Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Quint chats with Terry Gilliam about THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS, WATCHMEN, Pixar, Ledger and much more!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. This interview was the one I was looking forward to the most from my entire Comic-Con line-up. First of all, I’m a big Terry Gilliam geek. Who didn’t grow up with Python and TIME BANDITS? So, there’s that and I’ve also seen THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS, a movie I had a lot to talk about anyway. Plus they gave me half an hour, which is unheard of at Comic-Con, the home of the five minute 1:1. I found Gilliam to be very pleasant to speak with, his enthusiasm undiluted and his passion for films and filmmaking worn on his sleeve. We cover a lot of ground here and even talk a bit about WATCHMEN which, as you may know, Gilliam was developing a long time ago. Enough talking, here’s the goods. Enjoy!

Quint: Congratulations on the film.

Terry Gilliam: Thanks, yeah I’m pretty pleased with it.

Quint: I was at Sundance when I heard that Heath (Ledger) had died and one of the first things I thought of was “Not to Terry again!” After everything you have gone through…

Terry Gilliam: Clearly I was pumped up, ready for anything.

Quint: I don’t know what cemetery you desecrated or what voodoo priest you pissed off, but it just seems like you have the most horrible luck…

Terry Gilliam: The truth of it though, if you really start looking at other people, they have all been through shit as well, I’ve just had a documentary camera pointed at me. When LOST IN LA MANCHA came out other filmmakers were like “Oh fuck, I know exactly what you have been through.” Then they start telling (me) their story.

Quint: You have just been more public about it.

Terry Gilliam: It’s partly because I’ve got such a fucking bad memory and there used to be these sort of diaries and they turn out to be extraordinary documentaries about shit.

Quint: When Amy (Gilliam, producer and Terry’s daughter) was down in Austin, she said that it was mostly because of LOST IN LA MANCHA that everybody came together and pushed through tragedy to finish the film.

Terry Gilliam: Yeah, because it was the same gang with Nicola (Pecorini, director of photography) and her and they just wouldn’t leave me alone. I was trying to go into a corner and just disappear and they just kept beating me up and saying “No, we are going to finish this film." And then we started doing it.

Quint: I think that in a lot of ways artistically you rolled with what happened as best as you could and I think the movie actually benefits.

Terry Gilliam: That’s a thing that I hear from people. I’ve heard it from too many people, I was like “Oh fuck! This is not right. Another film based on human sacrifice!” The only thing I say is that nobody knew what Heath was going to do on the other side (of the mirror) and that’s the thing. Basically what he was doing was setting up the possibilities, because his character is very chameleon-like, his voice and everything else is changing and he had some fun planned for that and we will never get to see it. I just know that Johnny, Colin and Jude, did an extraordinary job and the thing in some ways just becomes a constant surprise. “What’s next?” “Who’s next?”

Quint: Obviously the anticipation for the movie, a lot of it is surrounding Heath, but what I really loved about the film was just how it’s a great showcase for everybody, especially Christopher Plummer, who I thought was fantastic.

Terry Gilliam: Extraordinary. He is the film. He holds the hold thing together and it’s one of the things that I’m trying to get through in interviews, that it’s not waiting for Heath. We are talking about Dr. Parnassus! That’s the story.

Quint: He’s the title character!

Terry Gilliam: It was interesting, because we had the credit I put on the end “A film from Heath Ledger and friends.” I originally had that on the front of the film and it made that opening section feel even longer, because everybody is waiting for Heath, so okay… I’ll start pushing this thing in another direction.

Quint: I love that whole dynamic of the God and the Devil between Plummer and Tom Waits.

Terry Gilliam: Well he is double axis, him and Tom and then him and Vern (Troyer) and then him and Lily (Cole), so you take… Christopher, one of the great actors and stick him with the smallest man on the planet, with a model who has had no filmic experience and… Tom Waits. (laughs)

Quint: And strangely enough, they all kind of look otherworldly, like Lily is just inhumanly gorgeous…

Terry Gilliam: She was the most dangerous leap, because she was the least experienced, but I wanted somebody who was extraordinary. We are basically doing a traveling freak show is what we are doing here. We really want extraordinary people and that’s what it is and she pulls it off. To throw her in that pit of talented actors was quite amazing, because in some ways it shows she rose to it, because everybody was their protecting her and pushing her and it worked.

Quint: It comes across and you feel the family bond between everybody, including the actor who plays Mercury.

Terry Gilliam: Andrew Garfield.

Quint: That’s a character that I think with anybody else or somebody less talented at least, it could have been a forgotten character. He could have gotten lost…

Terry Gilliam: Well, we wrote him rather badly. He was very under written.

Quint: I wouldn’t say that…

Terry Gilliam: No, no. What you see in the film is more than we wrote. He started adlibbing a lot. It was an underwritten character to be quite honest. He got the job because he sent me an audition tape from LA and we had given him three scenes and he did each scene three different ways, like three different characters each time, and I was like “Fuck, who is this guy? This is amazing!” That’s what happened and what was also interesting is how he kind of filled a gap that Heath had left strangely enough, because Heath intimidated him a little at the beginning, because Heath was adlibbing a lot and Andrew said “I’ve never adlibbed before in my life” and at first he tried to compete with Heath on the same level and just was not working. Then there was one day in that scene when he’s flipping that stuff up in the air like “Hey.” I said “It’s about laughter. You can’t beat him on any other level, but if you laugh at him and have fun, he will have no defense against that” and suddenly the character fell into place. Then when Heath died, it was like Andrew was like “Okay, I’m going to start doing more things to keep this thing rich” and ended up with some of the funniest adlibs in the film. That whole business where he’s dressed in drag and “What do you think you are doing? Playing in your bed? He’s a human being!” all adlibbed and I’m like “You are good!”

Quint: I’m a big fan of yours, growing up with BRAZIL and TIME BANDITS, I love seeing the world through your eyes and that’s why I think anybody who is a fan of your work is going to go crazy for this movie. I just love the fantasy landscapes, the Imaginarium landscapes, like when the kid with the videogame goes through it’s like a horror show, but it’s fascinating. I was just wondering how you achieved that. What was the mix of technology? Because it looked like there was model work in there. It didn’t look like it was all CG. Like the temple stuff…

Terry Gillian: Most of the stuff you see in there... There’s a model… the whole business with the Monastery, that’s a model. There’s a few other bits, partly things like the big helmet coming out of the ground, that’s a model, but the rest is CG and the trick was I was just trying to do this thing like it was my cartoons, where it’s clearly not a real world, but is it a believable world? Do you actually believe you are in that world even though it’s like (a) Grant Wood painting. (The Jude Law scene) was all based on Grant Wood paintings, so I was trying to be painterly and yet totally immersive and believable at the same time and I think we pulled it off. I read a couple of reviews who hated it, who thought it was just the crappiest CG effects they had ever scene.

Quint: Really?

Terry Gilliam: Yeah, because I think they wanted naturalism. No, no, I don’t want that!

Quint: You have got to accept the movie on its own terms. Clearly that was your approach for that scene.

Terry Gilliam: But it is interesting, because I was also trying to escape from the world of naturalism, whether it’s dinosaurs or not, it’s still a naturalistic approach, which is an incredibly expensive business and they are not going to give me that kind of money is all I know, so “Okay let’s try this other way and make it theatrical. Make it cartoon-like, but make it believable.”

Quint: If you are paying attention to the story, that’s the story. To me that argument doesn’t make any sense. I mean, you are going through the mirrored mylar sheets into this world which you visually tie-in so strongly to the actual stage.

Terry Gilliam: I’m glad you said mylar, because the whole point of that was supposed to be really cheesy, just as cheap as possible. It’s funny, in the first one, when the drunk goes through, the first time we go in there (to the Imaginarium world), that was doing something that years ago when I was trying to do DEFECTIVE DETECTIVE, the whole world was going to be like that, which is basically 2-D things in a 3-D space and I still want to do that. (laughs) The effect of that is fantastic! It’s like trying to push what you do in effects movies a bit. I never saw the Wachowski Bros’ SPEED RACER, because that was again, not naturalistic wasn’t it?

Quint: I loved SPEED RACER. There were a lot of people who couldn’t jump into the world…

Terry Gilliam: Is it because of that? That it was not naturalistic?

Quint: I think so, yeah. It’s a real moving cartoon. That’s what it was supposed to be and again, if you don’t accept the movie on its own terms… As long as it doesn’t break the rules of its own universe, you can do anything.

Terry Gilliam: Exactly. That’s always the key and yet that’s a rule that is always violated. (laughs) What’d I watch on the plane? It was MONSTERS VS. ALIENS and it’s actually pretty good! It gets a bit saccharine, like all of the DreamWorks stuff. But it’s really funny and I was talking to a friend the other day saying “All the really good political movies now are animated films. We don’t do that in live action.”

Quint: Like Pixar!

Terry Gilliam: WALL-E is an extraordinary bit of work and it’s fantastic, but people are able to do things in animation now that nobody is doing in live action it seems to me.

Quint: And they are being rewarded for it. You would think execs would look at the kind of business those movies are doing. Like you hear over and over again how you can’t have an older cast in a movie, that kids won’t be interested in a movie about an old man and then you see UP and it’s the second highest grossing Pixar movie of all time. Nobody pegged it. It’s like people are getting rewarded for real character.

Terry Gilliam: I’ve only seen bits of UP, is the boy scout based on John Lasseter? It looks like Lasseter to me.

Quint: No, the director of the short cartoon that plays before UP, called PARTLY CLOUDY, is the model for the kid. It feels like very Merrie Melodies style and the guy who directed that is the spitting image of Russell, which is the boy scout. He came to Austin and showed the movie with Pete Docter and he goes up before and introduces and everybody gasped when they saw the boy scout, because it is him absolutely!

Terry Gilliam: But Pixar is the best. They’re just extraordinary.

Quint: It’s the perfect mix of commerce and art. Like you said, they are able to sneak in all of those political messages.

Terry Gilliam: Their statements are fantastic in there. I used to always think about that in Eastern Europe, where all of the political stuff was done with puppets, because once you abstract it you can get away with murder.

Quint: Then you’re not offending somebody directly.

Terry Gilliam: And it’s really funny there that people don’t understand it, so America now is saying all of its important statements in cartooning as in saying stuff about the country.

Quint: I just saw a poll that was saying that the most trusted newsman in America is Jon Stewart.

Terry Gilliam: Bingo!

Quint: And there’s something to that, because he’s not playing the game. He might be a comedian, but he also cuts through the bullshit on a daily basis. He kind of exposes half-truths and hypocrisy. He always does it for comedy’s sake, but because he doesn’t have to play within the system, that gives him the freedom to have that voice.

Terry Gilliam: It’s the same with Colbert, also. I mean, I only see these things on Youtube, but I say “Fuck that’s good!” Nobody in England is working like that. Those guys are just extraordinary and it’s nice to see. So, we are living in an oppressive society here with homeland security ruling and it only takes comedians and cartoonists to say the truth.

Quint: We should probably get back to your movie a little bit. I love the tangents, but…

Terry Gilliam: I sort of rely on the tangents, because I’m doing interviews and after a certain point I realize I’m saying the same thing. (laughs)

Quint: One of the things I love the most about your new movie is that it is like an amalgam of your work. You can see different aspects of you, like I can see BRAZIL in there. I can see MUNCHAUSEN in there. I can see the cartoon work and of course Monty Python. I mean, the whole dancing policemen sequence is like right out of Python.

Terry Gilliam: It’s a totally Pythonic moment. It’s very funny, because Tony Grisoni, who I co-write with on other things… That was the one bit he didn’t like in the film. He said “Oh fuck, what are you doing!?!” (laughs) I actually set out to do that. That was my feeling. It’s just compendium, I want to do a compendium. I kept saying “It’s my Fanny and Alexander” or my “Amarcord” which were the compendiums of those guys. At a certain point in their lives they said “Fuck it, I’m just going to put all of the things that I enjoy in” and that was it.

Quint: You guys are banding together again this year. Is that right? Because it’s the 40th anniversary of Python?

Terry Gilliam: Well, it’s a strange thing. It’s like… what happened forty years ago? PYTHON was born, this fucking place (Comic-Con) was born, and people started walking around on the moon. It’s pretty weird, like something in the air or sun spots, I think. We are almost getting together. Eric (Idle) has been very clever on doing something with LIFE OF BRIAN without it being a SPAMALOT version of LIFE OF BRIAN, so he’s done this Handelian oratory and we are all supposed to turn up at the Albert Hall in October. We will see who turns up. Nothing should be guaranteed with Python is all I can say.

Quint: That’s what we love about you guys. Now, did you see WATCHMEN? Did you end up seeing it?

Terry Gilliam: Yeah, I thought it strange. I thought it was too reverential. That’s what I really thought it was.

Quint: Faithful to a fault, yeah. I would agree with that.

Terry Gilliam: And you look at it and he’s tried really… so much is stunning. It got trashed, but there are great sequences in there, but the overall effect is kind of turgid in a certain way. I started putting it down to… you know, in the comic book, or graphic novel… They’re still comic books to me (laughs)… It’s like the Comedian’s coffin is going into the grave with the stars and stripes on top of it and reading it in the comic book it’s three panels, boom, boom and boom. On film “hhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmm…” The pace is wrong. I was glad our version didn’t get done, the one that Charles McKeown and I had wrote, because we had reduced it down to about two hours and five minutes I think and we lost so much. Comedian was cut down to next to nothing. So (Zack Snyder) did a good job, but it just felt… I also thought THE INCREDIBLES had kind of fucked it for him.

Quint: A little bit, yeah.

Terry Gilliam: THE INCREDIBLES is doing WATCHMEN.

Quint: And HEROES took the ending.

Terry Gilliam: The same idea, yeah. And I just thought “Well, they just kind of fucked it up for WATCHMEN.”

Quint: That’s why people are worried about JOHN CARTER OF MARS, because that’s been stolen from so much and so liberally, going into STAR WARS and all of this other stuff.

Terry Gilliam: Yeah, but so much of that material had been in a quarry that everybody had been digging goodies out of and suddenly you get lost. I think WATCHMEN really bothered me, because I thought it should be better. It was all there. It looked right, but to me it was pace. It didn’t have pace. It needed a bit more quirkiness in there. Dr. Manhatten was getting boring, frankly, and then Ozymandias by the end I thought “Oh, come on!” They lost me by the end, frankly, but it was certainly looking better than what I was going to do! (laughs)

Quint: If you had been able to make the movie now with the same freedom, do you think you would have been able to find that happy difference between the version you were going to make and the one that Snyder made?

Terry Gilliam: I think so, because I think I’m more anarchic than Zack. To me it’s “Okay, what’s the essence to this thing? How do we boil it down?” The bits in the book with the big jellyfish thing, the giant squad at the very end… Losing the pirate story, fine. You get that out of there, but I never felt the characters, because to me it was a character piece is what it was about, and I never felt Night Owl and whatever her name is, it didn’t feel right, but I just thought the look of it was brilliant.

Quint: I’m really curious to see the director’s cut, because at least for the purity it’s like the comic filmed. I think Peter Jackson did a really good job on taking what he needed from THE LORD OF THE RINGS and then in the expanded editions, he could give that for the fans, even though the pacing might not work as well.

Terry Gilliam: See that’s the problem with fans. Fans are terrifying. I have always hated fans, because they have such high expectations…

Quint: You are in the wrong place….

Terry Gilliam: I know! They have such high expectations! I thought “Fuck off, just fuck off. Let me fuck it up on my own. I can’t put the weight of you people on my back!” It was like working on DON QUIXOTE, the fan-base isn’t as big as Lord of the Rings (laughs). Never the less, there was this extraordinary book and I just felt the weight of trying to do it, so I just ended up doing THE MAN WHO KILLED DON QUIXOTE and taking the bits that I want and throwing (the rest out).

Quint: Giving you the freedom as a filmmaker.

Terry Gilliam: That’s a hard bit. I’ve always been worried and suspicious of the taking of a book or a play or something and putting it onto film, because you’ve got all of the expectations of all those who have read it and have their own version of it in their head and all you are going to do, providing, is fucking it up to them. Your version is not going to their version. There will be a lot of angry people out there.

Quint: With Peter and RINGS, its something that’s that big, but it’s also that big for a certain amount of people, what he was able to do was he was able to pay respect, but also bring so many more fans into it that it all sort of began to feed on itself.

Terry Gillaim: Tolkien’s got a bigger fan-base than Alan Moore…

Quint: Definitely, yeah.

Terry Gilliam: When I was in college, they were all reading it. I didn’t read it until I was about thirty something and then I got bored, because I just think it goes on and on and on, just like the movies go on and on. I love the first one. I thought “Fuck, they’ve done it!” And then in the second it’s like “Oh, it’s another battle and our heroes never die? They don’t even get an arm chopped off? There are ten billion orcs attacking them and nobody gets hurt?” That makes me crazy! I must have read all of the LORD OF THE RINGS or maybe I didn’t… no I’m sure I did, because once I get into something, I read all the way through things, but I didn’t remember… there was something about 2 and 3 of the films, the battles just got bigger and bigger. It was just like STAR WARS, the second and third STAR WARS and I’m talking about the first ones, not the animated ones, but again they just became more baroque. They became more “Okay, we can put more spaceships in,” but it’s still things shooting other things and in the end, it’s more interesting to me to have one guy shooting another guy, because that’s about two people. Then you’ve got ten billion spaceships as opposed to a hundred. I don’t see the difference there.

Quint: We are in a weird time right now, like on one hand you have a movie like WATCHMEN that should never have been made within a studio system, like you can’t imagine an R rated three hour long anti-superhero movie being funded to the gills, but it happened and at the same time, it seems like it’s the one or two of those that kind of squeaks through and then there’s the just the rest of the output that’s just so homogenized.

Terry Gilliam: It’s always been like that. I remember with BRAZIL, when we got it out, we got it released, I was just inundated with phone calls from writers and other filmmakers that said, “You’ve broken the dam!” I said “No, it’s going to be there for a couple of weeks, so move quickly! It just closes back up very quickly and we are back to the same thing.” I think it’s worse now, because they’ve got themselves trapped in tent-pole thinking, so you put all of your money into a $200 million (movie) or you put your money into a $5 million comedy and nothing in between and that’s the problem. You are getting some nice comedies that are coming out, but come on, what about the bits in between these two worlds?

Quint: I think that’s why you have so much respect. What I love about your movies is that they also usually take time to grow on you and I don’t know how you do that! Like with FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, which from the moment I saw it, I adored that movie. I loved that movie to death, but nobody in the theater seemed to get it…

Terry Gilliam: It’s a lonely world out there! (laughs)

Quint:… and then over the years suddenly it’s a giant movie and you couldn’t convince anybody today that it wasn’t a huge hit.

Terry Gilliam: MUNCHAUSEN was like that as well. BRAZIL was exactly like that. It’s just because… I don’t know, we all are tuned to the same kind of rhythms at any given point with movies. That’s what I find now, the rhythm of a movie I know what it’s going to be. Joel Silver started that thing where every reel had to have the big moment and so now it’s like a pop song. Now you are not going to do something in 4/4 time, but in 7/8 time and it doesn’t quite work. I actually think I might be a bad storyteller. People don’t get it the first time, because the rhythms aren’t quite right, but what I’m talking about isn’t really what the film appears to be about sometimes… I don’t know.

Quint: You can say that, but that’s also what people love about you and that’s why your films grow and why your films stand the test of time.

Terry Gilliam: I think, if anything, I’m just trying to make a complete thing as good as I can make it… there’s always pressures from everywhere… without violating the essence of it, so some of that takes you down different roads and people don’t see it the first time sometimes. And then they see it the second time and “Oh, it’s different,” and it’s “Hey, now it’s really cooking.” I’ve watched people on PARNASSUS, a friend of mine who casts my American films… She maybe doesn’t like my movies, but she saw PARNASSUS and she said “I was utterly blown away! I was just gasping for air!” I said “Thanks, great Marge, you’ve finally like one of my films.” Then she said “Then I saw it a second time and I’m really following the character path and the emotional story. It’s really good!.” “And you didn’t see that the first time, Marge?” “It’s better now!” Then she saw it the third time and was like “Oh, fuck, that score is really fantastic!” She’s seen it four times now and each time is proving to be a different experience for her and that is what I like about it, especially with DVD’s, we can now watch films so easily again and again.

Quint: And not even just DVDs. We have Instant Netflix now. You can click a button and you have the movie.

Terry Gilliam: That’s what people can do now. When I was coming up it would be a rep house might have the film in ten years time and you might get the chance to see it. So much of it was in my memory, not the chance to actually revisit a film, so what happened in a lot of those cases, things in my memory were better than what I saw when I finally got to see it and other things, on the other hand, were things that I missed and then I saw it fifteen years later and thought “Shit, where the fuck was I? Why did I miss all of that?”

Quint: It’s true for PARNASSUS too, because I can tell you that I love that the Tony character (Ledger) is not a good guy. I love that you didn’t make him the reluctant hero…

Terry Gilliam: He’s a fucking bastard.

Quint: By the end of the movie, he’s a real prick! I think that there’s something really interesting again, because you just don’t see that. You never see your protagonist being…

Terry Gilliam: To me, it’s all the same. It’s like BRAZIL. You set up rules and now you stick with them. Tony was always going to be a bastard, because he’s just typical of the kind of people I see… Tony Blair was who we were thinking about: a guy with a silver tongue who could charm you, even to the point that I think he believes what he’s saying as he’s saying it. It might be the most outrageous lie, but he’ll believe it. Harvey Weinstein has this quality, too. He will say what ever he wants and as the words are leaving his mouth and he hears it he goes “Shit, I believe that, too!” and that’s his power. And that’s why Heath was so important. I would be very curious to see what the film would be like to see that ending on the gallows if it was Heath carrying it through, whether it would be more powerful, more disturbing, more dark. Was this the cartoon version of the film by making it slightly abstract and with the different people playing that part, is it less disturbing and less dark? I don’t know. It works with Colin, but with Heath, if he would have been the same character all the way through, I don’t know. We will never know.

Quint: I think fortune smiled upon you in a weird, tragic way. Changing Tony’s appearance when he goes through the mirror works so well in the movie. I especially love the first reveal with Johnny, where he’s exactly what the woman he’s escorting into the fantasy world wants him to be. And that amazing speech he gives that I think transcends the story and the movie.

Terry Gilliam: That was written all before (Heath died). I didn’t change any words.

Quint: That’s incredible to me.

Terry Gilliam: That’s what is so disturbing about making that film, with those words out there.

Quint: But it’s also incredible that you didn’t change it, that you didn’t feel the pressure.

Terry Gilliam: I refused to. I said “This is the film Heath and I set out to make. These are the words. We don’t change anything!” There was one point with Chris Plummer, when he’s in the monastery and he’s talking about “We don’t have to be telling the story… It could be a romance or a comedy, a tale of unforeseen death.” That’s his line and he didn’t want to say it. This was after Heath died. I said “Chris, you’ve got to say it. That was the script we set out to make.” He just felt it was in bad taste. I just said “It is what it is.”

Quint: Well, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me.

The speech we talked a bit about at the end of this interview has Johnny Depp persuading the woman he escorted into the fantasy land to not give in to the safe and easy route. She’s being tempted by Waits’ devil at this point, who is in a contest with Parnassus for souls. Depp tells her it is better to be a star burning so bright it has no other choice than to burn out early, mentioning Princess Diana and James Dean. It’s an incredibly moving moment in the film and I’m very pleased Terry stuck to his guns and insisted on keeping it. In many ways the heart of the film rests in that speech. I had a blast talking with Mr. Gilliam and I hope to have another chance to pick his brain. He’s got a fascinating outlook on the business, on art and life and was a real pleasure to palaver with for half an hour. If you’re going to be attending DragonCon in Atlanta in a few weeks, Gilliam will be there with bells on. If you get the chance don’t pass up the opportunity to shake the man’s hand and tell him what his work has meant to you. Keep your eyes open for a ton more Comic-Con interviews I’m pushing out this week! -Quint Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Aug. 20, 2009, 11:26 p.m. CST

    The Tree Of Life Fucking your butthole in 2009

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    Nothing else matters

  • Aug. 20, 2009, 11:29 p.m. CST

    Wonderful interview

    by Spifftacular Squirrel Girl

    Time Bandits is still one of my favorite movies of all time and I'm really looking forward to seeing Imaginarium... <p> It really would have been fascinating to see what Gilliams version of Watchmen would have been like.

  • Aug. 20, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Terry Gilliam is incapable of catching a break.

    by OutlawsDelejos

    Poor bastard.

  • Aug. 20, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Who didn’t grow up with Python and TIME BANDITS?

    by OutlawsDelejos


  • Aug. 20, 2009, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Props for SPEED RACER and a WATCHMEN diss, perfect

    by reflecto

    Brilliant man.

  • Aug. 20, 2009, 11:55 p.m. CST

    "See that’s the problem with fans..."

    by ludmir88

    ...Fans are terrifying. I have always hated fans, because they have such high expectations". FACT!!!!!

  • Aug. 20, 2009, 11:58 p.m. CST

    but i kind of love the Watchmen movie.

    by ludmir88

    I loved the reference Star Wars "the first ones, not the cartoons" hahaha. Star Wars is shit.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Gilliam is brilliant

    by lochkray

    Everything except the Brothers Grimm. Even Tideland was fantastic in a fucked up way. Never figured what went so wrong with the Brothers Grimm. A Gilliam Watchmen movie would have been memorable, as opposed to the compatent though completely forgettable version that got made.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:04 a.m. CST


    by lochkray

    Sorry. My spelling is incompatent tonight.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Gilliam needs to work with Pixar

    by bowiebot3000

    Imagine that!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:08 a.m. CST


    by Quint

    The Weinsteins happened to Brothers Grimm. Gilliam's not shy to talk about the horror show of making that flick.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:09 a.m. CST

    People often fail because of minute things

    by bioforge

    Always leaves me sad when I see an obviously gifted person basically crawl through life because of a few small(seemingly) but very stupid things. But that is life and sometimes you gotta break your own rules to come up winning.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:17 a.m. CST

    i am so stoked for this

    by mr. smith

    even if a couple of his movies didn't move me, that cat is fascinating as always.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:34 a.m. CST

    thanks Mr. Gilliam

    by awardgiver

    I was trying to figure out what bothered me about Watchmen, even the director's cut. The pacing. It looked great, but the pacing bothered me. And My Chemical Romance during the credits, ugh. His next movie looks fantastic tho. And right on about Stewart and Colbert, he gets it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Great read, man

    by Aeghast

    Thanks a lot for it. And thanks Gilliam too!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:40 a.m. CST


    by The InSneider

    Dude, as always, hell of an interview. I'm not a big Gilliam guy but that was a great read. You sir, are a professional. Perfect amount of give and take. Loved the Watchmen stuff.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:57 a.m. CST

    "And how long have you been a robber?"


    "Four foot one!" "Four foot one, really? Why... that, that, that is a long time!!!"

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Time Bandits is an all-timer.

    by vic twenty

    So glad I saw that when my brain was young and impressionable. I still yell "Don't touch that, that is concentrated evil!" When my wife makes meatloaf. She just loves that. <p> I can't wait to see Parnassus. It looks amazing.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:04 a.m. CST

    Yes, Speed Racer was visually stunning but....

    by slder78

    That wasn't enough to call it a good movie in my book. The only good performances in that movie were from Matthew fox (spot on) and John goodman. Emile Hirsch was terrible and the story was uninteresting to say the least. I can live with a live action cartoon, but not one where I don't care about the characters at all. That's why I'm worried for Robotech. There actually is some deep stuff there underneath all the mecha.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Visionary, yes. Entertaining? No.

    by Redmond

    Gilliam's a great "story" as a director, but often better than the movies he actually ends up making. "Fear and Loathing" and "Brothers Grimm" were really just unwatchable.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:15 a.m. CST

    Gilliam and the "peak" question

    by belowtheroot

    Loved the interview, cheers. Huge Gilliam fan. I rate Fisher King as probably my favorite movie of all time, and it got me to thinking about the nature of age, experience, and creating art, and to what degree, if any, that creators actually manage to hit a certain nerve, at a certain time, and to what degree they maintain that buzz or start creating lesser works. Gilliam has done plenty of wonderful films, and all with his own stamp to greater or lesser degrees. Then you look at District 9, and, aside from the fact that it was set in SA (maybe its biggest coup), it is an extraordinary piece of sci-fi action. I guess i just find the ebb and flow of age and experience compelling. Im know there are plenty of evocative, time-tested works by creators of all ages, and I'll be lining up for Dr. parnassus along with the rest, eagerly. But i can't help but think of the "spark of creativity" that seems to be able to put shift things from the level of merely awesome to something more transcendent.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:16 a.m. CST

    Ive said it before...Terry Gilliam is the fucking man.

    by TheDark0Knight

    that was one of the best interviews Ive ever read on this site.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:17 a.m. CST

    When is this coming out???

    by sonnyfern

    I keep hearing rumors that it hasn't been picked up for distribution.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:31 a.m. CST

    and by no means

    by belowtheroot

    do i think Terry has long since hit his "peak", far from it

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:54 a.m. CST


    by lochkray

    Fear and Loathing "unwatchable"? I have to disagree (not in a talkback baiting, your-an-idiot-for-thinking-that kind of way. Just a difference of opinion). I thought that movie was fantastic - although it did go on a bit too long.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:03 a.m. CST

    EXCELLENT interview Quint.

    by Traumnovelle

    A blast of a read. And I'm going to say 'Ouch' for Harvey Weinstein. Terry fucking rules.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Not the Messiah!!

    by cymraeg_cowboy

    Excellent interview...... I have tickets for the Albert Hall in October.....Sooo excited.....Cleese is the only one who has not committed to the reunion yet, but it give me hope that Terry said 'We are all supposed to turn up....'

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:34 a.m. CST

    Great Interview Quint!

    by The_Ad_Wizard_Who_Came_Up_With_This_One

    Really one of the best i've read on here. And i can't wait for Parnassus!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:54 a.m. CST

    Good on ya Quint!

    by brattyben

    Loved the interview. You guys really seemed to be able to find a common ground, and it was nice to read Gilliams tangents. I find him enthralling.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:55 a.m. CST

    giliam on the money with watchmen

    by brabon300

    the pacing was indeed off, because a movie does not "read" like a comic<p> and the incredibles did fuck up any chance at a watchmen movie<p> im pretty amazed that mr gilliam sees as many movies as he does

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:16 a.m. CST

    He's also right about LOTR

    by The McPoyle Clan

    Loved the 1st one. But by the time of the 3rd one, I had ODed on the battle scenes.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:19 a.m. CST

    I loved Snyder's WATCHMEN...

    by 3D-Man

    ... but yeah, I agree with him on some of the things he said about it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:22 a.m. CST

    The whole world..

    by Wired Earp

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Great interview

    by Chakraborty

    It's funny that Gilliam admits that some people think the Jude Law scenes look like shit. He's so candid.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:24 a.m. CST

    by Wired Earp

    Is wearing spray shorts over James Cameron and Gilliam always struggels just to get his movies financed. Jesus wept...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:34 a.m. CST

    Nice call on Pixar by Gilliam

    by Big_Bubbaloola

    Nice to see even a man of his vision and integrity appreciates what the Pixar team do every single time (do we still include Cars in that?).<p><p>Oh and the comment about rabid fan-bases: boy has he ever got our number!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:40 a.m. CST

    Thank the gods Gilliam didn't touch Watchmen

    by Flip63Hole

    It's perfect (if a bit short) as is.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:45 a.m. CST

    Man, I'm glad he didn't make Watchmen

    by ev1ldead

    It would have been Terry Gilliams Watchmen with Johnny Depp as mad hatter Ozymandias and Matt Damon as Rorschach. Snyder made a perfect adaption of Alan Moore's Watchmen. Nothing more could have been asked for. Nothing more was needed.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Mad hatter Ozymandias…sounds like a band

    by blakindigo

    I still think the director's cut of "Watchmen" feels shorter (and better) than the theatrical.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:30 a.m. CST

    Bitter much?

    by brobdingnag

    "I never felt Night Owl and whatever her name is, it didn’t feel right". I don't think I give two shits what someone who doesn't even know the characters names thinks about someone else's interpretation of the work. Its a very good movie and there's nothing wrong with the pace, it's the changed ending that doesn't work.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Quint-did you ask about Gorillaz?

    by moviemaven83

    I read a while back that Gilliam was supervising a Gorillaz movie...any word?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:56 a.m. CST

    I would like to see a straight up Gilliam Horror movie...

    by JoeHungg

    Low budget, his own vision and free to do whatever he likes.. That would kick ass..

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:42 a.m. CST

    The man is honest

    by ballyhoo

    You gotta give him that.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Gilliam basically voiced my qualms with WATCHMEN

    by YackBacker

    Spot on analysis. And his thoughts reflect something we all don't recognize enough- that directors like Bay, McG and yes, even Snyder are all technically at the top of their respective games- they make incredible visuals happen, but there is a gap between the visual and the emotions that should go with them.<p> Whereas a director like Nolan is less visually flashy or complex, he has the emotions down perfectly in his films. We've entered an age of cinema where the studios demand technical expertise but not enough directors are good storytellers. And that's probably why we've had to deal with so much "soulless" cinema.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:06 a.m. CST

    The Guy Died. Everything Happens To Terry!

    by Buzz Maverik

    Uh, Quint, let's think about that opener. A man lost his life, boo hoo, we don't get another movie.<p>I love your articles, interviews and reviews Quint, but the priorities here are a little messed up.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Gilliam Is Too Good For WATCHMEN

    by Buzz Maverik

    He doesn't need it. I'd rather see him do his own stuff.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:37 a.m. CST

    spot on about Turdmen

    by Lost Jarv

    Wow. I'm impressed.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:40 a.m. CST

    I saw a definite GILLIAM influence on DISTRICT 9

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    Particularly Brazil. I can't wait for IMAGINARIUM.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:47 a.m. CST

    Buzz maverick

    by Chakraborty

    Among the thoughts that went through my head when I heard Heath had died, I had the same thought Quint mentioned, so it only makes sense to bring it up when interviewing the man. Plus, it gets tiring how in every single interview when Heath related to his films the interviewee and interviewer stop to talk about their grief for his loss. They did that during the Dark Knight interviews, people have payed their respect, he won the Oscar, it's time to move on. Also, Heath ultimately did it to himself, it's not like he died of cancer.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Hating on Speed Racer without seeing it

    by Series7

    Does Gilliam have a screen name on here? Dude is a total talkbacker.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Well done

    by Zenslinger

    Have it hand it to Quint. This is one kick-ass interview. I was very positive about Watchmen, and bought the Director's Cut. It left me a little cold. I think I can agree a bit with TG. Pacing is the problem.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:55 a.m. CST

    So Gilliam would've kept the squid in WATCHMEN?

    by ZombieHeathLedger

    Is that what he is saying? It's unclear because he mentions it after he says "what does this boil down to" and then directly after it mentions the pirate story that he would shitcan. But knowing Gilliam's taste for the bizarre, the squid would've worked perfectly in a Gilliam WATCHMEN.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Who didn’t grow up with Python and TIME BANDITS??

    by Series7

    People in their 20s.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:59 a.m. CST

    Anyone watch that silly show Banzai?

    by Series7

    When they did the one question interview with Terry? He was a good sport about it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:01 a.m. CST

    You know who has worse luck than Terry Gilliam?

    by Garbageman33

    Heath Ledger. Jesus, Quint, you just talked about a man dying and your next comment is about what terrible luck Gilliam has. Bad timing, my friend.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST

    ODing on drugs is not luck

    by Chakraborty

    Freewill is involved.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:14 a.m. CST

    He could have been the greatest actor of this generation

    by performingmonkey

    He was getting there. IMO in his 30s and 40s he would have BEEN there.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:23 a.m. CST

    great interview

    by technotard

    Good one, Quint. You lucky bastard. Some real insight into Gilliam's creative decisions, which is rare (and kinda cool). I know an artist's art should be enough, but it's always satisfying when you discover that someone you admire creatively is also a genuinely nice guy.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:29 a.m. CST

    Great Interview Quint

    by Dr_Monty

    Thanks a bunch. I love everything Terry's got to say. And i thought it was great that you asked him about watchmen! I

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:30 a.m. CST

    that was AWESOME

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    GODDAMN GIlliam is right up there with Stallone in BRUTAL, REAL HONEST ANSWERS.Not some typical,pre-packaged 'safe" fucknig answers wealways get! I love gilliam.Always have,always will! He has YET to make his BIG OPUS-and I hope he does!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Gilliam is the most inspirational director of our time.

    by TinSpider

    Well, at least he is to me. I can't wait for this movie.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Trailer is up over at Twitchfilm

    by Spartacus Hughs


  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    And his gripes about the LOTR movies resonates w/ me too

    by YackBacker

    How much bigger can each succeeding battle get? I never read the books, so I had no emotional attachment to the material. I recognize the technical craft that went into those movies, but I never felt that inner-thrill watching them.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:12 a.m. CST

    It's Maverik, Chakra, Not Maverick...

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...derived from the Latviuanian Maverikeschevitz but screwed up on Ellis Island.<p>No one is expecting an outpouring of grief. I agree with you that we've had that. It's time to move on.<p>However, I think that an otherwise fine interviewer made a error in judgement. When Heath killed himself, a child became an orphan. Parents lost their son. A woman lost the man she loved but couldn't live with. And we lost one of the best actors to come around in a long time.<p>So the movie got made anyway, but nobody is getting Heath Ledger back. We don't have to talk about, but I'd say losing Heath, for whatever reason, is the greater tragedy.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:16 a.m. CST

    "we all are tuned to the same kind of rhythms"

    by AsimovLives

    Gilliam offered obne of thebest explanations for the knee-jerk, kool-aid drinking, mindless, irrational loving for the horrible Jar Jar Abrams' Fuck Trek piece of shit movie. Thanks, Terry Gilliam.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:21 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    the lost Carnivále movie we never got. Man, i loved Carnivále!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Why We Couldn't Jump Into SPEED RACER

    by Buzz Maverik

    We were supposed to love it just because it was called SPEED RACER. But why the repeated lectures on "corporate, big money racing"? Do the Wachowski's think they are small, independent filmmakers fighting the system? Are we supposed to buy this heavy handed statement, delivered ad nauseum, from a film produced by Joel Silver?<p>And did the Wachowski's never read William Goldman's nitpicking but dead on analysis of the flaws of EXCALIBUR in ADVENTURES IN SCREEN TRADE (I have forgot most of EXCALIBUR but one of the knights was supposed to do something, couldn't, went back to where he'd come from, was told "Go do it" and went and did it. Speed Racer is already at Evil Corporate Racing Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory. Why does he have to come back with the bag full of leathers? Just do it the first time!).<p>With SPEED RACER, somebody should have told the Wachowski's, "No, go fix this."<p>SPEED RACER is one of those bad movies (like Ang Lee's HULK) with a good movie trapped inside it. My oldest son skips and fast forwards the DVD, turning it into a good, fun, well paced cartoon movie.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Acommon misconception is that Gilliam's movies run over-budget

    by AsimovLives

    This is a lie. His only movie that run over-budget was Munchausen. And evne that is not as simple as it first apears. The movie was inicially budgeted at 35 million dollars, which, at the end, was how much the movie really costed. But it was Columbia Pictures who forced the producers of Munchausen to cut down the budget until they reached a figure of 25 millions, which was clearly too low for the movie, but they went to make it anyway. Thing is, despiste all his rumours and his infamy, Gilliam was always very budget conscious. His earliest movies are masterpieces of extracting the most amouf screen value for the buck. He has kept doing that with all his movies since Mulchausen. All his movies usually come under budget and under schedule.<br><br>This false notions about Gilliam's suposed fiscal irresponsability is the proof that the movie industry, for all it's suposed "industrial" nature and their "scientific" approach to audeince testing and fiscal micro-mannagement, in true it is an "industry" that operates on blind faith and dogmatic bullshit false notions. It upsets me that Giliam gets the fame for being an over-budget fiscally irresponsible filmmaker, when shits like Michael Bay, McG and Jar Jar Abrams always go aover-budget and make movies that do not reflect onscreen the very high budget their movies had.<br><br> Terry gilliam as a filmmaker is the real thing, in all aspects of filmmaking. Cinema would stand so much to gain if there were more of him.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:38 a.m. CST

    series7/people in their twenties

    by blackhole4140

    Monty Python and Time Bandits can be found on home video and the internet. Both were in heavy rotation on cable in the 90's, too. I mean. The Three Stooges were from the 30's and 40's, but I still grew up with them.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Buzz, your son can turn Speed Racer into a good movie?

    by Garbageman33

    With nothing more than a remote control? Perhaps you should show him 'Funny People'.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:41 a.m. CST


    by white_vader

    Uh, not from Stallone. It's just that no-one has the guts to ask him about getting busted with all the steroids recently. "They're my trainer's" - uh, yeah O.K. Sly...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:44 a.m. CST


    by Series7

    Yeah I mean I've seen it too. I had Time Bandits and Munchausin on a VHS. I'm just saying, talk to any college kid today and he'll tell you that Fear and Loathing is awesome (because he thinks drugs are cool) and Monty Python is funny as shit, but he's never seen/heard of Time Bandits/Brazil/Munch. <P> He also probably thinks Donnie Darko is the best movie ever made.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:54 a.m. CST

    The Wachowskis, Apatow, Tarantino...

    by Buzz Maverik

    ...all good filmmakers who need to be told:"No!" every now and then. Or "Rethink that." Or "Needs a little more work."<p>Once they get into the genius club, their movies bloat up. They become like that good looking girl in high school who got fat by the first reunion. You know she's still in there somewhere, deep, deep in there.<p>Gilliam, who has been blessed by avoiding these huge commerical, popular successes has remained brilliant.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:57 a.m. CST

    People who think that Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas is cool

    by AsimovLives

    because they think the movie makes drugs look coool, they are either lying about ever watched the movie, or they are really very fucked up morons. Hell, even the characters in Fear And Loathing know they are at the bottom of an abyss thanks to their drugs taking, they are not taking drugs as a way to have fun but as a last desperate atempt to find the american dream. It's drug taking as philosophy, but a drakly destructive, bottom end of the pitt philosophy. The comedy in the movie is not because taking drugs is fun, but because taking drugs turns people into pathetic stupid losers, even very intelligent people with the brightest minds, the best of intentions and the most beautiful dreams for their fellow man and country.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Tideland is a brillant movie

    by AsimovLives

    One of the most corageous movies ever made by any filmmaker i ever seen. It's a shinning beacon in the middle of a brillant carrer. there are some people wh don't like the movie or find it too strong. Yes, it is a strong movie alright. And the people who don't like it are a bunch of over-sensitive pussies. After Brothers Grimm, i feared that Gilliam had lost his mojo, but he returned with a vengence with Tideland. Terry Gilliam never left the building.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:09 p.m. CST

    "I would like to see a straight up Gilliam horror..."

    by Skyway Moaters

    Have you seen "Tideland" Joe Hungg? Because that's essentially what you have in that film: A straight up mind-fuck of a horror film, albeit one where the story is told through the perceptions of an innocent little girl with a fervent imagination; as TG attempts to explain in his introduction: <p> <p> Tideland was pretty much universally reviled by critics and audiences alike. I think it's brilliant. Completely bold, original, unapolgetic, fearless film making on a level very few working directors even aspire to, much less achieve.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Buzz MaveriK

    by Chakraborty

    While Matilda being orphaned is tragic, there's really no one to blame but Heath. Popping pills like candy is an irresponsible and stupid thing to do. In the year after Heath's death, people were PC about it and showed sadness for his daughter (the 3 leads filling in for Heath are even donating their salaries to her while she clearly doesn't need it. But now that the one year period has passed, people can be a little more frank - Heath's stupidity deprived Matilda of a father and left TG out to dry, fortunately the latter recovered.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Thanks Quint!

    by LarryTate

    Best interview that has ever been posted here. ever. Good job!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Holy shit!

    by Skyway Moaters

    Asimov and I agree on something?! *CLUNK* (connexxions bloak faints dead away) <p> Time to stop carrying the torch for Trek hate bub. It's become extremely tedious, and no one is listening anyway. We get it: you hated it. Kindly give it a rest now. <p> Namarie, Trubba Not.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:35 p.m. CST

    I hope Tideland is brilliant

    by Series7

    After Brothers Grimm and the weak critical response from it I feared and loathed seeing it, so I never did. I've been meaning to for like ever. I need to bump it up on the ole queue. <P> God Brothers Grimm was so bad though, it was just awful the movie gives me a headache even if I only watch it for five minutes.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Asimov, as a friend and TB ally

    by YackBacker

    It's true, we all know your feelings on Jar Jar Abrams & his Dawson's Trek. You're a smart guy who loves cinema too. Maybe we can move on from Trek and talk more about other shit?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:45 p.m. CST

    YackBacker and Skyway Moaters

    by Series7

    I guess you guys don't use twitter????<P> You missed the holiday miricle when we hit post 10,000 on pedalback AsimovLives recanted his hate toward Star Trek.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 12:52 p.m. CST


    by Series7

    You sound like your in the know. Did you read that book that was written about the production of Brazil? If so is it any good?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1 p.m. CST

    That as may be Series7...

    by Skyway Moaters

    He's at it again in this very TB. Shall I quote? <p> "...the horrible Jar Jar Abrams' Fuck Trek piece of shit movie..." <p> And no, I don't twitter, and probably never will. I just don't see the point.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Thought the Watchmen diss was in poor taste

    by exie

    I'm all for honesty, but to basically say he would have made the better movie of Watchmen is the ultimate Monday morning QB bullshit. I hate people who do that and I would have thought Gilliam would have just left it at "it didn't work for me" or say something pithy like "I'm glad I never had to actually make that film"...If I was Snyder right now I'd want to kick Gilliam squarely in the balls right about now.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Skyway Moaters

    by Series7

    It was just a brief relapse. <P> And you should Twitter you get to read all the witty things fabulous celebrities are saying!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Thank you so much

    by Major Hockshtetter

    Wonderful interview with the greatest filmmaker, in my skewed opinion, who has ever lived. BRAZIL is the film that defined my life (for better or worse... hence why I probably distrust all authority figures?) Saw it at age 15 and it cleaved its message into my soul forever. I'm looking forward to PARNASSUS and hopefully it will open the door for the DEFECTIVE DETECTIVE...

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Series7, I thought that was an interloper

    by YackBacker

    Asimov_Lives or Asim0vLives, etc.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Two things wrong with Watchmen one small, one big.

    by cookylamoo

    Small-The makeup- not the gore stuff which was good, but the age make-up and trying to make actors look like Nixon and Kissinger. Big - Giving these guys virtual super-powers by amping up the violence. Just took you out of the real world and into comicbook cloudcookooland.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Actually exie

    by Chakraborty

    He didn't say his Watchmen would have been better. He said just the opposite. You need to re-read it.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by Series7

    Hmmmm I'll have to have a looky loo.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Well fuck my ass

    by Series7

    Asimov_Lives I guess it was a liar. Hrmph. Gay.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    I'm gonna have to go make a Tweet about this now

    by Series7

    I'm gonna look like a fool, but my followers must know the truth.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Dude, add me as a tweeter

    by YackBacker

    I just joined- my handle is "YackBacker" surprisingly.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Stellar interview, Q.

    by Rakafraker

    Gilliam is so frank about everything. It's so refreshing to hear a filmmaker admit when something is weak in their own work. I wish more people in all walks of life could have such humble attributes.<p>Chakraborty, you don't seem to understand what happened. Heath wasn't "popping them like candy". I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that you live a 9-5 kind of lifestyle (not that I'm dissing that). People who have split-shifts, folks who work nights, or ridiculously long hours (like those in the film industry) tend to have a really screwed up sleep cycle. Let me just say from experience that a person's health (especially mentally) starts to decline very quickly, even if you're eating right, excercizing and living fairly conservatively, if you lack sleep.<p>To dismiss Heath as a druggie who lived vicariously by getting high seems rather ignorant, IMHO, and through all accounts, is inaccurate. Remember that it was sleeping pills (which, I'm sure, you don't get you "high") and a misguided doctor that caused Heath's death. Please have a little compassion for that which you do not fully understand.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Yes, i read the book about Brazil, it's enlighting stuff.<br><br>I never recanted my opinion about Jar jar Abrams's Fuck Trek pieceof shit movie. an imposter by the name Asimov_Lives did. And many have the theory that imposter is you. I wouldn't know anything about that, i can't say if you are or not, and frankly, i don't care. But because of that impostor, i think i feel the need to make some more coments about Jar Jar Abrams' Fuck Trek bulslhit movie, so that people can understand where i'm at in respect to that horrible piece of shit "movie". Makes sense, hem?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Tery Gilliam was TOO diplomatic about Watchmen

    by AsimovLives

    What he said about Watchmen and why it's a failure as a movie is the very reason why he eventually gave up making the movie and went to greener pastures. Gilliam really understood the approches it was needed to make Watchmen A MOVIE, instead of thata nonsensical mastubation that we ended up with. This is why Gilliam is a good filmmake,r and Zack The Hack Snyder isn't. Terry Gilliam is the visionary director, not Zack!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:48 p.m. CST

    And if i ever watched Zack trying to kick Gilliam's balls

    by AsimovLives

    i would kick Zack balls so hard he would through them up from his mouth. No great filmmaker gets to have his balls kicked by an hack, not on my watch, and not get his right desert. Fuck that untalented fucking hack Zack, fuck him in his fucking hack ass! And he's not even a fourth of the hack that Jar Jar Abrams is!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST


    by Series7

    I don't have twitter....sorry. I have an Examiner account though? I just put up my review of (500) Days of Summer. <P>

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST


    by Series7

    I wish I was your imposter, because it was a damn good prank.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST


    by Series7

    I understand that Austraillia is on the ball and already has sent us a replacement for Heath. <P> Check out the star of Sons Of Anarchy, fucking sign his ass up for The Dark Knight 3: Die Hard With A Vengeance.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    No, Gilliam didn't said the oposite. Gilliam SPECIFICALLY mentioned where Zack The Hack Snyder failed, and it was the approach. And he's dead right about it. Gilliam did praised the look of the movie, which is in fact it's stronger quality. But Gilliam, in the end, does downplays that quality because, frankly, there's too many "pretty", movies out there made by hacks which are nothing but pure tripe without substance or a though to them.<br><br>Gilliam said great truths about the many failures of Zack The Hack's Watchmen, and while he didn't minced words, he was also pretty diplomatic. Only gfools wouldn't udnerstand the truth said in Gilliam's words about his wise opinion of Zack The Hack's Watchmen fiasco.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Ironically, i only read one psot form the imposter, but it was enough to realsie what a dumb ass he is. A twit without a personality. Thing is, too many people were on him right form the get go. how others would be fooled by him, i can't even beging to understand. Since when i ever hesitated in my opinions and showing them?<br><br>If you could provide the link to where i could find the "recant", i'd appreciate it. It must be good for a laught!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST


    by Rakafraker

    I am SO behind on my list of shows I'd like to see. I'll have to add Sons of Anarchy to it.<p>Though I do work in the film industry from time to time, I don't have such power to recommend an actor to any director, let alone Chris Nolan.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST

    I'm dying to see this film

    by charabicharabia

    And this interview just multiplied that feeling ! KUDOS TO QUINT FOR SUCH A GREAT INTERVIEW !!!!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST

    The recant was somewhere around 10,000 in Pedalback

    by Series7 <P> Here's what it said <P> Star Trek was not as bad as I made it out to be <P> by Asimov_Lives <P> There I said it. After much sole-searching and contemplatin brought on by many argument with you my fellow talkbackers reagarding the merits or lack thereof of J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek (yeah, I no longer refer to him as Jar Jar or it as Dawson Trek) wher the general concensis is that Star Trek was good and not many a people agree with me, I decided to go back and rewatch the film with untainted eyes. You see I think that me being a huge original series fan may have cloud my judgement. One of my main critisisms is been that there is little regard to sciencetific fact. But, I relies now that this is unfair because Star Trek has always been more Science Fantsy than aboot scientific fact from the very beginning. And J.J. Abrams keep up this fine tradition with his version of Trek universe. I know that some of you may say that I backpedaled, and you would be justify in saying so, but I hope you respect a man who say he is wrong then someone who blindly adhears to a losing argument no matter what. I hope you can forgive me my ignorance and acdept my humble pie apology fro anyone and all I may have insulted on the subject of discussion Star Trek. Peace. Long life and prosper.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:12 p.m. CST

    "Let me fuck it up on my own"

    by IForgotAbout19

    Amen. God bless you Terry Gilliam.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    You KNOW Gilliam would have done the squid right

    by wookie1972

    THe man who created the Giant from Time Bandits could not disappoint in that regard.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Gilliam's Watchmen

    by CaptainAxis

    Would have been more fantastical and weird, even less realistic than Snyder's film. Hell, he somehow found Dr. Manhattan "boring". Considering that one of the main complaints from talkbackers against Snyder's Watchmen was that it wasn't "realistic" enough, it's odd that you'd still rather see Gilliam's attempt. Also pretty funny that he can't even recall Silk Spectre's name; if Snyder or whatever other hated director made such an error, assholes like Asimov would be all over them. But the Geek Hive Mind says Gilliam is a genius, so he gets a free pass.<br> <br> Imaginarium looks pretty cool. I absolutely love Fear and Loathing, and 12 Monkeys was awesome back in the day, so I look forward to seeing it. Just a bit tired of Gilliam playing the victim in every interview I've read, whining about how tough it is to make movies and how unfair it was to him that Ledger died, like God struck him down just to ruin Gilliam's life.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:29 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    That's an uncanny AsimovLives impression, right down to the grammatical errors and misspellings. If that wasn't really him, then somebody has spent a scary amount of time studying his posts and writing style.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Heath Ledger...

    by cheyne_stoking_DMS

    the white man's Tupac Shakur.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Asimov Lives and exie

    by Chakraborty

    I don't want to get into reading comprehension because I really don't give a shit about Watchmen either way, but you two seem like the type of frothing at the mouth fanboys that might start a crusade against Gilliam, so let me point you to the quotes. I was responding to exie who claimed Gilliam said his Watchmen version would be better, I disagreed: <p> "I was glad our version didn’t get done, the one that Charles McKeown and I had wrote, because we had reduced it down to about two hours and five minutes I think and we lost so much. Comedian was cut down to next to nothing. So (Zack Snyder) did a good job..." <p> ..and.. <p> "They lost me by the end, frankly, but it was certainly looking better than what I was going to do! (laughs)" <p> Hope this puts your fanboy alarms to sleep.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:11 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Thanks, man. Yeah, it could be classified as a good read, if not for the fact it's such a poor imination of my posts. Hoiw could anybody be fooled by it bobggles my mind. that impostor made such a poor job at trying to imitate me, he might as well have said he's lying with all his teeth. And really, it's beyond obvious that an american wrote that. And he doesn't even make the right typos i usually make. What a fucking amateur!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:12 p.m. CST

    And yes...

    by Chakraborty

    ...I know, Asimov Lives, that you were in support of Gilliam in his distaste for Watchmen, but you still misinterpreted what I said, and you are one of this site's most noted zealots.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Gilliam always admits to his mistakes. Yes, severely cutting off Comedian would be a mistake, as Gilliams wisely says. It's not the only moment where gilliam praises soemthing about Zack The Hack's Watchman In Name Only movie. But i guess for you the glass is half-full, you only want to see where Gilliam praises.<br><br>If there is any frothing at the mouth, it's from the ack The Hack groupies who cannot see anything negative beign said about his beloved hack and his bad movies. There's no more feroucious groupies then those who support the hacks, that's for sure. They make me think of them as groupies for Spinal Tap, absurd beyond belief.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:22 p.m. CST


    by Series7

    Yeah I remember first reading it I thought man, he really thought this out I didn't catch any spelling errors. Plus we were all so happy hitting 10,000 it got lost in the shuffle at first. So it caught us off guard and not totally paying attention.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:25 p.m. CST


    by Series7

    I liked it, and thought Terry missing names was a bit weak. I'm not a die hard fan of the film or comic. I finished the comic for the first time like 2 hours before I saw the movie. I think thats the way to do it. It was like watching the spark notes of the comic. <P> Though I would like to see Terry's watchmen, just because.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Good interview.

    by MCVamp

    The problem with Watchmen boils down to half the casting being spot-on, half being shit, and Snyder choosing the lazy method of keeping huge chunks of book-faithful dialogue instead of letting the actors and visuals tell the story. If you're going to do something as drastic as cut the squid, where's the sense in trying to pretend to be "faithful" to the rest of the story? There's nothing "visionary" about using a 20+ years old comic book as a combination storyboard/script and trusting the CGI guys to make it look snazzy.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:30 p.m. CST

    I have only one zealotry:

    by AsimovLives

    for good movies and good filmmakers. Where i'm wrong in that?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Actually, there are spelling mistakes in my impostor's post. However, they are a poor imitation of my spellings. Worst, the impostor uses purely american expressions. My posts are far more varied, whenre i include american expressions, british expressions, and portuguese expressions directly translated into english. And i latinize my english, which the impostor didn't. It really is not a very good imitation. Anyway, good job on getting to the 10,000 posting,s you certainly deserved your celebration. Fucking professional! I hope you guys got boozed to coma!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Read my posts above, in fact the imposter's post is a very poor imitation of my posts. The grammar "mistakes" included, are porly made and completly misguided to the ones i usually do. There's no hard homework in the importor's post. It's quite an amateur's job, frankly. Suffice to say, the dude would need to have a profound knowledge of portuguese to even beging making a competent imitation of my posts, believe you me. And most revealing of all, there's none of the literary and movie references that i post in all my posts, somehting which, for somebody who suposedly was trying to imitate me, failed to notice. Fucking amateur!

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:46 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There's no group tinking in accepting Terry Gilliam as a genious filmmaker. That's just accepting reality. As in, REAL REALITY, not the bullshit reality that raises Jar Jar Abrams and Zack The Hack snyder to visionary status for making failed artistically bankrupted movies designed to please morons.<br><br>And i know that had Gilliam had his way, he would had delivered, AT THE VERY LEAST, an interesting and unique movie like no other made before. And Terry Gilliam is a master at adaptations too. his adaptation of Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas is exemplary in how to adapt a difficult novel into a movie. While it's not tslavish to the book, it incorporates many things in it, qile creating their own things specifially for the movie. but most impiortant, regardless of the deviations, gilliam was able to conserve, fully, the mood, the themes and the points of the book ito his movie. Flawlessly.<br><br>And this is what Gilliam was trying to do with his Watchmen adaptation, to conserve and perserve the themes while going in his own direction. Which was something that Zack The Hack failed to do with his movie, which only perserved to superficialities while compeltly being misguided and ignorant to the deeper themes, mood and subtext of the comic.<br><br>This is where Gilliam and Zack The Hack differs: the first is an intelligent filmamker who tries his best to make the smartest movie he can, while the later is a miserable hack who couldn't even begin to udnerstand the concept of intelligence and maturity even if he read the definitions in the dictionary.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Zealots for hacks!!

    by AsimovLives

    I rather be a zealot for the really talented filmamkers. I have standards.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Gilliam NAILS Watchmen, LOTR and Star Wars

    by Hooded Justice

    Dead on, Mr Gilliam, dead on: although a lot of skill and talent went into Watchmen, the result was a damp squid. Yes, some scenes were terrific - and gave a glimpse of the movie it could have been - but Gilliam is right in saying that it was way too reverential to the comic. It definitely needed to lose 40-60 minutes to be a viable movie in its own right.<p>Love his throwaway dissing of the Star Wars prequels: he's absolutely right: the OT were movies; the prequels are cartoons - and very bad ones.<p>Again, I totally agree about LOTR: the first one was very good - and after that they went crazy with the CGI and the whole thing became meaningless. The battle of Helm's Deep was the most boring fight scene ever put on film; the siege of Minas Tirith descended into farce with the ghostbusters and Legolas jumping the elephant. Newline should have cut back Jackson's budget and forced him to minimise the endless CGI. It pretty much ruined the franchise.<p>So, once again, my hat's off to Gilliam for bringing some common sense to AICN.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4 p.m. CST


    by Hooded Justice

    Gotta agree with you on the new Star Trek. It wasn't terrible - just dull. The real problem is that the new cast doesn't have a fraction of the chrarisma that Shatner, Nimoy & Co had.<p>An absolutely pointless 'reimagining'.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Can't wait to see this film

    by in_ceteris_paribus

    I grew up with Gilliam, since my parents were badass. I've been watching Python since around the age of 9, Brazil around 11, and Fear and Loathing around 14. I love the man's work and have been a huge fan for years. It's always good to read interviews from him, because he comes across as a very well-spoken, honest person. Oh, and Heath Ledger's dead, boo hoo, I'd suck his dick, waaaaaa, etc.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Quint nails another one...

    by JackLucas

    Thanks so much for this great and loose interview with one of the men who helped shape my childhood and who continues to influence me with his art.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST

    A backhanded compliment at best

    by exie

    My reading comprehension is fine. Maybe you should try working through passage again slowly with a piece of scratch paper at your side; Gilliam -- "I think WATCHMEN really bothered me, because I thought it should be better. It was all there. It looked right, but to me it was pace. It didn’t have pace. It needed a bit more quirkiness in there. Dr. Manhatten was getting boring, frankly, and then Ozymandias by the end I thought “Oh, come on!” They lost me by the end, frankly, but it was certainly looking better than what I was going to do! (laughs)"

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:15 p.m. CST

    where do we send the $?

    by dogu4

    Love Gilliam's work, and this is a great interview. I wish his fans could finance his movies instead of suits in hollywood. Tell me where to send $100 now for 4 tickets when the movie's ready to view. I'm ready to wait and Gilliam would be spending less of his time dinkin' with the dorks in finance.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Give it up, CaptainAxis

    by wookie1972

    We didn't like Watchmen. Gilliam's version would likely have not been "realistic," but there would have been a point to his movie rather than just amping up the violence for no good rason other than to shock.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST


    by Chakraborty

    Yeah, Gilliam thought Watchmen was a piece of shit. Deal with it. But he never said his version would be better as you claim. If you enjoyed Watchmen, great. But if his opinion about Watchmen bothers you so much it's because deep down in places you're not aware of, you know he's right.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Don't get me wrong

    by CaptainAxis

    I'm sure Gilliam's Watchmen would have been an interesting film, but his comments about paring it down to two hours, cutting out the Comedian, needing more quirkiness, Watchmen being primarily a character piece... that doesn't sound like a Watchmen film I'd want. Not to mention, Dr. Manhattan would have been portrayed by Arnold Schwarzenegger painted blue, and the studio likely would have interfered and forced Watchmen to be PG-13. These things make the absence of a Gilliam-directed Watchmen more bearable. And of all people to criticize a film's pace, right after he talks about his own films having off-kilter rhythms and poor storytelling. I love Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas because it's so different from anything else, much like Watchmen. I'd go so far to say that Watchmen and Fear and Loathing are my top two all-time favorite movies.<br> <br> Oh for fuck's sake, are you still on about the violence? Honestly, the first time I read Watchmen it felt like the rape scene and the pregnant shooting scene were added for shock value. Which they were, as Alan Moore wanted to show comic-book superhero archetypes doing shocking things nobody had seen them do before. Snyder did the same with movie superheroes, so yes, it was designed to "shock" in the same way as the book, which was shocking for its time. Let's not forget that.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Why is this talk back about

    by Mockingbuddha

    how AsimovLives doesn't like Star Trek? Is he secretly some famous person? Is he smarter or better than other people? We know he twitses or whatever. I thought the new Trek was pretty cool, better than I expected for sure, but Gilliam is awesome! Can't wait to see Parnasus. Oh yeah, and the worst thing about Heath's death to me was that it inconvenienced a TRUE genius. I can't stand this potential best actor of his generation crap, he was a good Joker, but come on... You can't EVER live down some of the things he did on screen. I also like Asimov very much... Is AsimovLives secretly his clone or something? If not go have this conversation elsewhere dudes. This is Gilliamland.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

    by CaptainAxis

    I just watched it again for like, the millionth time, because of this interview/talkback and man, it's still just as crazy and deep as it was the first time. It's not your typical druggie flick nor is it simply a Cheech & Chong stoner-buddy comedy, it's a terrific adaptation with plenty to say, topped off with unique characters and trippy visuals. Now it just needs a proper Blu-ray release, because even the Criterion Collection DVD looks like the movie was made in 1971 on my LCD HDTV with all the fuzziness and grain.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    what I'm still "on about" is that your theory that Snyder was trying to do in the movie what Moore was doing in the comic makes no sense, because he copied the comic panel-for-panel otherwise. So why only the violence?

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 8:49 p.m. CST


    by Mockingbuddha

    I agree, I don't think Snyder came anywhere near doing for movies what Moore did for comics with Watchmen. Maybe Gilliam could have done that. That is an interesting idea though. What movie is for movies what Watchmen is for comics? Hmmm... maybe Pulp Fiction... or Being John Malkovich... nah, There's always OG Star Wars, and Alien... Citizen Kane maybe, some Hitchcock thing or another. I don't know, I can't really think of one that seems to do the job. Can anyone else? Please don't say Dark Knight.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Sooo Asimov...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... let me get this straight. You think your posts are literary masterpieces? With flawless grammar and syntax? Puuuuhhlease. Son it doesn't even appear that you can type a coherent sentence half the time. Every one I've bothered to read, (granted that equals a relatively small number, as they're all pretty much the same: JAR JAR ABRAMS TREK SUX, etc.), is fraught with spelling and punctuation errors. What a self aggrandizing git you are. Sit down already you putz.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 9:54 p.m. CST

    will say it again

    by frank cotton

    BRAZIL is the greatest film of all time. the book, THE BATTLE OF BRAZIL, is very good. and THE BROTHERS GRIMM is hardly the worst film of all time

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 10:21 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    I think Gilliam's right on one regard, that Incredibles told a similar story and did it very well. As for a movie that comes close to Watchmen, I really can't say. Comics and movies are completely different media. I guess the movie that took the most narrative risks in the same way watchmen did and succeeded was Citizen Kane, but it's a cliche to say that "Watchmen is the Citizen Kane of comics." I honestly don't know a good answer.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:14 p.m. CST


    by virgin_eyeballs

    that actually liked Brothers Grimm. It's a hell of a movie to fall asleep to, and I really mean that.

  • Aug. 21, 2009, 11:39 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    We're talking about the SUPERHERO genre, not films and comics in general. Snyder's Watchmen does to superhero movies what Moore's Watchmen did to superhero comics in terms of sex, violence, characterization, subtext, mature themes, and a healthy dose of satire. Name another superhero film that depicts its protagonists as flawed as the main characters in Watchmen - Snyder could have easily delivered a PG-13 standard superhero popcorn flick with a happy ending, like the studio would have preferred, and it probably would have been more successful at the box office, but he didn't.<br> <br> Name another superhero movie that uses real songs on its soundtrack, where the violence has real consequences, where the heroes actually have graphic sex, where the whole idea of superheroes and their effect on the real world is explored and satirized. If Watchmen went the bloodless violence route, it would be the same as every other superhero movie where nobody bleeds, even when they're shot. I respect your opinion, you don't have to like the movie, but there was a purpose for the explicit violence. Re-read the book again.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:17 a.m. CST

    WATCHMEN is an underrated masterpiece.

    by Nirgaul

    Gilliam's claim that the Incredibles took the thunder from Watchmen is a bit of an over-simplification. Ok, its like saying "they already made a good comic-book movie, why do we need two?" WATCHMEN actually exceeds the graphic novel in some respects, and where it doesn't capture the nuances of the characters, I fill in the blanks with my recollections of Hollis Mason's biography, Ozymandias' profile, etc... To those who claim The Dark Knight is the film that captures the emotional registers, while Watchmen is visual fluff, my impressions are almost the exact opposite. Both movies have some good hard-hitting moments, but Watchmen makes me anticipate, almost hate what happens to Rorschach every time I see it. Maybe it was the timing, but I identified with many of the characters in this a lot. Something I rarely find in movies at all.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:25 a.m. CST


    by Nirgaul

    Another thing about Watchmen that is unique in the comic sub-genre, is we've never seen a "March of Time" characterization of the masked heroes with historical events as a reference. This is what makes the movie fascinating to me. Just as Rorschach's mask is a critique on society, each of the characters are a reflection of the times. The madness and nihilism of the Comedian in Vietnam... the "I'm here, now what?" of Dr. Manhattan on the moon with Neil Armstrong. Anyone catch the footage of Rorschach in the beginning of the nightly news? - its a mirror of the bigfoot recording, with him walking hunched and looking back at the camera... stocky grain on a 16mm print. That's the kind of stuff that makes this movie brilliant.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:05 a.m. CST

    The truth hurts: so people blame Asimovlives

    by Hooded Justice

    The reaction of the insecure basement-dweller is to shoot the messenger. Gilliam is also 100% correct and is expressing the disappointment of any right-minded moviegoer as regards Watchmen.<p>Watchmen was a mess. It had a few inspired moments - but too many fundamental problems to work as a movie.<p>The frustrating thing is that I can see a potentially excellent movie locked inside Watchmen, screaming for a good editor to release it. What it really needed was an editor who HADN"T READ THE COMIC to cut out the all the dead weight and deliver a movie about two hours in length. It would have been less faithful to the comic - but crucially, would have been a much better movie - maybe even a great one.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:06 a.m. CST


    by Hooded Justice

    The points you make about what Watchmen mixes in to the Superhero genre are true (sex, violence, characterisation, subtext etc), BUT none of that necessarily turns a bad movie into a good one. There are many awful movies that deal with some of these themes too. The real question is how much do they add to the movie - and how well integrated are they? For example, I would argue that The Incredibles handles some of these elements much better than Watchmen.<p>Some of the elements you are praising are the very same points that actually hurt Watchmen.<p>Sex - a crude and tacky scene in the Owlship. Okay, they have sex, that's fine - but what did that prolonged semi-porn scene actually achieve? Does Snyder assume that we are all basement-dwellers who need sex to be explained to us? It slowed the movie down and killed the atmosphere for no good reason.<p>Characterisation: VERY hit-and-miss in this movie - and some notable figures not pulling their weight. Most people have already discusssed this so I won't delve into it further, except to ask why Rorschach has the same voice that Christian Bale uses for Batman. WTF? Did nobody notice? Totally incongruous. Added to this, some truly awful make-up effects on some characters that really pull you right out of the movie. You're right that characterisation is important - but it needs to be well done.<p>Satire: er, which bits are you referring to? Surely not the scenes with puppet-faced Nixon - the worst portrayal of the man I have ever seen on film or TV. From make-up to performance, it was shockingly amateurish. If you're referring to an overall satirical outlook on the world, then I think Watchmen is several notches below any good episode of the Simpsons, Futurama, The Office or even The Incredibles movie.<p>Mature themes: it's rare for a Superhero movie NOT to deal with mature themes - and it's not some kind of automatic badge of merit. Every Superhero movie has them - Superman: parents killed, an outsider who can never belong on Earth; Batman: parents killed, haunted and driven by fear/revenge (depending on franchise); Iron Man: warmongering and Imperialism, no less; Spider-man: power and responsibility etc etc etc. Having a mature theme doesn't auomatically make your movie one bit better. Same goes for subtext.<p>Name another Superhero movie that uses real songs as its soundtrack? Er, off the top of my head - Spider-man 2: 'Raindrops keep falling on my head". Used very effectively in that movie - as opposed to the use of songs in Watchmen which is HORRIFIC. I could not believe the amateurishness of the soundtrack in Watchmen - the old youtube gag of taking a well-known hit and awkwardly sticking it over a piece of footage in the crudist sound-to-image synchronisation imaginable. I would cite the soundtrack as the weakest part of the movie. And that's saying a lot, given the many other problems Watchmen has.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Watchmen IS underrated

    by So What?

    Snyder did a fantastic job especially the directors cut. I like Gilliam but he talks about bad pacing what about the first hour of Baron Munchausen? For me Watchmen is superior to The Dark Knight. THAT film is overrated and too long.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 7:05 a.m. CST

    So What: Dark Knight overrated

    by Hooded Justice

    Couldn't agree with you more. DK was two movies awkwardly squashed into one. The result was more like one-and-a-half movies. I'm utterly baffled as to why so many AICN posters like it. Sadly, I can't agree with you about Watchmen. I feel it COULD have been great if Snyder had been locked out of the editing room. As for the DIrector's cut - I understand it is actually LONGER than the original - and the original badly needed to be cut down by 40-50 minutes.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 8:29 a.m. CST

    Hey, I like the Watchmen movie

    by Mockingbuddha

    but I don't think it's near as important a film as Watchmen is a comic. For one thing I've read the GN about twenty times and get more out of it each time. The movie started to fade on a third viewing. I don't think Incredibles is the answer, it's awesome and covers some of the same things, but not enough, the tone is a bit too light to really explore those dark recesses of the human psyche that Watchmen tackles.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Dark recesses of the human psyche...?

    by Hooded Justice

    With all respect, Mockingbuddha, I don't think either Watchman the movie or comic can claim to explore the 'dark recesses of the human psyche' - except in a shallow, trashy, pulp fiction way, and this is in no way a criticism: Watchmen the comic is a masterpiece of pulp fiction - but is certainly not exploring the human psyche in any way you can take seriously: any time Moore's dialogue starts to go in that direction (and this is true of all his comic books), the result is incongruous and embarrassing. Luckily, Moore's imagination is far broader than this - and he mostly sticks to what he's good at: storytelling. The power in Watchmen is chiefly in its storytelling - and mainly from a visual perspective; the brilliant way the images are framed, grouped and sequenced. This is a visual medium after all.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Asimov Lives Ranting about Watchmen, Trek etc

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    reminds me of something Fred Ward says in OFF LIMITS.<br /><br /> Willem Dafoe and Gregory Hines are military policemen investigating prostitute murders in the middle of 1968 Saigon. And this is how Ward describes what they're doing(paraphrase):<br /><br />"You guys are in a World of SHIT. You're floating in it. And you reach over the side of the boat and you pick up this one turd. And you say THIS TURD PISSES ME OFF!" <br /><br />If Abrams' TREK and Snyder's WATCHMEN are failures as Art or Entertainment (& I'm not agreeing that they are) they are NOBLE failures by men who are trying to make something GOOD.<br /><br /> To lump them in with Bay, who's not even trying to make something COHERENT, or McG, who seems to have never had a clear concept of WHAT he was trying to make, is almost CRIMINAL. <br /><br />If AsimovLives (and some other Talkbackers) think IT'S ALL SHIT, then why pick on a particular TURD? <br /><br />To paraphrase Pauline Kael, Movies are so rarely Great Art, that if you can't appreciate Good Trash, there's really no reason to go.<br /><br /> I'm sure Asimov Lives and every other talkbacker on here has films that they secretly KNOW are flawed and not as good as they could or should be, but they LOVE them anyway. So why the frothing HATE for films which I'm happy to admit aren't perfect. Because NO FILM IS. <br /><br />I love CITIZEN KANE. But I've watched it enough to happily point out 5 or 10 things about it that don't really MAKE SENSE if you're supposed to take the story literally. Bernstein and Leland's recollections leading to Flashbacks of Conversations that THEY WEREN'T IN THE ROOM TO HEAR being the two most obvious examples.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 10:34 a.m. CST


    by Hooded Justice

    I agree that the makers of Star Trek and Watchmen were genuinely trying to make good movies - and that both films demonstrate a lot of talent and effort.... but good intentions don't make a good movie - unfortunately; that'd be too easy!<p>Interesting that both films you suggest as examples of 'turds' are, in my view, crippled by their source material:<p>Watchmen spent so much time trying to be reverential to the comic book that it forgot to be a movie - and Star Trek suffers in comparison with the old series: the original cast just had so much more personality and charisma compared to the lightweight kids in the roles today.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:04 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Boo hoo!!! If you don't like it, drop your pants and go get fucked in the ass by an ox. What a pussy!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Hooded Justice

    by AsimovLives

    I think that Zack The Hack Snyder TRIED to make a good movie with his Watchmen. The problem is that he CAN'T make a really good movie, specially one that has to be intelligent. The man has not the materials in him to make an intelligent movie as Watchmen demanded.<br><br>With that latest movie that they called Star Trek but which is in name only, the filmmakers were only concwerned about their fat paychecks and couldn't give a shit about anything to do with real Star Trek. Suffice to say, they were very interested in remaking Star Wars, which they did. Did they tried to make a good movie? They couldn't be asses with it! they just made a very dumb retard movie that would "connect2 to the dumbest idiots at the audience, to so called minimum common denominator", for the sake of a fat paycheck and a easy milk-cow to squeeze money out of them. And at least for the american market, their strategy worked. Good job, hack boys!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Clarifications, please

    by CaptainAxis

    When criticizing Watchmen, please specify either theatrical version or director's cut. The theatrical release felt disjointed and awkwardly paced, but the director's cut solves most of those problems. There are also some scenes added that are unnecessary, but as a whole the Director's Cut of Watchmen is far superior because it gives the scenes some breathing room and connects them together better, rather than jumping from one vignette to the next. The ADHD crowd, like Hooded Justice, might not like it because it's a three-hour film but it's a big improvement. I can only assume that anyone who feels a two-hour Watchmen movie would be sufficient must be a casual fan at best. I see no way to adapt that book into a two-hour film without losing way too much, i.e. Gilliam's comment about cutting out the Comedian almost completely. If you think that's acceptable, I don't think you truly understand Watchmen. How do you get the themes of Watchmen across without that character?<br> <br> I still don't get the bitching over the soundtrack. That was one of my favorite things about the movie, the way Snyder matched up music with images. "Unforgettable" is so appropriate for the opening scenes; the opening credit sequence speaks for itself, but look how Snyder matches the imagery with certain lyrics; "I'm Your Boogieman" is perfect for the riot scene if you know the lyrics and the original meaning of the term "bogey man"; if you think about the musical choices, what's happening in the scene and how it relates to the rest of the film, it's all done artistically. He didn't just go and assign random songs to each scene, nor did he let the studio and record label come in and take over with a bunch of cool, popular songs. And by the way, while it was a cute answer "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" doesn't count. Name me another superhero movie with a soundtrack like Watchmen.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Jar Jar Abrams' Fuck Trek a noble achievement!!!!!

    by AsimovLives

    I didn't knew that crass greedy comercialism served by a very dumb stupid bnadly made movie with a script writen by complete retards and directed by a fuck ass who can't give a shit about cohoerence and inteligence would now be mistaken for noble achievements. Fuck's sake, some people really love shit! The shitties the merrier! Fucking amateurs!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST

    And Terry Gilliam is a genious

    by AsimovLives

    and Zack The Hack and Jar Jar Abrams are inept dumb hacks. That is how it is, andn thei9r careers is there to prove it... for people who really care for cinema.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head

    by CaptainAxis

    That's your idea of a brilliant soundtrack choice? It's been so long since I watched Spiderman 2, so I looked the scene up on YouTube and um... I wasn't a big fan of Spiderman in general anyway, but that's pretty fucking cheeseball. Now I know you're arguing for the sake of arguing.<br> <br> Back on topic, do you really think a quirkier, more fantastical, two-hour Watchmen movie with no Comedian would have worked?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Quint, Weinsteins financed BG when no one else would

    by Proman1984

    They gave him more money to make a film than anyone, ever at the time when nobody was willing to work with him. Answer me this, how after all of this can you fault them with interference, which basically ammounted to scrapping the useless fake nose and a choice of one actress? If you call this nightmare than you are just an ungrateful idiot, which I'm sure you are anyway.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Brothers Grimm is what Gilliam made of it. Terry is just sourt

    by Proman1984

    The more interviews I read the more I'm dissapointed with him. He just critiques everyone all the fucking time (and uses this word too much too!).

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:51 p.m. CST


    by cymbalta4thedevil

    What's funny about WATCHMEN is that half of the people who don't like it complain that it was so reverential to the comic that it forgot to be a movie, and the other half complain that it isn't reverential enough!<br /><br />For example: I think Snyder changed the Squid sequence for specific movie storytelling reasons. Fanboys forget that the reason that sequence has any power at all is not because Gibbons drew a cool crazy looking monster. It's because in one fell swoop Moore killed off half the supporting cast in the story!<br /><br /> The news vendor. The kid reading the comic. Rorshach's psyciatrist and his wife. The arguing lesbian couple. The kids at the concert. Etc. Etc. Snyder would have had to add a half an hour or more really exploring those characters to make us CARE when the Squid shows up. Otherwise it's just a special effect. Who gives a shit?<br /><br />The fact that alot of AICN talkbackers cared more about Snyder removing a cool CGI squid than Snyder intentionally ignoring most of the story's supporting cast (because he really had no other option) was very telling. People who care more about special effects than characters really have no call to criticize Michael Bay. Much less Snyder or Abrams.<br /><br />And when Gilliam points out that Snyder gives us brilliant individual sequences but has problems with pace, he's pointing out inherent flaws in the material.<br /><br /> People who've grown up reading WATCHMEN as a collected graphic novel often forget that it was originally 12 separate issues released a month apart. So Moore and Gibbons were experimenting with different WAYS of telling a story. Can we do a whole issue that's Dr. Manhattan on Mars musing about the nature of Time? Can we do a whole issue that's Rorshach and his prison psychiatrist?<br /><br /> Snyder didn't forget to make a movie. He's making several different kinds of movies strung together the way Moore and Gibbons made several different kinds of comics strung together.Of course the pacing is off. It would be a miracle if it wasn't. And without the kinky sex and overamped violence you'd have three hours of people in costumes... standing around...arguing with each other...<br /><br /> Gilliam is tipping his hat to Snyder's ability to translate as much of the story and visuals as he did. He's respectfully disagreeing with some of his artistic choices. He probably sees the film as a noble failure, but freely admits that Snyder made a much less compromised and possibly better film than he would have ended up making in the 80's or 90's. He's certainly not trashing Snyder's take on the material.<br /><br />As for STAR TREK, my beef is not with AsimovLives or any other talkbacker disliking or even hating it. Every one has a right to an opinion. But it should be an informed one. And loathing it all out of proportion and insisting it's the worst thing that ever happened to the franchise is laughably and willfully ignorant. There are individual episodes of every incarnation of Trek that are more badly written,more clumsily directed, more scientifically implausible, more goofy or hokey or whatever other complaint you could drum up, than anything Abrams Kurtzman and Orci came up with.<br /><br />And comparing this cast to any other cast, much less the originals is sort of unfair too. We have 100 HOURS or more of Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the others playing, growing into and evolving those beloved characters. Pine, Quinto and the rest have had one movie.Give them another shot. Paramount is certainly going to...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:52 p.m. CST

    No, you've missed the point, Captain

    by Hooded Justice

    Making Watchmen LONGER is absolutely NOT the way to fix it. As for not 'getting' Watchmen, well, it's a fairly pointless discussion - everyone appreciates things in a diffferent way. For me, Watchmen (the comic book) is a masterpiece of pulp fiction - and a major piece of work in the comic book medium. That good enough for you? Probably not, by the sounds of things.<p>As regards the movie, the plain truth is that it needs a lot cut out. Now as important it is to stay true to the spirit of the source material while developing the movie,... once the film's in the can, I'm afraid the MOVIE is now the priority and nothing else - i.e. what is the best MOVIE we can make from the material we've shot? This is the point where a lot of stuff has to go - and unfortunately, fidelity to the source material is actually quite low down on the list of priorities. Or should be.<p>In this case, Snyder was unable to let go of the comic book (probably in terror of the fans) and turned in an edit that was an uncomfortable fudge between two different media. It's an interesting mish-mash, but as a movie, it doesn't work.<p>I think that if an editor came in who HADN'T read the comic, the film would have turned out a LOT better. Because there IS a great movie trapped inside there - but it would involve junking a lot of the stuff from the comic (and very likely inserting some stuff from the Director's cut you mentioned). Because at this point we're talking about how to make a good MOVIE, not a good comic book.<p>For example, I think that most of the flashbacks that explain the characters' back-stories should be ripped right out. They were great in the comic - but they actually harm the movie. Strange but true. In fact, all those scenes are rendered pretty useless by the opening sequence which actually does an excellent job of giving the audience the gist of the overall back-story. And that's where they should have left it. The golden rule of movie-making is Less is More. It would have been far more intriguing NOT to explain too much of the back stories. Betraying the comic book, I know - but probably resulting in a better movie. Because the bits in the movie that WERE working were Rorshach's murder investigation - and THAT'S what should have become the main thread of the story - without the distractions of the flashbacks which somehow didn't work on film at all.<p>If this sounds blasphemous, just think about a movie such as Blade Runner (which has some similarities in tone). Now I think most will agree that at two hours, BR does a pretty good job at telling its story in an engaging and thought-provoking way. But imagine if Ridley Scott had continually inserted flashbacks, telling the back stories of all the characters and the history of the city, spinning the movie out to three hours....<p> Would that have improved the movie? I suggest it would have made it worse. It's much better to suggest things to the audience, rather than ham-fistedly spoonfeed all information to them. Less is More.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:52 p.m. CST

    If Gilliam ever achieves commercial success...

    by CaptainAxis

    What's the over/under on how fast the Geek Squad would turn on him?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 12:56 p.m. CST

    I've Got to Go To Work...

    by cymbalta4thedevil

    "Please Don't Talk About Me when I'm Gone..." :P Hahaha!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Hooded Justice

    by Nirgaul

    The flashbacks and flashforwards are a necessary part of Watchmen's structure. That's why "Nostalgia", the product, and Night Owl's memoirs and Dr. Manhattan's perception of time exist in the story. Its about characters reflecting on their past, on the culture's past, on the collective nightmare that transformed them and the world at large into the mess it is. Its not just 'backstory' filler material... Those snapshots in time are essential elements of the characters. If you miss that, you miss one of the more important points of the story. We live in a universe of clockwork causality. Antecedents define us.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Hooded Justice

    by CaptainAxis

    I see where you're coming from now. You wanted more "story" and less "character" whereas I'm the opposite, but Watchmen isn't about the story - that's actually the most superfluous part of Watchmen for me. It's about "Who watches the watchmen?" and exploring the themes that arise from that: unchecked power, what would the world be like, the psychological ramifications, etc. It's also about deconstructing and commenting on the genre using the unique language of the medium, which Moore & Gibbons did with comics and Snyder did with film. The point of Watchmen isn't Rorschach's murder investigation - that's what ties it together, but the flashbacks are integral to the whole thing. They allow us to get to know the characters and see that maybe superheroes aren't as altruistic as the Batman and Spiderman franchises would have us believe, and they also relate to the murder investigation by giving each player reasonable motivation for disliking the Comedian.<br> <br> You interpreted Watchmen as basically a straight murder mystery among the superhero community, which was the original concept. But it became so much more than that, as Moore himself has mentioned, so it would have been a shame to strip it back down to something so simplistic for the film. I guess it comes down to Story vs. Character and which you prefer. I'll take all the character stuff over story and plot any day. By the way, that three-hour Blade Runner sounds glorious. I was actually hoping for something like that when the 5-disc collection came out.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:37 p.m. CST

    And yeah, what Nirgaul said

    by CaptainAxis

    Very well stated. It actually kind of boggles my mind that anybody would see the flashbacks as "filler" as it shows the mindset of those who feel Snyder failed miserably. Without the flashbacks and the odd structure, why make Watchmen at all?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Captain Axis

    by Nirgaul

    Maybe I take for granted that some good looking for a plot like a lifeline. I see the best stories as being character-driven. "Those looking for a plot will be shot. - Chief of Ordinance" (Mark Twain)

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Good points, Captain...

    by Hooded Justice

    ...but allow me to clarify: the way I see it - looking at Watchmen from an editing POV: once the film is in the can it's not about favoring plot over character at all - but about favoring what works over what doesn't. And it's at this stage that harsh decisions have to be made for the benefit of the movie.<p>You're right that character is usually more important than plot: a film without interesting characters doesn't work no matter how good the plot is. On the other hand you could watch a great character just painting his porch and it would be engaging...<p>But in the case of Watchmen the movie, the characters were perfectly well able to stand on their own without spelling out their back stories, which were too often marred by bad dialogue, poor staging, terrible make-up and unnecessary explanations. They tended to do more harm than good to the characters - as they appeared in the movie. As I say, it would have been better to make the characters more intriguing by NOT telling everything about them.<p>Plenty of scope in a detective story - or any kind of story - for all the philosphical dimensions you mention - but I think the greatest potential for all that stuff IN THE FOOTAGE THEY SHOT FOR THIS MOVIE (sorry for shouting) was in the Rorshach stuff, even though, for some reason, Batman's growl was used as his voiceover.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Gima had commercial sucess in his career. Time Bandits was a huge sucess back in the day. So were The Fisher King and 12 Monkeys. And eventually all his movies end up making money, on the long run. Except for Jabberwocky.<br><br>And if a future Gilliam movie made a lot of bank, i would be happy for him, it wouldmean his next movie would be less hard for him to make it.<br><br>I don't turn on good directors, as long they remain good directors. Terry Gilliam has always been a great director, so would i ever turn on him? Unlike the shit hack groupies, for me box office considerations is not what makes me like or dilike a filmmaker. You shit hack groupies should get that stuck to your heads that there ar epeople who actually like proper good filmmakers for things other then mere commercialism bullshit.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:17 p.m. CST

    There was only one sucessful backstory told in Watchmen:

    by AsimovLives

    Manhanthan's backstory. Small wonder, it was the one that would be easiest to translate to the screen, because they used the whole chapter dedicated to him as a storyboard. Of all the things in the comic, it's the one that's closest to a cinematic presentation. On that sequence, however, is the part of the movie which i do have something to praise Zack The Hack: his idea to use the music of Philip Glass for the sequence. It was a pretty good idea, adn the only moment in his movie where Zack The Hack turns into a decent filmmaker. Pity he fucked up the rest of the movie like a fucking amateur.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    People haver posted very detailed and inteligent posts telling where Jar Jar Abrams' Fuck Trek failed so miserably and why it's such a shit movie. And you have read most of them. And like a fanatic thickhead, you have constantly ignored every single one of them, pretending there was nothing writen about them, and went "la la la i'm not listening!!". reason is on the side of the Jar Jar Abrams's Shit Trek bullshit movie opponents, not on it's kool-aid drinking mindless lemming groupies. The movie's flaws have been exposed with great detail time and again,a nd akll that the groupies have to offer in defense is mindless drivel, repetition of the movie's advertizements and their "personal liking", as if that stuff would count for something. Reason says Jar Jar Abrams's Fuck Trek is a bad movie. Anmd you grouipies beter deal with that. You love a shit movie, deal with it and accept it. Call it a fucking guilty pleasure, that's fair, but to mistake that for a good movie is the stuff of comedy of absurd, to say the least. Get real!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST

    And i pity the fools who cannot udnerstand why Gilliam is brilla

    by AsimovLives

    They can have that shit Jar Jar Abrams, it's their fucking loss!

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Agree with Asimovlives...

    by Hooded Justice

    The Manhattan backstory worked where the others didn't. It's the one I'd have the greatest difficulty cutting...

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:40 p.m. CST

    God asimov...

    by Skyway Moaters

    What a mindless drooling little bully you are. <p> AsimovLives: "FEUK YOU AL MINE ARE ONLY OPONIONS WHAT COUNTS!" <p> Average Talkbacker: " Geeze dude, calm down it's just a movie. We all have our likes and dislikes, and opinions are like arseholes, U know?" <p> AsimovLives: "NO! FUNC YOU YOU LITTLE CRYBABEI PUSSY! ME ARS BETTER OPOTIONS THAN YOUSIES SHUT YOU FUCKING MOWTHS I RIGTE YOU RONGAS!! <p> What are you, about 12 years old? A mentally deficient troll with very tired and pathetic act? You contribute NOTHING. Shut the fuck up and go pound sand up your ass you insufferable little cunt.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Wait I got it...

    by Skyway Moaters

    You're really Armond White aren't you Asipoo?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Watchmen - bloated and ultra violent

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Sick of this new movie trend these days where movies have to be so ultra violent, and speeded up fight scenes shit. Ack.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:15 p.m. CST

    The new trend that bothers me is...

    by CaptainAxis

    The talkbackers who act like their opinion is solid fact - just because a movie didn't work for you doesn't mean it didn't work as a movie. I love the movie, but I've never claimed it to be flawless or THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER. Metacritic has Watchmen at a "metascore" of 56 and a user score of 7.5, while it's at 64% on Rotten Tomatoes. Roger Ebert, arguably the most respected and influential film critic alive today, thoroughly enjoyed it with no prior knowledge of the source material. I'm not saying these things make Watchmen a good movie, but they objectively prove it wasn't the abysmal failure some of you would like to believe.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Sick of people that think Rotten Tomatoes is the

    by lockesbrokenleg

    absolute last word on a movie. You know Revenge of the Sith is also at 88 percent there, right?

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Did I say RT was the absolute last word?

    by CaptainAxis

    Or did I also mention Metacritic and the opinion of the most famous film critic ever? I'm just saying, if you want to be objective and try to state facts, be objective and state facts. If you want to be subjective and state your opinion, don't pretend it's a fact. Unfortunately that's a subtlety lost on a majority of talkbackers who fancy themselves the intellectual gatekeepers of quality cinema.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Oh give me a break CaptainAxis

    by wookie1972

    You decry people for giving their opinions and then you fall back on RT and Ebert? You can't admit that some people didn't like this movie, and that they may have reason for it. You've fallen back on psychology, used ad hominem attacks, and just plain bitched about how people who didn't like this movie "didn't get it." We "got it" just fine, we just didn't like it, leave it at that.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:01 p.m. CST

    "They’re still comic books to me" -TG

    by Star Hump

    That's right Terry. Anyone who says "graphic novel" is a pretentious twat. I don't give a goddamn who coined the term.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 9:58 p.m. CST

    12 monkeys

    by MurderMostFowl

    My favorite Gilliam flick. Brad Pitt owes his weighty roles like Fight club to Gilliam. Before 12 Monkeys he was just a pretty boy.

  • Aug. 22, 2009, 11:57 p.m. CST


    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

    Gilliam put into words what i couldn't. The pace is kinda fucked. And goddamn, that Nixon is fucking terrible. But, i do enjoy the flick for the most part. The director's cut really helped alot of its issues in my opinion. In the end its just far from a masterpiece...(not that that was ever possible really)

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 7:56 a.m. CST

    Skyway Moaters

    by AsimovLives

    I respect the opinions of all those that can actually deliver soemthing smart and well though out. I have already wrote THOUSANDS of words telling, in great detail, why Jar Jar Abrams' Fuck Trek is a retard pice of shit "movie". And i'll write thousand of words telling why Terry Gilliam is a proper good director, instead of that retard Jar Jar Abrams. If you disagree, why then don't dazzles us with your logic and argumentation for why i'm wrong about Jar Jar Abrams and Terry Gilliam, hem?

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 8:02 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    There are people who can support their opinions with solid arguments. And there there are the people who bitch that their emotionalisms are not taken seriously and yet want to sell the "opinions are subjective" bullshit without even really understand the concept of subjectivism.<br><br>I'll always despise ans decry all the opinions in support of a shit movie isf all they can come up with is the same old stupid "ii had fun". Who fucking cares if you had fun? You had fun, good for you, so fucking what? People can get fun with the most absurd and weird shit, that doesn't mean anything as an argument. and this comes double for the people who loved that piece of shit retard crap Jar Jar Abrams' Fuck Trek and all they can come up with is "i had fun" and repeating the Paramount Pictures advertizment for the movie. Why should i ever respect that shit?

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 8:36 a.m. CST


    by Skyway Moaters

    Can you possibly be as stupid as you sound? Do you even bother to read any posts but your own so that you can pat your self on the back and say "look how clever I am!". <p> I positively REVERE Gilliam's work. Earlier in this TB I expressed my opinion that "Tideland" is an unjustly maligned masterpiece, and that I was very surprised that you and I agree about something for once. <p> But see, this illustrates why I have big enough problem with your rabid over the top posting style to attack you. Those are my OPINIONS and I take pains to state them as such. You repect no-ones' opinions but your own, and those who agree with you. Add to that the fact that you've been berating us for weeks with your idiotic Trek rants; Is it any wonder that I'm longing for you to just shut up now?

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 8:57 a.m. CST

    And before you start again Asimov...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... I'm not an Abrams Trek apologist. I kind of enjoyed it because I've always had a fondness for things Trek, but I can't say I think it's a very good movie. <p> Just out of curiosity, can you honestly say that you think Abrams' Trek is worse than "Star Trek Nemesis". If so, that tells me everything I need to know about your tastes in, and knowledge of film, and causes me to doubt whether you actually understand Terry Gilliam's work on any significant level.

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 8:57 a.m. CST

    And before you start again Asimov...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... I'm not an Abrams Trek apologist. I kind of enjoyed it because I've always had a fondness for things Trek, but I can't say I think it's a very good movie. <p> Just out of curiosity, can you honestly say that you think Abrams' Trek is worse than "Star Trek Nemesis". If so, that tells me everything I need to know about your tastes in, and knowledge of film, and causes me to doubt whether you actually understand Terry Gilliam's work on any significant level.

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Sorry for the double post {:-0

    by Skyway Moaters

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 8:23 p.m. CST

    Hooded Justice

    by Mockingbuddha

    Surely you will admit that Watchmen the comic, (and even the movie) delve further into the "dark recesses of the human psyche" than The Incredibles? Yes? No? I think the comic does a pretty good job going there, you say it's embarrassing wen it tries? I'm not sure I get your drift. I mean... Moore tried to find realistic mental disorders to explain this odd behavior from his characters. Each one has their own little unique neurosis that motivates them to dress in underwear and beat up people. I thought it was pretty effective and not at all embarrassing... okay Nite Owl was a little embarrassing, but that also made him the most likable character. Impotence is embarrassing in real life too.

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Not that I would know anything about that!

    by Mockingbuddha

    Just to be clear. I've HEARD it's embarrassing.

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Point taken, Mockingbuddha...

    by Hooded Justice

    True enough: Moore gives his characters some basic flaws and hang-ups, but I wouldn't call this exactly 'exploring the dark recesses of the human psyche'. I'd call it adding some sleazy colour to a terrific piece of pulp fiction. If Watchmen were exploring the human psyche, I honestly don't think I'd have bothered reading it - life's too short. Luckily, Watchmen mostly sticks to being a brilliant comic book.

  • Aug. 23, 2009, 10:10 p.m. CST


    by BurnHollywood

    Maybe if more of TREK's defenders (including this site) had possessed your reasonable appraisal ("very enjoyable" but with "plotholes, bad science, lazy writing") instead of noisily touting this thing as The Best Movie Of '09 there wouldn't be such a backlash against it.

  • Aug. 25, 2009, 10:15 a.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    I don't have a problem with anyone disliking Watchmen, or any other movie, but I do have a problem with people who state their opinions as fact. "I didn't like the movie" IS NOT THE SAME AS "the movie was shit." I don't like Indiana Jones at all and don't understand the appeal, but I don't go posting on Indiana Jones talkbacks about how shitty the franchise is and how much it sucks. There are plenty of shitty, horrible films out there but Watchmen, Star Trek, etc. are not one of them. Transformers 2, now that's a truly awful movie if you're an adult.

  • Aug. 25, 2009, 2:32 p.m. CST

    here it is...

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    WATCHMEN=SUCKED(and I love the graphic novel)//STAR TREK=GREAT!!(AND I always disliked star trek and his 100 tv iterations)

  • Aug. 25, 2009, 4:30 p.m. CST


    by CaptainAxis

    Snyder "glorified" violence in Watchmen the same way that Gilliam "glorified" drug use in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

  • Aug. 25, 2009, 7:03 p.m. CST

    "glorified violence"...

    by Hooded Justice

    Not really seeing the comparison between the trippiness of Fear & Loathing and the fairly straight story-telling of Watchmen. Which makes Snyder's use of fantasy kung fu in the fight scenes all the more incongruous and puzzling - seemed at odds with the spirit of the story, but I guess it's fun and there are definitely other things I'd criticise before the fight scenes. However, I think it was definitely a bad decision to give Rorschach an energetic wire-fu style of fighting. The slow deliberate menace he brought to his violence in the comic was far more effective than the flashy spins and roundhouse kicks he was firing off in the movie.

  • Aug. 27, 2009, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Gilliam is right about his storytelling

    by joe b

    The same as a short form poet trying to take on the long form novel. Is the attention span there? Gilliam has trouble with long form narrative, but he excels at enveloping us in convincing quirky worlds. The one time his struggle with long form narrative worked in his favor was Fear and Loathing, because it was about characters who themselves struggled with making narrative sense of events. The structure and content fit together.

  • Aug. 31, 2009, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Skyway Moaters

    by quicksilver80

    You sir made my day. It's been a long while since I read such a well articulated troll bashing post. It gave me quite a chuckle

  • Sept. 5, 2009, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Happy to be of service Quicksil...

    by Skyway Moaters

    ... is it just me, or has the 'quality' (and literacy) of the trolls at AICN just gone completely in the toilet the last several years? Am I the only one who's been driven to the brink of madness by the consistent substitution of "then" for "than"?