For those who haven't heard me babble on here about Gilliam and his luck with Don Quixote this I humbly suggest you read this.

The story here tells of his current struggles. I often admire a man, or woman, finally killing the ghost that has haunted them. All things considered, I think we should all wish him the best of luck.

He's one of few film makers left who makes unusual and interesting films. There's not enough of his type about.

R

This is heartening to read.

Gilliam, as you say, is one of the few originals left who'd rather sit it out and wait for half the desired budget but make the film he wants then pander to the studio, get a big fu?k off check and agree to make a more palatable product for a wider audience.

Think of the great films we would've missed out on if he hadn't been allowed do what he wanted to do.

I haven't seen Zero Theorem yet and unfortunately heard not so flattering things about it but we'll always have Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Tideland, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Tim Bandits, etc.

R,

Nice share. Interesting stuff. It still sometimes amazes me how someone so brilliant as Gilliam has these kinds of struggles with getting a picture made. You would think he'd be able to do whatever he wants at the drop of a hat. I - personally -  would assume the same with guys like Malick, Coppola, Scorsese... but guess that kind of power and pull is a bit of a myth.

Hope he gets it done.

Brazil, probably still in my top 10-15 favorite movies of all time.

Quoted from JimiLamp R, It still sometimes amazes me how someone so brilliant as Gilliam has these kinds of struggles with getting a picture made. You would think he'd be able to do whatever he wants at the drop of a hat.

- Really, this puzzles you? its quite simple, his films are ambitious and often an acquired taste. Thus, don't make much money, if any. In business terms, he's not a wise investment.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I haven't seen Zero Theorem yet and unfortunately heard not so flattering things about it but we'll always have Brazil, 12 Monkeys, Tideland, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Tim Bandits, etc.

I saw it in an empty cinema. It was "OKAY".  I wasn't disappointed, nor impressed. It was just there

On topic. Making movies isn't easy, most people struggle with funding. No matter the name they have. You just don't hear about it, because the movies don't get made.

I once saw an interview with Paul Haggis and he was saying he's still trying to get scripts made he wrote 15 years ago. Projects get start up then they die out. Zero Theorem I think started shooting a few years ago, then Billy Bob dropped out and the projected stalled for a few years.

Stallone has been trying to do his "Poe" script for 30 years and he still can't get that made. Even though Robert Downey Jr. was attached a few years ago, it still couldn't get off the ground.

In the end, no matter who you are you still have to convince people to give you a few million That's no easy task.

I've always wondered why some of them don't stick their hands in their own deep pockets. I imagine Gilliam's aren't so deep, as I heard he's done this quite a few times already. Gibson used to do it for Apocalypto and The Passion of the Christ, and made a packet from them, particularly with the latter. But that was before the sugar tits business.

Stallone isn't quite as bad as his recent choices suggest. But his pockets bulge. Why doesn't he dig in them?

Anyways, back to topic. I think 12 Monkeys and Brazil are as good as it gets. I'd love to think this latest thing will be as good as them. But in this case I think I'll pleased enough to see it finished.

R

Logistically, I understand it just fine. It's just interesting that being icon - it's still a challenge to get a movie made. Each and every time you do it it's a different mountain to climb. But even the very concept of money amazes me. I'm easily puzzled.

Even besides the money, to Demento's point about actors dropping out,  just keeping a cast and crew together would be difficult. Let alone getting all on board to buy in, trust, and be passionate about someone's vision. Tough business.

Still, hope for the best on the Quixote pic. Didn't hear great things on Zero Theorem but I'll still check it out.

Quoted from rendevous I've always wondered why some of them don't stick their hands in their own deep pockets. I imagine Gilliam's aren't so deep, as I heard he's done this quite a few times already. Gibson used to do it for Apocalypto and The Passion of the Christ, and made a packet from them, particularly with the latter. But that was before the sugar tits business.

Well the original budget for "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" was I think around 36 mil. Gilliam isn't going to put in his own money (a few mil) in a movie project. Since he knows how badly they can turn out, like with "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" Basically no star is going to fork over a huge sum of money on a movie project. They're too smart for that.

Mel Gibson owns his own production company, Icon productions. He had his company involved in co-producing some of his bigger movies like "Braveheart", "Maverick", We were Soliders" and so on. So his company had build up capital over a longer period of time. Passion made over 600 mil worldwide and still Gibson didn't fund "Apocalypto" on his own, Disney co-funded it via Touchstone Pictures. Usually big stars create their own production companies and they get them involved in the movie projects they star in. Instance, Nicholas Cage has Saturn Films, James Franco has Rabbit Bandini productions, John Cusack has New Crime Productions and so on. They all do it.

Nic Cage produced and directed the movie "Sonny" in 2002 with James Franco. Even though his company co-funded the movie, which was low budget the other investors wouldn't fund the movie unless he acted in it. So he did, even though he didn't want to.

You'll hardly find and actor funding a film on their own.

Quoted from ColKurtz its quite simple, his films are ambitious and often an acquired taste. Thus, don't make much money, if any. In business terms, he's not a wise investment.

Good point. If you're an investor you usually just wanna make money. Unless you're that hugely rich woman who pays for some Bigelow, Malik and other maverick directors.

But if you are a money man you're going to choose Transformers and the like rather than the zany weird stuff Gilliam produces. Hence the glut of vanilla movies that appear to have been written by commitee.

Quoted from Demento Well the original budget for "The Man Who Killed Don Quixote" was I think around 36 mil. Gilliam isn't going to put in his own money (a few mil) in a movie project. Since he knows how badly they can turn out, like with "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" Basically no star is going to fork over a huge sum of money on a movie project. They're too smart for that. Mel Gibson owns his own production company, Icon productions. He had his company involved in co-producing some of his bigger movies like "Braveheart", "Maverick", We were Soliders" and so on. So his company had build up capital over a longer period of time. Passion made over 600 mil worldwide and still Gibson didn't fund "Apocalypto" on his own, Disney co-funded it via Touchstone Pictures. Usually big stars create their own production companies and they get them involved in the movie projects they star in. Instance, Nicholas Cage has Saturn Films, James Franco has Rabbit Bandini productions, John Cusack has New Crime Productions and so on. They all do it. You'll hardly find and actor funding a film on their own.

I stand corrected. Thinking about it I also seem to remember the sugar tits and other ramblings happening before I went to see Apocalypto. So I'm wrong twice. I'm just going to look out the window... Thought so. Blue moon.

You're right. But they can hardly moan when nobody will pay for their pet project and they're too tight, or smart, to pay for it themselves.

Another thing that riles me, besides Michael Bay, is this crowdfunding business. I think it's great when you don't have much cash and go on there to raise some to make a movie, or whatever.

But rich film stars like James Franco go on there, get fans to pay for a movie like Palto Alto but it's him and / or his pals who keep any profit from it. There's something very wrong with this. I quite like the guy normally. But shouldn't he be sharing any profit with his crowdfunded investors instead of banking it?

R

Quoted from rendevous But rich film stars like James Franco go on there, get fans to pay for a movie like Palto Alto but it's him and / or his pals who keep any profit from it. There's something very wrong with this. I quite like the guy normally. But shouldn't he be sharing any profit with his crowdfunded investors instead of banking it? R

Yeah. A lot of people are getting turned off to "stars" crowdfunding films via the internet. It's just seems like such an easy way out.

Does Spike Lee really need to use kickstarter to get funding for his 1 mil dollar movie?

In reality they have other methods to look for money, while other people on crowdfunding websites don't. So in essence they are hurting indie filmmakers from trying to do something. Stars like Franco can easily find distribution for a movie once it's produced. Part of the crowdfunding movie goes to "perks" for the people that funded it, so in essence they have no expenses. They just get fans to fund their projects.

I mean they're not forcing anyone to give them money, but I've seen a gradual rise in contempt for "stars" that try to do it.

Quoted from Demento I mean they're not forcing anyone to give them money, but I've seen a gradual rise in contempt for "stars" that try to do it.

Indeed. Deserved contempt, in most cases. I've seen the perks they offer. I suppose if you were a fan they might be worth something to you. A lot of the time you'd have to be a very big fan to get any pleasure from them.

I recall reading about a journalist asking that bloke from Scrubs, no, not that one, the other one. Him. Anyway, they asked him why he didn't get funding for his movie in the usual way. He said if he did it through the Kickstarter method it meant he had control. And any profits. I undertand the control bit. But the profits bit leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It's not his money to profit off. I'm sure he was paying himself plenty anyway.

R  

Spike Lee video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t38bi5dAxZY

I watched the clip.

He makes some good points, Demento. Comes across as a bit too on the back foot though. Having said that, if I was him on there I'd have come across the same, if not worse.

I remember looking at what he was offering when he was on Kickstarter for the movie he was talking about. He did have some good offers / gifts. One of them being he would bring you to a Knicks game with front row seats. For fans of him and them such things are impressive.

I recall Lee was on there just after Franco was with Palo Alto. Lee left him in the dust within a few days and hit his target. Franco never quite made it, but they filmed it anyway.

He never mentioned what would happen to the profits from this though, if there is any. I suppose the theory is if it loses or gains money, it's the film makers and producers who are at risk. Even so, it's hard to see this fund raising model in a good light. I'd have more sympathy for the well heeled types doing this if they shared the profits with those who put in in the first place.

Now then, back to DQ. I heard John Hurt is replacing Robert Duvall. Story on this at Empire Magazine here.

R

Quoted from rendevous Now then, back to DQ. I heard John Hurt is replacing Robert Duvall. Story sory on this at Empire Magazine here. R

I like Hurt better to be honest.

The funny thing with Hurt is... he gets so type cast as an old wise man. I find it very amusing. Outlander, Hercules, Immortals etc.

I did love him as the Storyteller in that Jim Hanson series. That was excellent.