Talk:Monty Python/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive created 20 April 2006

Contents

Lovely but irrelevant tribute

I'd like to complain about the extremely silly nature of this entire topic. It contains many references which are outrageous, barmy, and downright French. I strongly demand that all those responsible be brought around to my house, preferably bound and gagged, for a right good seeing-to. I say, what is the world coming to when a serious and god-fearing servant of the Queen can't browse the Internet without coming across such filth?

Respectfully yours, Brigadier Charles Leavensworth, Mrs.

Miscellaneous

My immediate presumption is that a list of MP songs may need to be editted for decency (like I care about somebody else's norms and mores!). Much can be written on this page and the innuendo is well known. Lawrence? James? Your 2 pesos, please. --Invictus

Monty Python was the group, not the show. Monty Python's Flying Circus was the show.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

'Monty Python' is the name of the comedy troupe. 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' was the name of their televisions show. Monty Python and the Holy Grail was the name of one of their movies.

I'll fix this up on the main page, possibly after dinner. - Tim

Did they ever explicitly refer to themselves collectively as "Monty Python"? I've heard them called "The Pythons" and "the Monty Python team" but never (in the UK) collectively as "Monty Python"

TS, sorry, took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about. Yes, the main Monty Python page is incorrect and should be altered to reflect your points.

I thought Chapman died of AIDS or something AIDS related.

Not every celebrity dies of AIDS, you know. Graham died from throat cancer, that metastasised to the spine. Let that be a warning about pipe-smoking. Malcolm Farmer

Shouldn't there be a mention of Carol Cleveland and that other lady. It would not have been as good a show w/o them. I think Cleese was married to Carol

Cleese married Connie Booth, who played Polly on Fawlty Towers. [[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 05:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and I must say, old bean, you didn't remember Johnnie's beautiful wife's name at all correctly. He was married to Connie Booth, by Jove, and don't you forget it! Let's hear no more talk of any homosexual activity by members of Monty Python, do you hear me! Where Monty sticks his python or his member is no concern of yours, sir! Great Scott, what's this country coming to! It'll be the death of the Empire! - Brigadier Charles Leavensworth, Mrs.

Added Carol and Connie on the 5th of September 2003, old man, what are you complaining about? Clean those glasses, chappie! - Brigadier Charles Leavensworth, Mrs.

Busterdog

I'm adding it. David 17:09 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

"Their work" is not an appropriate section title. I didn't get anything else, sorry. Its just that the rest of the article was going into the "Frequent Supporting Cast Members" section, and I wanted to separate out the bottom section under some title.

Also, any idea why Monty Python is called "Monty Python" and which year was the troupe formed ?

Also can someone find out Python (Monty) Pictures Limited's turnover for the financial year 2003 and update that line.

Jay 12:42, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think there is some discussion about the name in Graham Chapman's Autobiography (though its impossible to tell which parts of his autobiography are true ;-). I'll try to remember to take a look tomorrow to see if there is anything useful there. - Tobin Richard
Financial data for year to April 2003 not yet available on FAME. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:29, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Did Neil Innes play female roles? Article implies so. ( 12:55, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am in the process of a complete overhaul of this page and the related Monty Python's Flying Circus. Amongst other things this will cut down on the duplication between these two pages. I hope to have it done before Christmas, maybe even in the next couple of days (if I have time). In the meantime feel free to continue editing. I will incorporate any changes that are still applicable into my version by checking the page history before uploading. Any questions feel free to contact me. HappyDog 17:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have consolidated this article with the Monty Python's Flying Circus article, as there was a lot of duplication and redundancy. The article isn't finished (are they ever?) but it is a lot better, I think. I am aware that this is a potentially controversial move, and that even if we should have one major article with the other a link to it it should maybe be the other way round. Before everyone starts rearranging and moving the article around I think it deserves a bit of discussion. Please could we discuss this on talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus instead of here, in order to keep the conversation in one place. Thanks HappyDog 14:18, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think that this page should be a redirect to Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Aggelophoros 02:01, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This may be true, but there has not yet been an agreement whether the main article should be under Monty Python, MPFC, or whether there should in fact be 2 articles. Please add any further comments to talk:Monty Python's Flying Circus. HappyDog 14:52, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"inreadably strange", found third sentence of the section on John Cleese. Perhaps incredibly strange was intended *shrugs* --Cfailde 12:47, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Construction Fence

The following is moved from the article; see below for discussion of changes within it.

Pythomenon

The Show

See: Monty Python's Flying Circus

The Films

[To come]

The Rest

[To come]

(inserted here because I wasn't sure what else to do with it, other than hang it on the wall and pretend it's avant garde) I see no mention of 2 of the Python LPs which I know exist, because I have them: Monty Python's Previous Record and Monty Python's Contractural Obligation Album. (There are also a couple of live albums not mentioned.) I can only guess at the release dates for each, but I can easily get track listings and even cover photos of the albums if that seems like a useful thing. --Woozle 21:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Something a Little Different

Ground rules

This is an encyclopedia article about the funniest thing to come down the pike in i-dunno-how-long. It is not a comedy piece.

I struck out the heading "Pythomenon" (which is a fine term that deserves mention somewhere in the article (unless it was invented by the person who added it to the article and their friends)). The purpose of the headings is to inform, to guide, the reader re what is where. To the extent that you're funny, you're a little obscure. Here's a rule of thumb:

  • We have an article on humor.
  • We have an article on pornography.
  • We even have an article on fuck.
  • But we don't make jokes, we don't tittilate, and we don't talk dat shit. (Well, except on the talk pages, where a little humor, a little evocation of sexuality, and a little foul language can lighten the day, if kept respectful and focussed.)

IMO, "The Rest" as a heading is a little flippant, but fairly clear; perhaps no one will push for replacing it.

Respect your colleagues that you work on this article with, keep the debate and future plans on this talk page (and sign your entries on the talk page with --~~~~), trust the reader to go away with the hard facts or the links to the jokes (according to their needs) without trying to play it for laughs, and (BTW, guys), don't quit your day job. smile

Oh, and do as i say, not as i do: Don't use the super-giant heading style that appears in the cases of "Miscellaneous", "Construction Fence", and "Something a Little Different" on this talk page.

I used them here to confine the headings that i moved from the talk page, instead of letting them blend in among the other headings that will arise. I would not use them in an article, i've used them only once before on a talk page, and i've never even seen them used in an article. --Jerzy(t) 18:59, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

This is very very condascending. Ground rules? Who are you? --HappyDog 03:13, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

ego-less process ?

What's that supposed to mean? According to ordinary hermeneutical principles, this is impossible. In addition, writers have big egos, as well, mind you:) I think this article should be less POV. - Sigg3.net 07:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The logic of the objection escapes me. (E.g., there is such a thing as sublimating, if you will, your ego into excelling at setting aside your raw ego, or developing an ego that identifies with the group rather than the individual.)
Yes, and it still isn't ego-less. - Sigg3.net 21:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But a more objective term would be worthwhile. And excessive PoV is likely, given the subject matter!
--Jerzy(t) 19:55, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

Pasted from the article with strike-outs: If something made the majority laugh, it would be in the show. The casting of roles for the sketches was a similarly democratic and ego-less process since each member of the troupe viewed himself as [equal to the others] writer rather than as an actor desperate for screen time. Now, why have I removed so much? Because the latter 50% of it is NPOV and rather uninteresting when it comes to Monty Python. There are other ways of writing about their cooperation, but since I don't have the basic knowledge of this process, I won't step in and ruin it all. Either way, the majority didn't always laugh at MP's sketches, sometimes they were far too radical (e.g the Hilter sketch, Life of Brian etc.). - Sigg3.net 21:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How do you the majority of the group didn't laugh when they created the sketch, which is what the sentence refered to? You appear to be talking about audiences? It seems to me pretty clear what the original sentence is trying to say - "They worked as a team" would be a simple way of putting it. I think you are getting hug up on the philosophical nature of the ego rather than appreciating that it was originally being used in a fairly simple-minded way. Pcb21| Pete 22:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're right. I'm not helping out. I'd still like to see the word ego-less removed (not just to boost my ego, but) because it is no word and has no meaning. And, aesthetically, it doesn't fit in with the content. - Sigg3.net 07:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV edit

Opening line:

"Monty Python or The Pythons were the creators and stars of Monty Python's Flying Circus, the television comedy series that did to British comedy what The Beatles did to music."

Painfully POV. This is astoundingly unqualifiable. If the effort is to associate the two as for the proundness they had on Brittish culture, then please include that. The impact the Beatles had on the rest of the world cannot be compared to the Python.

The thing that can reduce the POVness is to specify the areas in which they are similary, otherwise it's an alony.

If no change is made by late Fri, I will attempt to reword the introductory sentence to better fit with the article.

--Duemellon 19:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

edited --Duemellon 15:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Yeah, I know something George Harrison said that might help clarify this bit. I like the whole python - beatles thing. I think it's true. If it is POV, it's a widely held one. I'm going to stick that bit back in, and ifDuemellon still don't like it, we'll have to talk it over and, if necessary, edit the thing again. Cheers. --Crestville 19:06, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To include such a statement you must qualify it. Saying that Monty Python is like Beatles needs further definition or explanation of context. There are ways they are similar and ways they are vastly different. If you want include that statement please qualify it. --Duemellon 12:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • What do you make of that?--Crestville 13:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Path to Featured Article status?

I think this has enough content to become a Featured Article at some point, although I also think there is still some work to be done. A lot of the sections/paragraphs need more structure and less POV. Maybe some of the sections should be shortened, and others (such as the list of films) should get some more content. Any ideas? --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 16:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gilliam's "Elephants" animation

I'm working on trying to get an image from Gilliam's "Beware of the Elephants" animation in order to include in the article. If anyone can find an image, please post it in the appropriate spot in the article. --[[User:Brian0918|brian0918 talk]] 20:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Monty Python's FC/ Monty Python

The article's head mentions 4 series of MPFC- well after John Cleese left for the last series the show was renamed just Monty Python. How could that be best worked in? -11:23, 13 Jan 2005 Josquius

I suppose by bringing down a giant foot from the top of the screen, crushing the words "Flying Circus" in the proper context. Uh, but I'm not sure the technology is ready.
Blair P. Houghton 00:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) with shallots and garlic

I'd say to leave it like it is, but add in that fact later in the article. --brian0918™ 14:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problems with the page

I don't know how to deal with several things:

  • One sentence paragraphs. They really badly need fixing.
  • Bullet points in the middle of the first section? Are you sure we need these? Makes it look... odd. This might not be fixable.
  • Why don't we have a picture of the giant foot that squashes things? That should go into the first section "And now for something completely different: Flying Circus and the Python style". Also, I distinctly remember that it has its own name.
  • "After Python" : "Going solo" mentions Cleese's career, but doesn't mention Fawlty Towers!!!
  • Wikilinks in headings... big no no.
  • I see pythonesque comments leaking through... "That left Terry Gilliam in his own corner, a sensible position in view of the arcane nature of his work, and Eric Idle." Now they're amusing, but they also aren't NPOV.
  • "References" should be "Notes", and then a new references section created. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. Consistency is all I ask!

Sorry, I'm busy working on other articles and am taking a break to deal with the PR section. Hope that someone finds this useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's the problem with wikilinks as headings? I see it all the time in other articles. --Thebends 02:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Writing credits

The article says "Neil Innes is the only non-Python to be credited with writing material for the Flying Circus", but I'm certain Douglas Adams gets a credit at least once in series four. Does anyone know for sure? Angmering 23:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • IMDB lists that Adams contributed to the episode "Party Political Broadcast on Behalf of the Liberal Party" [1]. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Adams had two on-screen appearances (very VERY brief ones!) in episodes 42 and 44 and got a writing credit for contributing to a sketch in episode 45. See his page for details. His contributions were so small - I think the notation on the page here is fine, and the details are spelled out in his biography. --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Monty Python What Why?

Nowhere can I find the why and how or history of the names Monty and/or Python. It was the first question popping in my head looking at this article. Whose name is Monty, and why are the Pythons named that? 195.64.95.116 14:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is that they thought it was funny. They basically sat round in a room making up names and eventually settled on this one. It has no real relevance to anything. --HappyDog 14:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I had exactly the same question, and it's frustrating to not find it in the article, so I will move your explanation out to the main page. Spalding 22:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Python "autobiography" contains reasons why they thought the name "Monty Python" was funny. They imagined him to be a seedy impressario, with Python describing his snakelike nature and Monty being exactly the kind of ugly name to fit him. Though the descriptions do not predate the spefic names, there is a reason why they thought "Monty Python" was a good name.

Going Solo

What's with Fawlty Towers (John Cleese) and the Beatles parody The Rutles - All You Need is Cash with Eric Idle as Dirk McQuickly and as Michael Palin in a guest role as Leggy Mountbatten?

Michael Palin was not Leggy Mountbatten in The Rutles: All You Need is Cash film - and he had a role in the film - not a guest role. Michael Palin appeared in The Rutles' film as Eric Manchester, the Rutles Corp. Press Agent/Lawyer. Figaro 11:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of "Monty"

Flying Circus and the Python style says that "Monty" comes from a guy Idle knew in a pub. The head of the article, however, says it was a tribute to Field General Montgomery. Which is the truth?

Also, there's generally a lot of information about the series that seems to properly belong in the article about the series, rather than about the group.

Yours truly in a white wine sauce,

Jiawen 21:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC) from

Furthermore, that is completely NOT what they said at Aspen. (I don't even think they mention Montgomery.) I remember them saying the name came about as follows: The BBC was calling it 'circus' in their initial programming titles, as the group had no name for the show. Jones wanted it to be some long obscure nonsensical name, but they said no. They suck with circus and added "Flying" because it sounded like a real-life circus. Then Palin had the idea of giving the show to random people all across England each week. So then they decided to create a name of a made-up scummy agent, and "Monty Python" sounded scurrilous enough maybe from the guy in the pub?). I don't recall anything about Montgomery being said at all. Sonofabird 18:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Lemur named after John Cleese

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18825252.400

John Cleese's response:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825280.400