Jump to content

Talk:Terry Gilliam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grandpallama (talk | contribs) at 10:05, 13 June 2019 (→‎No mention of his support of a convicted rapist?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Minnesota Portal Selected Biography


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Template:Vital article

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Terry Gilliam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Terry Gilliam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

box office success?

"Gilliam's $30 million-budgeted film The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus had also become an international box office success, grossing over $60 million in worldwide theatrical release." If you gross 60 million on a 30 million budget you break even. Half the gross revenue is kept by the theaters. I would not call that a success. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parnassus had broken even before the film was even released anywhere, thanks to clever distribution deals, see [1]. Those $65 million are *ON TOP* of the production breaking even. --2003:71:4E07:BB23:9163:E32E:3FE1:A5D3 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Sun citation talks about how the financing was put together, no mention of anything that made this a break-even film budget. Further rights (such as DVD distribution) can be presold, etc., but no discussion in the article of these standard practices. The $30 million production cost is only for getting the film made. It does not include marketing, advertising and distribution costs--which can easily wind up equaling the production costs. That's why as a rough estimate a film is considered "break even" when it makes double the production costs. On top of that, according to Box Office Mojo[2], the film only made $7,689,607 domestic revenue, $54,119,168 in foreign markets. Domestic gross is weighted more heavily, because the producers get more of that money back than from the international market. The entire Box Office section comes off as a puff piece, which is really unnecessary even if that's the aim. Members of the film industry understand the numbers. Not sharing that with Wikipedia users is a disservice to them and to Gilliam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vogelspiegel (talk • contribs) 17:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Unfinished Swan ?

Under "Video Games" , "The Unfinished Swan" is noted. Yet , if you follow the link , there is no mention of Terry Gilliam's involvement. Can anyone confirm or clear this up? ( Or at the very least , note WHAT exactly he had to do with it. ) 75.104.174.54 (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life question

Did he ever serve in the Armed Forces?108.28.23.254 (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in his auto-biography Gilliamesque and some of his interviews as of late. He served in the national guard because, as he says, it left him with enough time between individual service duties to go see Europe and that way, he especially could avoid getting sent to Vietnam. --2003:71:4E6A:B447:C558:4B6D:6E41:1C2F (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring collaborators chart (yet again...)

Back in September 2013, I posted on the talk page, suggesting that the recurring collaborators chart be removed and replaced with a simple list and that the list of collaborators be limited to those who have worked with Gilliam at least three times, rather than just two. At the time, Mark in wiki agreed, saying, "With twelve films in Gilliam's filmography, I do not consider a collaborator that Gilliam has worked with only twice worth mentioning as a "recurring" collaborator. I also agree with TheOldJacobite that a simple list would be better. In my opinion that would be much more appropriate, clear and readable." Now, I don't suggest that a three-year-old consensus between two editors should continue to hold sway, but I do think this needs a new discussion, as the chart has been reinstated with no talk page conversation. Thanks. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those collaborator tables are a huge waste of space for what is some rather inconsequential information - especially when, like you said, stretching it to include people who have done two (wow!) movies together. Besides the space, it's just not the type of information that really gains by being presented in a table. I'm not sure if I think a bit of prose, or a list would be preferable, but I know I can agree that the chart is ridiculous. --SubSeven (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, prose would be best, as long as it's informative and not overly lengthy. Otherwise, a simple list will work. There might be something in the book Dark Knights & Holy Fools about the people he's regularly collaborated with. I'll take a look tonight. It would be good to find some sources who have talked about this. But, the larger point is that the table needs to go. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of his support of a convicted rapist?

There is no mention of his support of convicted felon Roman Polanski. Should this be added?

For those who apparently can't handle the truth about this individual, here is a link to the petition he chose to attach his name to.

[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8003:2040:88e6:9c8c:14b1:cad9 (talk • contribs)

Given that over 100 other people also supported Polanski, can you provide any sources to establish that Gilliam's support was considered particularly controversial in some manner? DonIago (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are controversial, but apparently no one cares about entertainers supporting entertainers who rape children. It would seem no one on wikipedia is willing to tolerate this information posted on their favorite entertainers' pages. Strange that the names of his parents is considered pertinent information but his support of criminals isn't.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8002:500:c5dc:f559:d51a:b1a1 (talk • contribs)

If it's controversial then providing a source should be easy enough. DonIago (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A source has been provided, however I accept that supporting child rape isn't a big deal as long as people like your creative efforts. After all, it wasn't "rape rape", right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8002:500:F54A:9583:6FD8:3808 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"After all, it wasn't "rape rape", right?"

In Roman Polanski's case, we have a detailed article on the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. He offered 13-year-old model Samantha Gailey some champagne, which had been spiked with methaqualone ("Quaalude"). He then performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex on her, while ignoring her protests.

Not only was the sex not consensual to begin with, but it involves the use of a date rape drug.

However, support for Polanski is commonplace. France, Poland, and Switzerland have all opposed extraditing Polanski to the United States. According to a public manifesto in support of Polanski: "Roman Polanski is a French citizen, an artist of international reputation, now threatened to be extradited. This extradition, if brought into effect, would carry a heavy load of consequences as well as deprive the film-maker of his freedom."

Frédéric Mitterrand defended Polanski, because Polanski "always said how much he loves France, and he is a wonderful man". Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: Over 100 other people signing it does not make Gilliam's own support less controversial. I'm not sure what the problem is with the source I originally provided. Celebrities opinions in relation to politics or whatever are often included on their articles so I do not see why this shouldn't be. But how about these: source 1, source 2, source 3? Source 1 does not mention Gilliam by name but is about the support of Polanski in general – sources 2 and 3 do include his name. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed the point. Is there some source that indicates why Gilliam's support of Polanski is particularly critical to Gilliam's career and biography in a way it isn't to all those other signatories? Why is this detail WP-worthy? Grandpallama (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obituary from Variety (magazine)

I apologize if this information has been discussed previously on archived discussions of this talk page. On September 8, 2015, Variety accidentally released a false obituary stating that Gilliam died. I have sources to verify this information from The Guardian and The Washington Post. Is this information trivial? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall this being discussed before, and, no, I don't think it's trivial. Two reputable sources discussing another reputable source's mistaken publication of the death of a noted figure. No, not trivial. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheOldJacobite: Thank you for your input. I mentioned the information on the "Personal life" section. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I also checked the talk page archive and could find no mention of "obituary," "vanity fair," or "vanity fair obituary," so, if it's been discussed previously, none of those terms were used, which seems unlikely. I agree with your edit. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable films in lead?

An editor recently removed several films from the lead, and while I definitely think the list was overly-long, I'm concerned that some films that might be considered notable are now not mentioned, and I think it's a little problematic that there's now no films mentioned after 1998. I suspect there aren't any bright-line criteria that can be used to determine whether a film should be mentioned in the lead, but I also felt I should throw out the question of whether at least one more recent film merits mention. Off the top of my head I'd throw in Parnassus, since that film at least has the distinction of being Heath Ledger's last movie (and generated publicity accordingly), but I'd like to hear from other editors on this before making changes. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about Parnassus myself, precisely because of Ledger, as you say. But, it really feels that the earlier films are much more notable – as a Gilliam fan, I regret saying that, but I also think it's true. It's been a long since Terry made a film that got a lot of attention on its own merits. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth including Parnassus at least to make it clear that he's still active in the industry. Listing nothing from this century feels like an omission, and I would speculate that Parnassus is most notable among those releases, though I might be mistaken. DonIago (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his feature films so far:

  • Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). A modest box office hit of the time, with an enduringly high critical reputation.
  • Jabberwocky (1977). A Medieval fantasy film that satirizes commerce and bureaucracy. It received relatively decent reviews but was not a major hit.
  • Time Bandits (1981). A time travel film that pokes fun at various historical eras, gives a surprisingly sympathetic view of Mycenaean Greece, and concludes with a grim ending. A box office hit of the time, Gilliam's breakthrough hit in the American market, and has an enduringly high critical reputation.
  • Brazil (1985). A dystopian science fiction film, than ends with the protagonist becoming hopelessly insane. A box office flop, but has a particularly high critical reputation, and the film has been cited as a major influence for other films, the entire steampunk genre, and a number of video games.
  • The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988). A fantasy comedy film, that manages to give a dystopian view of the 18th century and the Englightment, serves as a hymn to the imagination, and has an ambiguous finale. The film only had a limited release and was a box office flop. It has an enduringly high critical reputation, and was nominated for several key awards, but mostly ended up as a runner up.
  • The Fisher King (1991). A quest for the Holy Grail in then-modern New York City. A modest box office hit, with a relatively decent critical reputation (though lower than most of his earlier films), and received nominations for several awards.
  • 12 Monkeys (1995). A time travel film, based on a 1960s short film. A surprise box office hit that was actually among the greatest hits of its year. It has a relatively high critical reputation, won some key awards, and it received a television adaptation.
  • Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998). An exploration of Las Vegas by two men using hallucinogenic drugs. A box office flop, with most critics hating or condemning it. However it has a vocal minority of fans, has gained cult film status, and has decent DVD sales.
  • The Brothers Grimm (2005). A fantasy film, where the Brothers Grimm are re-imagined as traveling con-artists instead of academics and philologists. A modest box office hit, but most critics hated it. It has been cited as a major influence to an manga series, and there are efforts to create a television adaptation of the film.
  • Tideland (2005). A fantasy film involving the fantasy life of a recently-orphaned young girl, her reactions to the decomposing corpse of her father, her crush on a mentally-disturbed older man, and said man's plans to bomb a passenger train. It received almost no theatrical release outside Japan, and has a decidedly mixed reputation. It won a major international award and received some great reviews, but other critics have found it too disturbing and unpleasant.
  • The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009). An immortal theatrical troupe leader competes with the Devil over the gaining of souls, while bargaining with the soul of his own teenaged daughter. A modest box office hit, despite its limited release in North America. Relatively decent reviews and critical reputation, it was nominated for a number of awards but did not win.
  • The Zero Theorem (2013). A science fiction film, where a reclusive genius searches for the meaning of life. A box office flop, with decent but unexceptional reviews. Several critics thought it was a comedy, while the film was intended to be a tragedy.

While none of the 12th films are without merits or fans, Gilliam seems to be primarily known for his early works. Which of the films would you want listed? Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be: Time Bandits, Brazil, Munchausen, 12 Monkeys, Fear and Loathing, and Parnassus. I think that pretty well covers the breadth of his career and are, for various reasons, his best known films. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 20:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. To be honest, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is among my favorite films and I have seen it many times, but I did not want to express my own preferences. I have seen most of the others, but I enjoyed them less. I like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but the ending was too abrupt for my taste and does not resolve anything. Dimadick (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to come up with a list that included Holy Grail for "brand recognition" if nothing else, but then my own list started to bloat. I'm okay with the list as-is. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call Munchausen fantasy adventury even more than fantasy comedy, as it's a film that was intended from the start to rival films like The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Thief of Baghdad, and Lawrence of Arabia in grand, epic scale and production values, not tiny fantasy comedy films like Groundhog Day or Scrooged. There are many interviews where Terry says he wanted the film to rival both the 1943 Münchhausen and Thief of Baghdad in epic scale and lushness. On top of that, there are also a number of articles and interviews that say that not only did Terry put most of his being into this one film especially as for plot, script, philosophy, and production style (with Tideland probably second) but that his Munchausen is also regularly the favorite film of Gilliam fans overall, whereas Brazil is more of a favorite for people with a more transitionary or cursory taste for or knowledge of Gilliam (a lot like how Solaris is a film for the masses with a broader commercial appeal, while Stalker is the favorite film for true Tarkovsky fans). Plus, Munchausen also marks another positive turn in Terry's career at least as such that it was the one film with the highest amount of prestigious award wins and nominations at the time, more than any of his previous films (and yes, that includes Brazil!). All of which should give it more credit to appear on a short-list of Terry's most important films, even if the film was never really released in North America and slammed by the US trade press at the time who were getting back at Terry because of his prior victory over the studio system with Brazil.
As for Holy Grail, the case for it is pretty simply: Found on many official short-lists of best British comedy films of all time, and even internationally best comedy films of all time, as well as on many, many lists of important cult films. Especially 70s cult films, where it sits solidly next to A Clockwork Orange, THX 1138, Aguirre, Wrath of God, Silent Running, and Carpenter's Dark Star. (I'd hesitate to include Zardoz, because that one's really too trashy to appear right next to any of them.)
As for the early films vs. late films, I agree that there's some tangible change in tone after his failed first attempt at Don Quixotte, one that's much more noticeable than his usual changes about every decade (Trilogy of Imagination vs. Trilogy of Americana, for instance). You'll be hard-pressed to find a Gilliam fan who'd cite any of his films after this watershed among their favorites of his, maybe with Tideland as an exception (though the justifications I've heard for liking Tideland sounded much more like people actually liked the book or story and so hard wanted to see a good adaptation of it, and some seem also touched by how much Terry himself feels for the book and wanted to do it justice). --2003:71:4E07:BB07:5DB9:6E6A:B4D1:170 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Terry Gilliam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future projects

Everything listed under future projects are actually items from 3-6 years old. Did any of these pan out? Are any still in development? At what point do we remove all of it? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Academy award awarded

Terry Gilliam won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for his role in The Fisher King? Don't think so... According to the Wikitable "Academy awards" he did. anyone? Equinoxepart5 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the page you've seen saying he won this award? I cannot find it. Mercedes Ruehl won the award for her part in The Fisher King. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see what you mean now. The table should include the names of the nominees, or restrict itself to awards for which Gilliam himself was nominated. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Gilliam&oldid=901646753"