dario, its just you said "you can read more about it here" and then linked to the guys homepage. My experience is that homepages are bleeding hearts pages more than a center of actuality, especially with gilliam.

I actually enjoy following Gilliam's misadventures, he seems to argue with everyone. Gilliam is a self-obssessed prick but he does get kicked around at the same time.

Although a lot of his movies did reap a lot of profit, or they did up until the big problem cases in the 80s, and even then not all his projects loose money, but i guess not enough for studios to tolerate him
Python, Time Bandits, Jabberwocky, etc. all had large profit margins. Even brazil made a lot of money.

His only real disasters are with Don Quixote and of course, The Adventures of Baron Munchauson... oh and Alice. He has been rather profitable overall though.

The thing that doesn't have me believing either of them is the whole scripting process of Brazil. He gave it to a writer, and then kicked it around until it was right. But he wasn't really pretentious about the whole process.

i really like The Adventures of Baron Munchauson.

I would assume that it was only a financial disaster. I enjoyed it a lot too.

Then just enter ?Fear and Loathing in las vegas WGA? in any search engine and take your pick of the sites, the facts raised will lead you in the same direction. What you?ll believe about it regarding fault (or lack of) will be entirely up to you.

Which is all I did, I just put the link up to Alex Cox?s site because it was he whom had the complaint and PC_Arcade asked what Gilliam had done to Cox so if PC_Arcade wanted to know more about his gripes he could read up on it.

I objected to your comment because the sarcasm implied that I was like a naive child who had believed the website of a liar without checking (or thinking about) the facts it portrayed. Now please believe me when I?m telling you ? I?m not taking this too seriously, I understand t was meant as a gentle dig between friends and I?m taking it as such.

But? (you knew there was a BUT coming didn?t you?)

Assuming a persons comments on their website are lies ? without checking them or perhaps even reading them ? is silly and should be beneath any free thinking individual.

I feel quite strongly about this.

I mean, whoever you are reading this (Spudthedestroyer, PC_Arcade, or anyone else who is following the thread, including me). How many times have YOU been stabbed in the back or disregarded because someone had ASSUMED something about you that isn?t true?

I have to say its happened to many times to count to me, so I do my best not to do it to anyone else.

And finally (Now I just KNOW your saying THANK GOD! Here.)

I said Gilliams movies made ?little returns? not no returns, meaning they did make profit, just not that much of it in Hollywood standards. (Bear in mind that, according to Warner, Blade Runner still hasn?t made a substantial profit.)

And in case anyone has the wrong idea. I do hugely enjoy Gilliam?s movies, and I do think he is a likable eccentric.

I just feel it?s a damn shame he ? or the WGA, I?m not too sure which - gave Alex Cox such troubles when it was a chance for Cox to get back into the mainstream, not to mention it was the best script Alex Cox had ever been connected with. You?d be f**ked off too if your best work was almost taken off you (and that?s what the man believes).



Phew! Essay Over. (I DO run at the mouth don't I!)

Your assuming i've not heard it all before, Empire used to run a mini-bitchslap column about this stuff back in the day

Well I heard most of the concrete stuff from the citerion edition to be honest. Including most importantly ramblings by Hunter about how terrible and disasterous he thought Cox's script was and how he'd ruined his book.

I'm going to have to have a look at Cox's screenplay now mainly because you seem to be saying its better than Gilliams, which the writer doesn't agree with (and writer's are of course wrong sometimes, ie. Stephen King ), because as I understood they were very little alike beyond what has to be there to be Fear and Loathing.

Criterion documentaries make out it was the WGA that put Cox name on the credits when they really had no case to do it, not they removed his name at Gilliam's request. Whereas Cox says "oh its mine, i wrote 98% of it... i was fired and gilliam stole it". I'm very skeptical about that to say the least.

I got most of my info from this from the Criterion DVD, true, because they make a good case (great dvd btw), and likewise to complement what they say Hunter had on numerous times gone out and said how awful he thought the screenplay by Cox was. He even has a commentry on the dvd where he rails on about how much he disliked Cox's screenplay and why he didn't like it (like the alleged animated bit he called a monstrosity once, or rather in a more Hunter way ), but he seems to like Gilliam's at the same time.

This suggests to me that Cox's script was awful in the important part and missed the point of Fear and Loathing. I love the book, and I love Gilliam's artistic take, so its 1up for the 'bad guys' without reviewing what happened already.

Gilliam (has proven 'legally' he) rewrote the screenplay based on the book, and was fine up until the point the WGA told him Cox got the writing credit. Then he kicked up a fuss. As is my understanding, cox messed up the project before Gilliam was involved, then walked away. Gilliam came in, read the script, read the book, realised he loathed what Cox had done to the key scenes, then commisioned a rewriting. He then claims that they wrote well over half which consititutes being the main co-writers.

I don't think you can blame Gilliam for any of it, unless you believe Cox wrote more than 60% of the screenplay (or however much is required, i forget), if you do i'll have to check. Most importantly, Cox walked out before Gilliam came onboard didn't he? So I'm not sure how Gilliam can be blamed for rejecting a crap script he hated and he never used, and then get angry that they claimed someone else wrote it?

I have little doubt Gilliam made it ultra difficult for everyone, by kicking up his usual tantrum. I guess that's Gilliam, he gets what he wants. But i doubt he bitch slapped Cox anymore than disapproving with his script, which people seem to hate, and then rewriting it. The WGA gave cox credit, universal and gilliam submitten "proof" that this wasn't the case and then the WGA decided they messed up.

I'm going to have to look over the scripts though if you think its not true.

I just assumed, sionce Hunter Thompson dispised Cox's screenplay, and since Gilliam dispised Cox's Screenplay, and yet both liked Gilliam's screenplay, which Gilliam rewrote with a new writer from scratch, or so everyone says, that Gilliam and co actually did do major rewrites of the important bits. That just strikes me as odd and suggests Cox shouldn't have got a writing credit if everyone hated it so much.

I guess the ultimate deal is, Gilliam produced a document that proved they'd written well > 50% of the script, and the WGA quickly reversed their decision based upon it. Cox did not produce anything to prove he'd written more than 50%, so i guess i believe Gilliam, Grisoni, and Hunter and not Cox and Davies. I never read anything about Cox/Davies doing anything like that though in response, only initially to get their names added.

That's about the gist of it right? Unless there's been some revelations over the past years, I'm still not entirely behind cox's claims, not when even Hunter came out and said Cox's script was bad.

@Baron comments, course, i love it too, but it went over budget and vastly over size.

or, maybe i just want ot see don where-is-ote so badly, i can put up with gilliam's self importance... he is perhaps my favourite director afterall

Not as much as Spud

yeah well i'm a loud mouthed prick that writes an essay about anything. i write essays about apologising for writing an essay. Even then it probably includes numerous threating references to someone about something

I wouldn't say Cox's script is any better than Gilliams. My only point about Gilliam in fact is the denial that the did a rewrite of Cox's script, which is obvious in its untruth.

Saying that though it does depend what you read where, Gilliam is a little inconsistant on that point, also on the point of whether he LIKED Cox's script or not, on Gilliams site he said he did, various other places he said he didn't.

The problem about it is that (as the old saying goes) history is written by the winners. And we have no real idea who the winners were, or what they won. Very messy.

As what Gilliam would have to gain, who knows. Nothing obvious thats for sure, unless of course he wrote less than the required amount to warrent a credit at all. But that wouldn't be likely because of the WGA decision. But then why would he rip up the WGA card if he got what he wanted out of it. Its a circular argument.

I think Hunters argument had more to do with Cox wanting to use animation, more than anything to do with the script. Before the meeting regarding the use of animation Hunter and Cox was getting on okey, it was after that Hunter decided he hated the script. (Thats Cox's version of events of course, Gilliams probably differs there, but he wasn't involved until Cox left, as you said, so I guess he wouldn't know).

I didn't imply anything at all concerning your knowledge regarding this, actually if you reread my first post you'll see I assumed people would know what I meant anyway. I was going over it because PC_Arcade asked, not because of anything else.

I just didn't like that Alex Cox's opinion was disregarded with the notion that "a man can write anything on his site", the same arguement can be used against anyone. Cox's opinions are as valid as Gilliams. If you had a comment to make then its best to make it rather than to disregard anothers opinion.

Ironically I decided to join in a few treads because of the comments regarding Lurkers in another thread, a kind of "get them to join in" type of deal, which I agree with. But if you want people to join in then you have to try to welcome them; which means doing more than dropping in the odd comment that can be considered amusingby those who know you and scorn by those who don't.

I do run at the mouth I know, over explaining every aspest of every point of every idea.

I bet you never expected the spanish inquisition.

All together now...

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

I am sorry. If you ignore me I'll probably go away.

"Don't misunderestimate me"

I'm not a trusting person that's all... that's why i sucked out my fillings when it was announced the utorrent author had made something for a anti-p2p affiliate.

I wasn't intending to disregard his opinions if you thought i was, it was just merely reference to the source rather than the actuality I don't trust cox on this matter anymore than i trust gilliam to tell the truth on this matter, and by extension any statement he makes without backing it up

its egos, and Gilliam has a big ego, and so does Cox

If you want to know why Alex Cox might think Terry Gilliam is a prick - as PC_Arcade asked - then where do you go?

You go and find out from Alex Cox.

Whether he's telling the truth or not isn't really relevent. His opinion on why he doesn't like Gilliam is all thats needed to answer the question why doesn't Cox like Gilliam.

My personal opinion has little to do with Cox or Gilliam. It becasue the WGA said that Gilliam rewrote when Gilliam (originally) said he didn't, simple as that.

hahahaahahahah

A script rewrite isn't somthing you can really deny. They all get paid, even if the work is never seen by a director or a actor. If there are fact that are undesputable, like pay slips that could b tracked down. Are you sure that the scripts are not just very simular? Somtimes there are very tight controls of what happens in a story placed by studio's "In the third act I want a giant spider!!"

Well i see it this way if you didn't reply at the post of PCA it would not have been viewed 399 times and there wouldn't be 31 total replies at this point.

So don't be sorry and don't go away and hit us with another one of those essays of yours.

Cheers

There were no giant spiders in it Jynks and it COULD be concievable possible that they were just similar by accident. A thousand monkeys writing a thousand years and all that, not likely, but within the realms of extreme possibility as Mulder might say.

Pure, thats one of the nicest things anyones ever said to me, kind of, I think.

Spud is a smart cookie, there no doubt, and I think we have irreconcilable differences regarding this one. We're - ever so slightly - leaning in opposite directions it seems. Which is cool, its good to be true to what you think, and I respect that.

I think we both have better things to do that rattle on about this forever.


I got a post over on the "why do you watch horror" thread, its ALMOST an essay. Quite a pretencious post of mine it is, I just reread it and I sound like an idiot trying to sound a genius.

lol, yeah, lets do a poll on that one, I've rigged some polls in my time but that would be a hard one.

You done a forum search for alien 3 yet? that's always a laugh

Aww Christ, don't set him off again