If you book your ticket via the C-O-D platform, you will also be eligible to attend the special screening in Nottingham, but only for as long as there are seats still available
As long as there are seats available or the heat death of the universe whichever comes first.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
TheNewSaint wrote: ↑Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:44 pm
This movie has had more releases than paying customers.
well, that was accomplished way back with the first one.
Any bets as to whether there'll actually be a showing this time around?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
notorial dissent wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 3:13 amAny bets as to whether there'll actually be a showing this time around?
Their cinema on demand provider won't book anything until they have 25% of seats sold and will refund the money if there is no showing. I suspect from the wording that they may have gone for a straight hire in Nottingham, which is why they are offering people who may have purchased tickets a guaranteed showing. I've hired a cinema to show a film before so it's not difficult to do!
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity - Hanlon's Razor
AnOwlCalledSage wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:08 am
I've hired a cinema to show a film before so it's not difficult to do!
Indeed, especially so at The Savoy. A fine example of an old style independant cinema. It only used to have 2 screens, one upstairs & 1 down. In recent years the downstairs has been split into 3 screens. I suspect he's hired the 49 seater screen 4. It costs £150 for a kids party, with use of the party room afterwards.
And who wants to watch a movie that's been "completely edited for legal reasons" at least twice? What's been removed, why, and for whom? Seems like that would be a serious problem for a movie that purports to expose government malfeasance.
Several possibilities occur to me about the "edited for legal reasons":
1) it's not real, just a reason given for continuing delays.
2) it's real, they have taken advice on, perhaps, naming the chief bankster of Banco Santander and saying they are a crook. As it isn't an essential part of the narrative, better to leave that bit out.
3) it's real, they have taken advice on how things need to be worded to avoid being held to give financial or legal advice without the relevant professional qualifications/licences. Or something like that.
If just 1 million pay to see the film, whether in the cinema, on DVD or Digital Platforms, Michael O’Deira, the Albert family and Tom and Sue Crawford will acquire new homes of equal value to the properties they lost during the course of production, from the net returns generated.
The DVD can be preordered (released on November 26, 2018) and has already shot to number 110,653 on the Amazon DVD chart.
HardyW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:07 pm
Several possibilities occur to me about the "edited for legal reasons":
1) it's not real, just a reason given for continuing delays.
This is what I think. Each polishing of this turd gives him a premise to keep having new "premieres."
As for the other possibilities, the movie is so inconsequential that i doubt any bank would waste their legal department's time with it.
Of course, the question comes to mind of whether ANYTHING he says or claims can be trusted as having even a scintilla of truth to it?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Just 1 million people strikes me as a bit optimistic by a factor of about 1000.
As a film the epic suffers from a fundamental flaw, that it is all complete bollocks.
Bad films have had a cult following many times, who can forget 'Plan 9 from Outer Space', but a badly made film that is both boring and complete nonsense (but not in a funny way) is doomed to obscurity.
I doubt if this will buy anyone a tent. Even a cheap one.
Siegfried Shrink wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:09 amJust 1 million people strikes me as a bit optimistic by a factor of about 1000.
As a film the epic suffers from a fundamental flaw, that it is all complete bollocks.
Bad films have had a cult following many times, who can forget 'Plan 9 from Outer Space', but a badly made film that is both boring and complete nonsense (but not in a funny way) is doomed to obscurity.
I doubt if this will buy anyone a tent. Even a cheap one.
Ah but you’re forgetting that this production has the backing of Brad Pitt’s production company, and ironically in this article they actually go on to accuse the very man who owns the production company that is producing their 2 hours of shite, of been a satanist.
Here is an amazing insight into the logic of Michael and Co.
I got as far as 'the genocide of eviction' and decided that he was using some language that resembled English but did not mean the same as any known version, even Yorkshire.
The DVD can be preordered (released on November 26, 2018) and has already shot to number 110,653 on the Amazon DVD chart.
That's probably where it'll be on my list of films to watch before I shuffle off this mortal coil. If not lower.
Our future is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail. James Lovelock.
Siegfried Shrink wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:27 pm
I got as far as 'the genocide of eviction' and decided that he was using some language that resembled English but did not mean the same as any known version, even Yorkshire.
I believe it to be a branch of verbal diarrhoea, But people fluent in verbal diarrhoea rejected this claim.
HardyW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 9:07 pm
Several possibilities occur to me about the "edited for legal reasons":
1) it's not real, just a reason given for continuing delays.
2) it's real, they have taken advice on, perhaps, naming the chief bankster of Banco Santander and saying they are a crook. As it isn't an essential part of the narrative, better to leave that bit out.
3) it's real, they have taken advice on how things need to be worded to avoid being held to give financial or legal advice without the relevant professional qualifications/licences. Or something like that.
Or they've breached copyright by using images or content they've no right to, such as TV news footage of the Crawford eviction.
For the similar reasons, we have licensed all the archive news footage we have used, with the kind permission of ITN [which has classified the film as “newsworthy” in its own right]; along with Channel 4 News, ITV News and RT.
John Uskglass wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:28 pm
On the money mufc1959 -
For the similar reasons, we have licensed all the archive news footage we have used, with the kind permission of ITN [which has classified the film as “newsworthy” in its own right]; along with Channel 4 News, ITV News and RT.
Waugh said that? Color me skeptical. This is a guy who won't drop £200 to rent a theater, and whose existence centers on not paying for anything.
If just 1 million pay to see the film, whether in the cinema, on DVD or Digital Platforms, Michael O’Deira, the Albert family and Tom and Sue Crawford will acquire new homes of equal value to the properties they lost during the course of production, from the net returns generated.
The DVD can be preordered (released on November 26, 2018) and has already shot to number 110,653 on the Amazon DVD chart.
Description
Product Description
The Great British Mortgage Swindle stands as a damning indictment of the sheer scale and state-sanctioned brutality of the institutionalised mortgage fraud running rampant on the shores of Britain. The coruscating film, six years in the making, focuses upon the arrogant complicity of the legal professionals, who have given an estimated 11.2 million mortgagors plainly illegal advice for the best part of the last three decades; and the rampant corruption of judges at almost every level of her majesty s judiciary.
Looks like this nonsense was confined to “running rampant” on our coastline and not inland.
