"Brothers Grimm" ads somewhat depressing
RichA
That sickeningly unrealistically smooth computer motion!!!
However, I will see the film, if only because the concept seems
interesting.
-Rich
trotsky
> I see the use of unconvincing CGI just KEEPS on coming!!!
> That sickeningly unrealistically smooth computer motion!!!
Haven't I explained this to you, Rich? CGI that's designed to look good
on the big screen often looks awful on the small screen. I'm not sure
why this is.
moviePig
A theory: You're (successively) aware of pieces of a big-screen
image... exploring your environment, as it were. But you tend to take
in the entirety of a small screen in a single glance... so you're more
likely to see in terms of its grosser aspects, such as its frame-shape
(or, indeed, large-scale motion within that frame). E.g., the Mona
Lisa's meant to be seen up close, and probably loses something as a
Louvre souvenir playing card.
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/
RichA
-Rich
trotsky
>
> trotsky wrote:
>
>> RichA wrote:
>>
>>> I see the use of unconvincing CGI just KEEPS on coming!!!
>>> That sickeningly unrealistically smooth computer motion!!!
>>
>>
>> Haven't I explained this to you, Rich? CGI that's designed to look
>> good on the big screen often looks awful on the small screen. I'm not
>> sure why this is.
>
>
> A theory: You're (successively) aware of pieces of a big-screen
> image... exploring your environment, as it were. But you tend to take
> in the entirety of a small screen in a single glance... so you're more
> likely to see in terms of its grosser aspects, such as its frame-shape
> (or, indeed, large-scale motion within that frame). E.g., the Mona
> Lisa's meant to be seen up close, and probably loses something as a
> Louvre souvenir playing card.
That's a cool theory. My theory would've been something along the lines
of effects designed for 24 fps film not looking good on 30 fps video,
but again I'm just guessing. I do know there have been many, many times
when I've seen CGI on commercial on TV that didn't look good that wound
up looking terrific in the theater.
trotsky
> Fake motion translates across both mediums.
"Media" would be the plural, Rich, and if your eye detects it as motion
how is it "fake"? Are the movements of 24 frames per second film "fake"?
RichA
even some matt paintings do, but much of the CGI we see DOES NOT!!!!!
Manco
> What, did 24 fps just appear now? Funny how MODELS look good,
> even some matt paintings do, but much of the CGI we see DOES NOT!!!!!
because it's all about cramming low-quality CG into movies for the sake of
it. You have to go back to 1991, Terminator 2, when CG was truly
ground-breaking and integral PART of the movie instead of being THE movie.
Jordan
REAL brothers Grimm. This looks like what would have come about if Van
Helsing had been a success.
- Jordan
Derek Janssen
> I dunno, I was more interested when I thought it was a movie about the
> REAL brothers Grimm.
There ain't no bigger cheat on an audience than the cutesy-fictionalized
"What if the author lived his own stories?" hi-concept--
Tells us absolute dick about the author AND gets the stories
boneheadedly wrong, in one stroke...And that's even just when they're
*not* just re-doing Van Helsing. (Or "The Frighteners".)
> This looks like what would have come about if Van
> Helsing had been a success.
"It's like the classic fairy tales, only they're DARK!"
...Yawn. Yawn, yawn, dribble, snooze.
If this is "groundbreaking Gilliam", neither you nor Terry gets out much.
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
J...@tmbg.org
>
>If this is "groundbreaking Gilliam", neither you nor Terry gets out much.
Who said it was?
-Jay
Derek Janssen
Every fanboy who has a copy of "12 Monkeys" on his shelf.
Derek Janssen (and 3, 2, 1...)
dja...@charter.net
trotsky
> What, did 24 fps just appear now? Funny how MODELS look good,
> even some matt paintings do, but much of the CGI we see DOES NOT!!!!!
Well, there's a cause and effect relationship there, but you seem too
dumb to grasp it. Sorry.
tomcervo
was dropped at the producer's insistance because she wasn't PRETTY
enough--and replaced with a Keira Knightly clone.
trotsky
trotsky
> J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>
>> Derek Janssen <dja...@nospam.charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If this is "groundbreaking Gilliam", neither you nor Terry gets out
>>> much.
>>
>>
>> Who said it was?
>
>
> Every fanboy who has a copy of "12 Monkeys" on his shelf.
Interesting--and I would've thought the guy who believed there was such
a thing as "Terry Gilliam fanboys" was the one who didn't get out much.
moviePig
trotsky wrote:
(Speaking of convincing f/x, I just watched Miyazaki's NAUSICAA, and
that's about as effective a fantasy environment as I've seen drawn...
despite the fact that its ultra-coarse frame strobing, typical of anime,
renders all motion anything but "realistic"...)
J...@tmbg.org
Well, using "owning a copy of 12 Monkeys" as a definition of fanboyism is
pretty bad, considering it's Gilliam's most successful film. It'd be like
labelling
everyone who owns LOTR as a Peter Jackson fanboy. A much more apt
confirmation of fanboyism would be if one owned a copy of Jaberwocky.
I consider myself a pretty large Gilliam fan. I own the aforementioned
Jaberwocky. I own and have read 4 different books about Gilliam and his
films, and the main reason I got a DVD player was so I could purchase and
watch the Critetion SE of Brazil. All that, yet I still don't think The
Brothers
Grimm will be "groundbreaking Gilliam." In fact, us "fanboys" are more in
the know and know the truth about Grimm: It's Gilliam's stab at making a
"mainstream" film after failing to get any of his personal projects off the
ground. Basically it was just a gig he did for the money.
-Jay
RichA
and what worked in 1990
does not work now.
The "effect" is missed by the myopic.
trotsky
> (Speaking of convincing f/x, I just watched Miyazaki's NAUSICAA, and
> that's about as effective a fantasy environment as I've seen drawn...
> despite the fact that its ultra-coarse frame strobing, typical of anime,
> renders all motion anything but "realistic"...)
Wait, aren't you going to launch into the ""Howl's Moving Castle" was
indescribably awful compared to other Miyazaki animes" diatribe?
Oh, right, that wasn't you. How was "Nausicaa"--I haven't seen it yet.
trotsky
I don't buy it. Gilliam strikes me as too much of a perfectionist to
simply do something for the money. As for "groundbreaking", I don't
even know what that means. The aforementioned LOTR was groundbreaking
in a number of ways, but I don't expect everything Jackson does here on
in to be groundbreaking. Ditto for Gilliam. You may think of him as a
director, but I still think of him as the guy who did animations on
Monty Python. I also consider him an A-list director, but again, I have
no idea what we're supposed to expect when he makes a film that is
"groundbreaking".
trotsky
Rich, you remind me of the Kevin Kline character in "A Fish Called
Wanda": "Don't call me stupid!"
moviePig
trotsky wrote:
Wasn't I. I was the PRINCESS MONONUCLEOSIS diatribe. HMC, in fact,
along with ensuing discussions, moved me to watch *more* Miyazaki.
Miyazaki's endings always cloy for me, but, that aside, I liked NAUSICAA
quite a lot, especially for its visual energy, sense of place, etc.
(...the usual Miyazaki suspects). And it fit into the cgi-motion
thread, because it manages, despite its comparatively primitive medium,
to repeatedly snap you viscerally into a large-scale fantasy landscape.
(Cf. 'Dune'.) Liked it more than PORCO ROSSO, fwiw, but I suspect
that's a personal thing...
J...@tmbg.org
>
>J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>
>> In fact, us "fanboys" are more in
>> the know and know the truth about Grimm: It's Gilliam's stab at making a
>> "mainstream" film after failing to get any of his personal projects off the
>> ground. Basically it was just a gig he did for the money.
>
>
>I don't buy it. Gilliam strikes me as too much of a perfectionist to
>simply do something for the money.
Maybe not just for the money, but it's clear from interviews and
such that his heart wasn't 100% in it. It's not a personal project,
but one he picked up.
From http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/644/644724p2.html
GILLIAM: Admittedly, after Quixote went down I spent two years on various
projects, and none of them seemed to come to fruition. I was really
reaching a point where I thought, "Well, it's finished. It's over. I'm
washed up. Nothing I can do gets off the ground." Chuck Roven, who produced
12 Monkeys, kept pestering me about Grimm, and I kept saying no. Eventually
I succumbed, because at least I was moving back into a world I understood
and felt at home in, and I knew I could make something magical out of it.
So that's how I got lured into it.
IGNFF: From an outside observer, it appears to be more most commercial
project since 12 Monkeys…
GILLIAM: I hope! But unless we get some publicity out there, it's going to
be the least commercial project I've ever done!
IGNFF: At which point it will be known as the film that could have been the
most commercial project since 12 Monkeys…
GILLIAM: Exactly! (laughing) The deal that Johnny Depp and I made after
Quixote was that we were both going to go off and make commercial films so
that we were in a stronger position to re-float Quixote, and he certainly
went off and made a commercial hit! And it looks like he's made another one…
IGNFF: So he's wondering when you're going to live up to the deal…
GILLIAM: Yeah, it's my turn! I hope we do well, and at the end of this
month we'll know.
......
GILLIAM: Yeah, I know… To be honest, it's such hard work. It's so painful
that I've really got to believe in it to do it. I'm not interested in going
out and just making a living making movies. Even just the process – the
technology of making a film – doesn't interest me that much. It's got to be
something else that moves me and gets me excited. Most of the scripts that
I've said no to just haven't done the job. But in the past I've probably
been in a stronger position, so ultimately Chuck Roven took advantage of my
depressed state and got me to do Grimm. (laughing)
And from http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/grimm1.php
Question: DO YOU FEEL TO SOME DEGREE THAT THIS IS A SELL OUT MOVIE?
Gilliam: [laughs] Yes. Because, if you notice the lead actors' teeth are
pretty clean. It's the first time I've done a period film where your lead
actors have got decent teeth.
Question: HOW DID YOU OVERCOME THAT FEELING?
Gilliam: I actually set out, when actually, this project was, I actually
did say I wanted to make a commercial film, whatever that means. And then
you start finding, well who knows what a commercial film is? Then you get
in arguments with people, you know, that's not commercial if I do that,
well, I'm sorry, I've got to do that! And then I think it was Matt [Damon]
that said, you know, he doesn't know how not to do a commercial, or how to
do a commercial film, he said, all I can do is do what I actually believe
it when I'm doing it, and if somebody says well that's not gonna work
because then the public won't like it, I go well how do you know? And so, I
ended up just doing what I do.
>As for "groundbreaking", I don't
>even know what that means. The aforementioned LOTR was groundbreaking
>in a number of ways, but I don't expect everything Jackson does here on
>in to be groundbreaking. Ditto for Gilliam.
I suspect Derek was just aiming for a clever alliteration, "groundbreaking
Gilliam," without fully thinking through the meanings. Certainly Gilliam
has
a singular vision that has probably influenced many people but has never
been fully copied. Also, some aspects his films have been groundbreaking.
Time Bandits was groundbreaking in its time for being a film adults could
enjoy as much as their kids, although it took Hollywood another decade to
fully grab onto this apporach. 12 Monkeys had a groundbreaking
performance by Brad Pitt, in that it was his first role where he hadthe
stretch
his acting muscles outside of pretty-boy romantic lead. Still, it's
probably
too much to expect every Gilliam film to be "groundbreaking:, instead of
just
merely very good or great.
-Jay
Derek Janssen
>>As for "groundbreaking", I don't
>>even know what that means. The aforementioned LOTR was groundbreaking
>>in a number of ways, but I don't expect everything Jackson does here on
>>in to be groundbreaking. Ditto for Gilliam.
>
> I suspect Derek was just aiming for a clever alliteration, "groundbreaking
> Gilliam," without fully thinking through the meanings. Certainly Gilliam
> has
> a singular vision that has probably influenced many people but has never
> been fully copied. Also, some aspects his films have been groundbreaking.
> Time Bandits was groundbreaking in its time for being a film adults could
> enjoy as much as their kids, although it took Hollywood another decade to
> fully grab onto this apporach.
On the commentary, Gilliam *thought* he was doing a "nasty, cynical
twisted" children's story with "Bandits"--
But I can speak for a lot of children's-book fans who only WISHED they
could find something as directly on-the-mark children's-appealing as the
Sean Connery "Agamemnon" segment, before the Harry Potters came out...
(Which tends to be my reaction to Gilliam's own vision of his work vs.
the audience's:
Maybe it's dating back to the experience of finally sitting through the
"embattled" Brazil after all the headlines, and having the feeling of
being clubbed sensenless with gags that weren't quite as irreverent or
satirical as Gilliam was CONVINCED they were...)
> Still, it's probably
> too much to expect every Gilliam film to be "groundbreaking:, instead of
> just merely very good or great.
Heard Gilliam on the "Holy Grail" DVD commentary shake his head that he
"can't even remember" doing those funky Python animations thirty years ago--
Really....And it could be said, once you lose that bit of Python in you,
it don't come back with practice.
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
J...@tmbg.org
>
>J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>
>> Certainly Gilliam has
>> a singular vision that has probably influenced many people but has never
>> been fully copied. Also, some aspects his films have been groundbreaking.
>> Time Bandits was groundbreaking in its time for being a film adults could
>> enjoy as much as their kids, although it took Hollywood another decade to
>> fully grab onto this apporach.
>
>On the commentary, Gilliam *thought* he was doing a "nasty, cynical
>twisted" children's story with "Bandits"--
>But I can speak for a lot of children's-book fans who only WISHED they
>could find something as directly on-the-mark children's-appealing as the
>Sean Connery "Agamemnon" segment, before the Harry Potters came out...
Um, that was the *point* of that segment. Or, did you miss Gilliam and
Michael Palin talking about Agamemnon as a "surrogate father" and
how the kid didn't *want* to leave and was upset when the bandits made
him leave?
>(Which tends to be my reaction to Gilliam's own vision of his work vs.
>the audience's:
Isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to speak on behalf of the audience?
Why does it even matter what he thinks of his work? What should
matter is what you think of it.
>> Still, it's probably
>> too much to expect every Gilliam film to be "groundbreaking:, instead of
>> just merely very good or great.
>
>Heard Gilliam on the "Holy Grail" DVD commentary shake his head that he
>"can't even remember" doing those funky Python animations thirty years ago--
>Really....And it could be said, once you lose that bit of Python in you,
>it don't come back with practice.
Gilliam hasn't tried to be Python since the Life of Brian. Even on Meaning
of Life his contribution to the film was so out of sync with the rest of the
film that they had to cut it out and play it as a short before the film.
Gilliam's
vision became grander and visually interesting than Python. However,
he never really lost the sense of the absurd, keeping it all the way up to
the last film he made, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which absoluteld
revelled in it.
-Jay
Derek Janssen
>>>Certainly Gilliam has
>>>a singular vision that has probably influenced many people but has never
>>>been fully copied. Also, some aspects his films have been groundbreaking.
>>>Time Bandits was groundbreaking in its time for being a film adults could
>>>enjoy as much as their kids, although it took Hollywood another decade to
>>>fully grab onto this apporach.
>>
>>On the commentary, Gilliam *thought* he was doing a "nasty, cynical
>>twisted" children's story with "Bandits"--
>>But I can speak for a lot of children's-book fans who only WISHED they
>>could find something as directly on-the-mark children's-appealing as the
>>Sean Connery "Agamemnon" segment, before the Harry Potters came out...
>
> Um, that was the *point* of that segment. Or, did you miss Gilliam and
> Michael Palin talking about Agamemnon as a "surrogate father" and
> how the kid didn't *want* to leave and was upset when the bandits made
> him leave?
No, I caught the part where Gilliam was patting himself on the back for
"Y'see, the joke's on him, 'cause he finds out that the king ISN'T
really heroic, and, see, the king's kind of a con man, 'cause he's doing
the shell game!"
(Really?--So, *not* more along the lines of "Kevin discovers real kings
don't really like war as much as all the books he'd read say they do",
then?...Darn, and here the rest of us were, thinking Terry was smart
enough to have come up with the same good movie the rest of us had.)
>>(Which tends to be my reaction to Gilliam's own vision of his work vs.
>>the audience's:
>
> Isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to speak on behalf of the audience?
(I see one of his films, I'm an audience. Any other qualifications,
Border Guard?)
> Why does it even matter what he thinks of his work?
(Well, if he thinks it's *good*, it probably won't improve.)
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
J...@tmbg.org
>> Michael Palin talking about Agamemnon as a "surrogate father" and
>> how the kid didn't *want* to leave and was upset when the bandits made
>> him leave?
>
>No, I caught the part where Gilliam was patting himself on the back for
>"Y'see, the joke's on him, 'cause he finds out that the king ISN'T
>really heroic, and, see, the king's kind of a con man, 'cause he's doing
>the shell game!"
>
>(Really?--So, *not* more along the lines of "Kevin discovers real kings
>don't really like war as much as all the books he'd read say they do",
>then?...Darn, and here the rest of us were, thinking Terry was smart
>enough to have come up with the same good movie the rest of us had.)
I don't know what commentary you were listening to. I listened to that
section again yesterday and the sentiment I got from Gilliam's comments
don't mesh at all with what you *think* he said. In fact, they mesh better
with what you feel is the correct interpretation of that scene.
>>>(Which tends to be my reaction to Gilliam's own vision of his work vs.
>>>the audience's:
>>
>> Isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to speak on behalf of the audience?
>
>(I see one of his films, I'm an audience. Any other qualifications,
>Border Guard?)
You're a part of the audience, not the audience in its entirety such as
you use it. Don't say "we", "us," and "audience" if you truly mean
"me," "myself," and "I." You come off as a pompous ass. You can
only speak for yourself, no matter how hard you delude yourself that
your views reflect the masses.
>> Why does it even matter what he thinks of his work?
>
>(Well, if he thinks it's *good*, it probably won't improve.)
So, you didn't like Time Bandits?
-Jay
Darryl
J...@tmbg.org wrote:
> Question: DO YOU FEEL TO SOME DEGREE THAT THIS IS A SELL OUT MOVIE?
>
> Gilliam: [laughs] Yes. Because, if you notice the lead actors' teeth are
> pretty clean. It's the first time I've done a period film where your lead
> actors have got decent teeth.
I think Gilliam does tend to get bogged down in these stupid details
that few moviegoers care about, or even notice. It reminds me of two
things:
1) the attention to detail that was paid to all the clothing in
"Waterworld" so that it was all made from materials likely to be
available to a sea-only society, when the poor slump watching the movie
can't really tell if the codpiece is made from leather or urine-tanned
shark hide. Accuracy in a movie's set does not counter any essential
suckiness in the script.
2) the skit on Saturday Night Live where Blue Oyster Cult is trying to
record "Don't Fear The Reaper", and a ridiculous amount of attention is
spent getting the cowbell sound exactly right, as if that was the core
of the song.
I can only imagine Gilliam, 70 years ago, recording a radio
program...."No, dammit, the galloping coconut shells need to sound
HORSIER! That's what the Lone Ranger is all about!"
Derek Janssen
>
>>>Why does it even matter what he thinks of his work?
>>
>>(Well, if he thinks it's *good*, it probably won't improve.)
>
>
> So, you didn't like Time Bandits?
It was a lot of accidental good ideas thrown off in the wrong direction
by somebody convinced he had intentionally "brilliant" ones--
Now, if he had done "Baron Munchhausen" immediately after "Bandits"
instead of after "Brazil"...
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
Derek Janssen
> J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>
>>Question: DO YOU FEEL TO SOME DEGREE THAT THIS IS A SELL OUT MOVIE?
>>
>>Gilliam: [laughs] Yes. Because, if you notice the lead actors' teeth are
>>pretty clean. It's the first time I've done a period film where your lead
>>actors have got decent teeth.
>
>
> I think Gilliam does tend to get bogged down in these stupid details
> that few moviegoers care about, or even notice. It reminds me of two
> things:
Er, THINK he was referring to the fact that this's the first Gilliam
period movie (and to what he thought to a selling-out degree) where the
period isn't Early Jabberwocky/Life of Brian Peasant Grunge--
Or, to paraphrase one of his earlier, where even the kings don't have
sh*t all over them.
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
trotsky
> Derek Janssen <dja...@nospam.charter.net> wrote:
>
>>J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Um, that was the *point* of that segment. Or, did you miss Gilliam and
>>>Michael Palin talking about Agamemnon as a "surrogate father" and
>>>how the kid didn't *want* to leave and was upset when the bandits made
>>>him leave?
>>
>>No, I caught the part where Gilliam was patting himself on the back for
>>"Y'see, the joke's on him, 'cause he finds out that the king ISN'T
>>really heroic, and, see, the king's kind of a con man, 'cause he's doing
>>the shell game!"
>>
>>(Really?--So, *not* more along the lines of "Kevin discovers real kings
>>don't really like war as much as all the books he'd read say they do",
>>then?...Darn, and here the rest of us were, thinking Terry was smart
>>enough to have come up with the same good movie the rest of us had.)
>
>
> I don't know what commentary you were listening to. I listened to that
> section again yesterday and the sentiment I got from Gilliam's comments
> don't mesh at all with what you *think* he said.
The B-52s had a song about this: "You're Living in Your Own Private Idaho".
J...@tmbg.org
>
>
>J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>> Question: DO YOU FEEL TO SOME DEGREE THAT THIS IS A SELL OUT MOVIE?
>>
>> Gilliam: [laughs] Yes. Because, if you notice the lead actors' teeth are
>> pretty clean. It's the first time I've done a period film where your lead
>> actors have got decent teeth.
>
>I think Gilliam does tend to get bogged down in these stupid details
>that few moviegoers care about, or even notice. It reminds me of two
>things:
>
>1) the attention to detail that was paid to all the clothing in
>"Waterworld" so that it was all made from materials likely to be
>available to a sea-only society, when the poor slump watching the movie
>can't really tell if the codpiece is made from leather or urine-tanned
>shark hide. Accuracy in a movie's set does not counter any essential
>suckiness in the script.
Gilliam has been known to not see the forest through the just-starting-to-
sprout trees (see the making off doc on the 12 Monkeys DVD).
However, he is (usually) smart enough to start with a good script or
story. And attention to detail isn't a bad thing and long as everthing
else is in place. Nobody faulted the LOTR films for their attention
to non-essential details that never made it onto the screen.
>2) the skit on Saturday Night Live where Blue Oyster Cult is trying to
>record "Don't Fear The Reaper", and a ridiculous amount of attention is
>spent getting the cowbell sound exactly right, as if that was the core
>of the song.
>
>I can only imagine Gilliam, 70 years ago, recording a radio
>program...."No, dammit, the galloping coconut shells need to sound
>HORSIER! That's what the Lone Ranger is all about!"
Um, you do realize that Gilliam actually *did* work with coconut shells
to make them sound like a horse gallop? In fact he appears on screen
doing as such.
-Jay
J...@tmbg.org
>
>J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>>
>>>>Why does it even matter what he thinks of his work?
>>>
>>>(Well, if he thinks it's *good*, it probably won't improve.)
>>
>>
>> So, you didn't like Time Bandits?
>
>It was a lot of accidental good ideas thrown off in the wrong direction
>by somebody convinced he had intentionally "brilliant" ones--
Well, he didn't write the script solo. And so far, the one example
of "accidental" good ideas you've provided is actually stated as
intentional by the commentary.
>Now, if he had done "Baron Munchhausen" immediately after "Bandits"
>instead of after "Brazil"...
People slam Munchausen often, all the time forgetting that it's actually
a good film. The main differences that would've happened would be
that Munchausen would've been produced by Arnon Milchin, the film,
if it even actually got off the ground, would've had a proper budget
in the first place instead of an unrealisticly low one, they would've
have gotten bilked by the Italians mooching off the biggest film to
hit their shores since Cleopatra, and the film may or may not have
been sunk at the theatres by the studio, considering it would've been
made during a shift in power at the top (like it was anyway).
-Jay
Derek Janssen
>
>>Now, if he had done "Baron Munchhausen" immediately after "Bandits"
>>instead of after "Brazil"...
>
> People slam Munchausen often, all the time forgetting that it's actually
> a good film. The main differences that would've happened would be
> that Munchausen would've been produced by Arnon Milchin, the film,
> if it even actually got off the ground, would've had a proper budget
> in the first place instead of an unrealisticly low one, they would've
> have gotten bilked by the Italians mooching off the biggest film to
> hit their shores since Cleopatra, and the film may or may not have
> been sunk at the theatres by the studio, considering it would've been
> made during a shift in power at the top (like it was anyway).
But in the script sense, it would at least have more of the "Neat ideas
randomly thrown around for the weird-imagery sense of it"
accidental-fairytale quality of "Bandits", and not have been infected so
much by the "Brilliant persecuted satirist of the ages" excesses of
having to keep his reputation alive after "Brazil"--
Ie., there're cute heck-of-it scenes in AoBM, trying to capture the
original story, until The Point ("Look!--It's a satire of Bureaucratic
War! Isn't that neat?") keeps trying to wave at the camera and upstage
the actors...
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net
Invid Fan
> "Darryl" <Dar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I can only imagine Gilliam, 70 years ago, recording a radio
> >program...."No, dammit, the galloping coconut shells need to sound
> >HORSIER! That's what the Lone Ranger is all about!"
>
> Um, you do realize that Gilliam actually *did* work with coconut shells
> to make them sound like a horse gallop? In fact he appears on screen
> doing as such.
>
Yes, but his point was that Gilliam would have tried to get the sound
perfect for a live radio performance, where the goal at the time was
just don't fuck up. I don't agree with that, but it's what he was going
for :)
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
J...@tmbg.org
>
>J...@tmbg.org wrote:
>>
>>>Now, if he had done "Baron Munchhausen" immediately after "Bandits"
>>>instead of after "Brazil"...
>>
>> People slam Munchausen often, all the time forgetting that it's actually
>> a good film. The main differences that would've happened would be
>> that Munchausen would've been produced by Arnon Milchin, the film,
>> if it even actually got off the ground, would've had a proper budget
>> in the first place instead of an unrealisticly low one, they would've
>> have gotten bilked by the Italians mooching off the biggest film to
>> hit their shores since Cleopatra, and the film may or may not have
>> been sunk at the theatres by the studio, considering it would've been
>> made during a shift in power at the top (like it was anyway).
>
>But in the script sense, it would at least have more of the "Neat ideas
>randomly thrown around for the weird-imagery sense of it"
>accidental-fairytale quality of "Bandits", and not have been infected so
>much by the "Brilliant persecuted satirist of the ages" excesses of
>having to keep his reputation alive after "Brazil"--
Well, again, Gilliam doesn't write his scripts solo. For Munchausen
he wrote with Charles Mckeown, whom he partnered with on
Brazil after Tom Stoppard had a go at the script. So if Munchausen
was written first, it's anyone's guess what Stoppard would've done
with it.
>Ie., there're cute heck-of-it scenes in AoBM, trying to capture the
>original story, until The Point ("Look!--It's a satire of Bureaucratic
>War! Isn't that neat?") keeps trying to wave at the camera and upstage
>the actors...
You seem to have watched completely different movies thanI have.
The jabs at war are there, but the certainly aren't the focus of the
film. In fact, for the majority of the film the war is nearly completely
forgotten.
-Jay
J...@tmbg.org
>
>In article <ZmTPe.17766$1g2....@fe05.lga>, <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
>
>> "Darryl" <Dar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >I can only imagine Gilliam, 70 years ago, recording a radio
>> >program...."No, dammit, the galloping coconut shells need to sound
>> >HORSIER! That's what the Lone Ranger is all about!"
>>
>> Um, you do realize that Gilliam actually *did* work with coconut shells
>> to make them sound like a horse gallop? In fact he appears on screen
>> doing as such.
>>
>Yes, but his point was that Gilliam would have tried to get the sound
>perfect for a live radio performance, where the goal at the time was
>just don't fuck up. I don't agree with that, but it's what he was going
>for :)
I knew what his point was, it just seemed like he picked a bad example.
There's the story that Terry Jones and Gilliam didn't want to use the
funniest take of a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail because
someone or something peeks into the frame right at the end of the shot.
Eventually the other Pythons prevaled, and the funniest though flawed
shot was included in the film with hardly any of the audience noticing
the problem.
However, Gilliam seemed to have learned that lesson by as early as
Jaberwocky, in which a shot that includes the back of the prop truck
is included in the film, but which goes by so fast hardly anyone sees it.
-Jay
Derek Janssen
>
>>Ie., there're cute heck-of-it scenes in AoBM, trying to capture the
>>original story, until The Point ("Look!--It's a satire of Bureaucratic
>>War! Isn't that neat?") keeps trying to wave at the camera and upstage
>>the actors...
>
>
> You seem to have watched completely different movies thanI have.
> The jabs at war are there, but the certainly aren't the focus of the
> film. In fact, for the majority of the film the war is nearly completely
> forgotten.
Except, for example, where they stop the visit-with-Vulcan plot in its
tracks long enough to force boneheaded "arms race" allegories into the
dialogue...
Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net