Pointing out the pointlessness of someone else's post is ironic, especially when your original post consisted of the + symbol being repeated endlessly
!!!?
apparently you have no idea what we were talking about
or you wouldn't say this post was pointless
you should have paid more attention to the words "shulgin's scale"
He should have shut down the film
if you give up easily, good luck with your career
as for gilliam, he had had enough problems before to choose to see it through this time
coming up with an extremely flimsy excuse
propose your own version for us to read
we were many to be happy enough with his flimsy excuse, especially seeing the conditions that forced him to make up one
maybe this excuse only works on open brains
He falls in the puddle and says "My [...] face!"
what would you say if you saw in your reflexion that your face has changed?
the spectators needed an hint from the movie to understand that it was the same character
It doesn't make any sense (at all) that Tony and the man at the beginning are 'double/triple/quadruple faced' whereas everyone else that goes through the mirror is 'single faced'. I guess that's the reason it should have been consistent... ?
the mirror exaggerates points of their personalities
the old woman doesn't hide being obsessed by expensive clothing
so that's what she sees
tony hides being after money, fame, etc.
but it's how he is so that's what the mirror shows
So they are completely unrelated to the film
no, your question was unrelated to the quality of the film
A middle aged woman sees big shoes. A boy sees a land of chocolates and toys. What an incredible imagination!
what's wrong with you?
a guy crossed the sreet
man, that happens all the time!
how unoriginal
why do they have to put that in a movie?
if you follow that logic, there's pretty much no movie that you can like
or do you have a selective way a judging them?
None of the characters were well developed. Parnassus/ Tony/ Parnassus' daughter/ the annoying little guy that works for Parnassus... I didn't care about any of them.
you didn't
others did
you think they were not developped
others think they were
did you miss a part?
did they see the director's cut?
or are you blind to gilliam's way of presenting his characters?
the little guy. the midget of the young boy?
cause the later acted very well
My novel is being published early 2011, my first short story is being published next month. I am directing my first (proper) short sometime in 2011. I am writing another (feature length) script for a film-maker friend of mine that may go into production some time in 2011 also...
so if i count right, that's... not yet
well, call us back when it's done
when i had to ask for accreditations for festivals, they made a point of precising before you sent the request that the possibility of accreditation would only be considered according to already published material, not what you promised them
(if that was a sligthly disguised attempt to impress us and change your status to that of pundit of this field, sorry. have had texts and photos published since 16 years old (like them or not, 17 years in the hand is worth two "very soon" in the bush)
Oh, you were being sarcastic... sorry...
yes, but about the quality of what you may produce compared to that of gilliam
not about the fact that you'll get something produced or not
i don't know about that and that was not my point
please stop looking for what you wish were in my posts instead of seeing what is really there
I guess the implication is that in order to dislike THIS film (remember you dislike many other films) I need to be a better film-maker than Gilliam. Otherwise, again, my opinion is invalid.
not in order to dislike it, but in order to spit on it
yes, you should be able to back your claims with concrete ideas showing that gilliam had indeed been guilty of bad film-making and that you would have done better (in the same period of time, according to the budget and other restrictions...)
hen I realized if you take away Gilliams skewed camera angles and is fish eye lenses and Burton's surreal/ gothic elements, what do you have?
when you look at a painting, do you just see colours or does the painting tell you a story through its colours?
it seems that you dissociate different aspects of a movie that are actually interlaced
Nobody has tried to explain the symbolism of the film.
you haven't told me about global warming yet
things are added post after post in a thread
don't expect everything to be said at once
(you at least have the symbolism of tony's different faces)
I apologize for being offensive, but I didn't start it.
you are being offensive (ad hom removed)
we are just arguing (trying to keep up with your tone a little bit too, without being impolite)
and with the diffamatory post void of explanation that you wrote, yes, you started it
I just feel that it needs to be absurd for a reason
if it's absurd for a reason, it's not absurd anymore
i'm going on holiday
don't forget to keep busy hating