Madeleine McCann: Not A Film, A Book And The McCanns Making Money
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY EXPRESS front page: “Madeleine’s parents planning Hollywood blockbuster movie”
“Kate and Gerry sparked outrage after it was revealed they have held negotiations with leading producers over the movie rights. The couple – who are prime suspects in the case – are also considering book and TV deals in a package worth an estimated £10million”
A book? Like the Daily Express book? That sick..?
Kate McCann: Michelle Pfeiffer
Gerry McCann: James Caan
Madeleine McCann: Macaulay Culkin
And what of this £10million, and the money earned from any film? “The windfall would help finance the search for Madeleine after concerns were raised that a special fund set up by the family was in crisis”
Page 5: The Find Madeleine fund is down to its last £400,000. More money is needed. So why the “outrage”?
Says the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell: “We need money to search for Madeleine and that is the most important thing. Nothing has been decided yet. A film would be made on a percentage basis, with part of the profits going to the fund. None of the money would go to Kate and Gerry. They are not trying in any way to profit out of her name’’
And how many films ever make a profit? It would be a film, perhaps, like that about 15-year-old Amy Smart, abducted in the US and found eight months later. “Several movies were made about her while she was missing including The Amy Smart Story”
The “WORLD’S GREATEST NEWSPAPER” does not say if the Amy Smart story made any money. But it does trawl the web and see blog comments like:
“Angry” Pamela Blears, from Oldham, posts: “From the day little Madeleine disappeared I have felt sympathy and compassion for the McCanns but this beggers belief. How can they think about making a film out of the tragedy when the poor child hasn’t even been found yet? How low can you get?”
The Daily Express costs “ONLY 40p”
“McCANNS FEAR CHARGES SOON” – “A source close to the family” tells us: “Kate and Gerry insist they are innocent but they fear they will be charged. Naturally Kate and Gerry are concerned that if this line of inquiry continues to its natural conclusion, charges are always a possibility and they know that’s entirely wrong”
He added: “The Portuguese police seem to be blinkered in their approach and it feels like they want to find the McCanns guilty regardless.”
DAILY STAR front page: “MADDIE: THE £10M MOVIE – Skint parent to sell film rights”
Skint? The Find Madeleine Fund is dwindling, down to its last “£200,000”. But Gerry McCann is going back to work. He is, as the tabloids never tire to telling us, “a heart consultant”. She is a “GP”
Says the Star: “The couple – who are prime suspects – are in negotiations with the world’s biggest talent and entertainment agency IMG”
IMG – International Management Group– has produced the films Touching the Void, Assault on Waco, Seconds from Disaster, I Shouldn’t be Alive and Kevin and Perry Go Large. Naomi Campbell is on the books
Any film would be an “observational documentary following the on-going search for Madeleine,” says IMG
Pages 4 and5: “Thousands blast ‘sick’ plan”
A poll: “WOULD YOU GO AND WATCH MADDIE: THE MOVIE?” Yes? No? Or I’ve already seen tonight With Trevor McDonald, thanks?
“Ester out in crisis” – TV presenter Esther McVey has resigned her post as a director of the Find Madeleine fund
DAILY MAIL front page: “MADDIE’S PARENTS PLAN £2M FILM DEAL”
“Kate and Gerry McCann could make £2million from a film deal over the story of their daughter’s disappearance, it has been claimed”
Not £10m? Such are the perils of showbiz?
Says the paper: “So far the McCanns, both 39, have turned down offers from big-name chat shows and television dramas as they were anxious to avoid being seen as celebrities”
But we watching the parents. So why not make profit, if it will help?
“Disgraced banker Nick Leeson earned a reported £450,000 when he sold the rights to his autobiography, Rogue Trader. Offers to Austrian kidnap victim Natascha Kampusch were said to have topped £1million”
And: “But Gerry McCann was quick to deny the story”
COMMENT: “Maddie the movie: One step too far – Ever since their daughter Madeleine disappeared, Kate and Gerry McCann have ridden a wave of public sympathy. True, there are some (including the Portuguese police) who have aired deeply hurtful suspicions about the couple since that terrible evening in May. But the overwhelming public mood - particularly among parents of young children - has been one of compassion. Today, however, the McCanns risk losing much of that goodwill. Incredibly, it emerges that they are discussing a possible multi-million pound deal to turn Madeleine’s disappearance into a film. To be blunt, isn’t this pushing the boundaries of taste too far?”
But it is already the subject of a media circus. So why not a DVD – we’ve had the T-shirt, the song, the billboards and the trailers..?
ALISON PEARSON writes in her column: “What CAN Kate and Gerry be thinking? Critics who have never forgiven Gerry and Kate for leaving their kids alone in their holiday apartment will be confirmed in their view that the couple have truly terrible judgment. They will be accused of bad taste; of lacking respect for Madeleine’s memory. Kate will be charged with wanting to swan down the red carpet, even though in this case it is sorrow, not vanity, that has reduced her to a Hollywood Size Zero”
How did it become a story about Kate McCann’s looks?
DAILY MIRROR front page: “Maddy THE Movie”
The McCanns also met with ITV about making a documentary. Maddy A Movie…
THE SUN front page: “Maddie hunt ‘to be film’”
Page 9: “ They pary that movie will help find Maddie”
Gerry McCann is a “cardiac specialist”. The McCanns are “doctors”
“IS THIS THE RIGHT DECISION?”
“YES,” says Lorraine Kelly, GMTV presenter.
“NO,” says the Sun’s Jon ‘Guanty’ Gaunt - “I guess the title of the McCann’s proposed film has to be Home Alone”. Or not…
THE GUARDIAN: “McCanns deny reports of Madeleine film”
Writes Gerry McCann on his blog: “We can categorically deny that we are considering a movie about Madeleine’s disappearance. This is simply untrue. We are approached by a huge number of media outlets regarding a myriad of projects, only a tiny proportion of which we agree to. Each proposal is considered on whether it is likely to have a positive effect, either directly or indirectly, on the search for Madeleine”
ON the Guardian website: “Madeleine’s parents consider film - The parents of Madeleine McCann are considering giving the go-ahead to a film about their missing daughter following an approach by a major entertainment firm”
THE TIMES page 3: “Parents may turn Madeleine McCann story into a Hollywood movie”
“On-screen child horror stories:
A Cry In The Dark
Gone Baby Gone
Honour Thy Father And Mother: the True story of the Menendez Brothers
Menenedez: A Killing in Beverly Hills, 1994
The Amityville Horror series
Everybody’s Baby: The Rescue of Jessica McClure”
Says Clarence Mitchell: The media are making money out of the situation themselves and we feel it is only fair and right that some aspect of that should come to the fund to help find Madeleine”
DAILY TELGRAPH: “McCanns in talks to make a film about AMdldine’s disappearance”
“Do you think a Madeleine film should be made”
Well, we;’ve had the sop opera, and who wants to watch EastEnders: The Movie?
THE SCOTSMAN: “McCanns eye Madeleine film”
BOSTON HERALD: “Missing Madeleine story could become feature film”
The speculation, media hype and sensation so far
Posted: 9th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (1,585) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- The Real Stig on The Great Cathay Pacific Blocked Toilet Mystery
- SoDak-GhostDog on Interview With Survior Of James Arthur Ray’s Sedona Sweat Lodge
- Katie Norman on I’m A Celebrity: Joe Bugner’s Career In Pictures
- HOTWATER on Madeleine McCann: The Media Creates A New Maddie Monster And Twists The Facts
- yampster on Dundee Woman Accused Of Ripping Out Lover’s Testes With Her Bare Hands
January 9th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Mods and admin
HTFM is Helping to find Madeleine
The monkeys the McSuckers are recruiting to influence public opinion by posting on forums.
Divided in teams with “leaders” who report directly to Clarence about the UNCENSORED public opinion.
From the Mirror forum:
Please see questionnaire below:
Do you have a working knowledge of any foreign languages? (spoken/written/degree of fluency)
Do you know of anyone living in France?
Do you have any local knowledge of France?
“[/quote][quote][/quote]
What is the reason behind this great interest in France/French linguists? Having followed SOS Maddie for the past 6 months or so, my guess is that one possible reason is that they are looking to recruit trolls/chimps to operate on SOS Maddie. There have been great problems on the SOS M site, ( which is a powerful weapon against the McCanns’ misinformation, due to D. Levy’s informative and objective reporting and evident inside knowledge )caused by particularly vicious posters (in particular ‘Unknown’ or ‘Inconnu’) attacking other posters (more vicious than anything seen on the MF), disrupting, assuming the identity of other posters, etc. Drastic changes to the forum had to be made to deal with this.
Since the majority of the French posters are sceptical of the McCanns, it is presumably strategically important to the Team to recruit greater numbers to undermine the forum.
________________
Mods and Admin
Lilith , many thanks!
January 9th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
945
Tony Bennett Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
927 chenier says (January 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm):
“Tony, It has already been pointed out to you that you misquoted PeterO. Doing it once more suggests that it’s deliberate…”
REPLY: No, Chenier, now you are seeking yourself to mislead if I may say so. Peter O gave an explanation of why he said Clarence was ‘brilliant’ and what he meant by saying Clarence Mitchell was ‘brilliant’.
I was just quoting his one word, ‘brilliant’, which he used to describe Clarence Mitchell.
I think if memory serves he said something like Clarence Mitcehll was dong a ‘brilliant job’ or ‘had done’ a brilliant job. Something like that.
If I’ve misquoted someone, I’ll admit it. But ‘briliant’ is the word Peter O used to tell us about his opinion of Clarence
————————————————-
Sadly, Tony, your post demonstrates your own unwillingness to actually check on whether your quotation is accurate.
To use words like ‘if memory serves’ when you are claiming that your comment is accurate simply demonstrates that you don’t seem to care whether it is accurate or not.
Equally, to say ‘Something like that’ when you are purporting to be accurately quoting someone simply demonstrates that you are not quoting them.
And then you claim that you are ready to admit it if you misquote someone, having just demonstrated the complete reverse…
January 9th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I am most disappointed that Mods has disciplined Ian, and I have been a favourite subject of his. But we are all grown up enough I hope to accept that you should have a thick skin to inhabit the net. Much as I disagree with Ians views and the way he comes across at times, in a free society I will defend his right to free speech, if the less stalwart here don’t like his posts ignore them its that easy. As far as this case goes, as I said earlier there are no winners except I hope justice. The Portuguese as far as I am concerned want this case to go away, because they will never solve it, I don’t think anyone ever will.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
888
Matt,
you said [..] If the innocent scenario is worth considering…then so too is the guilty
scenario and you’re right about that.
IMO they know more then they’ve told us [throught the media]. This could be something hideous or because they aren’t allowed to tell because of the secrecy laws of Portugal or because they really think/know Madeleine is still alive and revealing it could endanger her.
We don’t know what they’ve actually told the PJ, except that we know they can’t have told anything hideous, otherwise they would have been in jail by months.
But their’e more scenario’s we have to consider.
Not quilty, but suspicious regarding “friends”, not able to pinpoint the suspicions, just their gutfeeling. Do they have to reveal that to us? And if they do feel these suspicions did they tell it to the PJ? Or do they think they can’t tell because they can’t be specific about what’s causing it?
Manslaughter or Accidental death followed by the coverup and disposal of the body [horrid thought to consider].
That would be outrageous. Poor Madeleine, poor twins, poor family, poor friends, poor kids who’ve donated their allowance etc.
In case they are charged and convicted I’d want them to get the maximum penalty for each charge.
Patience is a virtue…..
January 9th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
PETER O’S POST 271 REVISITED
Just to clear up what Peter O said - yes, he was talking about Clarence Mitcehll, and yes, he used the word ‘briliant’ to descrie his achievements in the case so far.
Here it is again:
PETER O QUOTE:
I think the person we see “on camera” [Clarence Mitchell], is not very effective, either because he isn’t, or because he wants to avoid appearing like your usual “slick, you can’t believe anything I say persona”. I my opinion it is the latter in that doing an Alistair Campbell on the public given the sensitivities of this case would not be very well received.
I also think that his [Clarence Mitchell's] “on camera persona” is something entirely different as to how he operates away from the camera where I suspect he’s very well “connected” and is pulling lots of strings in the background, in my opinion.
The whole “let’s make a movie” charade has been a brilliant smokescreen to deflect attention away from less desirable news like fund resignations and media speculation about interviews and/or possible charges.
END PETER O QUOTE
January 9th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Yeepeeh, Batman!
By the way: It took my DAYS to produce my first bold text. You were very quick!
January 9th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
889 chenier Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
But if you ever find the time to glance back at the M&As comments you will find them objecting to you spamming this blog…
______________________
I suggest you go back and glance at the comments from M&A and understand and quote them properly.
They didn’t say I spammed or was spamming. BIG DIFFERENCE. Clearly you don’t know what spamming means…or you wanted to apply it to me as part of your typical misinformation.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
June, POP that bubbly !!!!!!
Wheeeeeeew !!!!!!
***************
Now who’s in with the ‘in’ crowd ????????
Welcome back!
Carmen
January 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
922…Batman
Well he/she insisted the accusation was totally false.
Question is though…how would he/she know for certain. ;0
January 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
TB. enough already, you’re just being daft for the sake of it!
Firestar… William Bramble. Brilliant but it is now fixed in my mind.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Julie checking in ??
January 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
943
Garth Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
………………………….
aren’t you a clever boy garthy….your wasted working for the mcnastys
January 9th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
937
Judge Dread Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
909 Tony
CM finished by categorically denying any film would be made.
****
He needed something to talk about today, i.e., the film …
… otherwise he’d be answering …
WHY DID THE BLOOD MATCH!
January 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
whoopee
Many thanks Garth and Baby
Feel like part of the in-crowd now!!
January 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Sledgehammer
You should try and stay in character. Leave Ciara-Louise alone you boring old twink.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Find Madeleine my arse, make us a million more like, shame on them.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
testing
has this worked or do I just look like a plonker?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
927 chenier says (January 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm):
“Tony, It has already been pointed out to you that you misquoted PeterO. Doing it once more suggests that it’s deliberate…”
REPLY: No, Chenier, now you are seeking yourself to mislead if I may say so. Peter O gave an explanation of why he said Clarence was ‘brilliant’ and what he meant by saying Clarence Mitchell was ‘brilliant’.
I was just quoting his one word, ‘brilliant’, which he used to describe Clarence Mitchell.
I think if memory serves he said something like Clarence Mitcehll was dong a ‘brilliant job’ or ‘had done’ a brilliant job. Something like that.
If I’ve misquoted someone, I’ll admit it. But ‘briliant’ is the word Peter O used to tell us about his opinion of Clarence
January 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Mods and Admin
To Ian
Following your request for somewhere to complain about me /us try here:
http://www.anorak.co.uk/forums/ there is a section in Backlash.
However AGW is away until late Thursday, and may not reply until Friday
January 9th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
940
BabyJane Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Do colours work?
only italics and bold unfortunately!
January 9th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
fishing karen season isnt open except salmon, pike are all year
January 9th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Tony Bennett
Re your posts 908 & 919
I normally respect your posts & what you have / are endevouring to do. BUT, be correct & just! Again you have misquoted Peter O & completely out of context. I am very surprised that you in your position should choose to do this. I suggest you go back to Peter O’s origional post & re read it. Then come back & re post with the word/s you left out! What do you think??
January 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Do colours work?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
CSN
Have you got a better one?
all this translates to is this
Page not found Address The page that you search do not exist in the servers of the UOL. It corrects the address above and it tries again.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
990
Ciara-Louise Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
#
977
Moriarty Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
962
Ciara-Louise
Gone from being innocent bimbo to ‘grammar checker’ have we?
You should try to stay in character, sweet cheeks.
Edit++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A grovelling apology will suffice Ciara-Louise, I really don’t think I need to insult you do I.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
909 Tony
CM finished by categorically denying any film would be made.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Batman:
http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm
then scroll down to HTML Tags Chart
January 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
924
Totje Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
878
chenier,
[..] “Which means that the ’source’ for the press article was lying through his/her teeth.
Not a big surprise, really… ”
————————————————————
Unnames sources allways come in handy for “reporters”
But I mentioned that firm because the discussion was about the expenses paid by the fund. Tony [and Matt] also told this is an expensive firm. Like ₤ 1,000 a day.
I would be intersted though reading their “explaining the likely sequence of events”
==================================
I’m sure that it is an expensive firm.
I’m also sure that the ’source’ was deliberately misrepresenting what they do.
The explaining the likely sequence of events would probably include pointing out to K&G that, sadly, smearing Madeleine over the media would almost certainly resulted in any alleged abductor killing her immediately…
January 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
894
Lynn Barnes Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I do not blame the McCanns one little bit. I admire their courage.
****
DENIAL:
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
895 Lynn Barnes says (January 9th, 2008 at 5:52 pm):
I do not blame the McCanns one little bit.
REPLY: Six nights in a row boozing and leaving three young children on their own
——————————————–
895 Lynn Barnes says (January 9th, 2008 at 5:52 pm):
If it was my daughter I wouldn’t care a hoot was others thought I would do anything…
REPLY: Except forgoing an evening’s boozing with my mates