FANDOM


  • Why did you remove it?

      Loading editor
    • Room Full of Shite

        Loading editor
      1. A search for the title and the director/producer/co-producer/star did not turn up any results.
      2. The studio and distributor you listed are names that would never get them anywhere close to a bank or a movie studio for funding, even if it was as little as you claimed it to be.
      3. There's indications you took the info about the movie "The Room" and tried to turn it into this.

      1 + 2 + 3 = It's more likely you're intending this as a joke than it being a legitimate film.

        Loading editor
    • But it is a legitimate film

        Loading editor
    • It's been my experience that if a wiki is the first place anyone's ever heard of a movie, it's either fan fiction or it was added as deliberate false information. The search on Google for the name of the film plus the people you say were involved in the movie did not turn up any results. A legitimate movie would have some record a search engine like Google or Bing could find.

      In addition, internationally famous actors and composers are unlikely to associate themselves with production and distribution companies that have explicit sexual references in their name. They also wouldn't give you their services for free or accept a few pennies of the almost non-existent budget you listed.

      Any legitimate movie that is going to be shown in theaters cannot be made solely by everyone donating their time and services. The budget has to cover the costs for the filming crew and equipment, actors' salaries and a whole slew of other departments like makeup, costumes, lighting, sound, props, set design, security, etc. Then there's the costs involved in advertising the movie. £10 is barely enough to buy a few cups of coffee.


      The title of this movie would also cause problems for its release. How are you planning to handle objections to the last word, which is an old variant on a profanity?

      Posters for the second Austin Powers film had variations where either put asterisks in place of the word "Shagged" or else just listed the film as "Austin Powers 2". In Singapore, the movie was renamed to "The Spy Who Shioked Me", which translates roughly to "The Spy Who Made Me Feel Good". The third movie prompted legal action by MGM, so for a while, the title was removed from promotional materials and trailers until an agreement was reached to show trailers for two MGM movies with this one.


      As demonstrated above, there are many problems that cast a lot of doubt on this being a film that's actually being made and will be shown in public.

        Loading editor
    • "internationally famous actors and composers are unlikely to associate themselves with production and distribution companies that have explicit sexual references in their name."

      I've solved that problem by not casting internationally famous actors

        Loading editor
    • " The title of this movie would also cause problems for its release. How are you planning to handle objections to the last word, which is an old variant on a profanity?"

      Censor it on the cover but have a reverse uncensored cover.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+