What's new

Terry Gilliam on NPR (thoughts on Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) (1 Viewer)

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,971
Location
Albany, NY
I guess it's a difference of opinion thing. I love having the frame cluttered with a thousand different little details, so I can pick up on new details everytime I watch it. I can see how one would find it overwhelming to the point of detracting, however.

I agree that a spectularly envisioned failure is better than an utterly mundane success. But I guess we just differ where all of Columbus' works lie. Some are on the mundane side, certainly, but he's done some very interesting things as well.
 

Michael Hall

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Messages
228
Thanks for the link Vickie. It was really enlightening, as always, to hear Gilliam speak on his filmmaking process. This may be a stupid question, but where would one be able to see this documentary? I know it was mentioned in the interview that it was an IFC production, but since I don't have IFC on my cable system, I'd have to bribe the folks into taping it for me from their satellite.

And on a semi-unrelated note, anyone who wants to see a great documentary on the making of a film from beginning to end should pick up the "12 Monkeys" DVD and watch "The Hamster Factor", done by the same guys who did the Quixote documentary. Brilliantly done stuff.

And on a final note, call me crazy, but I loved the arena battle in AOTC. Of course, I am a huge SW fan, but it didn't seem overdone to me at all. The editing was odd at points, and some things could have gone on longer than they did, but overall, I really enjoyed it.
 

Brian Kissinger

Screenwriter
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
1,083
Well, first off, I'm stating up front that I like both series. I love LOTR, and really like HP. Now, I haven't read any HP books to date, but I plan to soon. What I do like so much about HP, is that it may not be as magical as it could have been, but it is still magical. My son loved the movies, and has since read both the first two, and is now halfway through the third. I've been trying like mad to get the boy to read, and these films have succeeded where I have failed. He is required to read fifteen minutes a night (for school) and it's like pulling teeth with him. In the last month, he has gone through two and a half books on his own. Unbelievable. There's magic there, you just have to let it in.

And for what it's worth, I happen to love Gilliam's work.
 

Vickie_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
3,208
This may be a stupid question, but where would one be able to see this documentary?
You're welcome Michael, and everybody else who said thanks. Lost in La Mancha is just now being released to theaters, so if there's an arthouse theater anywhere near you, keep an eye out. I saw the film last October at the Chicago Film Festival and I can attest that it's well worth seeing. Fascinating, though depressing as all get out. Makes me want to scream at Bill Gates or Mark Cuban or someone else with loads of cash "WHY AREN'T YOU FINANCING THIS GUY??" If I were rich I'd build a movie studio just for Terry Gilliam (and a recording studio just for Happy Rhodes) and just let them do their thing.
 

Dan Hitchman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 11, 1999
Messages
2,712
Yup, couldn't agree more...

The Harry Potter films, on the whole, are paint by numbers summer fare with no real inspiration... and as Gilliam says himself, "no magic."

They fall apart with "Scooby Doo" endings too.

Gilliam still sounds like a better candidate than that other new director they brought on board. Although, perhaps darker than bland, take-no-chances Columbus.

Dan
 

Chris Farmer

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
1,496
I can certainly see where Giliam is coming from on Columbus. I've enjoyed the HP movies, and have even been somewhat impressed by them, but that was mainly in spite of themselves. John Williams' score, top notch casting across the board, the chance to see all the things I'd read about, and the strength of the story itself were enough to overcome an overall lack of vision I'd say. I wouldn't say they were crap at all, and I'd even say there was quite a bit of magic in them, but the slavish devotion weighs them down. Columbus merely took what was on the pages and stuck it on the screen. He removed as little as possible, and added nothing of his own.

To contrast with LotR, Jackson has made changes, he's cut out, and he's added. Sure, he's caught a lot of flak for the changes (just see the Two Towers discussion thread's endless debates over Faramir), but he was willing to take chances, go out on a ledge, and jump right over. The fact that his parachute not only worked but had diamonds sewn into the corner was by no means known at the beginning, New Line bet the studio on a visionary, and they won big time. Warner, on the other hand, took the safe way out, ensuring a decent translation that would do awesome at the BO, but sacrificing their chance at hitting the home run that LotR has become. Columbus merely made a direct transposition from page to screen, Peter Jackson translated. Columbus did it because he could, jackson did it because he wanted to, and loved the material. And the difference is clear on the screen.

I really look forward to see where Cuaron will take PoA. It's the book where the material really starts to hit its stride, being far more mature in subject matter and content then the first two, and if Cuaron is willing to take some chances, PoA could be one of the top movies of 2004.
 

Jonathan Perregaux

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 10, 1999
Messages
2,035
Real Name
Jonathan Perregaux
Yes, he is right. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's [Philosopher's] Stone was crap. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was crap cubed.
 

Aaron Reynolds

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Messages
1,715
Location
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Aaron Reynolds
Although, perhaps darker than bland, take-no-chances Columbus.
Just to remind everyone who are taking their potshots at Chris Columbus as a bland, unoriginal, uncreative person who doesn't take chances, we are talking about the same Chris Columbus who wrote Phoebe Cates' Why I Hate Christmas monologue from Gremlins. I don't think he has to prove to anyone that he has "edge".

That said, no chances were taken with Potter because a concious decision was made to be slavishly faithful to the books. I felt that there was a certain amount of magic in Philosopher's Stone, and even more of it in Chamber. No, the films were not visionary. They had a sort of borrowed mythology feel to them, which I actually think is pretty appropriate for Harry Potter.

Could they have been better? Maybe. Are they garbage? I don't think so. I enjoyed them, the second more than the first. I'm looking forward to the third.

I, too, would rather see a spectacular failure than a mediocre half-success. However, I don't think that the first two Potter films are mediocre. The first was good, the second very good, and I look forward to the one that nails it and is great.

For the record, I am not a Harry Potter fanatic, I haven't read the books, and I am a big fan of Terry Gilliam. :D
 

TheLongshot

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 12, 2000
Messages
4,118
Real Name
Jason
I agree with Aaron. It doesn't matter who the director was, the studio was going to play things as conservitively as possible with these films. It is why Gilliam had absolutly no chance of directing these films, since he always takes risks. To be honest, Columbus probably did a far better job than most people thought he would, considering his near-term track record wasn't good. I'm just happy he made decent films out of them.

Jason
 

Bill Griffith

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 8, 2002
Messages
581
Harry Potter was great, LOTR was better. But does that surprise anyone, LOTR is not geared toward children where Harry Potter is.

As for TG making a comment that there crap, well its his opnion, and in my opinion it sucks, and it sound like he's upset over not getting the director part (Sour grapes maybe)

As far as his movies are concerned, When I saw time bandits as a kid I liked it, but I saw a couple of years ago again and sorry but its no where near as good as HP. Also same goes for Adventures of Baron Munchausen (sp?).

HP far excedes these movies, however, I would say the books are great and that makes it relatively easy to make a good movie. Could there be alittle more something in them. I guess, but I wouldn't want them as twisted as either of the previously mentioned TG films. Ilike the fact that it follows the book closely, I hope it continues to follow the books and they don't let anyone in that wants to take something great that someone else did and make it there own.
 

Jeff Kohn

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 29, 2001
Messages
680
Ilike the fact that it follows the book closely, I hope it continues to follow the books and they don't let anyone in that wants to take something great that someone else did and make it there own.
Well, the first two books were the shortest, and still turned out to be 3 hour movies with the approach CC took. There's no way that same approach can work for the later books, they're too long. So quite a bit is going to need to be cut...
 

Richard_D_Ramirez

Second Unit
Joined
May 21, 2001
Messages
439
Remember that Seinfeld epsiode where Elaine went to different doctors, but every doctor she saw already had the note "difficult" in Elaine's medical record? It's the same way with Gilliam and the studios.... :angry:

8^B
 

Joseph Young

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 30, 2001
Messages
1,352
Starting with the third book in the HP series, the mythology becomes a LOT more interesting. Columbus's HP efforts, while serviceable in comparison to some of his others (Bicentennial Man comes to mind), were just that - serviceable.

I commend his decision to place the film in other hands (Columbus will still be involved to some extent, from what I understand). While I enjoyed both HP films immensely, I had a distinct sense of simply 'connecting the dots' from scene to scene. The real fun that audiences had with Columbus's efforts was in connecting a scene onscreen with their experience from the book, and had less to do with Columbus's success and creating a movie with a real sense of magic. It's ironic really, for all the literal magic in these movies, there was a distint lack of magic, if you catch my drift.

Even if you want to write Gilliam off as an unstable, studio-unfriendly problem child with 'sour grapes' issues, he does manage to infuse his films with a sense of whimsy that springs from an unparalleled ferver and creativity, much like Rowling. And if there's anything that makes me groan, it's Hollywood movies that affect that 'fake whimsy,' something that Rowling's books have largely avoided, which I think it a testament to their brilliance.

Joseph
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,582
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top