Talk:Terry Gilliam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recurring collaborators[edit]

In my opinion the problem with the table of recurring collaborators is not that it is unsourced. We could easily source that Gilliam worked with for instance Myrtle Devenish on no less than two movies. The problem is the question whether this piece of information is relevant enough. It would be relevant to note if Gilliam in interviews had stated that he had deliberately chosen to repeatedly collaborate with Myrtle Devenish. But in the absence of such a statement by Gilliam, I think the informational value of the table is almost zero. Most of the people mentioned have only worked on two films. The table suggests, by its mere presence, that a two-time collaboration is something special. With thirteen full-length films directed by Gilliam a two-time collaboration is not enough for me to consider being something special. I am in favour of removing the table entirely. We might want to write a short, sourced paragraph about people that Gilliam himself explicitly considers his recurring collaborators. By the way, the existence of this table has previously been discussed in 2016 and in 2013 and in 2010. I have not yet read any convincing argument to include the table. Mark in wiki (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen it done on other pages where the minimum collaborations to be included on a table is three rather than two. That's my personal preference. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early Animation[edit]

I expected to see a decent history of Mr. Gilliam's early cutout animation works, I supposed produced during his college days, none of which are mentioned. I have been unable to locate a particular long film that was broadcast far past midnight on a weekend in the late 1960's by one of our local rural television stations, at a time when broadcasting was almost always shut down for the night. That specific film lasted well more than a half-hour, as I recall. One such early film, available on YouTube, was called "Storytime" (1968), allegedly his first. I think this is an important topic and totally relevant to the subject due to his unique style, especially since his animation was later routinely employed (and became famous) in "Monty Python". Mentummike (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have an article on a Gilliam short film called Story Time (1979), but not on a 1968 film. Dimadick (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perforated medullary artery[edit]

The article claims that he did not suffer a stroke, but rather a "perforated medullary artery," and presents an article quoting Mr. Gilliam as the source of this claim.

More information is needed to justify this claim. As a neurosurgeon who specializes in the treatment of cerebrovascular disease, I have no idea what a "perforated medullary artery" is. I suspect he is referring to a medullary perforator infarct, which is, in fact, a stroke. (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have to be a neurosurgeon to know that A. The medulla oblongata is part of the brain (stem) and B. A perforation in an artery causes bleeding. Bleeding in the brain is BY DEFINITION a stroke! I am changing the article to reflect this FACT. Oh, by the way it turns out that a square is a rectangle and many people who have suffered a stroke deny it. (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After I edited the article to remove the claim that calling it a stroke was an error, I noted that the "error" is based on Mr. Gilliam's claims. This was after I mentioned (directly above) that people often deny having strokes. It's not a coincidence, there's emotional baggage attached to the term "stroke" which can be obfuscated with medical jargon. IMHO, Wikipedia has to balance respect for the subject of a biography with accurate, if unpleasant, truth-telling, especially when the jargon-laden obfuscation doesn't inform the readership. I don't care to get into the better argument as to whether the media's "mis-[sic]characterization" is notable enough to be included. The best argument I have is that calling his injury a perforated medullary artery is not informative for most readers, and that "stroke" best informs a lay-audience. (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]