Wikipedia

Talk:Terry Gilliam/Archives/2017

< Talk:Terry Gilliam
Latest comment: 7 years ago by 2003:71:4E07:BB07:5DB9:6E6A:B4D1:170 in topic Notable films in lead?


Obituary from Variety (magazine)

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)

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)
@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)
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)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Notable films in lead?

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Gilliam/Archives/2017&oldid=1137224690"