Just 42 years later, here’s the star-studded teaser for Mel Brooks’ History Of The World, Part II
Nick Kroll, Wanda Sykes, Ike Barinholtz, and a wholebunch of famous people star in the teaser for Hulu's 4-part follow-up to the 1981 Brooks film
TV News Mel Brooks
The title of History Of The World, Part I—Mel Brooks’ scattershot but memorable collection of historical comedy sketches, originally released back in 1981—was always supposed to be a joke. (It’s a riff on Sir Walter Raleigh’s famed The History Of The World, Volume 1, not a promise of an incipient sequel.) And yet, wouldn’t you know it: 42 years later, we’re watching the teaser trailer for Hulu’s sequel mini-series, History Of The World, Part II.
As we reported last year, this long-awaited (?) sequel is a co-production between Brooks, who introduces the teaser, and Wanda Sykes, Ike Barinholtz, and Nick Kroll, all of whom appear prominently. And while we don’t get any glimpses of “Hitler On Ice” or “Jews In Space”—both promised in the fake trailer that played at the end of the original movie—we do get a sense that the four-part series is going to cover a whole lot of historical ground.
Highlights include Sykes as Harriet Tubman (who a dim-bulb Confederate, played by champion dim bulb performer Tim Baltz, identifies as “the inventor of the bathtub”) and Joe Lo Truglio as a Catholic official who definitely, absolutely doesn’t want Jesus to be depicted as white in the official artwork. (Also, there’s a bit where Jake Johnson, as Marco Polo, yells “Marco!” and it’s a dumb laugh, but we’d be lying if we didn’t admit it got us.)
Also: Celebrities all over the place in this one. Brooks himself doesn’t seem to appear in any of the skits—man’s 96, cut him a break—but we do get appearances from *deep breath* Pamela Adlon, Zazie Beetz, Quinta Brunson, Dove Cameron, Danny DeVito, Jay Ellis, Josh Gad, Johnny Knoxville, Kumail Nanjiani, Emily Ratajkowski, Seth Rogen, Sarah Silverman, Taika Waiti, J.B. Smoove, Jillian Bell, Sam Richardson, and Richard Kind. (And we definitely missed some.) Phew!
114 Comments
Oh but I think I did catch a glimpse of Jews In Space at the very end of the trailer. Yay!
Sorry Mel, I’m happy you’re still with us, but this looks absolutely terrible.
Can’t be worse than Spaceballs: The Animated Series!
Balances out with Spaceballs: The Flamethrower.
The kids love that one.
Or Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank
I don’t think Brooks had anything to do with it beyond a vague Blazing Saddles remake.
He’s got a voice, producer and writing credit in it. And he’s production company is one of the ones listed. It may be all because it’s an “official” Blazing Saddles remake and who knows how much personal involvement he had. It was a very bad movie, even by kids movie standards
Oh god he has a writing credit? I knew he appeared in it, the man has been showing up in blah animated films for quite a bit, but writing? I hope thats a formality due to it being a remake.
It’s definitely a formality because Richard Pryor has a writing credit too.
Josh Gad is in this one and he has never made a bad movie and he is never annoying.
Yeah, but I’d argue that Mel Brooks movies are like pizza. Even a bad one is still pizza!
I think you’re wrong.
They better have Jews in Space!
And Hitler on ice!The fake trailers in the end was really the only good part of the first movie. Speaking of comedy sequels, I watched Anchorman 2 the other day for the first time since it came out and it was a lot of fun.
I always thought Anchorman 2 was way better then it has any right to be. The final fight at the end is gleefully silly to an extreme degree.
I liked the fight but thought the rest of the movie was mostly pretty forgettable. One comedy sequel I think is really underrated is Airplane 2.
I remember nothing about the sequel except the sight gag with William Shatner on a screen, but I must have missed the next minute and a half because I was laughing so hard.
Shatner stole that entire movie! So underrated.
There was an Airplane 2!!??
“Over Macho Grande?No…, I don’t think I’ll ever be over Macho Grande.”
Agreed on Airplane II.Defense Attorney: [approaches the witness as he sits down in the witness stand] Would you describe, in your own words, what happened that night?Witness: Check it, bleed. Bro… was ON! Didn’t trip. But the folks was freakin’, Man. Hey, and the pilots were laid to the bone, Homes.[the stenographer wears sunglasses and sways back and forth as he types]Witness: So Blood hammered out and jammed jet ship. Tightened that bad sucker inside the runway like a mother. Shit.
Airplane 2 is excellent. Me likely all the Shatner scenes especially.
The first movie is not great but there are few really good site gags and the Inquisition musical number is easily one of the best things Brooks has ever done
That reminds me, Mel wrote a Waterloo song that was hysterical but he never found a use for it. I hope they found a place for it here.
Lets face it: You can’t Torquemada anything.
“Auto-da-fé, what’s an auto-da-fé?/It’s what you oughtn’t to do but you do anyway!” is probably my favorite ever bit of wordplay.
I thought the first movie was uneven and had too many predictable jokes, but it did have that great scene with Bea Arthur as the cranky unemployment office clerk in the Roman Empire.
Did you bullshit this week?Did you try to bullshit this week?
“I’m on my wine break.”
The Spanish Inquisition is clearly the standout, but there were a lot of bits in the Roman Empire that I liked. “When you die at the palace, you really die at the palace!”
I also liked the Moses on Mt. Sinai sequence, and parts of the Last Supper skit.
The final shot of Mel standing with the serving platter behind Jesus’ head in da Vinci’s painting is just genius.
I always thought there was something fundamentally wrong, like something got left out…
I’ve been known to show the Inquisition scene to my Western Civilisation students. They usually love it.
Did the Spanish Inquisition count as being civil?
Inquistion sequence is The Best…and I didn’t even growup with the whole Busby Berkeley style is was aping. But I have been to/watched alot of Broadway musicals and loved Singing in the Rain from childhood (I’m currently 45). Nice.
I think Mel insisted on that one. Let’s face it. You can’t Torquemada anything!!
I snuck into this movie (I was 15) and was found by an usher and told I had to leave. Hung around and watched “the Four Seasons” with Alan Alda in the other theater and then snuck back in and watched it. In retrospect, I admire that usher’s diligence. I mean who the fuck cares? It wasn’t like I was sneaking in to Deep Throat, but kudos that guy, wherever he is.
Anchorman 2 was too long
And everything that came out of Madeline Kahn’s mouth.
Can’t. Too many people in Congress would think it was a documentary.
They better have Jews In Space with Jewish Space Lasers.
I am cautiously optimistic. It looks very much like a film version of drunk history, which isn’t the worst thing in the world. The Marco Polo line was a tiny bit funny because of that, but it was really the “it’s better in a pool” part.In any case, I will be watching this wanting to laugh instead of finding reasons not to (which is how most people watch SNL these days)
good or bad, i hope it shuts up all the people who consistently bray about the woke police and how mel brooks would never be able to make movies today.
and can someone bring back drunk history?
didn’t you hear, the woke police went and made that Zucker Brother’s “An American Carol” the least funny movie ever made…I’m not sure how, given that the woke police did not have script approval or anything else…and the movie was made…and released…but they are definitely the reason why, in violation of the first amendment, people didn’t laugh at it at all.
It looks exactly like Drunk History (they even use a lot of the same actors) and that’s what I’m most excited about.
I think it’s really a case of Drunk History looking a lot like History of the World, Part I.
Oh yeah, you’re not wrong, but I was mostly talking about the superficial similarities, like using the same actors and similar quality sets.
How could they avoid that comparison though? Drunk History used nearly every known comedic actor at some point and was, you know, a basic cable comedy about history
I agree there are definite similarities. I think the production value is driven by this being a series instead of film. When it comes to the actors, most of the actors from the classic Brooks’ films I grew up with—Gene Wilder, Harvey Korman, Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, and Dom DeLuise, to name a few—are dead. It makes sense that he’d go to the Drunk History well to look for talent.
I figured someone had said this before me and here we are.
This is definitely one of those things where all the famous comedy people only got involved because they’re scared of what it might say about them if they pass up a Mel Brooks opportunity. No way is it going to be funny and no way is their presence going to make it funnier.
Counter point. A lot of funny people are involved and Brooks has always been a great collaborator. This could turn out to be fun
Counter point: Josh Gad
I’ll see your Josh Gad and raise you an Ike Barinholtz.
That’s not a counterpoint, it’s checkmate.
I know people hate Josh Gad, but people should watch Avenue 5. It’s very funny and Josh Gad is very funny in it./the Josh Gad hating may resume
Glad you liked it but I thought it sucked. House and Gad are not funny hence the show sucked. I couldn’t finish an episode.
The first two episodes actually sucked. The only reason I persevered was because it’s a Armando Iannucci joint (The Thick of It, In the Loop, Veep.) The tone was very very off for the first two or three episodes, but then it finds itself, the writers figure out what they’re writing, and it clicks and becomes one of the funniest shows on TV in recent memory IMHO.I wouldn’t blame anybody for not getting through that very rough take-off tho, there are only so many hours in a day, but particularly if you like Iannucci’s other shows, in my opinion it totally found the voice and tone that made his other stuff so fucking hilarious.(And although I also hate House, Hugh Laurie has never not been hilarious in comedic projects imho. He doesn’t deserve to be pigeon holed despite how utterly banal House was.)
Agreed. One of the big reasons Brooks is such a creative genius is that he collaborates so much. He’s gotten truly epic comic bits out of just about everybody he’s directed, even a few not noted for being funny people. I mean, did anyone ever think Orson Welles was a funny guy before he narrated that movie? He was always the target of parody, not a performer of it.
this doesn’t make sense. Saying no to a Mel Brooks project isn’t conversational.
Its got nothing to do with controversy, and I also don’t really accept that you are unaware of the importance of professional reputation and co-operation in the entertainment industry, where almost all your job opportunities come from networking. Do you think I’m talking about public image rather than professional reputation, or something?Say I’m a talent agent and you’re an aspiring comic actor whose profile has recently been raised enough to attract my attention. I offer to represent you because I can see the opportunity to make money off you, and you accept because you see the opportunity to leverage my network to access people and spaces that could help you with your career goals. That’s the deal, that’s why these arrangements exist, we both accept the relationship and we’re both excited by it.Then let’s say I call you up one day “I’ve got you the opportunity to work with Mel Brooks” and you excitedly agree, partly because there’s a reputational credential in working with someone widely considered to be a master of comedy which in itself seems good for your career (“if Mel Brooks thinks they’re good…”), and partly because your new talent agency has found a prestigious opportunity and you don’t want to discourage me from putting your name forward for these kinds of things.
Then I send you the script and it’s utter shit. What are you going to say at this point? Sorry Mr Talent Agent, I’ve changed my mind, I don’t want to be offered Mel Brooks vehicles after all? Sorry Mr Brooks, the script is shit and not funny*?You would at least have to do a bit of risk assessment, right? And maybe you’d decide that contributing to a shit project is less bad than the reputational damage of snubbing it?Or do you turn it down and burn important professional bridges? Agents don’t find big opportunities for people who don’t want ‘em, producers don’t hire people who have a bad smell, and creatives who are thought to be prestigious have a lot of people listening for their opinions.So it’s not THAT inconceivable that there are people who are involved in this film more for the opportunity to show appropriate deference and cooperation with the Hollywood establishment than out of belief in the material, is it?*I grant you I haven’t read the script and I grant you that it may end up totally hilarious, but c’mon man: if the content in the trailer is representative of the overall product, it’s almost a certainty that some people have gotten involved for reasons unconnected to the quality of the material.
controversial*
Yes, because never in the history of entertainment has there ever been anything funny made by combining the talents of several funny people all at once.
What would that say about them, though? That they don’t want to be in a movie made by a comedy legend? That they can say no to someone with a lot of clout and respect? That they’re secure enough in their career that they can be very choosy?
Well, it’s on TV, so one can always bail if it’s not funny. The stakes are pretty low.
I’m getting a Drunk History vibe.
Hopefully it’s not a Drunk History UK vibe.
Drunk History is definitely an easy comparison to make.
Yeah Drunk History came to me as well. Not a bad thing to be compared to
Do you get a Drunk History vibe from History of the World Part One? I don’t. I get a sketch comedy centered around history written (at least in part) by Mel Brooks vibe – which is pretty much every Mel Brooks film, I guess.
Speaking of dim bulbs, I am pretty sure that is a Union uniform. 🙂
They need a Miracle for this to be a success.
Mel in the intro is look old but man does that guy still have energy. He narrates his own audio book and it’s clear he’s still as sharp as ever. Gotta find out what that guy is made out of and bottle it
It made me realize that the answer to the question “Who’s going to be the next beloved celebrity that will devastate you when they die the same way Betty White did?” has always been Mel Brooks. Please let him become the first human being to live forever.
I mean, he has to make it to at least 2,000 years old
Or 2,000 years?
Hm, mel will be one. I think dolly will be massively missed, she is the rare celeb who seems to have not have anything bad ever said about her
I think he’s shooting for actually being a 2,000 year old man. They say after the first hundred it’s all downhill.
Yeah, I’m amazed he’s 96. He was moving around like he was only 70.
I was disappointed that when he looked inside the jacket for his name, he didn’t say “I’m Mel Brooks Brothers”.
His recent book is so fucking great. Absolute brain candy from start to finish and it’s like 500 pages.
He was the subject of a recent episode of the BBC series Imagine… and you’re right, he seems as on it as ever he did.It was pretty cool actually, it had footage from two other times the BBC had done features in him mixed in with the new stuff. One thing I did notice, Brooks was always very friendly the the camera people and made sure to include them in his jokes.
It’s a miracle!
Well that’s too bad.
Nick Kroll, Wanda Sykes, Ike Barinholtz, and a wholebunch of famous people star in the teaser for Hulu’s 4-part follow-up to the 1981 Brooks filmThere needs to be a space between whole and bunch.
Taika Waiti
*Waititi
I don’t know, there might be a Taika Waiti listed in the Christchurch phone book. I guess that guy might be in the movie, rather than the celebrated Kiwi director…
Good to see they didn’t skimp on the lighting and production design budgets: you can really see both dollars up on the screen.
Yes, where’s that richness and visual texture you get from most comedies?
I love richness and visual texture in my comedies – consider how much it adds to Edgar Wright movies – but I’ll settle for baseline giving-a-shit. This trailer fails to clear even that low bar.
Remind me again which basic cable comedy series Edgar Wright directed here in the states. Also, since you can judge the absolute visual quality of this series by a trailer, could you tell me if it accurately reflects the color grading that will be used in the finished series or is it a quick promo that was made in advance of final post production?
Part 2 better bring the merchandise.
“How did these dumbasses enslave us?”
Wanda Sykes is still the funniest woman on the planet. Put her in all the films, already.
I need to go rewatch it, but I swear those guys were in blue uniforms, not grey.
They were. They weren’t Confederates, they were Union.However, they were still dumbasses.
Perhaps she means white folk in general, which is fair.
Even in the trailer that moment cracked me up.
So many level C celebs in one movie. Thats gonna be fun.
It’s good to be the king.
I think the old man actually did manage to fit in Jews in Space, at least in the trailer.
Most of the “celebrities” listed are B List…..
Nick Kroll, Wanda Sykes, Seth Rogen… yeah what a bunch of losers!
Nick Kroll is awesome…excitedto see what they do with him here and if some off these folks also had a hand in the writing.
Not having a single laugh in this trailer was a bold choice
Why is this?Also, you completely lose me at Ike Barinholtz.
Mel’s stuff for the last…oh god 20+ years? has been pretty lame but I’ll give this a watch anyhow.
[/insert Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy reference here]
As everyone already pointed out, it looks like Drunk History, which I think is a good thing. Most of the actors in History of the World also played characters in Drunk History, too, which just adds to the effect. I think I even spotted Derek Waters and Craig Cacowski in a scene. It’s nice seeing Brooks again, I hope he pops up in a scene or two.
Since we dont get Hulu in Sweden (or all of europe as well?), but I do hope this gets onto Disney+.Even if this might not be as raunchy as the 70’s or 80’s movie, I wouldn’t want to pirate something that might be Mel Brooks final work 🙁
The first flick wasn’t “memorable”–90% of its gags fell completely flat.
I want to be optimistic, but this looks like a Friedberg and Seltzer parody.
Better late than never, as they say.
wanda sykes is just not funny. smdh
Jerry Seinfeld was talking with Jim Gaffigan. Jim was talking about opening for the Pope – which he did – and what an experience it was to meet the Pontif. Jerry said he understood completely. For a Jew it would be like meeting Mel Brooks.
Ah, now we have another 30+ years later sequel. Hope it does well. The sequel to Blade Runner wasn’t. The sequel to Top Gun did very well.