Slashdot Mirror


Monty Python Crew To Reunite For Movie

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."

37 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... because none of us expected it.

  2. It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian... by alaffin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...it should be something completely different

  3. why no chapman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:why no chapman! by newcastlejon · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...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.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:why no chapman! by Stormthirst · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

    3. Re:why no chapman! by Antarius · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?!

    4. Re:why no chapman! by ediron2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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 is part of it, but I recommend finding the whole interview.

    5. Re:why no chapman! by silverspell · · Score: 2

      Graham Chapman died about a dozen years ago.

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

    6. Re:why no chapman! by laejoh · · Score: 2

      But it's great for tax reasons!

    7. Re:why no chapman! by Culture20 · · Score: 2

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

    8. Re:why no chapman! by Whiteox · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    9. Re:why no chapman! by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

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

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    10. Re:why no chapman! by sconeu · · Score: 2

      He is an EX-PYTHON!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  4. No Eric Idle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:No Eric Idle? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  5. I personally think they shouldn't by Alworx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I personally think they shouldn't by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:I personally think they shouldn't by mounthood · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    3. Re:I personally think they shouldn't by MightyMartian · · Score: 3

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Re:like Brian did to the hermit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This article made me break my vow of lurking!

    Pfft. Some vow! It didn't even last an hour.

  7. I knew this was inevitable... by superdude72 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.

  8. as you age, you have less time to contribute art by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  9. Resurrect Chapman by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Resurrect Chapman by dbIII · · Score: 2

      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/

  10. Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  11. It's a Terry Jones film with Python voice actors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 None of the other Pythons are involved in the writing process.

  12. Python + Robin Williams by dtmos · · Score: 2

    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.

  13. Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. by CdXiminez · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... because none of us expected it.

    Except when you are, like me, Cardinal Ximinez.

  14. Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  15. Finally... by mdm42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...news that really does matter!

    --
    New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
  16. Re:They should call it "The Spanish Inquisition".. by stanlyb · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  17. My nipples by Spottywot · · Score: 2

    ....explode with delight

    --
    In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
  18. Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ....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.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  19. Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  20. Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. by wwphx · · Score: 2

    I read an interesting commentary on why Holy Grail and Life of Brian were so different from Meaning of Life. Sadly, I don't remember who wrote it. The basic premise was that the first two movies were filmed on location, so all of the Pythons were rooming together, eating together, revising together. MoL was a studio picture and all the Pythons went home after the day's shooting was done and they didn't have the intimate contact and interaction that the first two films engendered.

    I hope this one turns out to be a location shoot. I guess we'll find out, and I'll certainly do my best to see it opening day.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  21. Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As much as I like and respect the members of Monty Python, they're not the same, their comedy is not the same, and comedy is not the same. Which is not to say that they're bad now, just that they've each hit very different comedic strides in the past 30 years. Cleese is more Nearly Headless Nick than the early 80's Robin Williams. Heck, Robin Williams is more like Nearly Headless Nick than the early 80's Robin Williams. Gilliam's such a legendary director that it's easy to forget he was a Monty Python member. Terry Jones is hardly ever on camera now, but has been writing an awful lot (including Labyrinth). And Palin, well, working actor and all that.

    When a reunion like this happens, it's always nice to trot out the old gang for once, shower them with applause for the years they've done good work, and pretend that the work isn't mildly disappointing. 99 times out of 100, you can't recapture that lightning. Being influential means that everyone after you copies you, and that makes you less interesting.

    We've grown up with Monty Python. We owe huge debts of gratitude and culture to their body of work. But let's not pretend that when the blonde bombshell from the 1970's shakes he tassles again it will be the same as 40 years ago. Entertaining? Yes. Worth seeing? Yes. The same? If they try to be the same, they're going to be dead in the water.

  22. Re:It shouldn't be in the spirit of Life of Brian. by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well the joke in AYBS really they need to be at LEAST 16 to get a lot of it as there is a LOT of wordplay in that show, especially Sloakum and Humphries. Mr. Humphries could tell the filthiest stories while not using a single curseword and making sure there was a completely innocent explanation to get by the censors but if you pay attention to some of his stories you'll think "How did they get THAT past the censors?". But for the younger ones I'd go with Python best of and French and Saunders as they had a lot more visual gags and their stuff wasn't quite as randy as AYBS. Of course once they are older AYBS and AbFab with "poor old, dear old, sad old Patsy" are hilarious but again you have to be able to keep up with the word play. oh and for younger ones Red Dwarf is also very visual while still having jokes for the older ones.

    The nice thing about the older British comedies is that you have shows for every age, from the heavy visual and slapstick to the heavy wordplay to the bawdy, it all comes down to picking the right show for the right age. When mine were little they'd fall over laughing at Benny Hill, they thought his chases and the way he was always smacking the bald guy was just too funny, now they watch a lot of Red Dwarf, AbFab, and Vicar of Dibly. So just pick a couple of best ofs for shows you think are about their speed and go for it bro. Frankly any of it is better than the current American TV which is waaay to much into sex jokes and bodily functions. American TV has always been less subtle and now its about as subtle as a punch in the balls.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.