Benedict Cumberbatch’s production company is losing money hand over fist

Last Friday, we got our first look at Benedict Cumberbatch’s Doctor Strange and the character’s Merkin of Lies. Benedict has been in Nepal for more than a week filming Doctor Strange, and now we have our first big look at Chiwetel Ejiofor in character. Chiwetel is playing Strange’s friend-turned-enemy, although I think they’re just BFFs in these scenes in Nepal. Benedict and Chiwetel are pretty friendly in real life too – they’ve worked together, they’re friends, they might even hang out a little in real life. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Benedict went to Marvel and was like, “I’d really like Chiwetel in this role.” Not that Chiwetel couldn’t get the role on his own – he totally could. But I’m guessing that Benedict wanted to work with him again too.

Meanwhile, did you know/remember that Benedict set up his own production company a few years ago? It’s true. He set up SunnyMarch with some friends and the only thing SunnyMarch has ever produced is a film short called Little Favour in 2013. That’s Benedict’s sole producer credit. Not surprisingly, SunnyMarch is losing money hand over fist.

Sherlock star Benedict Cumberbatch’s acting skills have made him the toast of Hollywood, but he might be advised to give up any grander ambitions. The Old Harrovian set up a production company with three friends to make TV shows and films, but newly published accounts disclose it made losses of £177,000 in the past year.

The firm, SunnyMarch, has assets of just £21,000. It appears to have produced just one short film — starring Cumberbatch — which relied on funding of £86,240 from members of the public who gave through a fundraising website. At the company’s launch two years ago, Cumberbatch declared: ‘We’re at an exciting juncture… we have scripts in development and books that we are looking to option.’

[From The Daily Mail]

My guess is that this production company was just a small vanity thing that Benedict decided to do several years ago, and then he either lost interest or simply got too busy to really focus on it. Benedict has been legitimately busy the past three years (except for a weird lull last year when Bendy was going out to the opening of envelope), and his focus at this point in his career seems to be solely as an actor. Which isn’t the worst thing. Many, many actors have these little production companies and very few of them actually make any money, so on that, Benedict is pretty average. The only thing that bugs me is that they crowdsourced for their company and it seems like Benedict just made sure his mates cut themselves some nice paychecks and left it at that.

PS… As foretold, Benedict was in England today to receive his CBE. He brought Sophie Hunter! You can see some photos here.

wenn22914367

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

118 Responses to “Benedict Cumberbatch’s production company is losing money hand over fist”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Amelia says:

    Quick! Someone distract Sophie while I snatch that coat off her. So purdy.

  2. Esteph says:

    They crowd sourced? WTH? Well that’s rude if they cut themselves a check and forgot about their production company

    • Mia4s says:

      They crowd sourced for the short film as I recall, not the company. That’s not really a big deal.

      Production companies are actually a great tax idea for actors. He makes millions as an actor so if he’s “lent out” by the company he can use losses as a tax deduction over a number of years. A lot of actors set up these companies with no intention of producing like Pitt or DiCaprio. It seems weird but actually makes a lot of sense. Well makes sense for him; the friends working there won’t have the same advantage so no idea what’s up there.

      • Sixer says:

        Yes. Here in the UK at least, actors’ production companies are usually tax dodges. There’s recently been a scandal over Premier League footballers all starting up film production companies as a tax dodge and thus paying tuppence in tax on all their gazillions. Our treasury has recently cracked down on film schemes.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        I thought Dicaprio and Pitt did do some producer’s work?

      • Catelina says:

        Well, don’t know about Leo but Pitt definitely does. His company produced 5 Best Picture nominees since 2005

      • Lindy79 says:

        I can’t see how he thought he’d have any time to really give his company at this stage, he’s non stop working. All actors that have successful ones either took time off to really cultivate it or they had a really good team running it.

        Not a fan of her dress at Buckingham Palace (cue the pregnant again rumours) but the shoe/boots are ok as is the facinator hat but WHHYYY with the black tights again?? Far too heavy with that dress.

        HAHA at him saying he didn’t know he got flak for the speech, he got arsey when they brought it up and seemed VERY aware of it. I call bullplop.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Even TommyAnnE has a production company (Called No Filter!) which apparently does nothing at all. I always wondered. A tax deduction makes perfect sense.

      • neutral says:

        Sixer, did those players start up the companies or were they encouraged to invest in certain schemes on the advice of “experts”? Some of them stand to lose one hell of a lot of money.

        One does well to remember the old saying “if you don’t understand it, don’t invest in it”

      • Sixer says:

        Neutral

        Presumably on the advice of “experts”. And quite! But they weren’t complaining at paying no tax!

        I have a friend who recently retired from HMRC and who was an investigator in the “individuals of high net worth” area. There were big sports stars, earning several millions a year, who were ending up with annual tax bills of less than £1,000. It’s big business, tax avoidance.

      • neutral says:

        @ Sixer. Thanks for replying. I think the tax system here in the UK is ridiculously complicated and convoluted. If it was simplified I would guess it would make tax evasion a lot more difficult.

        I guess those sports stars would have their salaries (ie for footballers) paid into a limited company then draw “dividends” from the company?

      • Mia4s says:

        @Pondering Thoughts, oops there’s a word or two missing in my post. I meant to say that a lot of companies are set up that never intend to produce like Pitt and DiCaprio DO. They actually produce a lot of stuff. Most actors just use the companies to purchase material for themselves and for tax purposes.

      • Lisa says:

        Lindy79, they asked him about getting heat for raising money at a play, not that particular speech. Was there heat for that? I didn’t think doing that was super uncommon.

      • Fluff says:

        Martin Freeman crowdsourced his film exactly the same way Benedict did.

        Lisa – the Daily Mail really raked him over the coals, but they’re extreme right wing and openly racist. They were openly and explicitly advocating the government sends out troops to gun down any refugees attempting to land in Britain. So it’s no surprise they’d be against the speech. The stuff they’ve said about Ben isn’t any nastier than the stuff they’ve said about other liberal actors. There’s a vile article in the Mail about David Tennant today.

      • Lisa says:

        Oh, it’s about the Mail. Thanks for clearing that up, Fluff. That’s a Tory wet dream over there.

        SunnyMarch raised 80,000 or so but spent over 100,000 making the short. Don’t think any friends got nice paychecks, Kaiser 😀

        Unfortunately, producing shorts at a loss is how many indie pros have to start out. It’s all about getting your name out there.

      • 7-11's Hostage says:

        “The only thing that bugs me is that they crowdsourced for their company and it seems like Benedict just made sure his mates cut themselves some nice paychecks and left it at that. ” Wow, what a good friend! And he seems to have a great many friends, so they’re all benefiting. Good for them.

  3. Lilacflowers says:

    Chiwetel, Mads, and Tilda are the reasons I will see that movie.

    The Daily Mail doesn’t employ fact-checkers, does it?

    • Bridget says:

      They could have done so much better casting Strange. There, I said it!

    • mimif says:

      Newsflash.

      • Bridget says:

        You’re a newsflash.

      • mimif says:

        Flash in the pan.

      • Sixer says:

        True story: when I were a wee one, my mother used to call me Flash as an ironic nickname because I was so slow to do my share of the chores.

        Little, I’m afraid to say, has changed. I’m still allergic to a) the dishwasher, b) the ironing pile, and c) the vacuum cleaner.

      • mimif says:

        Lolz I am so calling you⚡️Flash⚡️from now on.

      • Sixer says:

        I’ll allow that… if you empty my dishwasher for me. I put that one on the Sixlets and sometimes they rebel, the cheeky buggers, so I could do with an understudy. I put the ironing and the vacuuming on Mr Sixer. I am prepared to cook, but that’s about it.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        I believe vacuum cleaners are extremely dangerous and the use of one could result in serious injury or death and nobody will convince me otherwise

    • EN says:

      Well, I will be seeing it for Bendy and the rest of the cast. I am very happy about the casting.

      I am not sure why people fell they need to point out that they are so over Cumberbatch, it comes through as protesting too much.

      • mimif says:

        What about if you were never into him in the first place?

      • Madly says:

        Only because you are overly invested.

        People go off actors all the time for a variety of reasons. I went off him. He was weird last year.

      • Fluff says:

        A lot of the haters/conspiracy theorists are very invested in proving that his career has failed and that his fanbase is abandoning him in droves (the implication – or sometimes explicitly stated meaning being – dump your wife and we’ll start loving you again).

    • Miss Jupitero says:

      It’s an amazing cast. I look forward to it. I also have all kinds of childhood warm fuzzies for Doctor Strange.

      • Lindy79 says:

        I think with Chiwetel, Tilda and now Mads it’s the most interesting casting of any of the Marvel/DC movies

    • Chuchu says:

      The Daily mail is a tabloid newspaper. A lot of Americans seem to think otherwise.

    • Fluff says:

      To be fair, Tilda Swinton is always automatically the best reason to see any film she’s in.

    • Ruth Dunbar says:

      OH GOD MADS. His man rays will decimate Benny. Sorrynotsorry.

  4. Betti says:

    Some actors do make it work – Brad Pitt (Plan B), Drew Barrymore (Flower Productions) but the difference with these guys is that they stuck with it and didn’t rely on handouts from the Cumberbitches to make a movie starring their internet boyfriend. He could have used his fame to get proper funding, from what i recall he roped in a lot of friends many of whom worked on it for free.

    On another note: I love the shoes Sophie wore to Buckingham Palace – like the dress as well but am a shoe girl.

    • bread says:

      I agree with you on the shoes but I thought the dress was kinda frumpy – long sleeves, pale purple, knee length skirt and that pattern! – it looked more like something the queen would wear than someone in their late 30s.

      • Phoebe says:

        Agreed Bread! I think my nana had a nightdress like that that she made from some old curtains from her kitchen 🙂

    • Anne tommy says:

      Mark Wahlberg may not be flavour of the month here but he’s another actor who has made tons of money from production. Bendy and Sophie look nice in the last pic.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        I have recently seen some of his movies and I have to say I was impressed. One was about some sniper who got crossed by the governments … bloody good one.

        I think Wahlberg is still suffering from some slight touches of his time as Marky Mark.

      • EN says:

        I have Wahlberg in the same category as Tom Cruise, I find them both problematic but I can’t deny that they are both professionals and can act.

    • Naya says:

      Its more than just relying on established fanbases. I think you’ll find that Pitt, De Niro, Wahlberg etc really just paired up with the right “technicians”. Their job is to attract funding and directorial/acting talent. The actual day to day grind, dealing with costing decisions etc, is handled by their partners. Now I’m not sure that Cumbie even has the clout to greenlight a film, much less attract talented players into the mix but we cant forget that his partners probably dont know what they are doing either.

      • lisa2 says:

        That’s not true.. Brad is the head of Plan B.. he is the one that kept that Production company afloat; he does have great partners; but I know from reading how hands on he is in the company and how he goes to meetings and is front and center on many of their project. . The role of a Producer is to get the funding; push the movie; put the right people together to get it made. Some actors are not as front and center.. I think Brad and Leo are more than just a face of their companies.. I don’t know about Mark. I avoid him like the plague.

  5. Zapp Brannigan says:

    Tax dodge set up by a good accountant is my guess. Create a loss for Capital Gains Tax, keep some friends in high paying jobs, write off luxury items as business expenses, see also GOOP.

    • bread says:

      If (and that’s a bif “If” since there’s no hard evidence, only suspicions) Cumberbatch is doing a tax evasion scheme, he needs to shut up with his criticising the British government for not doing more about the refugee crisis. If he’s not willing to pay his share, he doesn’t get any say in how the money is being spent.

      He’s already a bit of an hypocrite when he happily accepts a CBE from that same government and still wants to shout “F*ck the politicians” on the Barbican stage.

      • EN says:

        > Cumberbatch is doing a tax evasion scheme, he needs to shut up with his criticising the British government for not doing more about the refugee crisis. If he’s not willing to pay his share, he doesn’t get any say in how the money is being spent.

        And that is exactly what DM and the right wingers are going for. Dig up some dirt, make up things if nothing found, make people doubt him, and then make him shut up.

        Let’s be clear about something – Cumberbatch taking about the refugees is not the source of the problem. He is just trying to honestly help with mess in ME which was created with the full blessing of the UK administration when they supported the US in every single ME disaster.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        A CBE merely for being a good actor? Is that all it takes nowadays?

      • Betti says:

        Bendy became a hypocrite when he pimped out his personal life for an Oscar – for someone who spent a long time crying privacy he sold out when he (and a heavily pregnant Sophie) very obviously posed for pap shots in LA for a car company (can’t remember which manufacturer) for which they were paid for.

      • Sixer says:

        EN

        Whatever one thinks of how appropriate it is to speechify/harangue* audiences at his performances, I quite like him for saying “So what? Don’t care. Not going to stop,” when asked if the flak he got bothered him. I like courage in convictions.

        *delete according to preference

        I don’t find it particularly hypocritical: the CBE is from the British state, not the current administration running it.

      • EN says:

        > Bendy became a hypocrite when he pimped out his personal life for an Oscar – for someone who spent a long time crying privacy he sold out

        Yes, we’ve been through that last year. And I never agreed that he sold out. Look at Fassbender ( “I don’t care about Oscars and promotion” guy). Now that Weinstein is in charge of distribution of Macbeth Fassy is suddenly on Graham Northon.
        He was nowhere to be seen for Jobs promotion, and the movie tanked. Actors have to promote their movies. That is how business works. To me it is not selling out, when you are marketing a multi-billion project.

      • Lindy79 says:

        Not to nit pick but Fassy has been on Norton a few times over the years to promote various movies, and he was on Norton this time to promote Jobs not Macbeth, he was with his co star Kate Winslet. Fassy never said he wouldn’t do promotion, he is all over the place for X Men (his promos with James McAvoy are always amazing).

        Yes he did throw his toys out of the pram on that occasion but he got blasted for it so maybe had a change of heart about it or his team told him to stop being stupid.

      • Leah says:

        EN
        I am not sure what you are trying to say but just to let you know Fassbender has been on graham norton before. A couple of years back he was on there with Mark Whalberg. I think he was promoting 12 years a slave back then. Its not as if he doesnt do promotion for his films. He does what he is expected to do.

      • EN says:

        > I am not sure what you are trying to say but just to let you know Fassbender has been on graham norton before.

        I know, and I didn’t mean to imply that he hasn’t . But I haven’t seen much of him last year, and he has 2 huge movies coming out. I would expect him to be all over the place, And I am only starting to see him now, as of last week.

        Jobs came out 2-3 weeks ago, there was no excitement about it. He needed to go to SF, get on every morning show to promote. I only saw a couple of articles and those I had to look for.

        All I was saying is that “in your face” promotion is required for drama/ biopic movies and when it doesn’t happen the results show up in the box office results.

      • j says:

        i’m lost bread the cbe doesn’t come from the gov

      • neutral says:

        The citation says he got his CBE for service to charities too.

        And yes, the CBE often does come from the govt, sometimes at the suggestion of members of the public

      • Dara says:

        @j – I think @bread is referring to the fact that honours are actually decided by government committee based on submissions from individuals or organizations, the BRF are merely the ones that pin the thing on in the ceremony – they have no real say in who receives them.

        I’m not sure how it works if the Queen wants to give a medal to Charles or Harry (or anyone else she’s related to), would she have to go through the same submission process or are there doohickeys she can hand out without checking with anyone?

      • Sixer says:

        What Dara said.

        The public can – and do – nominate people for civil honours. You just get a form from the Post Office or download one from the government’s website. The overseeing committees also make nominations and decide the awards. Only a few honours are in the personal gift of Her Maj – eg the Victorian Order. Most are just civil honours branded with royalty because we are a constitutional monarchy – in the same way our stamps and coins have ER’s head on them but our mint and our post office have nothing to do with the royals.

        Here are the people on the current committees:

        https://www.gov.uk/guidance/honours-committees

        You’ll notice Julian Fellowes, of Downton Abbey infamy, sits on the one for actors!

    • Sixer says:

      I agree that’s probably what it is. There are myriad tax avoidance schemes used by British entertainers/actors/media types and film production companies have been a very popular one. I’m pretty sure Hiddlesburp has one too, and as far as I’m aware, he’s not produced anything. It gets them VERY bad press when it gets outed and HMRC are currently cracking down on this particular one. So my guess is, as Benny doesn’t seem to be particularly serious about actually producing anything much, he’ll quietly drop it.

      • Crocuta says:

        Do you know for a fact that *He who should not be named in a Cumberbatch thread* actually has one or are you just speculating this because if one of these two twerps has it, the other one must have it too?

      • Cee says:

        yeah, there’s a fine line between tax evasion and what some people do. It seems SunnyMarch is a vanity project that got the back burner AND a loophole for expenses and income. Didn’t Kiera Knightly pass expenses through her company? Apparently she only makes 50000 pounds a year, but I bet the rest of her money is tied up to it. That’s just her liquid money.

      • Jellybean says:

        Sixer, I bow to your greater knowledge on the subject, but I have noticed that getting the first production out can take a lot of time, maybe a year or two. If nothing is happening after that then maybe tax fiddling and/or incompetence should be considered. There are some very good actor/producers out there.

      • Sixer says:

        Jellybean – indeed. However, this is an absolutely commonplace tax avoidance strategy here. I’ll be happy to eat my words if Benny’s outfit suddenly goes all Plan B on us but for me, the balance of probabilities is that this is highly unlikely. For the most part, for wealthy Brit entertainers, these companies are a way to pay less tax, not produce films. Is why HMRC are aggressively targeting them.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Yes, he does as a matter of fact:

        http://www.endole.co.uk/company/08331560/no-filter-productions-limited

        My question is: Can he actually use this for a tax deduction if the company employs nobody and (apparently) does nothing at all? It apparently does have income which has gone up dramatically, but where the income comes from isn’t clear to me.

      • Crocuta says:

        Thanks for the link, Miss Jupitero. What’s this other one with Burton and Bohnam-Carter? 😮

      • Sixer says:

        Miss J

        There are two tax-minimising issues with film production companies.

        1) the top rate of personal income tax is 45% here, while corporation tax is 20% (about to go down to 18%). So if you incorporate yourself, you pay a lot less tax. Not illegal nor even borderline illegal. If you wanted, you could use your “production company” to invoice your services as an actor.

        2) tax credits/reliefs for film production. Lots of these here, as I believe there are also in the US. Investments into such companies get tax relief for personal income. The borderline between acceptable and illegal for these here is a) whether or not the company actually carries out any business activities and b) whether or not a clever accountant has engineered a loss so that the money in the company effectively avoids tax twice (the original investment and the company itself).

        Dozens and dozens of Premier League footballers used this as a wheeze and are currently being issued with tax bills as they have been judged to have invested in non-active companies created solely to take in tax avoiding investments.

        Also – tax avoiding companies and celebrities are VERY unpopular here. People REALLY don’t like it.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        The company he holds with Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter appears to be a real estate holding company, not a production comany. He owns 20%.

        My understanding is that they have separate houses that exist on commonly held and managed land or something like that. I think this kind of company is similar to a condo association.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Sixer: We have no way of knowing if Hiddles is claiming tax relief through this company for film production. It does have a net worth, which I assume is a portion of his income since there is nothing else to go on.

      • j says:

        usually for tax avoidance, you don’t draw attention to the company. it never produces anything. but it can take years to get a legit one off the crowd unless you partner with other producers, you need to build a network and invest time. brad pitt even with his influence didn’t start making bread until the company was already 4 years old or so

        and kasier, they didn’t crowdfund enough to cover their production costs lol i don’t think anyone got a paycheck

      • Sixer says:

        Miss J

        Yes, exactly. Same for Benny. And Keira. And all of them. The company itself doesn’t necessarily mean tax avoidance or even tax minimisation. It’s how it’s used. And also, often the companies aren’t owned by the celebrities themselves; they’re a separate avoidance entity, OR a separate, genuine investment entity for that matter. The point is that if a British actor has a production company, it is much less likely to indicate that they actually have production ambitions, you know? They may have such ambitions, but it’s more likely that they’ve incorporated themselves or want to take advantage of tax loopholes.

      • Dara says:

        @Sixer is right, at this point, I’d be surprised if any actor who had received a big Hollywood paycheck at some point in their career didn’t have a ‘production’ company – which is just another way of saying limited liability private company – which will pay lower taxes, but has many other advantages too. My quick 10 minute scroll through the UK database (which the government kindly put online), found companies – in some cases more than one – for every actor I searched for, Cumberbatch (Ben and Tim), Hiddleston, Knightley, Firth, Ejiofor.

        I just want to be clear, we’re not talking about tax evasion – which is illegal. We’re talking tax avoidance – which in the US at least, is a time-honored, perfectly acceptable (even encouraged) practice of lessening your overall tax burden. And it’s not a practice limited to actors or athletes – plenty of ‘ordinary’ people do it too.

      • Sixer says:

        Yes to Dara. Avoidance (legal) not evasion (illegal). Although some of the avoidance schemes avoid to the extent they become evasion. And film production is a current example of that in the UK.

        Ordinary people certainly do it. As a freelancer, I could incorporate myself. However, the added paperwork wouldn’t be worth it for me as most of my personal tax is paid at 20% and only a tiny bit is in the 40% bracket. And I certainly put as much of any savings as I can into perfectly legal – and encouraged – tax-free envelopes that we have here in the UK.

      • neutral says:

        @ various. A company of course doesn’t pay tax on its net worth, it pays it on its profits.

        Regarding the company Tom is a director of along with Tim Burton and HBC etc., I would guess that would be a company responsible to upkeep and maintenance in the common areas of the properties and that it is part of the covenants included in the deeds of the individual properties that you become a director in the company when you purchase one of the properties.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Neutral, I think that is precisely what Steele Studios is.

        As for tax avoidance, I’m an expert at it. All of it is legal, and I would add I would be stupid not to avail myself as much as I possibly can.

      • Sixer says:

        Miss J

        I think what you are missing here is that film production in particular has been an area in which there have been significant problems with avoidance bleeding into evasion here. It’s fine to invest in film-making and get a tax credit for it. The government wants to encourage the industry, which is why it offers tax credits. It is not fine to invest in a film production company that deliberately sets out to make a loss, not create films, because your investors won’t pay any tax if it does. The latter is what has been happening in the UK to the extent there have been outright scandals over it.

        This is why I think you’ll find many actors have production companies that are being allowed to die a quiet death. They’re the ones with the potential to be branded evasion rather than avoidance. Those being used as simple incorporations or to genuinely invest in film will continue, because they are not only legal, but clearly so and good for the industry, in addition to being tax-minimisation vehicles.

        (The property thing is a red herring. That is indeed something similar to your co-operatives.)

      • Jellybean says:

        Fair enough sixer. I am 100% going after the rich for tax avoidance, I am sure they can look at the books and spot problems if they can actually be bothered to make the effort. Of course, with so many of them being school chums, I am sure there isn’t that much pressure from the top.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        Sixer, I carefully said “avoidance” not “evasion” for exactly that reason. My main point is that I don’t see any evidence that Hiddles is trying to use film production as a way to evade taxes– which I agree would be dodgy. I don’t know, but I think he is just incorporating hilmself.

        As for my own tax avoidance– no schemes, no fake companies or anything like that. I just make absolutely sure that I max out my 401K and Roth contributions each year, save all receipts, and maximize deductions.

      • j says:

        oh no, I get that sixer–now i feed bad but appreciate you writing that all out for me
        all i am saying is im still out on the jury here. i have a feeling theyre trying to be a legit company but given their backgrounds, it’ll take years for them to make money. theyre in the hole partly because they bought another script late last year.

    • hermia says:

      I can easily believe the part: keep friends in high paying jobs.

  6. Triple Cardinal says:

    So Cumberbatch got bored or busy and couldn’t focus on business. What’s with the three friends? Is everybody bored or busy?

    BTW, I agree with Esteph in theory, but I’ve also been told that the thing to do when you start a business is pay yourself. You don’t have to pay yourself grandly, but you must cut yourself some paychecks.

  7. Crumpet says:

    I LOVE her hat in the Mail photos. And she is so fresh and pretty. Duchess Kate could take lessons from her on the sophisticated art of makeup.

    • Livvers says:

      I like her hat too, I find that type of plastic netting particularly good at keeping the deer away from my new apple trees. 😉

    • Boston Green Eyes says:

      Oh, there are other photos? I was wondering why Sophie wore what looked to be a yoga outfit under her coat to BP.

  8. Catelina says:

    Didn’t even know he had a production company.

  9. Shewolf says:

    I can’t believe that no one has commented on how Sophie looks like a young Queen Elizabeth…look at some of the back photos…very, very interesting I would say.

    • Karen says:

      I think she looks like a pre-rhinoplasty Jennifer Aniston.

    • teacakes says:

      I can imagine that Sophie’s older self would look much as the Queen looks on coins – they have a rather similar profile with the nose and all.

      • bread says:

        There’s a photo where her and Cumberbatch are meeting Princess Anne, and there is a striking resemblance between Sophie Hunter and the Princess Royal.
        But it’s a look shared by a lot of posh English women, I think. Slightly horsey.

    • InvaderTak says:

      These comparisons are such a litmus test. I think she looks like Marilyn Manson would were he actually a woman. The rest of y’all must be royal watchers lol

      Edit: poster at the DM sees it too. Validation!

  10. anon121 says:

    I think Sophie looks pregnant in the photos. Not surprised that the Queen herself bestowed the honor-I think she’s a Cumberbitch at heart 😉

  11. EN says:

    I see DM is busy trying to dig up some dirt on Cumberbatch, so far unsuccessfully.

  12. mj says:

    Maybe I have a case of the residual Monday Means, but her hair is making me sad. I know, I know, not everyone has the time and money to look great consistently but… looking at her projects lined up and considering their wealth, I’m pretty sure a hair stylist either did her wrong or she insisted on this look.

  13. Leah says:

    Um.. yeah, no. Chiwetel career is far more distinguished and he has worked in Hollywood a lot longer than Benedict. I really don’t think he needs Benedict to remind directors of his existence and/ or brilliance.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Nor do I think Cumberbatch has sufficient clout in the MCU to be suggesting high profile co-stars, especially as it is well known he himself was not first or second choice for the part

      • Kate says:

        It’s not “well known”, that’s just an assumption you’re making, LF. He was the 1st trade-rumored name in reality.

        IA Chitwel didn’t need his help.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        No, Kate, I am not making an assumption.

      • YupYepYam says:

        Yes you are, Lilacflowers.

      • Kate says:

        No sarcasm intended, you’ve have to be unless you’ve personally spoken to someone at Marvel.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Kate, And you and YupYepYam assumed, incorrectly, that I hadn’t.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Actually, the first round of (seriously) rumoured names were Joaquin Phoenix, Jared Leto, and Keanu Reeves. This quickly evolved to Joaquin Phoenix, Tom Hardy, and Benedict Cumberbatch. Then days of ‘they’re really pursuing JP! He wants to do it!’ that culminated in ‘Hey, we got BC and he’s who we wanted all along! Really!’.

      • Kate says:

        Okay, so you asked a higher up at Marvel (lower level employees may hear rumors but not have the facts straight) about how they were casting Strange? I mean…what?

        @TB—Reeves was not considered, according to the man himself, but that rumor came after Phoenix. I believe the first two seriously rumored names were Cumberbatch and Hardy, but Cumberbatch’s cited scheduling conflicts with Hamlet. Then Leto came from a questionable source. Phoenix rumor came after Hardy, Leto and Cumberbatch rumors.

        Personally, while I’m not sure on Cumberbatch, Hardy was definitely not right for the character. While Phoenix is an excellent actor, Marvel looks at other angles too, and he’s terrible at promo.

        Sometimes, I think Marvel casting rumors sync with whatever DC is doing by way of competition, since both Leto and Hardy were cast in the Suicide Squad around the same time. Shame Hardy had to leave that for the Relevant, though; he was a good fit for DC.

  14. Fluff says:

    It’s the norm for an inactive production company to be in the red. Agree that it’s a tax thing.

  15. Atlas says:

    Sunnymarch works for Mr C. on several levels: a smart tax min vehicle alongside creative vehicle. Not sure what his Red Brick Marketing company is used for. Sixer? Any thoughts on that?
    Crowdsourcing Little Favour worked on several levels: income in; shows Sunnymarch is a ‘real company’ not just a tax min vehicle; showcased BC and friends’ work and … And, crowd sourcing LF market tested IRL fan interest. The number of fans who pledged, amount each fan pledged for LF, etc was data gold: into a spreadsheet a biz analyst looked at, along with a lot of other info, to help determine how long the Hamlet run should be/projected number of bums on seats/ticket price points, etc. Nothing wrong with that, btw, all just part of how business works.

  16. Liz says:

    Not only is he majorly unattractive, but also an opportunistic one. Crowdsourcing (86,000 pounds) by a MILLIONAIRE to further HIS pet projects is disgusting. People like him, rely on “there is a sucker born every day.” I wouldn’t give him 2 pennies.

    • Lisa says:

      That’s normal for a newer production company these days. You show documented interest–the funds you raised–to investors as proof of interest for future projects. He’ll need investors because even low budget films can cost more than he’s worth to make. It also kickstarts the establishment of your presence, although you’ve still got networking to do.

      All in all, there’s nothing wrong with it and no one was forced to donate, so…

      • Lucrezia says:

        I don’t understand why people complain about millionaires with crowd-sourced projects. (I’ve seen this complaint about lots of different people/projects.)

        It’s pretty simple: if you don’t want to give them money … don’t give them money.

        If it’s just a complaint about what suckers spend their money on, I can think of a LOT of things more offensive than a crowd-sourced film: flat-out scams, unproven medical treatments, designer baby-clothes, gambling, credit card interest & ATM fees, over-priced coffee, electronics warranties (that cost 50% of the item and cover only a handful of things).