No, it is not really a new Monty Python movie, but it will feature everyone except Eric Idle(uh, and Graham Chapman).
I really think they should just all get back together and do one more Monty Python movie, really. Even if it sucked, I think it’d be worth it.
I just finished reading Michael Palin’s diaries, and after seeing some of the drama and frustration that goes on trying to make a Monty Python movie, it’s no wonder that they’ve mostly moved on to different things!
That tells me all I really need to know.
From the plot description, this sounds like a modern working of The Man Who Could Work Miracles, a 1936 fantasy film based on the H.G. wells short story*.
I like this:
I see. They’re all working together on a film, but they’re not getting back together. It must be one of those subtle distinctions, like the one between Tab and Diet Coke.
(It was probably the most faithful adaptation of Wells’ work ever, including Things to Come, which wells scripted himself. The film was made so long ago that Torin Thatcher, who played one of the gods/aliens, actually has hair.)
Well, it sounds like Eric Idle is not on board yet. Also, Graham Chapman is a pain to get to work these days.
They’re working together, but they’re not getting back together as Python. From what I understand, Michael Palin feels that Python died with Chapman.
“I’m not dead!”
Having 4 out of 6 of them calling themselves Python would be as bad as if Roger Daltry and Pete Townsend called themselves The Who. That would just be silly.
I would say a Monty Python film is one written by the members of Monty Python, not just a film that features some subset of them.
There have been LOTS of movies in which 2 or 3 of the old Monty Python gang worked together. Terry Gilliam worked with Michael Palin and John Cleese on Time Bandits, Gilliam worked with Eric Idle on Baron Munchausen, Cleese worked with Palin on A Fish Called Wanda, etc. But I wouldn’t call ANY of those Monty Python movies.
For that matter, 4 of the ex-Pythons (Terry Jones, Idle, Cleese and Palin) worked together in Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride. That wasn’t really a Python picture, wither.
This new project doesn’t strike me as a Monty Python movie either.
Please note that my criticism is not saying that thois ought to be a Monty Python picture *. I was commenting on the apparently ethereal difference between “it’s not really that we’re getting back together” and their actually, well, getting back together. (just not as Monty Python)
Well, this isn’t a perfect analogy, but ALL of the other Beatles appeared to one degree or another on the 1973*** Ringo ***album.
Was that a Beatles album? No- but of course, any time two or more of the boys did something together, it launched speculation that, maybe, the Beatles were reuniting.
Same thing here- the Pythons working on this movie are just saying, “We happen to be doing a project together- not for the first time since our split. Don’t read too much into this.”
I actually thought that Palin was nearly ready to tour with them back in 1998, but ended up wanting more money and the whole thing fell through. Pure gossip from me now, though. I don’t have a citation. Am I wrong about this?
“Nonsense! And good riddance to you, ya’ freeloading bastard. I hope you fry!”
Yes, I thought of the same analogy. And I understand the difference between a Python item and non-Python. But, as I say, it’s bizarre to say that “we’re not getting back together” when they’re all back together.
The Marx brothers had a better case for “not getting back together” in The Story of Mankind, that wonderfully awful film. They each appeared in it, but not together, not interacting (Chicio was wasted in his role). In this film, it appears that the ex-Pythons* will be interacting pretty strongly.
*THIS is an EX-Python!
One feature that is essential for something to be a Monty Python project is that it contain a non-trivial amount of Terry Gilliam (style) cartoons. They were a very distinctive feature of the real thing. The Python style of sketch humor, often actually performed by Cleese, Chapman, Palin, Jones or Idle, had already been seen quite extensively on British TV and radio when Python started, in shows like I’m Sorry I’ll Read That Again, At Last the 1948 Show, The Complete and Utter History of Britain, Broaden Your Mind, and Please Do Not Adjust Your Set, and there were other comedians (e.g. Tim Brooke-Taylor, Graham Garden, Marty Feldman) trying to do it too, although rarely quite so well. What made Python new and different (apart from just being a bit better and a bit further out there than the other similar stuff) was Gilliam’s cartoons. If he is just appearing in this as an actor (or is in a directorial capacity), then it is not Monty Python (and it would not be even if they brought Chapman back from the dead.*)
A good thing too. It could only disappoint. Shoot, even The Meaning of Life was a disappointment.
*Given that he was both almost-Jesus and King Arthur, perhaps this is not so remote a possibility as it might seem. 
From the earlier article linked at the bottom:
So they may not even appear physically in the movie, which is described as “combining CGI and live action.”
And of course it’s not really Monty Python unless they’re all involved in the writing, which apparently only Terry Jones has a hand in here.
I don’t expect Eric Idle & John Cleese would be working together at this point in their relationship.
Oh, if the paychecks were high enough, I wager they could get along for a little while.
Oh? They don’t get along. I don’t really keep up with the Pythons’ current status.
What’s the be-all-and-end-all book to read for a full rundown of the Pythons? Particularly, their breakup and relationships since.