Observation Dome: BBC Films

BBC Films

Cappsy / Movie / 22-02-06 @ 14:52 / 16 Comments

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4739216.stm

Then invest in Dwarf, you blind fools!

Comments

If you look, the BBC want films that are gonna be BAFTA and Oscar fodder, which Dwarf wouldn't be.

By performingmonkey on 22-02-06 @ 15:27

Hasn't there got to be a *film* for them to invest in?

By si on 22-02-06 @ 15:43

If you look, the BBC want films that are gonna be BAFTA and Oscar fodder, which Dwarf wouldn't be.

Why not? It's not as if the TV series was awardless, is it?

Hasn't there got to be a *film* for them to invest in?

Sounds to me that the money is intended to buy already made films but also to fund the making of others.

By Cappsy on 22-02-06 @ 19:03

If the money (£15m) is split between production and acquiring the rights to show films per year, it doesn't amount to much in movie terms. I wonder how this compares to C4 for instance. One smallish movie in todays market could wipe out half their budget..When you consider their budget for sports, it doesn't sound a lot to me........

By Cpt-D on 22-02-06 @ 19:10

Actually, having re-read that, the maths are wrong somewhere..Plans to spend £100m over ten years on movie production =£10m per year, yet they say the budget for 'film production' has increased to £15m per year and start off by saying the '£100m' will be split...
Hmmm, perhaps it's me, as you were...

By Cpt-D on 22-02-06 @ 19:14

A Dwarf movie wouldn't win BAFTAs, no matter how good it was. If typical Oscar-fodder like The Constant Gardener can only pick up Editing as a token nod then Dwarf wouldn't stand a chance. It wouldn't get a Best British Movie nomination barring a miracle. For a start they wouldn't like that it was shot in Australia, and they wouldn't like that it was a sci-fi comedy, and they wouldn't like that it starred Craig Charles and not some huge star like Ralph Fiennes. That's being honest.

By performingmonkey on 23-02-06 @ 16:53

Off topic but it's related to the TOS update:

"It's worth reiterating that Back in the Red's chapters differ slightly between the regular episode versions and the feature-length edition. This, of course, is because the show has been Xtended to include ten minutes of additional scenes - the entire story, fused into one massive episode, runs for 122 minutes."

This has to be wrong, doesn't it? 122 minutes is over two hours... I thought that while Xtended would be including scenes not in the broadcast version, the opportunity of this feature-length edition was to cut out a lot of the repetition and padding. Broadcast version of BITR is 90 minutes total, ten minutes extra would be only 100 minutes, surely? Or am I missing something?

By Brian on 24-02-06 @ 18:25

I'm thinking that maybe 122 minutes is a mistake. 102 minutes sounds more realistic. If it was 122 that would mean it was the length of four episodes, which makes no sense even if it included the deleted scenes AND the recaps.

By performingmonkey on 25-02-06 @ 21:59

Yes that's what I'd guess too. Also - can you recall why it's become normal to write extended as "Xtended"? I thought initially that it all stemmed from the 10th anniversary: they used a big X through 10th anniversay evening of Dwarf and the VHS of the extended series VII came out the same year, but surely they wouldn't have kept it going if that was the reason? Any ideas?

By Brian on 26-02-06 @ 19:15

Looks pretty?

By si on 26-02-06 @ 19:41

I think so, as the Xtended X is different from the 10th anniversary X.

By Kirk on 26-02-06 @ 19:59

I think it's just people adding a bit of continuity. The three Xtended eps of VII are part of Dwarf history now - so people are going to carry on the term for Back In The Red.

By John Hoare on 26-02-06 @ 21:23

> This has to be wrong, doesn't it? 122 minutes is over two hours...

Ah, sorry - my bad. That should be 'an hour and 22 minutes'. Ahem.

> I thought that while Xtended would be including scenes not in the broadcast version, the opportunity of this feature-length edition was to cut out a lot of the repetition and padding. Broadcast version of BITR is 90 minutes total, ten minutes extra would be only 100 minutes, surely?

Nothing is getting cut out beyond all the recaps (actually a LOT of the run-time) and extraneous titles and credits. Take those out, and the broadcast versions come to about 1hr 7mins.

> Also - can you recall why it's become normal to write extended as "Xtended"?

As John said, at this point we keep it because it's just part of the franchise - like calling outtakes 'Smeg Ups'. As far as I'm aware, though, the X wasn't a specific tenth anniversary reference. It's just how it was branded.

By Andrew on 27-02-06 @ 10:46

> Nothing is getting cut out beyond all the recaps (actually a LOT of the run-time) and extraneous titles and credits. Take those out, and the broadcast versions come to about 1hr 7mins.

Wow. I knew there was a lot of padding, obviously, but when you see the figure like that... wow.

By Ian Symes on 27-02-06 @ 12:59

Erm, I hate to change the subject, but it seems as if certain threads have simply vanished from the webboard and OD.

As a johnny-come-lately to practically everything, I only tuned in yesterday to a raging debate on the merits (or lack thereof) of Series VII and VIII, a debate I can only assume has gained in venom as the DVD's of these series are being released.

Attempting to catch up yesterday, I now find that the thread "on the art of groaning" has vanished from OD, as has any mention of this issue on the webboard....

Why?

By I'malumberjack on 28-02-06 @ 05:44

Is this what you're looking for? As for the art of groaning, you're best off looking elsewhere...

By Ian Symes on 28-02-06 @ 11:22

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.observationdome.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1640

BBC Films

Comments

Post a comment

Trackback Pings

Syndication