Wrong Again, Naturally

Mimosa's latest lies

Mimosa: "Of course it's a load and a half. She knew her obligations for 2009 last year, as far as the shooting schedules for her little movies go. They don't just plan these things at the last minute. The press releases don't indicate how long something has been in the works, but sometimes it's years.


Oh Mimosa Mimosa. Please stop blabbering on about what you know nothing about. Sometimes movies are in the works for years and sometimes not. But schedules change, that we know for sure. Lets take a look at the two movies. "Rabbit Hole" has a recently confirmed start date of June 1. The Woody Allen project is rumored to start July 8. If both dates are correct it would be impossible, as Kidman is lead and producer, to do the WA film.

Another thing...WA films are guaranteed to be made. Unless something happens to him he always has another "upcoming project". They don't need to planned ahead for years. There isn't a fear of it not getting made or having the director prove himself to backers and producers. Nicole was not on board for the WA movie years or even months ago.



If there had been something already scheduled, everyone would've known about it already. And if she was really in demand for that role, they could work around her "conflict" because it happens all the time when a producer really wants a certain actor for a part.

We at STS could make a list a mile long of how many actors and actresses have had to miss out on parts because of scheduling conflicts but we won't bother. But filming of RA was predicted months ago to be later on in the year, and now it has moved up. Mimosa knows better.


The fall-out from Awfulstralia scared the money men, because in this economy, no one can take another Kidman induced flop. In good times, her movies don't do all that well, so who wants to take on that kind of risk? And we all know it has nothing to do with Suro or Keith. She'd never back out of anything for them."



Hmmmm...Then why have it announced that she would be in the cast in the first place? If they were so unhappy with "Australia"'s performance, which by the way is her 3rd highest grossing picture, would they allow WA to cast her? Do you really think Woody Allen would allow that kind of influence from the backers in the first place? Of course not. And if she was cast long ago, as you claim, they wouldn't have known "Australia"'s American performance at the box office. "Australia" was a hit internationally. Foot in mouth?

We also have to consider that WA films are never blockbusters or huge money-makers. As successful as "Vicky Cristina" was, it still only made 91 million worldwide, as opposed to "Australia"'s over 200 million. "Scoop" only made around 40 million, "Cassandra's Dream" around 22 million. His films are no longer sure things or guaranteed masterpieces. They seem to do extremely well (for a WA film) or be seen by very few.

So who are the backers? A Spanish company called MediaPro. MediaPro has been quoted as saying "We are very proud to be working with one of the World's best film-makers. Our ambition is be where the talent is and we are always happy to create long term relationships with our partners." At the time of this quote (2008) the locations of all 3 movies after "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" were still labeled as undetermined. And if you don't even have a location, you can't make up even a tentative filming schedule. So much for years of planning ahead!

Whats very important to look at here is why would MediaPro be so anti-Kidman. They are a European company and Kidman has a large fanbase in Europe, even Mimosa has admitted that. Kidman rakes in the bucks worldwide and was listed as one of the world's few bankable female stars. There has never ever been any reports of backers or film studios or anyone else being able to tell WA who he can cast. In fact WA often times goes against the grain. For example, his casting Juliette Lewis in "Husbands and Wives". To this day fans/critics are arguing whether or not that was an inspired choice or a horrible one.

We also need to discuss another rumor. A gossip site Popeater "reported" that Kidman's role in the WA film was to be "a princess en route to a palace in India, where the handsome Bollywood actor Arjun Rampal meets her." Sound familiar? It's nearly identical to the plot of the Schweppes commercial. Skeptical replies with this...

Skeptical: "I wonder who really cancelled, her, Woody, the producers, the backers, ??? From the description of what her role was to be, it sounds just like the ginger ale commercial that everybody made so much fun of. Maybe Arjun requested a real woman to play the part so he wouldn't be laughed off the screen. I sure would like to know what really happened."

Again, we're shaking our heads here. How is Popeater an authority on a tightly-held secret such as a WA script? If in fact that was her character, which seems very silly for a movie role, how would Allen possibly been able to plan this years ago before the commercial was filmed? And why would he want to? The more reasonable rumor is that Kidman was to play a hooker. Now why is this more reasonable? Haha, not for the reasons you think skeptics. It makes much more sense because Woody has a history of writing characters that are hookers. In fact we found a blog devoted to this very subject....

http://www.gretachristina.com/deconstructing.html

Now of course this is just a rumor, but which scenario makes more sense to you?

As a treat, here's a very interesting recent video interview with the director of "Rabbit Hole", John Cameron Mitchell. It confirms that Dianne Wiest was just added to the cast as announced in early May. FYI, the cast has just been completed with the addition of Miles Teller, Sandra Oh, and John Tenney.


http://www.screendaily.com/interview-with-john-cameron-mitchell/5001155.article

(link provided because video box was too large)