Jump to content

Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Assessed
No edit summary
 
(39 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|topic=Art
}}
{{Notice|{{find}}}}
{{Notice|{{find}}}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Film|American-task-force=yes|class=B
{{WikiProject Film|British-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Comedy|importance=Top}}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = y
{{WikiProject Television|monty-python=yes|importance=Low}}
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = y
{{WikiProject King Arthur|importance=mid}}
| b3 <!--Structure --> = y
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Top}}
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = y
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = y
|British-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Comedy|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Monty Python|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject King Arthur|class=B|importance=mid}}
}}
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
Line 26: Line 19:
}}
}}


== Pythons and Coconuts ==
== Funding by Elton John disputed ==

Here be a User block for Python fans!
{{Userbox
|id-fc = black
|info-s = 8
|border-c = blue
|info-c = #aaccff
|id-c = #90b0e0
|id = [[Image:MontyPythonFootLeftSmall.jpg|45px]]
|id-s = 9
|info-fc = black
|info = This user is a fan of '''[[Monty Python]]''', and has faced the '''[[Monty Python and the Holy Grail|Killer Rabbit]]!'''
}}

== Production ==

The reference to the Seventh Seal would be more complete if it also mentioned the fact that the Original UK Trailer to Holy Grail sends up the beach scene at the beginning of Seventh Seal. In it, Death is seen giving the Antonius Block character a face full of cream pie (or maybe just shaving cream? - whatever).


Eric Idle is quite sure that Elton John didn't help to fund the film. https://twitter.com/EricIdle/status/1372555186485391366 -- [[User:忍者猫|忍者猫]] ([[User talk:忍者猫|talk]]) 15:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
== Changing genre ==


I somewhat agree - on Elton John's article, this interview with Terry Gilliam is referenced: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/mar/09/features.phelimoneill It implies that Elton John was '''contacted''' for funding, but states nothing about whether this contact resulted in any actual money being exchanged. When this is cleared up, the corresponding correction should also be made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John#cite_note-235 . [[User:RudolfSchreier|RudolfSchreier]] ([[User talk:RudolfSchreier|talk]]) 11:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The edit page says I need to discuss making changes to the genre before it can be changed. The article says that MP&HG is a slapstick film. It clearly isn't. Slapstick is physical comedy in which people are knocked about bodily by other people or objects. The humour in MP&HG is primarily verbal and character-based. There is little or nothing in it that could be accurately described as slapstick. It needs to be changed to "absurdist comedy" with a link to the article on "Absurdity" (the article on "surreal humour" is very poor.) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/49.199.104.83|49.199.104.83]] ([[User talk:49.199.104.83#top|talk]]) 00:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== In Popular Culture section ==
I get it. It's not slapstick. All the violent scenes are just hilarious and ridiculous and are like someone getting crushed by a giant bunny or slayed by a bunny. There are a couple of actual violent scenes like when John Cleese Lancelot ran through the castle killing everybody but it wasn't slapstick. [[User:B-Movie Fan|B-Movie Fan]] ([[User talk:B-Movie Fan|talk]]) 04:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
:Ultimately what it should say should be a reflection of what [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 16:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


If ever there were a page that needed an In Popular Culture section, where references to the Holy Grail are listed from other films, Presidential speeches, pop songs, astronaut declarations in space... this is it. Someone please make that section, because The Holy Grail is referenced everywhere, everyday. Plus see my request on [[wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Film, radio and television#M%E2%80%93O|Wikipedia: Requested Articles]] for it to be created as a separate page, because [[wikipedia:"In popular culture" content|per Wikipedia guidelines]] In Popular Culture sections should eventually be split off into their own page when they get too long (so ultimately the top 10 should be on this page and the top 100 should be on that page.) --[[User:Mrcolj|Mrcolj]] ([[User talk:Mrcolj|talk]]) 22:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You will not find a reliable source because it simply isn't slapstick. Can we fix this already? [[User:Gjxj|Gjxj]] ([[User talk:Gjxj|talk]]) 02:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


== RT score in lede ==
== 'Reception' section so US-centred ==


This film was made, acted, financed and produced by Brits and filmed in Scotland. So why is the 'Reception' section dominated by US sources - six of them - and just one British. Do only American critics' views matter? Is this cultural hegemony, or just simply annoying? If we want to have a more balanced section, would someone like to research original reviews that weren't only from Chicago, New York or Los Angeles? This is particularly irritating given that when originally shown in the US the film was bowdlerised for being a little too earthy for easily-shocked American folks.
I don't the think the RT score is a very good barometer of the film's critical reception and does not belong in the lede. Including it, briefly, in the reception section is one thing, but the score is not indicative of how the film was received in its time, which is what should be foremost in our minds. I suggest removing it. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;">[[User:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#009900">The Old Jacobite</span>]]</b><i style="font-family: Courier New;"><sub>[[User talk:TheOldJacobite|<span style="color:#006600">The '45</span>]]</sub></i> 13:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I realise this sounds trivial in itself, but sometimes the English Language version of Wikipedia feels like the Voice of America. There are about 2 Billion English speakers globally, but only 15% of them live in the US, yet Wiki's homepage is dominated by baseball players, (American) Football players (sports that virtually know one else bothers with) and so on. There is a wider world out there and Wikipedia- English doesn't reflect it.[[User:BobBadg|BobBadg]] ([[User talk:BobBadg|talk]]) 20:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
:I concur; the RT score should not be in the lede. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 14:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
:[[WP:SOFIXIT]]? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
== Poor sourcing ==
* [[Special:Diff/1064964245]]
Despite the unbelievers, this article has mentioned the credits [[Special:Diff/657199|for over 19 years]].
However, rather than sourcing this to an article by one Cindy Davis, on a webblog where M. Davis {{plainlink|https://www.pajiba.com/staff/cindy-davis.php|just does clickbaity "20 Facts About &hellip;"}} articles and {{plainlink|https://www.pajiba.com/staff/|is not actually identifiable}} and whose expertise is unknown, you can do ''so much better'' here.
<p>
There's a professor of Media Arts from Brigham Young University, ''a identifiable credentialled expert writing in xyr field of expertise'', who actually explains each individual credit, item by item (e.g. "Hengt Douglas-Home" being a reference to [[Alec Douglas-Home]]), at {{harvnb|Larsen|2015}}.
Far from following up on the bad idea earlier on this talk page of building this article with random pop culture references, you can ''in fact'' have expert-sourced content on the cultural references that ''this'' movie makes.
<p>
And the reason ''not'' to source articles to such shallow clickbait space fillers is made amply evident by {{harvnb|Hoffman|2015|p=136}}.
Use the experts, a professor of English in this second case, and you'll discover "facts about" the movie that, contra to M. Davis, you ''actually'' did not know, and ''truly'' are not in this article, such as that the credits were at the ''end'' of the movie in the original theatrical releases, contradicting what this article currently says about why they were written (which isn't even supported by the Davis source).
Even the less detailed {{harvnb|Butler|Klepuszewski|2014|p=57}} (lecturer in English and Ph.D. in literary studies) mentions Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Film, who is thus far not appearing in this article too.
<p>
If you don't source to shallow clickbait weblogs of unidentifiable authorship, you can do so much better.
* {{cite book|title=A Book about the Film Monty Python and the Holy Grail: All the References from African Swallows to Zoot|author1-first=Darl|author1-last=Larsen|publisher=Rowman &amp; Littlefield|year=2015|isbn=9781442245549|chapter=Title and Credit Sequence|pages=1&ndash;26}}
* {{cite book|title=Cinema Arthuriana: Twenty Essays, rev. ed.|editor1-first=Kevin J.|editor1-last=Harty|publisher=McFarland|year=2015|isbn=9781476608440|chapter=Not Dead Yet: ''Monty Python and the Holy Grail'' in the Twenty-first Century|author1-first=Donald L.|author1-last=Hoffman|pages=136&ndash;148}}
* {{cite book|title=Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition: Cultural Contexts in Monty Python|editor1-first=Tomasz|editor1-last=Dobrogoszcz|publisher=Rowman &amp; Littlefield|year=2014|isbn=9781442237377|chapter=Monty Python and the Flying Feast of Fools|author1-first=Stephen|author1-last=Butler|author2-first=Wojciech|author2-last=Klepuszewski|pages=53&ndash;60}}
[[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:19, 16 September 2024

Funding by Elton John disputed

[edit]

Eric Idle is quite sure that Elton John didn't help to fund the film. https://twitter.com/EricIdle/status/1372555186485391366 -- 忍者猫 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree - on Elton John's article, this interview with Terry Gilliam is referenced: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2002/mar/09/features.phelimoneill It implies that Elton John was contacted for funding, but states nothing about whether this contact resulted in any actual money being exchanged. When this is cleared up, the corresponding correction should also be made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elton_John#cite_note-235 . RudolfSchreier (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

If ever there were a page that needed an In Popular Culture section, where references to the Holy Grail are listed from other films, Presidential speeches, pop songs, astronaut declarations in space... this is it. Someone please make that section, because The Holy Grail is referenced everywhere, everyday. Plus see my request on Wikipedia: Requested Articles for it to be created as a separate page, because per Wikipedia guidelines In Popular Culture sections should eventually be split off into their own page when they get too long (so ultimately the top 10 should be on this page and the top 100 should be on that page.) --Mrcolj (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Reception' section so US-centred

[edit]

This film was made, acted, financed and produced by Brits and filmed in Scotland. So why is the 'Reception' section dominated by US sources - six of them - and just one British. Do only American critics' views matter? Is this cultural hegemony, or just simply annoying? If we want to have a more balanced section, would someone like to research original reviews that weren't only from Chicago, New York or Los Angeles? This is particularly irritating given that when originally shown in the US the film was bowdlerised for being a little too earthy for easily-shocked American folks. I realise this sounds trivial in itself, but sometimes the English Language version of Wikipedia feels like the Voice of America. There are about 2 Billion English speakers globally, but only 15% of them live in the US, yet Wiki's homepage is dominated by baseball players, (American) Football players (sports that virtually know one else bothers with) and so on. There is a wider world out there and Wikipedia- English doesn't reflect it.BobBadg (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT? DonIago (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing

[edit]

Despite the unbelievers, this article has mentioned the credits for over 19 years. However, rather than sourcing this to an article by one Cindy Davis, on a webblog where M. Davis just does clickbaity "20 Facts About …" articles and is not actually identifiable and whose expertise is unknown, you can do so much better here.

There's a professor of Media Arts from Brigham Young University, a identifiable credentialled expert writing in xyr field of expertise, who actually explains each individual credit, item by item (e.g. "Hengt Douglas-Home" being a reference to Alec Douglas-Home), at Larsen 2015. Far from following up on the bad idea earlier on this talk page of building this article with random pop culture references, you can in fact have expert-sourced content on the cultural references that this movie makes.

And the reason not to source articles to such shallow clickbait space fillers is made amply evident by Hoffman 2015, p. 136. Use the experts, a professor of English in this second case, and you'll discover "facts about" the movie that, contra to M. Davis, you actually did not know, and truly are not in this article, such as that the credits were at the end of the movie in the original theatrical releases, contradicting what this article currently says about why they were written (which isn't even supported by the Davis source). Even the less detailed Butler & Klepuszewski 2014, p. 57 (lecturer in English and Ph.D. in literary studies) mentions Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Film, who is thus far not appearing in this article too.

If you don't source to shallow clickbait weblogs of unidentifiable authorship, you can do so much better.

  • Larsen, Darl (2015). "Title and Credit Sequence". A Book about the Film Monty Python and the Holy Grail: All the References from African Swallows to Zoot. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–26. ISBN 9781442245549.
  • Hoffman, Donald L. (2015). "Not Dead Yet: Monty Python and the Holy Grail in the Twenty-first Century". In Harty, Kevin J. (ed.). Cinema Arthuriana: Twenty Essays, rev. ed. McFarland. pp. 136–148. ISBN 9781476608440.
  • Butler, Stephen; Klepuszewski, Wojciech (2014). "Monty Python and the Flying Feast of Fools". In Dobrogoszcz, Tomasz (ed.). Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition: Cultural Contexts in Monty Python. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 53–60. ISBN 9781442237377.

Uncle G (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]