Comments on: Terry Gilliam Loses His ‘Don Quixote’ Court Case And No Longer Holds The Rights To The Film

By: Richard A. Tucker

Richard A. Tucker — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:05:00 +0000

So, this is now a nationalism thing and not a complex legal thing? There’s very little in this article that really explains what’s going on but the assumption is that Blanco is a dick who just hates Gilliam. Why is this what passes for “news”? I have loved Gilliam’s work for over 40 years but I refuse to take this short sheeted article on the assumptions it proposes. I want to side with GillIam but everything looks like mud from here.

By: Miguel Feijão

Miguel Feijão — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:50:00 +0000

In reply to TiredofthisSheet. And fuck you!!

By: StupidShouldCausePain

StupidShouldCausePain — Mon, 18 Jun 2018 05:48:00 +0000

“Branco claims that a contract he wrote up with Gilliam is still valid. In the contract, Gilliam exchanges the rights to “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” for the promise of funding for the production. However,
Gilliam claims that funding never came and he went to seek out a separate financier, and in turn, was able to finally produce the film. Branco says that the contract is still valid…”
HOW the fuhk does Branco win? He didn’t carry out his end of the contract so that should make his claim, predicated on providing the funding, null and void! WTF is wrong with the French court system???

By: Mac_H

Mac_H — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 22:29:00 +0000

The article doesn’t explain the legal aspects at all. The ELI-5 version:

* Gilliam had been trying to complete the film – he needed money to finish it.
* On 14-May-2016 he signed an option agreement with Branco
* In that option agreement, Branco paid €25,000 and basically got ‘ownership’ of the project until the option expired or until he paid the rest of the money
* In that agreement he had 5 months to come up with the rest of the money … if Branco couldn’t come up with the rest of the money in that time, the ownership would revert back to Gilliam.
* However there was also a very common clause in the agreement that the 5 month countdown would pause if there were any legal disputes in that period, and the 5 month countdown would resume when the legal dispute was resolved
* In August 2016 (which is within the 5 month option period) Gilliam filed a legal dispute.
* On 14-October-2016, Gilliam filed a formal ‘Notice of Expiration’ saying that he considered the option with Branco to be expired, and granted the option to someone else
* Branco went to the High Court in the UK to get a declaration that the option hadn’t expired yet – that the 5 month countdown had been paused due to the French legal action
* The High Court agreed with Branco, and found that Gilliam had violated the contract.
* Gilliam appealed
* The Court of Appeal agreed with Branco

So (according to the UK High Court) it was Gilliam who was in breach of contract. He wasn’t allowed to sell the rights to anyone else while the original option hadn’t expired. And the original option hadn’t expired because he started legal action within the option period.

This is a finding of the UK High Court … whatever the French Court said was irrelevant.

— Mac
(Yeah – I simplified a few things.)
Source: The UK Court of Appeal findings: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/767.html

By: Robert Vegana

Robert Vegana — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 17:20:00 +0000

Seems the French are determined to make us regret bailing them out.

By: Mamborambo

Mamborambo — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 11:26:00 +0000

How can an investor own the rights of something he hasn’t paid for? I am shocked the french court uphold such an unfair interpretation of a contract. At most the investor get the right to an unproduced script, no way he can claim the entire final product!

By: TiredofthisSheet

TiredofthisSheet — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 02:31:00 +0000

In reply to Free_Thinker451. Yeah such anti-American anti British bullshit...

By: Free_Thinker451

Free_Thinker451 — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 01:59:00 +0000

What a surprise. A French Court sided with a French citizen. Last time I checked a contract is only valid if both parties uphold their end of the deal. If Branco didn’t provide the funding, then he didn’t fulfill his part of the contract. How can any court then side with him?

By: S. Jo.

S. Jo. — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 01:55:00 +0000

Why are we not sending this piece of shit death threats? Nobodies on twitter get bombarded with harassment for the most trivial of things, a real life piece of shit is doing something that’s actually degenerative and exploitative and no one bats an eye. Where’s Heath Ledger;s joker when you need him. Worlds gone full cuck (thanks Jared Leto)

By: Frere Enfant

Frere Enfant — Sun, 17 Jun 2018 00:15:00 +0000

Gilliam’s next film should be a hostage movie.

By: Dave Black

Dave Black — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 23:03:00 +0000

In reply to Corby Kennard. I have a feeling thats how its going to end up getting distributed, I sure hope so.

By: TiredofthisSheet

TiredofthisSheet — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 22:57:00 +0000

Well, fuck france … and fuck Branco too!

By: Corby Kennard

Corby Kennard — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 19:43:00 +0000

In reply to captainalphabet. I will only watch this film if it is pirated.

By: captainalphabet

captainalphabet — Sat, 16 Jun 2018 18:28:00 +0000

Paulo Branco seems like a real piece of shit.