Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Monty Python Crew To Reunite For Movie

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the this-time-with-feeling dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 136

dutchwhizzman writes "The surviving members of Monty Python have announced they will make a new movie. It will be titled Absolutely Anything. Graham Chapman won't be there to join them anymore, but they think the movie will still be in the spirit of Life of Brian, The Meaning of Life and other movies they made in the past."

cancel ×

136 comments

They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition"... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849523)

... because none of us expected it.

Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849745)

Well, I can imagine that the title isn't actually "Absolutely Anything", but that "absolutely anything" is what they answered when asked what the title might be.

Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850289)

Knowing their style of humor, that likely offhand comment WILL become the movie title.

Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850411)

...Clearly, you didn't watch much MONTY PYTHON when they were first on, or you would know that IS the title..

Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. (3, Funny)

CdXiminez (807199) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849891)

... because none of us expected it.

Except when you are, like me, Cardinal Ximinez.

Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. (3, Insightful)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850459)

Or SOPA? Because all of us are expecting it....

It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian... (5, Funny)

alaffin (585965) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849533)

...it should be something completely different

Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849781)

It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian... it should be something completely different

Python doing something in their own style, but without coming across as stale or cliched would be the holy grail, I agree.

Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849905)

Well, I'll ask them, but I don't think they will be very keen. Uh, they already did that one [imdb.com] , you see.
What?
He said they've already got one!
Are you sure they've got one?
Oh yes. It's very nice!

Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850285)

I think it should be a combined effort with Kids In The Hall. At very least, that'll weed out the nerds with heart conditions from the gene pool.

Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851251)

....its..../falls over/

Seriously though if they can get Cleese, Palin,Idle and Jones they should be able to capture the feel of the original. Gilliam was mostly animation and as Cleese put it "Graham added fire to the engine but he could never be the engine" as Chapman's function during writing was to be their sense of what was funny. The famous dead parrot was originally a broken toaster and it was Chapman that said 'How can we make this madder?" and got them thinking crazier until they came up with the Norwegian Blue, lovely plumage it has. Not that it won't be missing Chapman, Cleese said "he was always the best actor of the group" which is why he was the lead in LoB and HG, and his ability to deadpan....who can forget his "This is getting silly! stop that!" Major wearing a tutu? But if the guys are actually working together (according to TFA they haven't got Idle on board yet) like in the old days it ought to be better than a good 99.95% of the tripe coming out of Hollywood now. Maybe we can hope that this will start a revival of good silly yet thinking comedy again? Man after all the RomComs and stoner comedies the Pythons will be like a breath of fresh air after touring a sewage treatment plant.

Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851501)

My favorite sketch is, however, a Chapman sketch, and that's the still very shocking Undertaker Sketch, which Chapman deliberately wrote to be as appalling as possible. During his alcoholic years he was indeed far too unreliable to ever take the lead, and in fact according to Cleese it got so bad that that was why left and did the first Fawlty Towers series.

But it was very much Chapman's sense of the bizarre that was used so effectively. He may not have been the out-and-out creative force that the others were, but I doubt the Python's would have seemed very much like the Python's without him. He was of the same kind of anarchic breed as the Python's idol, Spike Milligan (another brilliant comedian and writer who had his own terrible demons).

They all served their function, and that's what makes any potential reunions seem somewhat underwhelming to me. If Idle's not involved, then you lose that element of it, and if Gilliam isn't involved, then you lose that sort of hallucinatory visual style. Python really is a very good example of how the sum is greater than the parts. They've all gone one and done some rather good things (yes, I even enjoyed Yellow Beard), but only Gilliam has ever managed to achieve things that came close to equaling his brilliance in Python.

Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851917)

Well I agree the whole is ALWAYS better but sadly Graham's gone so we have to take what we can get and even Python on their worst days you have to admit was world's better than the stoner and romcom crap we've been getting of late. I agree Chapman was seriously a dark writer and Idle with his wordplay needs to be there but frankly we've had such horrible shit, we're talking nothing but fuck jokes and fart jokes and dope jokes that even if they are just a third as witty as they were during the olden days they'll still kick ass. sadly even the Brit humor seems to have gone downhill with everything being "lowest common denominator" which sadly these days is about as witty and intelligent as beavis and butthead.

So while I will always probably picture Chapman first when i think of Python, usually his colonel in the tutu telling everyone to "stop right this minute its much too silly!" along with the pepperpots honestly after seeing what passes for comedy these days having ANY new Python will be so damned refreshing after a sea of bodily functions bits it'll seem like Xmas to me.

Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851607)

From the short python sketch(es?) long after python that I've seen them (or part of them) do for tv-specials or somesuch, I'm a bit nervous about this. Maybe they cobbled something together hastily and/or their hearts weren't into it, but that/those sketch(es) looked to me like old men trying to plagiarise their former selves through unoriginal python boilerplate. It was like it was lacking soul or fire, like the old stuff was art and this wasn't.

It seemed like they had become more assimilated into boring normalcy. I have a theory. I think they may have stopped smoking hashish.

I really hope they can prove me wrong.

why no chapman! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849547)

...and why is Graham Chapman not joining them?

Re:why no chapman! (5, Funny)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849561)

...and why is Graham Chapman not joining them?

Death can put a real crimp on your acting ability. That is unless your name is Keanu, in which case being stiff as a board is an absolute boon.

Re:why no chapman! (2)

laejoh (648921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850739)

But it's great for tax reasons!

Re:why no chapman! (3, Funny)

Whiteox (919863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851341)

HHGTTG reference me thinks!
Anyway, just because he's dead doesn't mean he's out of the picture, he's just a naughty boy.
Every Python movie so far has something to do with philosophy or religion. Maybe this will be different.

Re:why no chapman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851713)

Of course, Chapman & Adams were good friends and worked closely together (on mostly aborted projects) for some time.

Re:why no chapman! (2)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851217)

Just did graham up and stick him in a bird cage. You could have a whole scene in a pet shop.

Re:why no chapman! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851247)

s/did/dig/
dig?

Re:why no chapman! (2)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851541)

Good idea! For is it not said that where two or three are gathered in my name they shall perform the parrot sketch?

Re:why no chapman! (1)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849565)

...and why is Graham Chapman not joining them?

Graham Chapman died about a dozen years ago.

Re:why no chapman! (2)

silverspell (1556765) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850259)

Graham Chapman died about a dozen years ago.

Remind me never to ask you to change a $20. (Or buy eggs, for that matter.)

Re:why no chapman! (3, Informative)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849569)

Because he's dead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Chapman [wikipedia.org]

And no - he's not pining for the fjords.

Re:why no chapman! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849863)

jesus. these days you can get modded informative for missing the joke.

Re:why no chapman! (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849903)

jesus. these days you can get modded informative for missing the joke.

I didn't know that Stormthirst is Jesus.

Re:why no chapman! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850083)

jesus. these days you can get modded informative for posting any link to wikipedia.

FTFY. Sad, but apparently true.

Re:why no chapman! (1)

GregC63 (1564363) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850313)

Don't know why he was commenting on a thread concerning Monty Python and he didn't know Graham was dead in the first place...

Re:why no chapman! (1)

GregC63 (1564363) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850305)

Graham Chapman is no more...

Re:why no chapman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851327)

He has ceased to be...

Re:why no chapman! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851297)

Because he's dead

He got better!

Re:why no chapman! (5, Funny)

Antarius (542615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849601)

Interviewer: (Michael Palin) An excerpt from Carl French's latest film. Carl, we're all a little mystified by your claim that your new film stars Marilyn Monroe.

Carl French: (Graham Chapman) It does, yes.

Interviewer: Who died over ten years ago?

Carl French: Uh, that's correct.

Interviewer: Are you lying?

Carl French: No, no, it's just that she'e very much in the public eye at the moment.

Interviewer: Does she have a big part?

Carl French: She is the star of the film.

Interviewer: And dead.

Carl French: Well, we dug her up and gave her a screen test, a mere formality in her case, and...

Interviewer: Can she still act?

Carl French: Well... well, she-she's still has this-this enormous, ah-ah, kinda indefinable, uh... no.

Interviewer: Was decomposition a problem?

Carl French: We did have to put her in the fridge between takes.

Interviewer: Ah, what sorts of things does she do in the film?

Carl French: Well, we had her lying on beds, lying on floors, falling out of cupboards, scaring the children...

Interviewer: But surely Miss Monroe was cremated?

Carl French: Well, we had to use a standin for some of the more visible shots.

Interviewer: Ah! Uh, another actress.

Carl French: Dead actress. But Monroe was in shot the whole time.

Interviewer: How?

Carl French: Oh, in the ash tray, in the fire grate and vacuum cleaner...




How appropriate would it be for them to give him Credit like that?!

Re:why no chapman! (3, Informative)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849831)

Am guessing you missed their 1998 reunion / interview with Robert Klein, where they ostensibly (A) had Graham Chapman's urn and (B) spilled and then frantically cleaned him up? This [youtube.com] is part of it, but I recommend finding the whole interview.

Re:why no chapman! (1)

John R. Isidore (2330334) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850215)

How appropriate would it be for them to give him Credit like that?!

They tried once [youtube.com] and it didn't turn out so good. :(

Re:why no chapman! (1)

GregC63 (1564363) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850325)

He would love it, I imagine! ;-)

Re:why no chapman! (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849757)

The others didn't believe that he's not dead yet.

Re:why no chapman! (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850791)

He's pining for the fjords, is he?

Re:why no chapman! (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850065)

Because Weekend at Bernie's Flying Circus is a bad idea.

Champan's actually starring. (1)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851801)

Slashdotter: Timothy, we're all a little mystified by your claim that the new python film stars Graham Chapman.

Timothy: It does, yes.

Slashdotter: Who died over ten years ago?

Timothy: Uh, that's correct.

Slashdotter: Are you lying?

Timothy: No, no, it's just that he's very popular.

Slashdotter: Does he have a big part?

Timothy: He is the star of the film.

Slashdotter: And dead.

Timothy: Well, we dug him up and gave him a screen test, a mere formality in his case, and...

Slashdotter: Can he still act?

Timothy: Well...well, he still has this-this enormous, ah-ah, kinda indefinable, uh...no.

Slashdotter: Was decomposition a problem?

Timothy: We did have to put him in the fridge between takes.

Slashdotter: Ah, what sorts of things does he do in the film?

Timothy: Well, we had him lying on beds, lying on floors, falling out of cupboards, scaring the children, ahm...

Slashdotter: But surely Graham Chapman was cremated?

Timothy: Well, we had to use a standin for some of the more visible shots.

Slashdotter: Ah! Uh, another actress.

Timothy: Dead actress. But Chapman was in shot the whole time.

Slashdotter: How?

Timothy: Oh, in the ash tray, in the fire grate and vacuum cleaner...

Slashdotter: So Graham does not appear in the film?

Timothy: Not as such.

No Eric Idle? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849559)

The source says that Eric Idle isn't confirmed to be part of the project (yet). So it's not quite a true reunion (yet). So I'm not quite jumping straight out of my window out of sheer joy (yet).

Eric, my life depends on you.

Re:No Eric Idle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849571)

If he's in it it'll just be for one scene. Idle has kinda wiped his ass of the others for some reason... I never have heard why

Re:No Eric Idle? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849645)

He might be kind of a dick.

Re:No Eric Idle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849895)

To be totally fair, John Cleese is a bit of a dick, too.

Re:No Eric Idle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850957)

A friend of mine was the front desk "manager" for a few years at a very swanky Boston area hotel and said the three rudest celebrities he ever had to deal with was John Cleese, Bill Maher, and Shaquille O'neal. The nicest he said surprisingly (in my opinion at least) was Tom Cruise. /CSB

Re:No Eric Idle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849671)

I always thought Idle was the least talented of them. All of his sketches were pretty much "SEX" hur hur hur. Case in point: nudge nudge. I've read one or two of his books and was unimpressed as well.

Re:No Eric Idle? (2, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849731)

Well, Slashdot has an Idle section, isn't that enough?

Re:No Eric Idle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850111)

He's gone over to the Ruby project.

I personally think they shouldn't (5, Insightful)

Alworx (885008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849573)

Personally I think they shouldn't.

Maybe author a movie, but not star in it. They where great at the time (70's and 80's) but now they would risk looking outdated and desperately trying to cling to some sort of success.

So either produce something truly "completely different", or no. Leave those outstanding movies (and of course TV sketches) as they where. Don't do a "Godfather III" or a "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" or a "Blues Brothers 2000" (and on). Please.

Bugger.

Re:I personally think they shouldn't (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849591)

Maybe author a movie, but not star in it. They where great at the time (70's and 80's) but now they would risk looking outdated and desperately trying to cling to some sort of success.

Risk looking outdated? Myself, I'd take that as a given. Their day is past. Long past.
 
But most of the responses (so far) to story illustrate quite neatly (and for the umpteenth time) just why the entertainment industry (and I include the computer/console games industry in this) keep serving us up just more of the same... because they know people will eat it up with a fangirl "squuueeeeeee" and beg for more.

Re:I personally think they shouldn't (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849619)

I'm a bit skeptical, too. They've lost some of their raw comedic edge over the years (judging by the available evidence).

Should they do it though? Definitely.

"cling to some sort of success"?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849689)

They've all been HUGELY successful since their python days.... well except for Graham of course.

Re:"cling to some sort of success"?!? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849769)

They've all been HUGELY successful since their python days.... well except for Graham of course.

So you're saying the angels don't enjoy his new show?

Re:"cling to some sort of success"?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849841)

Idle stated: "We would only do a reunion if Chapman came back from the dead. So we're negotiating with his agent."

Re:"cling to some sort of success"?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850183)

Maybe they've cloned him. It's been long enough that a clone would be old enough to act in a movie.

Re:I personally think they shouldn't (1)

mvar (1386987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849715)

I don't think they'll ever be "outdated" since they were the pioneers of a whole comedy school (there's even a term, "pythonesque", describing their unique style of humour). And judging from some of their members most recent appearances, they still [youtube.com] got it [youtube.com] .

They didn't stop so they won't be dated (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849843)

I know it's also a while back but Cleese and Palin were very good in "A Fish Called Wanda". Palin has been very good in his travel shows, when not getting sabotaged by his studio (Baron Munchausen distribution and getting pulled from Harry Potter) Terry Gilliam has been successful, Cleese is writing comedy and touring etc. I doubt they would bother to do a remake of anything because they have been making new material for years.
The only one of them that has redone material is Eric Idle with "Spamalot" and he's done a few things in the years since he wrote that. It may still be running at times but it nearly ten years since he wrote it.

And check out Jonsies documentaries too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849897)

Good stuff!

Re:I personally think they shouldn't (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850451)

The various members of Monty Python have starred in movies since their days in Monty Python and, as far as I know, no one has accused them of looking dated. It is not as if these guys left the entertainment business when Graham Chapman died and they decided to discontinue Monty Python. It is also not as if there are no other comedic actors from the 70s still acting successfully. If you look at what they actually say about this movie you will discover that they have no intention of attempting to make it a "Monty Python" movie. I have seen all of these guys in other productions since the Monty Python days and they all seem to still have their comedic timing.
My personal experience is that comedic actors who stop being funny are generally the ones who start out doing other people's ideas and when they become successful start producing movies based on their own ideas. Most times these are guys who started out doing stand-up comedy, so one would think they have a sense of what is funny, but stand up is different from movies. Monty Python was their ideas from the beginning so they should not have that problem.

Re:I personally think they shouldn't (3)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851413)

The Python's (with the exception of Gilliam) started out as writers, not as performers, so as long as the writing edge is still there, then they've got it. I know Palin and Jones have at least tried over the years to keep their own writing partnership going, and Cleese and Gilliam have always seemed to work with Palin when they could. Idle has always been the lone wolf who did most of his writing on his own. For a time Cleese seemed to be greatly reduced; all that psychotherapy had made him happy, but maybe, after the last divorce and the big payout he had to make, he's sufficiently hungry and bitter to put on that semi-anal, semi-mad persona he mined in Python and on Fawlty Towers (and even in his work in A Fish Called Wanda, which really is an exquisitely well-written film).

Frankly the one that has disappointed me the most over the years has been Idle. He came out of the gate with some pretty good work; the Ruttles and Rutland Weekend Television, but by the 1990s his work soured, and then he just started looting the Python past for his stage shows and for Spamalot and the like. I think there may have even been a bit of a falling out with Gilliam, who apparently wasn't overly impressed with Spamalot.

The one I still really watch for these days is Gilliam. I've loved almost all his films, and I think he's a greatly underappreciated talent, a very unique visionary in the history of cinema. Everyone loves Time Bandits and Brazil, and I haven't met a geek who didn't have a soft spot for Munchhausen, but I even like Tidelands, which is a pretty strange film even for Gilliam. To my mind, he is the one that has kept the torch alight far more than Idle's attempted resurrections of Python's larger works. I think after watching all his films that his influence on the troupe has probably been understated, that Gilliam has the conceptual aesthetic that sits underneath the surface of his own work and the Pythons, a certain visual style that, whether it was his cartoons, or his set work in Brian and Meaning of Life or in his own films which is so recognizable and so original that I'm not sure that the Pythons would ever have been quite what they are without him.

Of course, the one thing none of these articles actually mentions is whether Gilliam's involved or not. Without Gilliam, there's a certain of anarchy that wouldn't be present.

Re:I personally think they shouldn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850513)

But I don't want to get on the cart!

Re:I personally think they shouldn't (2)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850573)

Dear Sir,
    I am glad to hear that your slashdot audience disapproves of the new skit as strongly as I. As a programmer I abhor the implication that IT is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we now have the problem relatively under control, and that it is Monty Python who now suffer the largest casualties in this area. And what do you think the Argylls ate in Aden. Arabs?

Yours etc.
Captain B.J. Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.

Re:I personally think they shouldn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850959)

don't think they care too much for success, they just feel like making a movie. Its how they made everything else, really.

like Brian did to the hermit. (1)

RandomAvatar (2487198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849585)

This article made me break my vow of lurking!

Re:like Brian did to the hermit. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849603)

This article made me break my vow of lurking!

Pfft. Some vow! It didn't even last an hour. [slashdot.org]

Re:like Brian did to the hermit. (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851337)

People quit smoking like that all the time.

Stone him ! Stone her ! Hang them ! Burn them ! (0)

burni2 (1643061) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849637)

Now I know for sure the straight of hormuz will be blocked !

I knew this was inevitable... (4, Interesting)

superdude72 (322167) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849647)

...from the moment John Cleese's divorce was final and his ex-wife got half of everything. Woo hoo! Shortly after there was a new Monty Python documentary, and now this.

Re:I knew this was inevitable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38850061)

It was either going back to making high school physics documentaries, or this.

yay for divorces! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849649)

John cleese need some monies, and now(2008 an onwards) he can't say nay to anything.

Some years ago he was in commerials for Elgiganted. Saying stuff like,'In my divorce the judge awarded my wife with the tv-set, and I thought "that okay ha ha ha" but now i just remember that without the tv i can't watch the cricket and I'm so unhappy!' *some voiceover saying that Elgiganten sells a hdtv for X sek* "Thank god for elgiganten!"

as you age, you have less time to contribute art (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849657)

aging celebrities know this. musicians, actors know that they only have so much time left.

why not put some more art out there while you still can? I hate to sound morbid but those guys only have a few years left and I'd love to have them put more of their comedy into the world before they go.

its the same way that many older 70's/80's rock musicians are coming back to do a high-def video concert tour. most of their older work was not video recorded (or not done well) and it would be nice to have at least a few HD moments to savor of them, for posterity. its not 'the same' as the old days but its far better than NOT having it! you can always choose to not view it, but if they choose to not produce it, neither of us have a choice.

so, kudos to them for wanting to throw some more of their artful style out into the world before they push up the daiseys.

Re:as you age, you have less time to contribute ar (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850101)

its not 'the same' as the old days but its far better than NOT having it! you can always choose to not view it

I don't know. Sometimes the nostalgia is worth more as it exists in your own recollection (which is hampered by a new perspective), and sometimes you don't realistically have a choice not to view it.

Resurrect Chapman (5, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849709)

Instead of Robin Williams as a talking dog (ugh), splice together Chapman's voice from all his films and Monty Python episodes (like South Park and Chef) for that role. Then sprinkle photos of Chapman in his various outlandish outfits throughout the movie without making a direct reference to them.

I can dream. Feverish dreams.

Re:Resurrect Chapman (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849873)

Oddly enough there was a different Robyn Williams with parts in the original Python TV series. He's the presenter for the very long running ABC Science Show.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/about/ [abc.net.au]

Re:Resurrect Chapman (1)

mdm42 (244204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850027)

Add similar photos of Spike Milligan (with talk balloons) and we could be onto something, no...?

just leave it in peace (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849713)

I really like the Monty Python show, but a movie with the old crew? The original crew is now what, all over 70 now? I think this is really the case where you should not ruin the haritage of a good show, and just leave it in peace. It's the same with Indeaner Jones, where Harrison Ford is just too old to be a good Indianer again, so the best should have been just leave the Indeaner Jones trilogy in peace.

Re:just leave it in peace (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849809)

Late 60's, early 70's. So? Old people can be funny, and something that takes their senior status into account might be riotous. Anyway, I guess we'll see.

Re:just leave it in peace (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849881)

"Old people can be funny, and something that takes their senior status into account might be riotous."

Like maybe a hilarious (self-referential) movie about the remaining old Python team trying and failing to make a hit movie? :-)

Re:just leave it in peace (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849911)

Sounds a little bit Mel Brooks.

Re:just leave it in peace (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849931)

For example, they could do a lot of funny stuff about the changes between the 1960s/1970s and now in terms of social mores, technology, politics, economics, globalization, and so on. Basically, use themselves as the straightmen in a lot of social commentary about "modern times"...

They could try to do things the old way in movie making and be confronted with kids glued to gameboys and video games, audiences that don't go to movie theaters, copyright infringement, two-income families, the changing scale of movie budgets, lots of international comedic talent they were disrespectful of, robotic actors and 3D avatars, crowdsourcing, and so on...

I guess this has been done already like in Austin Powers where he and Dr. Evil is frozen and come back decades later and out-of-touch but still (in Austin's case) bringing a lot of good values forward. Of course, since they are older that exact device of bringing them forward in time would not work. I guess it could have more of a "Grumpy/Grumpier Old Men" flavor to it, mixed with Cocoon and similar things. Although a lot zanier, of course.

Re:just leave it in peace (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851655)

I don't know... I think they should do whatever. Anything that would make me think its real monty python. Their age shouldn't prevent them from portraying young characters, just as their sex shouldn't prevent them from playing men, women or hermaphrodites.

Re:just leave it in peace (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849951)

They could set it in a retirement home. Trying to think of films that are; Coocoon? So take that and add, I don't know, Spam?

Also trying to think of comedic geniuses who still were writing good material that late in life. Perhaps certain standups, Carlin comes to mind. Helps to be really pissed off, perhaps, to compensate for all the brain shrinkage.

Re:just leave it in peace (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850895)

They could set it in a retirement home. Trying to think of films that are;

Bubba Ho Tep. Elvis Presley's greatest role.

No Eric Idle (yet) (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849755)

From TFA:

At present, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, and Michael Palin are all signed on to the film. “Eric [Idle] knows about the project” but isn’t confirmed yet, said producer Chris Chesser.

Why no Idle?

Maybe he is stuck in Cardinal Fang's Comfy Chair

I can't wait! (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849807)

I can't wait for the master of the tantrum to rant again: John Cleese!

It's a Terry Jones film with Python voice actors (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38849817)

Sorry to be a buzzkill, but it looks like it'll be just a movie by Terry Jones with the other Pythons being voice actors and nothing more. Heck, Terry Jones himself said that "It's not a Monty Python picture".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16744299 [bbc.co.uk] None of the other Pythons are involved in the writing process.

Python + Robin Williams (2)

dtmos (447842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849859)

Well, one thing's for sure: The film is going to be very good, or very bad. I can't imagine seeing a combined CGI-and-live-action sci-fi film with substantially all of the Python crew, plus Robin William's voice for "a wry talking dog named Dennis," and walking out unmoved one way or the other.

Re:Python + Robin Williams (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849917)

I can't imagine going to see a film with Robin Williams in it and not walking out demanding my money back.

While I generally think Williams is overrated ... (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850997)

... I'll concede that he's been in some decent films and has been quite good in them: Good Will Hunting, The Fisher King, Hook, Jumanji, Awakenings, Final Cut, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

Re:While I generally think Williams is overrated . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851367)

Also decent guest roles on Law & Order: SVU and a few other TV shows. Oddly, I find I like him better in non-comedic roles. For me, his comedy has become hit-and-miss, with much more miss.

- T

Box Office Woes...? (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38849961)

This will be interesting to watch - In the 21st century, "Geek Appeal" movies generally tank at the box office (Serenity / Scott Pilgrim etc.) and I think these days Monty Python is generally in this category. (Spamalot did well, but this is a different business model...)

Finally... (3, Insightful)

mdm42 (244204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850033)

...news that really does matter!

Nothing to worry about. (1)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850393)

Graham Chapman's place will be filled by Andy Kaufman.

Considering they've already stated.... (1)

Tomsk70 (984457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850465)

....it's not a Python film, and that they'll just be providing the voices and aren't writing it together (on several sites).... ...I'm left wondering why I have to fill in the gaps for Slashdot's lazy journalism

My nipples (2)

Spottywot (1910658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850623)

....explode with delight

please please please (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850811)

figure out a way to work the fish slapping dance into this movie.

Unholy Grail (1)

ks*nut (985334) | more than 2 years ago | (#38850953)

I believe it will be magnificently difficult for the Pythons to produce something that depends upon the tremendous sense of timing that their brand of comedy requires. What they might want to try is some sort of live production (I know, far smaller audience) involving Robin Williams. And at the risk of a little peril, I'll keep my eyes open for that grail-shaped beacon...

Monty Python Crew to Reunite For Movie (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851175)

The surviving members of Monty Python have announced they will make a new movie. It will be titled Absolutely Anything.

Well? We're waiting over here, so get on with it!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...