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
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
On sourcing
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail/Archive 2) (bot
Line 25: Line 25:
|archive = Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}

== A couple of questions ==

I was wondering why there is no mention of the comedic "false start" with the "Dentist on the Job" film (if I remember the title correctly) and Neil Innes' contributions musically? Innes is included in the credits if memory serves and is also mentioned in the commentaries. I will add these in if there is a consensus to do so. Thanks.[[User:THX1136|THX1136]] ([[User talk:THX1136|talk]]) 01:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|THX1136}} - to answer your second question, Innes is credited in the infobox and mentioned in the Soundtrack section. Or do you mean a detailed list? It's been a while since I watched it, so can't answer your second question at the moment, but you've reminded me that it's about time I watched it again! [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 02:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I put that in after posting the question. Perhaps the false start was a DVD only thing. Been awhile since I saw the film in a theater. Thanks for the response.[[User:THX1136|THX1136]] ([[User talk:THX1136|talk]]) 15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

::Per [[WP:FILMPLOT]], "The plot summary is an overview of the film's '''main events''', so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, '''individual jokes''', and technical detail." (bolding mine) I don't remember the false start either, so that to me indicates it isn't important enough to add. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 04:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

:::I've just had a look at the opening credits on my DVD version, and saw the Dentist on the Job bit, which I'd definitely not seen before (not having watched this particular version before). Then followed a whole lot of quasi-Norwegian subtitles which start getting very silly (who would have thought?), talking about mooses, and giving credits for people who'd been involved with the moose, etc. (That felt a bit more familiar, although wouldn't have recalled it off my own bat.) Then looked at imdb, and there are some comments there under "Crazy credits" which indicate different versions on DVD. I don't know whether this is worth noting in a note somewhere? [[User:Laterthanyouthink|Laterthanyouthink]] ([[User talk:Laterthanyouthink|talk]]) 06:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

::::It's an MP film, so I think silliness is to be expected and likely isn't worth pointing out for the sake of pointing out unless [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] have especially called out the opening credits as being significant in some manner. Yes, they're funny, but can we say anything about them beyond that and the fact of their existence? [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 13:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

:I think you have it right, Don. If a reliable source has not made mention, it's not necessary here either. Also there is no mention in either DVD commentary on this false start. Thanks all for the input.[[User:THX1136|THX1136]] ([[User talk:THX1136|talk]]) 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
::The false film at the beginning is present only in the 2001 DVD version, but it's been removed again in the Bluray release. It shouldn't be mentioned in the synopsis like it's part of the film, since it's only part of one specific cut of the film that's not the one widely available as of 2019. It should be moved to note at best. [[User:Kumagoro-42|Kumagoro-42]] ([[User talk:Kumagoro-42|talk]]) 16:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


== Funding by Elton John disputed ==
== Funding by Elton John disputed ==

Revision as of 00:36, 16 April 2022

Template:Vital article

Funding by Elton John disputed

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]

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

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

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail&oldid=1082933787"