egafd.com

Here is a funny clip of Mick Jagger, with Charlie Watts sitting next to him, talking about Monty Python. His comments about how they were 'great in the 60s', 'I bet its expensive' 'wrinkly old men trying to relive their youth to make money' and how 'the best one died years ago' are very funny! It's good that he can laugh at himself and his band mates!

Bet they got paid a mint for doing it...

Is it just me who is bored witless with Monty Python?

Talk about flogging a dead horse.

I am old enough to remember when it was first shown on TV.

My memory was that 90% of it was crap.

You had to wade through lots of crap for the odd gem.

I have just had a look at Wikipedia.

There were 45 episodes over four series.

I guess each episode was 30 mins, so that's over 20 hours.

I guess there 02 show is going to be a couple of hours, so let's hope they have focused on the correct 10% that was any good, plus bits from their films etc.

I used to go to school with a saddo who could go through every chuffing sketch word for word and thought he was more intelligent than the rest of us because we didn't "get" their humour. Their fans are the type that if they went on stage and did nothing for 2 hours would still call it genius.

I've also found Monthy Python very hit-and-miss. Some sketches are good, some are rather naff, but I've not seen as much of it as some people may have. I remember Eric Idle on TV once saying that it was aimed at people who were older than adolescent's but still kind of felt like they were in their adolescence, mentally at least. So if you were an adult, who still enjoyed slightly childish type things that you enjoyed as a kid and a teenager, then Monty Python was for you. I never grew up with it, but had I have done I might have understood it more - in fact I would probably have had to have been about 20 or 25, during the show's peak, to have REALLY got it, if I fully take on Eric Idle's description of who it is aimed at and the mentality they must have. I still enjoyed adolescent humour when I had got to post adolesence so I probably would have understood it. I've never really followed it, in spite of repeats later on and stuff that is inevatiably available on YouTube. I've only seen the odd bit of Python material during my time.

I've only seen the odd bit of Python material during my time.

Don't worry you've not missed anything worth getting concerned about.

Gotta agree ? nothing to write home about.

Fawlty Towers is funny and stands the test of time. Monty Python doesn't and I have never seen Ripping Yarns.

Quentin Letts in tomorrow's Daily Mail:

"Once they were the sharpest thing in satire. Last night, quite often, they looked and sounded like a dodgy tribute band.

"Age has not been kind to Cleese who is all implausible teeth and pot belly these days - he is too lame to do the silly walks these days.

"At its less good it has aged. Inuendo no longer buys many spuds. Gags about the mentally deficient, gays and people with stammers are not much cop - but I did quite enjoy the camp judges.

"What would the old Pythons have made of these sad old chaps? They might have taken the rise out of them. Maybe we should we more merciful and just thank them for the old memories."

Probably best to save your money...

If you really need to see it.............

If you can get UKTV Gold the last show* is going to be screened on that channel at 7.30pm Sunday 26th July.

If I remember I might set the Tivo box to record it.

That way I can have a look at it later with my finger on the fast-forward button for the 90% plus that I expect to be crap and all the adverts!

* still not convinced it will be the last one, I'm sure if it makes enough money they will be able to flog the dead horse just one more time.

Essex Lad wrote:
>
> Fawlty Towers is funny and stands the test of time. Monty
> Python doesn't


You forgot to mention the success of Spamalot in recent years, which made Broadway box office history and has run for 10 years in the US, having just completed it's third American tour, not to mention being produced in 24 other countries and getting rave reviews in all of them, particularly the London production. If success on that scale doesn't indicate that something has stood the test of time, then what would? Not to mention that the pythons have made over a million dollars each from Spamalot (Eric Idle a lot more of course) and they continue to earn from it as it continues to play - not a bad earner if the material hasn't stood the test of time.

JamesW wrote:

> You forgot to mention the success of Spamalot in recent years,
> which made Broadway box office history and has run for 10 years
> in the US, having just completed it's third American tour, not
> to mention being produced in 24 other countries and getting
> rave reviews in all of them, particularly the London
> production. If success on that scale doesn't indicate that
> something has stood the test of time, then what would? Not to
> mention that the pythons have made over a million dollars each
> from Spamalot (Eric Idle a lot more of course) and they
> continue to earn from it as it continues to play - not a bad
> earner if the material hasn't stood the test of time.


mediocrity sells. Always has.