Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
It's funny.  Laugh. Movies United Kingdom Entertainment Idle

Monty Python Crew To Reunite For Movie 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Monty Python Crew To Reunite For Movie

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:00AM (#38849523)

    ... because none of us expected it.

  • by alaffin ( 585965 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:02AM (#38849533) Journal should be something completely different

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

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

      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @04:56PM (#38851501) Journal

        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.

        • 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 the

          • by jamesh ( 87723 )

            having ANY new Python will be so damned refreshing

            I certainly hope so. It would be so sad if this generation grow up thinking Monty Python was a bunch of old farts who were only vaguely amusing, and never go on to explore their older works because of this one movie.

            It's possible their humour has become a bit dated though wrt what kids/teens these days find funny. When I watched it when I was a kid, Monty Python (and the Goodies, Not The Nine O'Clock News, etc) were the funniest things ever. When I put the Holy Grail on for the kids (aged around 5, 7, 9, an

            • I think the movies might be the wrong way to introduce Python to a new audience. I think that Flying Circus is a far better way, in large part because they weren't trying to carry an entire film plot. As much as I love the films, I still think the first three series of Flying Circus are superior.

            • I have to agree with the other poster you don't start someone on MP with the movies, frankly they just weren't as good as the series. i would start them with one of the many best of compilations, that will give you all the classics like cheese sketch, dead parrot, lumberjack, I started my boys out on MP that way and now both love the Python. Man the local college kids STILL eat up MP, my oldest says you can stop anywhere on the campus and go "I'm a lumberjack and I'm okay" and 50 kids will call back "He sle
              • by jamesh ( 87723 )

                followed by are You Being Served. I have yet to find anybody who doesn't like Sloakum and Humphries.

                You know... I just never 'got' that show. I was probably too young to fully appreciate it at the time (certainly the pussy jokes went right over my head) but still... even now when it's on i still normally just give it a miss.

                But you're right, the movie was probably a bad place to start. It's all I had though, and my kids watch too much tv as it is so i have mixed feelings about introducing more of it :)

                • 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.

                  • Behind Python Dave Allen was my favorite (though he's Irish, does that count?) The man was almost the wittiest man that ever lived. His monologues alone were quite brilliant. To some extent I consider Craig Ferguson to be his heir (and certainly the most interesting person on late night).

              • followed by are You Being Served. I have yet to find anybody who doesn't like Sloakum and Humphries.

                Uggh. That's my example that British sitcoms can be just as horrible as American sitcoms. (Of course, in the U.S., we usually see _mostly_ only the good British ones.)

                (BTW, "Coupling" is among my favorite shows ever.)

      • by migla ( 1099771 )

        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 n

      • by wwphx ( 225607 )
        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
        • The explanation I read was that writing proved quite laborious and that Cleese vetoed a final rewrite, which probably would have cleaned up the unevenness. I have a hard time believing that spending time on location helped Grail at all, as everyone spent most of the time absolutely miserable and Chapman spent much of the time suffering through severe alcohol withdrawal. On top of that, everyone found the co-directing of Gilliam and Jones quite unbearable, as Jones directed things in a fashion compatible to

          • by wwphx ( 225607 )
            I'm curious what book(s) you got that information from. I've started re-reading some Python books, recently finished Graham Chapman's Liar's Autobiography, he doesn't talk too much about shooting Grail, more about Brian.

      • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @07:07PM (#38852209) Homepage

        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.

      • silly yet thinking comedy

        I'm not trying to equate it with Monty Python, but have you seen "30 Rock"? I would definitely call it silly yet thinking. There's a lot of intellectual humor, mixed in with really bizarre/off the wall humor. (A lot of the off the wall stuff involves Tracy Morgan, who I really disliked on SNL, but he's funny in limited doses on this show, doing basically the same thing.. yeah, it's weird.)

        Disclaimer: I'm not a huge Monty Python fan. (There are a bunch of funny sketches, but just

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:04AM (#38849547)
    ...and why is Graham Chapman not joining them?
    • by newcastlejon ( 1483695 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:08AM (#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.

      • by laejoh ( 648921 )
        But it's great for tax reasons!
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Whiteox ( 919863 )

          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.

          • After Chapman's death, speculation of a Python revival inevitably faded. Idle stated:
            "We would only do a reunion if Chapman came back from the dead. So we're negotiating with his agent."

      • Just did graham up and stick him in a bird cage. You could have a whole scene in a pet shop.
        • s/did/dig/
        • Good idea! For is it not said that where two or three are gathered in my name they shall perform the parrot sketch?
        • by jamesh ( 87723 )

          I think he's actually in an urn somewhere, unless that reunion just included the urn for comedy purposes. Still, an urn perched in a bird cage could be just as funny (and arguably a lot more tasteful) than a rotting corpse. The idea of someone buying a Chapman who was already cremated and in an urn and then trying to return him because he is dead (and having the shopkeeper try and argue to the contrary) would work on a lot of levels.

      • That is unless your name is Keanu, in which case being stiff as a board is an absolute boon.

        I don't see why Keanu gets singled out with a meme of his own, when other actors like Tom Cruise are considerably worse in every regard, and more notable.

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

      Graham Chapman died about a dozen years ago.

      • 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! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Stormthirst ( 66538 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:08AM (#38849569)

      Because he's dead: []

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

      • by Anonymous Coward

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

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

          I didn't know that Stormthirst is Jesus.

        • by Anonymous Coward

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

          FTFY. Sad, but apparently true.

        • There's a joke in the OP's comment?

    • by Antarius ( 542615 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:16AM (#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?!
    • The others didn't believe that he's not dead yet.

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

    • 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 might be. if there is life after death. however, the Pythons already have definitely settled that matter: []
  • No Eric Idle? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • by Alworx ( 885008 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:09AM (#38849573) Homepage

    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.


    • by DerekLyons ( 302214 ) <> on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:14AM (#38849591) Homepage

      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.

    • 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.

    • by mvar ( 1386987 )
      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 [] got it [].
    • 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
    • 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 "M
      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @04:36PM (#38851413) Journal

        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.

        • by Thing 1 ( 178996 )

          Without Gilliam, there's a certain [amount] of anarchy that wouldn't be present.

          And perhaps also, a defining quantity! :)

    • 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.

    • I somewhat agree with you, but think having Crystal Skull was better than NO Indiana Jones movie.. and at least BB 2000 was memorable for the hilarious seemingly un-ending car crash scene, and the way they parked (basically a skidding U-turn directly into the parallel parking spot).

      (BTW, after playing Uncharted 1 and 80% of Uncharted 2 so far, Nathan Drake really makes Indiana Jones look like a wimp! This is from someone who kept referring to them as "that game where you basically are Indiana Jones" for

  • This article made me break my vow of lurking!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This article made me break my vow of lurking!

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

  • by superdude72 ( 322167 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:27AM (#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.

  • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:29AM (#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.

    • 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.

    • Our international copyright regime specifically incentivizes *against* this happening. If the whole purpose of copyright is to ensure the artist is able to no longer make new art but live off of the old stuff, this is exactly the result you'll see.
  • by Sponge Bath ( 413667 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @10:43AM (#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.

  • 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.
    • 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.

      • "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? :-)

        • Sounds a little bit Mel Brooks.

        • 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 mo

          • by migla ( 1099771 )

            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.

        • 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.

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

            Bubba Ho Tep. Elvis Presley's greatest role.

  • 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 for the master of the tantrum to rant again: John Cleese!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28, 2012 @11:06AM (#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". [] None of the other Pythons are involved in the writing process.

    • by sco08y ( 615665 )

      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". [] None of the other Pythons are involved in the writing process.

      The interviewers had a really hard time pretending to give a fuck.

      From the link:

      A talking dog that will ham the shit out of every scene named Dennis will be voiced by Mrs Doubtfire actor Robin Williams.

      FTFY. Will not watch.

  • by dtmos ( 447842 ) * on Saturday January 28, 2012 @11:13AM (#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.

    • by Scutter ( 18425 )

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

  • 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... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mdm42 ( 244204 ) on Saturday January 28, 2012 @11:58AM (#38850033) Homepage Journal that really does matter!
  • Graham Chapman's place will be filled by Andy Kaufman.

  • ....explode with delight
  • figure out a way to work the fish slapping dance into this movie.

  • 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!

Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.