Talk:Terry Gilliam

Brazil

Gilliam's Brazil is known among cineastes as a drastic example of things that can go wrong when a director doesn't have [final cut]? and the studio steps in to "take control" of a situation it sees as spiralling out of control

It's not a drastic example because Gilliam got what he wanted while most directors don't. It's nonetheless very telling, because the Battle of Brazil is aptly documented. Is there a better expression? --Yooden

Gilliam did not get what he wanted at first; for awhile the only version available was the studio version. The same is true with Blade Runner (Ridley Scott), btw, which has just recently been rereleased in a Director's Cut which has a darker ending and an interesting dream sequence (& Mr. Scott is no cheery fellow--he wanted to end Alien with Ripley's death, and have the alien calling earth somehow). But to answer your question, yes, there is probably a better way to phrase that. --KQ

The above is not true, incidentally. For a while, the picture simply was not released while the arguing continued. The first time the picture was released, it was Gilliam's cut. I'll add a little detail, though of course the details really belong in the Brazil article. Tempshill 17:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IIRC the film was not released at all because of the Battle; Gilliam made clandestine previews and got some price or other (Golden Globe?) for the Final Final Cut which was subsequentially released. I can check that on the exceptional Criterion DVD tonight.

Blade Runner: "just recently"? That was ten years ago. It's also a different issue because the changes were minor and in part (voice over) a Good Thing. (The Deckard=Replicant thing was not new either.) I disgress...

Anyway, The discussion which version of a film is 'valid' is worth a page on its own, but I don't have the time and can't think of a name. --Yooden

KQ- I'm a big fan of Brazil, but I've never heard about the Gilliam's studio battles. Could you provide a few links, or ever a write-up? --Eventi

I'm a big fan of Brazil

You should most definitively get the Criterion Collection DVD. It has the European cut (a few minutes longer than the US Final Final Cut), lots of bonus material, including a documentary about the Battle of Brazil and the crippled version proposed by the studio (which was later shown on TV).

Checking Google even showed a book about it!

There are at least two books about it, actually; one is by Gilliam and another is not. It's been too long ago for me to do a proper writeup about it without a lot of research; I think my memories on it are slipping. What I remembered most was that the studio wanted to force a different ending on it which Gilliam considered inappropriate, but I'd rather have specific details before adding it to the main article (this studio ending was released on VHS at some point, btw; my library had a copy and I saw it in '95). Even directors with supposed "final cut" frequently are badgered into making changes--this from no less than Martin Scorsese, one of the few directors claiming final cut who does indeed have it--he reports that various studio executives would call his mother trying to persuade her to persuade him to cut the part at the end of Goodfellas where Ray Liotta gets up and walks towards the camera, talking to it, while people around him pretend not to notice. Anyway. Yes, we should definitely have an article about the phenomenon, though I don't know where to put it--maybe it would be most at home in an article on final cut? --KQ

I never even saw the studio version, but if they would have prevailed, we'd lost one of the perfect ends in the history of cinema. "He's got away from us, Jack." I'm getting excited just thinking about it.

As it is, they wanted a lot more than just the end. About 30 minutes IIRC.

Yes, final cut is fine. I never get these Wikipedia caps right: Is it supposed to be Final Cut? --Yooden

I think it's usually lowercase, unless it's part of a title or other proper noun. The point is accidental linking, though I expect the point will be moot once the new version is uploaded; it will treat all letters at the beginning of a word as a cap. --KQ

Nationality

Would it not be a better idea to describe him as "British-American", since he took British citizenship, and resided in Britain for so long? Also, many of his films (eg Brazil) are known as British, rather than American productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.32.18 (talk)

Thats true...but his British films really only take a very small part of his career, and even then are mostly at the beginning. The subject of his nationality is a little tricky. Since he is still an American citizen (and considers himself an American) calling him British is doing him a bit of a disservice...he doesnt hate America, just what America has become.-s8ntmark

Pfft...there's no difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.93.89 (talk) 17:27, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

"American-born British" is the correct description now, as he gave up his US citizenship earlier this year. -- Arwel (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent reworking of the citizenship detail...whoever did it :) Heres a great interview that Gilliam had with Salman Rushdie it has really good details http://www.believermag.com/issues/200303/?read=interview_gilliam

I've reworked the lead to reflect the citizenship. I've based it on the version that was more-or-less stable in January 2006. That one held for a while before being gradually whittled away. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Since he is still an American citizen (and considers himself an American) calling him British is doing him a bit of a disservice.." I'm afraid Gilliam rejected this on British Film Forever and spoke of having given up US citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.177.72 (talk) 21:36, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

National Guard?

I didnt know he was in the National Guard!

Birthplace?

A resident of Minneapolis myself, I have often heard that Gilliam was one of us. Medicine Lake is cited later in the article, however as his birthplace? I don't like contradictions. ColinKennedy 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cult filmmaker?

I think we have to add a few lines about the 'Cult'status he has: nearly all 11 films he's made are all categorised as 'Cultfilms'. He is an important director/animator and has inlfuenced many SciFi-films, however, a category 'Cultdirectors' doesn't exist... Make one? --Lord Snoeckx 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate?

There are two different birthdates in this article. Which one is correct?

Gorillaz?

There is indeed an animated Untitled Gorillaz Project announced for 2007 in IMDb, but nothing about Gilliam there. Can you please name your source Matt Dogg? --Hoverfish 20:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fear & Loathing

Why "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is not marked as a milestone? Only financialy successful movies may be placed in the table?

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

• I have included an entry regarding the recent announcement by Terry Gilliam on Dreams and with supporting links. LEX LETHAL 16:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox available

{{User:UBX/Terry Gilliam}}

This user knows that Terry Gilliam
is enfant terrible, le grand auteur, and python magnifique. ^†

--One Salient Oversight 01:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Philip K Dick

I note that there is as of yet no mention of Gilliam's love of PKD, and intent at various times to do films of the late author's works. Not the least of which was Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and even more intriguingly Valis. As ever I shall provide some references to this when possible...

...unless someone else wants to in the meantime.

--Amedeo Felix 12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Animation

Half of the content in the animation section are unreferenced assertions about Gilliam's animation style being mimicked in television shows, movies, and commercials. If there are no references for any of this, it should all go. Surely more important things can be said about his animation work, and the people who have been ifluenced by same, yes? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What's more, it appears to be repeated at least twice nearly verbatim in different sections of the article... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)