Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail/Archive 2

Ignore all rules
People seem to be forgetting that ignore all rules is an official Wikipedia policy. This is precisely the sort of case in which it should be applied. The consensus is clearly strongly against merging. When such a thing happens, all the logical arguments in the world based on other policies simply waste everyone's time. Thus we invoke WP:IAR and be done with it. Specifically, WP:NOT seems to fit the definition in this particular case to be a rule that "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" and thus it should be ignored. Don't get hung up on it. So easy, so clear. Let's drop all the time-wasting arguments go do something else! Watery Tart (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Poll
Shall we remove the merge tags and be done with this time-wasting bickering? Watery Tart (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Completely justified by Wikipedia's ignore all rules policy. Watery Tart (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Get on with it It's time for something completely different. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Merge tags are removed only by satisfying the issues that got them placed in the first place. The articles still need merging, as you can see by reading the discussion. Polls are not the way to deal with merge tags, and describing a discussion as time-wasting bickering is unacceptable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While that is a general rule, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and your actions might easily be interpreted as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have as much right to start a poll to remove the tags under WP:IAR as you someone did in attempting to have articles deleted followed immediately by tagging them for merges. Watery Tart (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are going to accuse me of disruptive editing, you need to have a diff to back it up. I'm waiting.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I outlined precisely what I meant by that. Continuing wikilawyering in the face of a broad consensus against you. Watery Tart (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You accused me of tagging these articles ... I have tagged nothing. I suggest that you don't accuse me of wikilawyering either. I've been part of a good faith discussion which is continuing above, although we have currently paused while waiting on Ned Scott. Please read this section, and identify the broad consensus against me. &mdash;Kww(talk) 01:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the section just above it. Looks like WP:SNOW against merge just as the AfDs were WP:SNOW against deletion. Even if you didn't do the tagging, you are clearly one of the small clique of folks not accepting the consensus against merging. Watery Tart (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I already answered that objection in my first post in this section.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Logic is not the only basis for human reasoning. WP:IAR and WP:SNOW exist for precisely these kinds of circumstances. They are just as valid "rules" as the more nitpicky ones are. Do you really think that people couldn't find better things to do if you'd just drop your bone? Watery Tart (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No response to that, eh? Personally, I'd love to see all the articles about video game characters, soap opera characters, book character, etc. etc. etc. deleted and/or merged. But I have enough common sense to know that it's not going to happen, at least until said games, soap operas and books lose popularity. Many of them are likely to lose popularity well before this film does. Why bother to get one's back up about it? Watery Tart (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in the middle of doing my taxes, and clicking here in-between forms to keep me from going insane (I can't believe that the state of Arizona believes it has taxation power over my income because my wife lives in Arizona, and I don't even live in the US). No one's arguing to get rid of the valid content of most of these articles. I'm not rushing in to merge anything, either. The tags aren't causing anybody's brain to explode or anything ... they do no harm.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They do no good either when there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the regular editors of the article will be swayed to agree with the merge. On your tax issue, I don't believe that Arizona can tax your income if your wife files as "married filing seperately". After all, you are out of their jurisdiction. If that doesn't work, have her buy a small plot of land in New Hampshire, Texas, or I think there is at least one more state w/o a state income tax and declare it her primary state of residence. Watery Tart (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a carefully done merge can be accepted. Not everyone above is an outsider to the article set, and they see the point. Slow and careful is the watchword. As for the taxes, it's the community property issue. Since she owns everything I make, they tax her for it unless I cooperate.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, whatever, maybe. On the other issue, I've posted a note to your talk page. Maybe you are already aware of it, but if you aren't, if might be of help. Watery Tart (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We already had plenty of discussion above from which it was apparent that there is no consensus for a merge. Note also that the nominator hasn't touched this matter for weeks and the discussion is over - we are now discussing a purely procedural point. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing to discuss anything while we're waiting for someone to provide sources. TTN (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Three months later, that merge discussion seems to be a dead parrot. Start a new one if you wish. --Rumping (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Quest for G
Gatorade released a video on youtube and missiong.com about a group of atheletes that quest for G(Gatorade) and are obviously making reference to the movie

So I think someone should add it to the Influences section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.186.221 (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tru dat, Home skillet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.26.10 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Castles
The current text states: "whilst the many castles seen throughout the film were either Doune Castle shot from different angles or cardboard models held up against the horizon." This is not entirely true, as the establishing shot for the first caslte (coconuts) is Kidwelly Castle in Wales and Swamp Castle is Bodiam Castle in Kent. They are not cardboard. I've added links to their pages at the bottom, and may just have to change the text. Cheers! (82.12.202.32 10:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC))


 * You need to see the original Trailer for the film. There is ONE Cardboard Castle. When King Arthur is arguing with Denis the Peasant, the castle behind them is fake. ( It falls over in the film trailer and King Arthur proceeds to stab Denis with his sword! ). This is also why Terry Gilliam , as Patsy , says "It's only a model". Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

trying not to start an edit war....
I'm working to resolve this dispute. Here is my effort...I have located an official copy of the script at

Here is where the quote takes place:

MAN You don't frighten us, English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person. I blow my nose on you, so-called Arthur-king, you and your silly English K...kaniggets. He puts hands to his ears and blows a raspberry. GALAHAD What a strange person. ARTHUR Now look here, my good man! MAN I don't want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. '''You mother '''was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. GALAHAD Is there someone else up there we could talk to? MAN No. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

I'm not certain there is better evidence for either side of the dispute. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See also . MAN is speaking in Middle English, even though he is French. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But the official screenplay released with the DVD special edition uses the spelling "smelled". And no, he is not speaking in Middle English or you would not have understood half of what he said.  The entire script is written in Modern English, even if the period portrayed (932 AD) nominally matches that of Middle English.  Take a look at the original version of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales to see what Middle English looked and sounded like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, subtitles definitely overrule the transcript. Thanks for doing the research. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 18:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The original script book (which they published in the 1970s) says "smelled". Obviously they're all talking in modern English. Curiously enough, "ka-niggets" is not far off from how that word was supposedly originally pronounced. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Composer??
Who composed the music and/or the lyrics to the Sir Robin minstrel song?--Sonjaaa 20:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably Neil Innes. He was their songwriter, in general. Wahkeenah 23:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Innes wrote the music, he even played the Minstrel! Some of the instrumental music was reused (with words) in his BBC TV series The Innes Book Of Records.


 * According to the Soundtrack CD... "Brave Sir Robin" is by Eric Idle & Neil Innes. "Camelot" is by John Cleese,Neil Innes, & Graham Chapman. ( Two unused songs,that have Demos, are: "Arthur's Song" & "Runaway" both composed by Neil Innes.) Harvey J Satan (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening title music
Although the opening titles of this film being quite well remembered, I couldn't find anywhere what the pieces of music used in the opening were. Presumably they were stock pieces of "library music" rather than specifically composed for the film (De Wolfe publishers), but I was wondering if anybody knew what they are called and who composed them. Bob 14:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a copy of the original "script book", there are some Gilliam scribblings for the opening credits,and the titles for the music used. The very dramatic flowery music is called "Ice flow" , and the music over the "Llama Credits" is called "Granada". No composer names appear. ( Also of note, the main Theme heard for King Arthur , was originally from an Italian Western! ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Memorable moments - Bridge
The quotes near the end should have a link to Wikiquote. Tyro the Kinky Kitty 02:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that this part could maybe be expanded slightly to include the most famous unladen swallow question and king arthurs response. This is a very part of the script and has a lot of geek culture involved. See this site.--82.3.32.75 00:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate the importance of this film, I wonder if it would be wise to merge, e.g., Knights who say Ni in with this article... Martin 22:55 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Dentist on the Job introductory film only appear on the DVD? (And maybe on the video (Confession: I haven't bought the VHS!!). I've seen this film umpteen times at the cinema, and as far as I recall each time it begins with the funny subtitles...--Arwel 23:04 May 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * It's not on my VHS copy. Dunno about the original theatrical release though.-Nommo


 * It's not on either my VHS or my DVD, though I recall there's a more-deluxe DVD that came out after I got mine.-- John Owens 21:14 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * Afterthought: It would go a long ways towards explaining the stuff about "the sharpened end of an interspace toothbrush given to her by Svenge, her brother-in-law, an Oslo dentist and star of many films such as Hot Hands of an Oslo Dentist, Fillings of Passion, The Huge Molars of (I forget the name)''....", etc.-- John Owens 21:18 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * I have the double-DVD (UK version), and it's not on that either (AFAIR) Jimregan 21:22 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've got the double-DVD widescreen UK version that was released last year (Columbia-TriStar CDR 14164), and it is on that.-- Arwel 21:57 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'll look again. Jimregan 22:34 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * So it is. Humble apologies. Jimregan 22:41 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * Dang it, now I'm jealous. :( -- John Owens 22:51 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * You should be jealous. Subtitles for people who don't like the film, the Camelot scene done in Lego, an entertaining commentary... --Jimregan 22:58 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * Jimregan, I hate you ;p-- John Owens


 * If it makes you feel better, my Life of Brian and Meaning of Life dvd's don't have any extras :)-- Jimregan 23:16 May 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * You have a Meaning of Life DVD, too? I wish to retract my earlier statement. I no longer hate you. I now despise you ;p


 * I've been looking for one of those for a while, even though I already have it on VHS, and I never seem to find it, though I know there have been DVD editions of it.-- John Owens


 * You can get it here -- Jimregan


 * Well, without paying those collectible prices, I mean. :p I've checked on Amazon before, yeah.--John Owens


 * I suppose. I got it used from the local video rental place for €15. I paid something like 3 times that for Holy Grail.--Jimregan


 * I don't suppose John's in Region 2 -- I was just reading the June edition of Total DVD and I see there's a box set of Holy Grail, Meaning of Life, Life of Brian, and And Now For Something Completely Different being released next month for GBP 39.99...--Arwel 00:02 May 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd like to take this time to decry the existence of the different region codes for DVD's.--Dante Alighieri 23:20 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * A footnote to all this...the reason "Dentist On The Job" appears as the fake intro. on the double DVD : It was released at one point under the alternate title, "Get On With It!" ( A phrase heard throughout "Grail" ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a major scene for scene parody of |Roman Polanski's Macbeth.--Sparky 00:58, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * How so?--Adam Bishop 00:59, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Various scenes BEGIN identically. PLUS the Camelot legos movie was downloadable...--Sparky 01:02, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Artichoke's are tasty too... :-/ IMSoP 22:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a missing word in the paragraph about the opening credits: "According to the group's DVD commentary track, ______ were included in part to save on the film's budget." Not having seen the DVD, I can't say what it was intended to be (Looks like 'these').

Then 'these' it is, then.--217.199.54.130 13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Gawain or Bors
Please provide a resource proving that it is Bors and not Gawain. Continued edits without further discussion may constitute an edit war. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the movie, it clearly refers to him as "Bors". I believe that scene was uploaded on youtube. Gawain and Ector die in the next assault. Delduþling ♦talk 21:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Directly from the film:
 * Arthur: "Go on Bors, chop it's head off!"
 * Bors (Gilliam): "Right! Silly little bleeder ,one rabbit stew coming     rrrrrright up!".


 * ( Later )
 * Arthur:"How many did we lose?"
 * Lancelot: "Sir Ector, Gawain , and Bors."

Harvey J Satan (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Woman beating cat?
What is the meaning behind the woman beating the cat against things in several of the scenes in the movie?

Anamichele (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Anamichele

The meaning is "factual history"! Cats were considered evil, during the time this film takes place. ( Witch association, plague ,etc. ). Cat Torture games were often played during this era. For example: "Cat In A Bag" - a cat is placed in a leather bage, hung from a tree , and rocks and arrows are fired at it ,last one to get a sound wins! ( Horrible, yes. But very much a period reality. And one suspects a Gilliam addition! ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By killing off the cats, they allowed the rat population to grow, thus helping to spread the Bubonic Plague. Perfect justice. "Bring out yah dead!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could this scene have been inspired by something in "The Road to Wigan Pier"? It seems to epitomise futile endevor by the most hopelessly downtroden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.106.214 (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Orthography of castle name "Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh"?
The use of the castle name spelling "Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh" (five As, six Rs, three Gs, three Hs) appears to be consistent across the articles I've viewed. The odds are against consistency like that happening by chance, so my guess is that there's some authority on the spelling or at least authorship in common by a dedicated editor who's likely had exposure to source material. Anyone know what, if anything, the authority is (e.g., the '70s and/or special-edition script[s] mentioned above)? Might citation to a standard help others who might not otherwise take the trouble to use correct or at least consistent spelling (and might it satisfy the curiosity of other readers like me)? 66.171.231.226 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

skepticfiles?
Recently, the following link was removed because it was the only content in a section entitled screenplay. Previous to being placed in said section, it had been a reference sitting off by itself just under the cast table. But, before that, it was inside the table, formatted like this: Source: http://www.skepticfiles.org/en001/holygral.htm Is this reference of any importance? If so, it should be put back. It took quite a bit of searching back through the page history to figure out what happened here, so I hope the page is of some value. Anyone have any ideas? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Vorpal Bunny Reference
When a sentence explains something to be "most likely a reference", I would suggest it's just conjecture and should be removed from the the "Influence" section. If you are certain that its a reference then it should be changed, and the sentence should be referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.225.162 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Galahad
To the IP drive-by... as you can see in this clip, at about 1:55, he introductes himself to Zoot as "Sir Galahad, the chaste". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please reference your changes IAW policy. 173.144.172.98 (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that Gallahad is already introduced as "the Pure" in the first para, there's no need to restate the chaste part. --M ASEM (t) 03:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone reverted the statement that he was a virgin. The movie doesn't literally call him a virgin, but chastity implies virginity. The IP is likely a block-evading banned user who will soon be put on ice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for mud slinging here. A dynamic IP does not equal "Troll" or give you a license to attack a fellow editor.  Please assume good faith, and yes I am not a "new user".  To the subject...  Please provide a reference as needed for the information that you would like to add.  I am only trying to improve the article, I have no issue with the content that you would like to add. 173.144.172.98 (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, we already have Gallahad the Pure - that is sufficient to imply the chaste aspect to make the Castle Anthrax "rescue" joke work. As all the other knights are introduced by the titles used at the start of the film, there's no need to duplication language. --M ASEM (t) 06:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on thar. Just where in the movie does it call Galahad "the pure"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The scene immediately following the "witch" scene, where there is the narrator providing exposition from a book (incl. "Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film"), approx 21:30 into the film on my DVD copy. --M ASEM (t) 07:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I found it. Now, the thing is, it's one thing to rattle off a list of the knights; it's another to have Galahad in a "perilous" position with the wanton women. Note the joke: He says he's Galahad the chaste; she says she's "Zoot... just... Zoot". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when used in that scene (again, just checked), his "Chaste" title, as delivered, seems to be trying to put up a warning to the comely women that heck, no, he's not going to be lured by their charms. Now, let's step back here: the only reason we're adding the titles is that the other knights are all introduced via their titles through the 21:30 book exposition scene, and while Lancelot's and Gallahad's don't matter much, it is the joke around Sir Robin's title that is reason for their inclusion. Since they are all given bunched in this one scene, it makes sense to pull them all from that scene to avoid any issues from a standpoint of avoiding OR on the article. (At worst, we could technically drop these titles completely). --M ASEM  (t) 07:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fair statement, and her comeback signals that chastity is not an issue where she's concerned. If nothing else, maybe you could fix the line that someone keeps putting back, "populated by only comely women", which is strangely worded and should read "populated by comely women" or something similar. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cast Table
I updated the cast table, which seemed extremely unprofessional. I tried to make it more concise and less silly. Just because the movie is silly does not mean the wikipedia page should be silly as well. Delduþling ♦talk 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Must admit, I added several roles to the cast table. Wouldn't it be nice to have a FULL cast table,rather than a verbatim one from the old "Holy Grail Book"? I mean seriously, even the Internet Movie Data Base got Dr.Piglet & Dr.Winston sorted out! Wouldn't it be nice to know Neil Innes is the knight with the fish on his tunic? Or Terry Gilliam is "man gathering hay" in front of the self-destructive monks? And what about Palin,Jones,Idle,Cleese, and Gilliam as both the singers and musicians in "Camelot" ? ( And Innes again. ) And speaking of which,shouldn't Innes be listed as "Sir Galahad's Page" , since in that role,he first gets crushed by THE COW ,then The Wooden Rabbit! ( Note crutch and bandages , as Rabbit comes down on him! ). Just saying... Harvey J Satan (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. And especially, the matter of how they manage to distribute these 6 (or 7) guys in the scenes without (or not) having the same guy appear in more than one role in the same scene? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have only just noticed, when Michael Palin is on the steps of swamp castle, introducing Lancelot to the surviving guests, he is talking to himself playing the man describing the health of the brides father. Putney Bridge (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Olfin Bedwere of Rheged?
According to Tim, the words in the Cave of Caerbannog are the last words of Olfin Bedwere of Rheged. And yet, in the cave, when Brother Maynard says the script is in Aramaic, there's the whole "Of course! Joseph of Aramathea" moment. So what gives? Is this a continuity error? IS Joseph of Aramathea also Olfin Bedwere of Rheged? Did Olfin Bedwere quote Joseph of Aramathea's last words as HIS last words? Or did the knights just find the wrong inscription in the cave? Applejuicefool (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think maybe it's just that Aramaic makes a connection with the Grail that they seek...it may show they're on the right track. 87.113.23.161 (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway Arimathea (whose existence and location is still disputed) has nothing to do with the Aramaic language...87.0.59.119 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the fourth wall
I removed the following from the "breaking the fourth wall" subsection because it it not relevant to that theme. This might belong somewhere, but not there.


 * Due to lack of proper budget, the production crew had to be inventive. A rather creative solution on their end was to imitate horse riding by strutting and banging two coconut halves together. This is frequently referenced in the film, and is the main theme of the first sketch (after the credits). The only place in the film where a horse appears is the scene where 'a famous historian' is attacked by King Arthur.

Frankly, there is no reason for this to be a subsection of the plot anyway. All of this should be in the production section. Thoughts? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 18:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Breaking the fourth wall is when an actor talks to the audience, most of the samples in the list are not breaking the wall! Putney Bridge (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Breaking the fourth wall" is any action within the movie that acknowledges that it is, indeed, a movie. -- 145.228.61.4 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Being self-referential is not the same as breaking the fourth wall. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 14:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the list, trivia-tagged for two months, and completely unreferenced: One of the running gags in the film is the frequent breaking of the fourth wall; for example, the aforementioned "old man from scene 24" and the death of the animator. Others include:


 * The mood-setting opening credits initially play out in a serious manner before they are "hijacked" three times by trouble-making crewmembers (who, along with adding faux-Norwegian subtitles, sneak in mentions of Sweden and moose, e.g. "A møøse once bit my sister" [sic]) The text at one point claims that the remaining credits have been completed at the very last minute and at great expense. The last few screens are then shown against a backdrop of garish, blinking fluorescent colours, with repeated mentions of llamas.
 * The narrator (played by Michael Palin) is heard being killed after taking too long to introduce scene 24, although strangely he is heard later.
 * "The aptly named Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Film" (the face of Michael Palin's infant son William, crudely inserted by Terry Gilliam into a photograph of a knight in chain-mail).
 * When an obviously fake Castle Camelot comes into view and the knights chorus its name in awe, Patsy (Gilliam) remarks "It's only a model" and is shushed. "Castle Camelot" was actually a two-dimensional cutout of a castle, in fact in the film's trailer, it falls over.
 * In one Castle Anthrax scene, Dingo (played by Carol Cleveland, Python's main female supporting player) faces the camera and enquires about the quality of the scene to that point, asking if it should have been cut. Other characters from scenes both past and future respond and, after being drawn out, command her to "GET ON WITH IT!" (This moment was actually removed from the film on initial release, but was reinstated for TV broadcasts and the video release).
 * When Arthur and his knights encounter the Legendary Black Beast of Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh (which is depicted as a cartoon) in a cave, they run for their lives around the cave until the beast's animator suddenly suffers a fatal heart attack, causing it to disappear.
 * Prince Herbert (Jones) repeatedly attempts to begin a musical number, but his music-hating father (Palin) forbids him to sing, and the incipient musical accompaniment stops at his command.
 * When Prince Herbert is about to tell how his fall off the tall tower was broken, the crowd breaks into song, and everyone who was killed by Sir Lancelot rises from the dead, including Princess Lucky's father.
 * The film ends very abruptly, with one of the police officers putting his hand over the photographic lens, the film jumping its sprockets, and the screen suddenly going black.

We need some clarity about what is and is not breaking the fourth wall, and this needs to be referenced. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise in interesting point - that there might be a subtle distinction between self-referencing and talking to the audience directly. Oddly enough, under that narrower definition, the only item on the list that qualifies is Carol Cleveland addressing the audience - which wasn't even in the original theatrical version. The tricky part here might be to find an iron-clad definition of the "fourth wall" term. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a source that describes the fourth wall. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BreakingTheFourthWall llama lom (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They seem to be making a distinction between breaking the fourth wall and what they call "medium awareness". However, aren't they both pretty much the same general thing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Groucho is mentioned in the fourth wall article, for educational purposes I'm posting this item: in which Groucho addresses the audience very directly within the first few seconds. Look closely, and it appears his antagonist is trying to suppress a snicker at Groucho's comment. (Then enjoy the rest of this classic clip.) I would still like to see a definitive definition of what is and is not breaking the fourth wall. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Vermonty Python
Shouldn't the Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavor "Vermonty Python" be mentioned on the Monty Python article, as opposed to the Monty Python and the Holy Grail article? --JohnnyLurg (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is mentioned in the main Monty Python article, so there is no reason for it to be here as well. In fact, it has nothing specifically to do with this film. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Composing Role of Neil Innes
I went to see Spamalot in London last night, and was disappointed to see that Neil Innes was not given any composing credit for the music on the poster. I had always assumed he had a big hand in most of the songs in the movie, and nearly all of them re-appear in Spamalot.

First Innes gets done by Paul McCartney for half the royalties to The Rutles; now it seems Eric Idle is trying to write Innes out of the Grail's musical history. 81.146.17.169 13:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Innes did write a lot of music for the film, and test screenings were given with his soundtrack, but as the main article states, it was then replaced with faux-epic library music. The only Innes compositions to survive were the Brave Sir Robin song (co-written with Idle) and the Camelot song (co-written with Cleese and Chapman). Phosph (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)phosph

Really? Where does it say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.72.155 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape
In RuneScape, there are two (or maybe more) references. The Knights of the party room bear a STRONG resemblance to The Knights of the Round Table. Also, if you use any fish on any tree, it says "This is not the mightiest tree in the forest." Thank you. 12.227.134.125 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

MP:HG Cultural References
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is one of the most referenced and quoted movies of all time. There has to be some line drawn when including things. The section is getting unruly, and many of the shows, games, and movies mentioned only include the spirit of a 'reference', and not an actual reference to the movie itself. -- KirinX 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A comprehensive list of cultural references may just prove that Wikipedia is paper, afterall. -Groveller 08:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you use a herring on the grand tree,you are told "It cannot be done!" -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.122.156 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A dove is not the same as a swallow
I'm pretty sure that sir Bedevere is messing about with a white dove and not a swallow.

You're TELLIN' me here. I would've NEVER have figured that out myself ;) Heheheheh.--217.199.54.130 13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely a dove. I always thought the joke was that Sir Bedevere was trying his theory with other, bigger , birds. ( Since obviously the swallows carried at least one coconut far enough for Patsy to obtain! ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * doves are tame, used for magic etc. easier to obtain. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A triple meaning
A statement is that you can see that someone is a King, because he has no shit on him. It is easily seen, that Chapman has no mud or dirt on him, and therefore no shit. Could it be he has "no shit of knowledge" on something? Is it "no shit with cash" on him? Or maybe he did not need to lie to become what he is (unlike most MPs), and then there is no shit on him. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, but original research. Unless you are referencing something else, if so please add a link to this talk page. Crimsonraptor &#124; (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote is, "He hasn't got shit all over him." That doesn't seem to fit with your ideas. 70.113.195.43 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Llamas
wasn't this movie made by llamas or something? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeh, it's in the opening credits, where it mentions the producer, Como T. Llamas. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Innes again
It's common(er's?) knowledge that Neil Innes wrote a lot of music for Holy Grail that was never used. In one of the documentaries included on my 2007 DVD edition of the film, Innes hums a few bars of a "heroic theme for King Arthur" of his making to show how sad it is they threw it away. The funny thing is, he hums exactly the King Arthur Theme that's in the movie! XD Worth mentioning? --79.193.51.207 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Release date
I've changed the release date back to 1975, as that is the year in which the official premiere occured. While there were some small screenings prior to this, they occured while they were still editing the film and therefore I would not believe that they are normally counted as when a film is released. The Pythons Autobiography has the year as 1974, but I believe that is because that is the timeline of when the Pythons were doing things - it was filmed in 1974 and released the next year (the national press preview is referred to after a diary entry dated January 1975 in that book) Average Earthman 13:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Michael Palins "Diaries" ,the official U.K. release date was: April 3rd,1975. ( There were a handful of "previews" a month earlier. ). It was filmed in 1974, and some of the unused material went into the 4th season of "Monty Python". ( Also filmed in 1974. ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have changed the dates to reflect the actual 1975 official world premiere and UK release dates. Presumably the earlier dates were preview screenings and as stated above these would not constitute the official release of the film.  I think some of the confusion stems from IMDb wrongly giving the film's year as 1974 in its heading even though the text states the world premiere as being in 1975.  MFlet1 (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

budget in Euros?
Would it not seem more suitable to write what it was if paid in Deutsche Mark? When we had an idea on what the Euro would be worth, it was something like 206 phennig, and not 195,xxxxxxxx. But that was the mid 80s. How can a budget set in 1975 be quoted....Now I see. No need for concern, as it is a pantomime. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Listing the budget and gross figures in Euros makes no sense whatsoever. The Euro did not exist in 1975 and is not the currency of England even now.  I have reverted the change made by the anonymous user back in February, which was not accompanied by an edit summary. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  21:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Release dates
An anonymous user changed the release date in the infobox a short while ago, with no explanation. Rather than reverting, I decided to do some checking, and both the old and the new release dates do not match the dates found at IMDb. We need to sort this out. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  18:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Distributors
I have altered the infobox to reflect the original theatrical distributors in the UK and the US, as listed on IMDb. The home video dist. should not be listed in the infobox. Also, only the runtime of the original theatrical release should be listed. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A new source
I've come across this court case, which provides a considerable amount of detail about the funding and management of the film (as it is a dispute between the pythons and their producer). When i'm not at work, I may see if I can fit some of it into the article, but until then, it's here for others to peruse and use. MChesterMC (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Box Office
Is there a verifiable source for the box office of £80,371,739 as currently stated in the infobox? If that number is correct, then we're talking about this film making a ~35,000% return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not implausible if it was given numerous re-releases (which it has), although the number does seem a bit high, because the re-releases only bring in a couple of million dollars at a time.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Original Ending
The original ending, which was not used was that they found the Holy Grail at the Grail counter at Harrods, according to the radio show: "The Museum of Curiosity" Series 2, Episode 5. (84.236.152.71 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC))

Cast
Wasn't Graham Chapman the prince Herbert? 2A01:540:C0A9:9B5:2C3D:B2D2:2D15:DC32 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Siergiej
 * I don't see any evidence to support that, but I do see evidence to support that it was Terry Jones in the role. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct. And (nothing to do with the article, but) my mind is absolutely shattered now. I could've sworn it was Chapman all the time. Thank you for clearing that up.09:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Siergiej — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:540:C0AB:14E2:2C3D:B2D2:2D15:DC32 (talk)

Locations?
Would it be appropriate to add a list of filming locations (or to create a new article) along with their scenes or activities? Given the existence of the bonus feature on the DVDs "The Quest for THE LOCATIONS FOR the Holy Grail", the subject appears to be worthy of inclusion somewhere. Many are already mentioned in the article or this talk page: Kidwelly Castle, Castle Stalker, Doune Castle, Tomnadashin Mine, Glen Coe, Rannoch Moor... Steve8394 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If third-party sources have discussed them maybe, but I don't think a DVD special feature is particularly notable in and of itself. DonIago (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with on this. Primary sources for films (the film itself, production and promotional materials) give far too much information to possibly be reasonably included in an encyclopedic article. Material that is of interest to our readers will have received coverage in secondary sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from African swallow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_swallow redirects here. Should this be the case when there are articles for the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Swallow and some others that live in Africa? 75.100.26.62 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Retargeted and hatted. – xeno  ( talk ) 02:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just converted your redirect to a whole disambiguation page at African swallow. Mentioning it here in case you (or anyone else) wants to comment. 68.235.53.187 (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

BBC Film Night
According to Michael Palin's diary, they were interviewed by Philip Jenkinson(and Tony Bilbow) from BBC Film Night on 10th and 11th of May 1974. The feature was transmitted on the 19th of December 1974. The first draft must have been finished in very early days of 1973, which means they possibly started working on the film in late 1972. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.126.54 (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003081713/http://www.dewolfemusic.co.uk/musicsearch/track_detail.php?primaryid=18731 to http://www.dewolfemusic.co.uk/musicsearch/track_detail.php?primaryid=18731

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

RT score in lede
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. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur; the RT score should not be in the lede. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Pythons and Coconuts
Here be a User block for Python fans!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintchocolatebear (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)


 * Hi - 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)