Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monty Python and the Holy Grail article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 31 days

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comedy Top‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television: Monty Python Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Monty Python task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

King Arthur Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Changing genre

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.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.104.83 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. B-Movie Fan (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately what it should say should be a reflection of what reliable sources say. DonIago (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will not find a reliable source because it simply isn't slapstick. Can we fix this already? Gjxj (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons given in my previous summary as well as fellow users above, MPatHG is not primarily or predominantly a slapstick movie. It is incumbent on whoever it is that is clearly so invested in the notion of it being lead-descripted in this article as a slapstick film to do so. Note that almost any major source will describe this film as surreal or silly comedy before describing it as slapstick. 86.7.223.84 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.THX1136 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 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! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.THX1136 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 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? DonIago (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.THX1136 (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

In Popular Culture section

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]