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 YouCanDoBetter (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 15 June 2021 (→‎Recurring collaborators). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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]

Speaking of standard practices, it's a standard Wikipedia practice according to official guidelines on film articles not to count "marketing, advertising and distribution costs" when it comes to when a film breaks even. The rest is only some creative "Hollywood book-keeping" to dump on people that some bigwigs don't like, by only counting those latter costs against misfits but never when it comes to the darlings of studio heads. Speaking of which, the domestic market for Parnassus was the UK, and $7 million drawn in at the UK box office is certainly a lot. Anyways, this supposed rule that films are supposed to make a lot especially in the "domestic market" is a biased US-centric POV when it comes to non-US and maybe non-Canadian films. The rule is non-existent outside of North America.
Anyways, even if the above wouldn't disprove your poor points from the start, there's more in the Vancouver Sun article than just that, namely the fact that the film's *PRODUCERS* have officially stated that the film had broken even before it had even been released, thanks to clever distribution and licensing deals. --2003:EF:1700:B470:40A4:31ED:152D:BBF6 (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2021 (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]

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]

TheOldJacobite We could merge certain sections, specifically Terry Gilliam#Production problems, Terry Gilliam#Projects in development or shelved and Terry Gilliam#Future projects, into one section and title it "Unrealized projects". This is common in other Wikipedia BLP articles about filmmakers such as William Friedkin#Unrealized projects and Nicolas Winding Refn#Unrealized projects. I even created such a section at Frank Oz#Unrealized projects. We could do the same for the Gilliam article, and if that section becomes sizable enough, we could even create an article titled Terry Gilliam's unrealized projects. That's what I did when I created Michael Cimino's unrealized projects. I'm just making a couple of suggestions, that's all. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2019 (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]

Troy

I have added entries in the section of the article titled Projects in development or shelved in which Gilliam turned down offers to direct such films as Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), Forrest Gump (1994), Braveheart (1995) and one of the sequels to Alien (1979). I learned about this information via my discovery of this link from Google Books, which also mentions that Gilliam turned down the offer to direct Troy (2004) after reading five pages of the script. Since the publisher of the Google Books link is Lulu.com, a self-publisher, would I be violating WP:SELFPUB if I were to add the Troy entry to the section using Lulu.com as its reference? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Works

Can I please start a "Known Works" list for Terry Gilliam? He has accomplished many creative endeavors in his life, and I feel it would be cool to pay homage by creating one. Much like the list for Rob Reiner, it can be broken up by his work as an actor, and as a director. Monty Python can go under the acting section, while his films like Time Bandits, The Fisher King, and 12 Monkeys can go under the director section. Please let me know what to include, and I will contact you soon. Thank you. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are WP:POV and WP:SYNTH. They are also deprecated by the filmproject. This has been explained to you many times. MarnetteD|Talk 01:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring collaborators

In my opinion the problem with the table of recurring collaborators is not that it is unsourced. We could easily source that Gilliam worked with for instance Myrtle Devenish on no less than two movies. The problem is the question whether this piece of information is relevant enough. It would be relevant to note if Gilliam in interviews had stated that he had deliberately chosen to repeatedly collaborate with Myrtle Devenish. But in the absence of such a statement by Gilliam, I think the informational value of the table is almost zero. Most of the people mentioned have only worked on two films. The table suggests, by its mere presence, that a two-time collaboration is something special. With thirteen full-length films directed by Gilliam a two-time collaboration is not enough for me to consider being something special. I am in favour of removing the table entirely. We might want to write a short, sourced paragraph about people that Gilliam himself explicitly considers his recurring collaborators. By the way, the existence of this table has previously been discussed in 2016 and in 2013 and in 2010. I have not yet read any convincing argument to include the table. Mark in wiki (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it done on other pages where the minimum collaborations to be included on a table is three rather than two. That's my personal preference. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Gilliam&oldid=1028768808"