...Movie would have worked a lot better for modern audience, if they had used coconut shell joke just in the first scene and then later shown the characters just walking about without horses or coconut shell sounds.
Rest of the movie's eccentricities are acceptable & hilarious!
No. It's always funny.
Can't stop the signal.
So, you would have a king just walking about the countryside like a commoner? No, that just wouldn't do. They had to keep their mounts the entire film.
share"They had to keep their mounts the entire film."
They didn't 'keep' their mounts the entire film. They dismount at one point, and then they're on foot. Just look at them walking and using a boat and all that. They didn't take their mounts to the castle of Aaarrggh.
I just watched it yesterday. I thought the no horse joke got funnier as the movie went on. I got a laugh everytime the heroic music came on and they were pretend riding with the coconut shells.
Hows the pie?
Sooo good.
I just watched it yesterday. I thought the no horse joke got funnier as the movie went on.
no, that wouldn't have worked. knights are supposed to have horses. that's what being a knight meant.
shareIt's a running gag; a type of joke the Pythons were quite fond of. Personally, I liked it, but you always take a chance on the audience tiring of a running gag, as it appears you did.
Still, no harm done. As you said, the movie is hilarious, regardless.
- You may have come on no bicycle, but that does not say that you know everything.
They just didn't have the budget to use real horses...
sharePlus the actors (at least some of them) had no interest in learning to ride horses.
I thought this was a perfect example of a limitation making art for the better.
Much like how the mechanical shark in Jaws kept malfunctioning--so the movie became more frightening because the shark was mostly unseen (like in real life).
Having no horses meant for a stupid and funny solution : bang coconuts together.
Which spawned one of the funnier sketches in film: Where id you get those coconuts?
Which spawned a good running joke about swallows.
Having the coconuts throughout the movie was a good choice for continuity.
having it be a one-off would have been like a gag in one of Mel Brooks lesser movies.
What is it about now and coconut horses that I am left out of?
share"Coconut shells joke doesn't works now....Movie would have worked a lot better for modern audience, if they had used coconut shell joke just in the first scene and then later shown the characters just walking about without horses or coconut shell sounds."
First of all, you probably mean to say "doesn't WORK now" (why do so many people make this mistake?)
Second of all, you are just making a claim without explaining or basing it on anything.
WHY do you think 'modern audiences' would view this differently?
WHY do you think it would work better, why would your suggestion be funnier?
WHAT do you think makes it 'not work' the way it is now? What about it do you not appreciate or like (or more likely, understand)?
Please explain your stances, don't just vomit some claims and then bugger off. Tell us the REASONS so we can at least have something to discuss about. Otherwise it's just "I claim this" and then "I claim that", and someone makes the opposite claim. It's gonna be just 'yes it is - no, it isn't'type banality without more in-depth explanation of what you ACTUALLY EVEN MEAN.
It was an IMDB user from six years ago. It's doubtful that they are looking at this discussion here, or that they will ever comment with further explanations at this point.
share