

Of course, I haven’t uploaded it yet, because I remembered that you seemed to be interested in posting a reply video to my original review.

So I will make you an offer. You can create a reply to my original video, which I will link to clearly both in the video and at the top of the description so that whatever you would like to say will be heard (in other words, settle this like men), or you can be grouchy about footage from your film appearing in a video and I’ll upload and advertise the personal attack one instead. Your choice.

Remember, Mr. Cheney, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. What you don’t seem to realize is that it’s introducing your film to hundreds who have never even heard of it, and, otherwise, never would. Sure, I say it’s lousy, but doesn’t the box-art say that itself?

Let me know what you’d like to do. I’ll be in Tampa all next week so you have some time to decide. If I don’t hear from you, I’ll stick the new edit up and start advertising that.

Your friend,
Phil

PS–I know you think I ripped that original footage from your DVD, but you’re wrong…I don’t actually have the ability to do that with my setup. (Part of why the sound quality on those clips was so low.) Instead, I had to utilize a digital download of your entire film (others of yours are available there as well) and grab clips out of that. If you’re really concerned about circulating footage, maybe you should get off youtube for 30 seconds and track down the people who are giving away your work, in its entirety, for free.

[Phil]

>The link phil posted above was removed from youtube for violation of copyright.

Actually it was removed by me about two weeks ago, when you asked me to remove it. Why not email me directly, friend?

[Pete Part Three]

I am both confused and entertained.

[Jo]

To Phil your email from you tube is being reported to proper authorities for Harassment Charges. We felt you should all know what kind of person Phil is.

At least he’s not a tell-tale. Did you send this to his Mum too?

[Author]

Posts