It is being reported today that the 32nd Carry On film, which has gone under the working title of Carry On London, may be in cinemas by the end of 2008, with a final script having just been signed off.

Full story.

I'm actually quite excited by this. I love the films, and really hope that they can make something good of it. Carry On Columbus, the 31st film (produced in 1992), is widely regarded as a failure, and by far the weakest of them all - whilst the former is certainly true, I watched it again recently and was actually very surprised at how good it was. If you try and watch without the stigma of no Sid, no Ken, no Joan, then there was actually some bloody funny stuff there. (Of course, it did have Chris Langham in, so I'm sure some people will hate it just for that.)

Anyway, summary: yay!

I too find myself surprisingly happy with this news. I'm a huge carry on fan and I must admit that Columbus was hard to take at the time because of the lack of old familiar faces, but in hindsight it's not that bad really. Nowhere near as good as the old films, but a brave attempt. Julian Clary stood out for me as being particularly good.

There is no reason why Carry On London can't kick-start a revival though, if the script and the cast is right.

Fingers crossed (if it's rubbish as most people think it will be there is always the old films to fall back on anyway)

Oh, Langham? I might have to watch that now.

I think the plot of the new one sounds quite fun.
I'm surprised David Walliams hasn't been in one (has he?), Carry On seems just his sort of thing.

Yeah, he plays a small part, but pretty well.

Walliams hasn't been in one, no - far too young!

And yes monkeybeard, I thought that Clary was great in it. I hope they can find place for him in the new one, and the prospect of this kick-starting a whole new series makes me salivate. I just really hope it continues true to form, without compromising its integrity to pander towards current comedy trends.

It needs to keep the spirit of the originals and the cast should contain been there done that comedy actors rather than a bunch of talking faces from panel shows and that program where they talk about their school days (Vic Reeves apart, he can appear in it)

I say get all the fast show actors back together for a crack at it. That would be a great start.

Quote: monkeybeard @ March 13, 2008, 1:13 PM

(Vic Reeves apart, he can appear in it)

View original

Yay!
But of course nowadays, you get him you get his wife.
She'd bloody love being in a Carry On film.

I'm not entirely sure about The Fast Show thing, but otherwise I totally agree, monkeybeard. The style of comedy which the Carry Ons are known for may not be quite in fashion at the moment, but the public love it, and it's ensured the film's enduring appeal to this day. It seems to me that it's only the comedy establishment who disapprove, so let's hope that the writer(s) and producer(s) have taken not of public opinion!

Quote: zooo @ March 13, 2008, 1:16 PM

Yay!
But of course nowadays, you get him you get his wife.
She'd bloody love being in a Carry On film.

View original

So would I! If this brings a proper revival of the series, I would have to seriously consider becoming an actor, with the single aim of being in at least one. There's a lot of potential in the Carry On format, as long as it's done right. Do what's funny, not what panders to the "ism" crowd.

Please, Carry On London team, make it good.

I fear another St. Trinians... Personally, I'd like to see them redo the Confessions films. I'm sure Robin Asquith is still avaliable for the work.

Well, I suppose they couldn't exactly harm the films' reputation with a new Confessions series!

The weakest carry on is definately Carry on England, followed closely by emmanuel.

I thought columbus was ok.

Ah, Carry On England. Yes. Even though it had tits in, that was pretty poor.

Don't remember Emmanuel. I'll have to rewatch this weekend.

Quote: Aaron @ March 13, 2008, 2:04 PM

Well, I suppose they couldn't exactly harm the films' reputation with a new Confessions series!

View original

The great thing about those films is that they were softcore pornography the entire family could sit down and watch together.

(Not that I mean to imply that tits make a film. Just ... Yeah, you get what I mean.)

Quote: chipolata @ March 13, 2008, 2:06 PM

The great thing about those films is that they were softcore pornography the entire family could sit down and watch together.

View original

You think? It's been a while since I watched any, but I always found them to be a pervert-in-training's version of the Carry Ons. They introduced actualy nudity, but didn't really change the attitude or tone of the rest of the films enough for it to work, IMO.

Yeah, right. The real Aaron popped out there! So to speak.

That's slanderous. Or is it defamation. Or something? I dunno.

So again.