RE: Papa Lazarou

Could be worse - I seem to remember Rob Newman's 'JARVIS LIVE' video (also featuring stand up)

Even worse - Newman's most recent video. A lecture on globalisation also featuring some stand-up.

I like both the LoG Drury Lane Video and Resistance in Fertile.

I think I'll get my coat.

I doubt very much whether the boys had all that much choice in the DVD sleeve. I would have thought the people putting up the money to make it would (possibly reasonably) have insisted that the cover include characters that they imagined were the most popular as they were attempting to get them to buy it.

They were better on the stage of the canal cafe when you hadn't heard of them and I had anyway. (i am making a joke there)

They were better on the stage of the canal cafe when I tried to get a free ticket off Mark Gattiss and he didn't have any left so I didn't see them at all. That's when they were best.

Your turn.

The radio series really, honestly was better.

I feel like the boy who cried wolf. At the end of the story, that is.

I went to a radio recording(In conversation with.....) and Mark Gatiss mentrioned that they designed the sleeve with Python in mind. It's also the reason why TLoG chose Drury Lane in the first place. The extras are complete rubbish on the DVD compared to S1 & S2

>Can't work out what's more annoying - the Python title, or the 'don't worry he's on it' photo of Papa Lazarou on the cover.

Neither of those are annoying as the actual disc. The Demon Butcher musical was removed completely, two sketches removed and placed in the extras section out of order and thus missed of the VHS altogether, a screensaver with just one static picture (completely missing the point of a screen saver,) a multi angle option which fails to utilise the multi angle option on your DVD player (instead splitting the screen into 4) and no subtitles for bummers and the whole thing is field removed. Another bad mark for Universal.

Argh! Another obsessed fan on here. I'm leaving!

If all the obsessed fans of one thing or other left here you'd be on your own.

>Can't work out what's more annoying - the Python title, or the 'don't worry he's on it' photo of Papa Lazarou on the cover.

Disgusting! Fancy having a title and sleeve design that accurately illustrates the contents of the DVD! Outrageous!

There are those of us who prefer surreal cartoons.

>Disgusting! Fancy having a title and sleeve design that accurately illustrates the contents of the DVD! Outrageous!

Thanks, Rob. All that time you were hosting SOTCAA - did you ever actually read it?

Send for the peacekeeping forces...

The amount of time that Papa Lazarou appeared in the live show for does not justify a cover appearance. It'd be like putting Austen Tasseltine on the front of a DVD release of the Brass Eye Special.

(cue a million point-missing cries of "but he *was* in it, he said one word, didn't you see it dumbass thick fucker" etc).

Papa Lazarou was in it just as long as any of the other characters except Edward and Tubbs.

Whether you lot like it or not among LoG fans Papa is probably the best loved character !

I await your views.........

To settle us, could someone give us the actual timings for how long the various characters were on screen? Then we resolve this scientifically?

>>Disgusting! Fancy having a title and sleeve design that accurately illustrates the contents of the DVD! Outrageous!
>Thanks, Rob. All that time you were hosting SOTCAA - did you ever actually read it?

Yes thanks, but what did expect them to put on the cover of that DVD? By all means raise points relating to the actual content of the show, but what's the point of criticising the cover - it's not offensive, it's entirely relevant.

>Yes thanks

Then you'll know our feelings on:

Comedians with delusions of grandeur (having the same title as a Python LP as a deliberate reference), marketing which panders to the lowest audience expectations ('look, it's that character you like'), and comedians who take no interest in the design of their sleeves (general bad wording on blurb). The sleeve is completely relevant.

>Papa Lazarou was in it just as long as any of the other characters except Edward and Tubbs.
>
>Whether you lot like it or not among LoG fans Papa is probably the best loved character !
>
>I await your views.........

You've had them already.

Anyway, I'm a fan, and he's not my favourite character. Neither is he the favourite of most fans I know.

i like his catchphrase but as a character he's rather limited. anyway the LoG merchandise i've seen would suggest the tranny taxi driver is the most popular.

He is of the ones I know so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

>>Yes thanks
>
>Then you'll know our feelings on:
>
>Comedians with delusions of grandeur (having the same title as a Python LP as a deliberate reference), marketing which panders to the lowest audience expectations ('look, it's that character you like'), and comedians who take no interest in the design of their sleeves (general bad wording on blurb). The sleeve is completely relevant.

Mike, you have absolutely no idea how much control the LoG team had over the title, the sleeve design or indeed the marketing.

I can't see what your problem with Papa Laz being on the cover is, seeing as it features lots of their characters and his positioning seems to have a lot to do with design as well as 'marketing' - it certainly isn't going for the LCD.

If you think they are suffering from delusions of grandeur you should base your argument on something more concrete, something you know they have control over, like their performance.
Put simply, you shouldn't judge a DVD by it's cover alone.

>Comedians with delusions of grandeur (having the same title as a Python LP as a deliberate reference)

Actually the python album was called "Monty Python Live at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane." The 1994 reissue was called "Monty Python Live at Drury Lane." The point is, if you played live at Drury Lane and recorded your show there, then the two most boring choices for a title have already been taken by the Python team, hence you can't really help but use the same title.

Do we have an article or interview in which the LoG team admit that it is a deliberate reference? If so, I will eat RHC's sou'wester.

To clarify, it would certainly be a delusion of grandeur if it was deliberate. Consider "Spot the Braincell."

>Do we have an article or interview in which the LoG team admit that it is a deliberate reference? If so, I will eat RHC's sou'wester.

> I went to a radio recording(In conversation with.....) and Mark Gatiss mentrioned that they designed the sleeve with Python in mind. It's also the reason why TLoG chose Drury Lane in the first place.

Okay. I shall eat on humble hairy PVC pie.

>>Do we have an article or interview in which the LoG team admit that it is a deliberate reference? If so, I will eat RHC's sou'wester.
>
>> I went to a radio recording(In conversation with.....) and Mark Gatiss mentrioned that they designed the sleeve with Python in mind. It's also the reason why TLoG chose Drury Lane in the first place.
>

Why does that prove they have delusions of grandeur? They're admitting to being influenced by Python, as many comedians have done. Appearing at Drury Lane was clearly a way of paying tribute to Python, and I don't see a sign at Drury Lane banning any other comic acts from playing there.

Whether you think their TV work has been good (which I don't, excepting a few moments), I can hardly believe that this DVD cover shows them to be egomaniacs. It is accurate, and Papa Laz is for me their best and most memorable character. They are no doubt good at marketing themselves, but then, who really knows how much input they've had into this? I think it's quite a good cover, but if anyone can suggest alternatives, then all for the good.

In some ways, it's comforting that they care enough about what's being put out to get involved in this way. The real test is the content, not the pretty package, but a well designed cover is an additional pleasure.

Well, they could have called it "Drury Lane, Live With The League Of Gentlemen". And had a picture of the theatre on the cover.

No dice. "The League of Gentlemen, a Minor Comedy Troupe With No Intention Of Being Thought Remotely Important In Critical Terms, Live at Drury Lane" or death.

And a picture of a slag heap on the cover.

Unless it transpires that they have a popular running gag set on or around a slag heap, in which case back to the drawing board.

A picture of some dirt.

A picture of Eric Idle. The crap one.

Idle hating's a weird recent development - contingent on his disgraceful recent career.

In the late 80s, before he had the decency to do a John Lennon and achieve mythic status by dying, Graham Chapman was regarded as "the rubbish one" in Python.

As exhibit A, m'lud, I point to the Spitting Image book, where they do the Douglas Adams parody and refer to DNA hanging round with the "least memorable of the Pythons", meaning the Sacred Great Yoakum Cash Cow.

And I used to think Eric was the best (Fry & Laurie-esque wordplay, you see?) so it must have been a prevalent view. I was too much of a sheep to have stood out as a teenager and liked him if no-one else had.

>As exhibit A, m'lud, I point to the Spitting Image book, where they do the Douglas Adams parody

Objection - inadmissable evidence - that's a Smith & Jones book. "So Long And Thanks For All The Advance" was mostly in-jokey refs anyway (see 'How To Be A Complete Bastard's snide "Lots of jokes our jolly chums at Cambridge will understand but will sail over everyone else's heads").

Idle-bashing stems from the same pub-opinion snug that suggests that "80% of Flying Circus was rubbish when you look at it" (usually spat out by people who've done no such thing). It's a curious social phenomenon which allows people to isolate 'crap' elements of things they otherwise really like - as in "The Beatles are great but Ringo's a crap drummer" - instead of looking at things holistically, realising that that particular combination of personalities made it work, then pissing off home. Such observations are rarely based on fact either. When you look at it.

Anyway...

>Why does that prove they have delusions of grandeur? They're admitting to being influenced by Python, as many comedians have done. Appearing at Drury Lane was clearly a way of paying tribute to Python

Or paying tribute to the Pythons' 'success story' - another matter altogether. It's hardly the first time they've done this either. I recall that appallingly smug behind-the-scenes 'documentary' in which they positively salivate all over the comparison.

>They are no doubt good at marketing themselves, but then, who really knows how much input they've had into this?

Even given the debatable notion that Gatiss et al had nothing to do with the cover picture I find it highly unlikely that they were forced against their will into making that TV advert.

>I think it's quite a good cover, but if anyone can suggest alternatives, then all for the good.

Here's the equivalent in Python terms - "Hey, the Parrot Sketch is the one every bugger quotes. It's really popular. So let's stick a ruddy great big parrot on the cover. That'll help it sell. And some spam on the back for the die-hard fans."

That didn't happen - they never pandered to that mentality (at least not before they got all old and tired and left it to idiots to run their business interests). In fact it was the exact opposite - their attitude allowed them to work against audience expectation rather than to capitalise on it.

This doesn't show much of a Python 'influence' on the part of the LOG.

Sorry, Smith & Jones. Mea culpa. Didn't have my comedy bookshelf to hand. I still maintain it used to be Chapman, not Idle, who no-one could work out why he got the work ("He's tall like Cleese and does authority figures like Cleese but we can't really see any distinguishing features. Idle did Nudge Nudge and is therefore a backbone of the troupe".)

Back on topic...

The LoG advertising and marketing sticks in my craw for a slightly different reason.

Because it's perceived as character-based-comedy (ie: The Fast Show for people with degrees), there's a grinding insistence on the integrity of its characters, that the gurning and wigs are what makes LoG funny, not the bad taste and occasional good lines.

If they were true heirs to Python, they'd keep destroying their legacy, tearing it down, putting out distracting, challenging, peculiar, confusing product to confound and stretch their audience.

The Pythons never cared whether anyone wondered if Dinsdale got back with that female impersonator, whether Cardinal Fang sceretly fancied Mrs Niggerbaiter, and then made a spin off book or stage show terribly excited by character's backstories. No, they ripped their characters apart, destroyed them, subverted them, mixed them up, never revisited them again, and best of all released records with the group's name scribbled over the top of something else, giving their audience something new every time, new jokes to relish, not a little reminder of something they laughed at six months back.

I saw a copy of the LoG book for the first time last week and was impressed by the love and care that had gone into it, but depressed by the attitude behind it. "Here's more of those characters you know and love, doing more of their stuff." Er, no. I don't care about the characters. They're just you in wigs. Make me laugh. I'd prefer that.

Papa Lazarou was well loved in series two because he was the only new character that worked, wasn't he? It was his newness. That he didn't reoccur. That he was just a nonsensical joke, not a piece of soap opera.

I'm probably missing the point of LoG's appeal, but, if they're comparing themselves to Python, it's time to do the same and find them wanting.

Clarification: When I say Python, I mena "Peak period" Python, not Spammy Parrots recycling the back catalogue Python. They have since committed many of LoG's crimes (certainly in the field of multimedia), but, while they were an active force, they rarely mistook fondness for the troupe for an interest in the characters.

>Papa Lazarou was well loved in series two because he was the only new character that worked, wasn't he? It was his newness. That he didn't reoccur. That he was just a nonsensical joke, not a piece of soap opera.

And thus did cries of "Papa Lazarou - is he coming back?" erupt all over the net.

And when he immediately didn't... Blam! Cult Hero.

>>Why does that prove they have delusions of grandeur? They're admitting to being influenced by Python, as many comedians have done. Appearing at Drury Lane was clearly a way of paying tribute to Python
>Or paying tribute to the Pythons' 'success story' - another matter altogether. It's hardly the first time they've done this either. I recall that appallingly smug behind-the-scenes 'documentary' in which they positively salivate all over the comparison.

So what your essentially saying that any comedy group that performs at Drury Lane is doing so to capitalise on the Python's success. Ridiculous.

>>They are no doubt good at marketing themselves, but then, who really knows how much input they've had into this?
>Even given the debatable notion that Gatiss et al had nothing to do with the cover picture I find it highly unlikely that they were forced against their will into making that TV advert.

But you've no idea though. You might be able to make a rough guess, but it's still a guess.

>>I think it's quite a good cover, but if anyone can suggest alternatives, then all for the good.
>Here's the equivalent in Python terms - "Hey, the Parrot Sketch is the one every bugger quotes. It's really popular. So let's stick a ruddy great big parrot on the cover. That'll help it sell. And some spam on the back for the die-hard fans."

Great alternative, thanks Joe. No, the equivalent in Python terms would be to use a variety of Python characters on the cover.

>That didn't happen - they never pandered to that mentality (at least not before they got all old and tired and left it to idiots to run their business interests). In fact it was the exact opposite - their attitude allowed them to work against audience expectation rather than to capitalise on it.

Python Album covers were always recognisably Python thanks to the use of TG's artwork and they usually reused ideas from animations featured in the TV series. They aren't as different as you suggest, particularly given that they wouldn't of been able to use the original animation artwork which would of been copyright to the Beeb.

There are also issues of how much control and time the Python team would of had (in comparison to the LoG). Even if we had the full facts at our disposal (which we're not even close to having) the comparison would be flawed as production and marketing techniques are completely different now to then.

The point is, this is the entire SOTCAA arguement. You're having a go at them based entirely on what you imagine to be the case. If you'd criticised the show and then raised the issue of the title and marketing you'd have a more complete picture to support your guess work.

>the comparison would be flawed as production and marketing techniques are completely different now to then.

I thought that was the point??? Bigger picture and all that.

>The point is, this is the entire SOTCAA arguement. You're having a go at them based entirely on what you imagine to be the case. If you'd criticised the show and then raised the issue of the title and marketing you'd have a more complete picture to support your guess work.

Hello Dave?

>The point is, this is the entire SOTCAA arguement. You're having a go at them based entirely on what you imagine to be the case. >If you'd criticised the show and then raised the issue of the title and marketing you'd have a more complete picture to support your guess work.

>Hello Dave?

How unoriginal - that is exactly what Python would have done !

This is what we were getting at, from our 'Elitism' article:

'Remember the opening episode of Harry Enfield's second Television Programme series? It featured the characters Lee and Lance in a sketch making use of the phrase 'Is that what you want, 'cos that's what'll happen'. It was quite amusing in that one sketch, and - as such - it became a massive pub/office/playground hit in the week that followed, with everyone taking delight in quoting it ad nauseam. And quite right too - it was a funny phrase, and brilliantly delivered by Enfield. Unfortunately for him, however, the line was a one-off, and was not reprised in any of the (already recorded) subsequent Lee and Lance sketches in the series. So what did he do? He made sure that in the Christmas Special, which followed six months later, he upped the 'Is that what you want, 'cos that's what'll happen' quotient tenfold, delivering the line with an over-stressed, knowing-wink, here's-the-bit-you-like holler. And the audience? They sounded a bit embarrassed, and didn't greet the routine with the unanimous cheers Enfield had clearly anticipated. Why? Because, in being proud of their middle-class demands, the audience felt justifiably patronised and insulted.

Contrast this with the League of Gentlemen team, who had exactly the same problem with Papa Lazarou - a one-episode character whose popularity took them completely by surprise. The difference here is that, when he made an appearance onstage during their recent 'Local Show for Local People' tour, he was greeted with wall-to-wall sycophancy from all the muppets in the auditorium. These days, it seems, nobody gets the feeling they've been cheated - or, if they do, they keep quiet in case they spoil everyone's fun.'

but another point of view would be that when Enfield put that line in his christmas special he did it badly, but when LoG put Papa Lazarou in their christmas special it worked brilliantly.

>So what your essentially saying that any comedy group that performs at Drury Lane is doing so to capitalise on the Python's success. Ridiculous.

No, just the League Of Gentlemen. The comedy team we're talking about in this thread.

>>Even given the debatable notion that Gatiss et al had nothing to do with the cover picture I find it highly unlikely that they were forced against their will into making that TV advert.

>But you've no idea though. You might be able to make a rough guess, but it's still a guess.

It's an assumption based on things they've said about their general motivation in the past, set against a backdrop of their work to date. In any case I gather the team aren't the sorts to just leave it to other people oversee their projects. They do get hands-on, checking edits or designs.

If an interview were now to emerge where they said "We really hate that cover - it was done against our wishes, and that advert was filmed secretly while we happened to be in character of an evening" then I'd have a bite of that humble hairy PVC pie of Peter O's (before asking "So why did they let it happen then. The Pythons wouldn't have!") :)

>Great alternative, thanks Joe.

It wasn't an alternative. It was an analogy. As you well know.

>Python Album covers were always recognisably Python thanks to the use of TG's artwork and they usually reused ideas from animations featured in the TV series.

No they didn't. 'Another?' was a fake Classical record sleeve with no 'recognisable' Gilliam artefacts. 'Previous?' had a twisty arm thing wrapped around the sleeve. 'Matching Tie?' was a fake tie box (the Gilliam neck-hanged character only revealed as an insert). 'Drury Lane' was a television on a stage. Etc.

None of the above even comes close to selling their stuff on the strength of the 'popularity' of one specific character or sketch. None of it boasted the 'Extra Spammy Parrots' factor into which the Lazarou cover fits snugly.

>They aren't as different as you suggest, particularly given that they wouldn't of been able to use the original animation artwork.

Yes they would . If they'd wished to.

>which would of been copyright to the Beeb.

The original cut-outs were re-used extensively as filler in their first book (and then only because Terry Gilliam didn't particularly want to be involved in the artwork so Idle had to break into his studio to rescue bits and pieces for the paste-ups.). The artwork on the next book was 100% original. Copyright evidently wasn't an issue.

>The point is, this is the entire SOTCAA arguement. You're having a go at them based entirely on what you imagine to be the case. If you'd criticised the show and then raised the issue of the title and marketing you'd have a more complete picture to support your guess work.

Sounds a bit too much like when we were having a go at Danny Wallace' ridiculous self-serving promo tactics and those die-hard fans came out with "How can you even begin to criticise if you've not seen Dave Gorman's show?" - as if the total unmitigating marvellousness of the programme somehow justified the preceding PR idiocy. In the event the show came and went, was watchable but dull and Wallace' actions remain stupid in retrospect.

We'll see the LoG DVD in due course. We may even enjoy it. But it won't change our views on how it's being marketed.

The LoG cover has the same curtains as Python too. Only green.

The DVD compared to S1 & S2 is disapointing and loads of Fans will agree. As I mentioned earlier I was at the radio recording to hear about the design and if anybody cares I will try and find some articles which mention the delibrate Drury Lane choice. TLoG like Monty Python. So what? We all have our influences just TLoG makes theirs a little obvious. To me Monty Python were obviously influenced by The Goons. We could be here all day about who influenced who but instead lets try and concentrate on the quality instead some DVD cover.

>>So what your essentially saying that any comedy group that performs at Drury Lane is doing so to capitalise on the Python's success. Ridiculous.
>
>No, just the League Of Gentlemen. The comedy team we're talking about in this thread.
>
Why does that bar them from appearing at Drury Lane? They don't take anything away from Python by doing so. People went to see them at DL because they liked them; if they were expecting a Python-quality show, that's just ignorance on their part.

>>But you've no idea though. You might be able to make a rough guess, but it's still a guess.
>
>It's an assumption based on things they've said about their general motivation in the past, set against a backdrop of their work to date. In any case I gather the team aren't the sorts to just leave it to other people oversee their projects. They do get hands-on, checking edits or designs.
>

Which is a bad thing? They're catering to their fans, not people who dislike them generally.

>If an interview were now to emerge where they said "We really hate that cover - it was done against our wishes, and that advert was filmed secretly while we happened to be in character of an evening" then I'd have a bite of that humble hairy PVC pie of Peter O's (before asking "So why did they let it happen then. The Pythons wouldn't have!") :)
>
Why would they hate it? They're not the Pythons, and I wouldn't expect them to be like the Pythons. We've already established that their work is nowhere near as good, why would the marketing be?
>
>None of the above even comes close to selling their stuff on the strength of the 'popularity' of one specific character or sketch. None of it boasted the 'Extra Spammy Parrots' factor into which the Lazarou cover fits snugly.
>
It's not just Lazarou on the cover though. I imagine he's in the centre because he was a very dynamic character, probably does well in a stage setting, and because it fits the picture well.

>>The point is, this is the entire SOTCAA arguement. You're having a go at them based entirely on what you imagine to be the case. If you'd criticised the show and then raised the issue of the title and marketing you'd have a more complete picture to support your guess work.
>
>Sounds a bit too much like when we were having a go at Danny Wallace' ridiculous self-serving promo tactics and those die-hard fans came out with "How can you even begin to criticise if you've not seen Dave Gorman's show?" - as if the total unmitigating marvellousness of the programme somehow justified the preceding PR idiocy. In the event the show came and went, was watchable but dull and Wallace' actions remain stupid in retrospect.
>
Dave Gorman's work was still relatively unknown when that was going on. The merits or otherwise of the LoG have already been shown to the general public. The current marketing is capitalising on a very real success, which doesn't look quite so stupid.

>We'll see the LoG DVD in due course. We may even enjoy it. But it won't change our views on how it's being marketed.
>
Fair enough. But I doubt others will change their views either, simply because they're not expecting what the LoG cannot provide. Comparing them with Python is somewhat unfair, as they are not only not as talented, but are working in a totally different commercial enviornment.

>The LoG cover has the same curtains as Python too. Only green.

And you were expecting what? The LoG haven't made a secret of their Python influence; it would seem strange for them *not* to allud to the cover in the circumstances. Again, it takes nothing away from Python.

I laughed uproariously at Papa Lazarou when he appeared in the series. However, I winced at his appearances in both the live show and the Christmas Special. Both were entirely predictable retreads of the exact same joke.

Exactly - what did you expect them to do?
What they've done is perfectly reasonable and sensible given the present marketing conditions.

I mean what would happen if comedy stopped being reasonable, or did something unexpected? Where would we be then?

Shudder to think

Surely that's what people like Chris Morris are for? It's always been the same; for every Peter Cook/Python etc there's been many more mediocre artists. The day the LoG do something really outstanding I will eat my proverbial hat. I'd love them to do something really intelligent, but they've been promoted too fast, and their work reflects that. It doesn't mean I find their marketing offensive, as it does what I would expect it to do.

>I laughed uproariously at Papa Lazarou when he appeared in the series. However, I winced at his appearances in both the live show and the Christmas Special. Both were entirely predictable retreads of the exact same joke.

Yep, the Papa Laz bit was one of the few things in Series 2 that I liked. Where "Hello Dave?" and "You're my wife now!" were only two small sentences from an entire script of things Papa Laz said originally, the fans evidently latched onto these two particular sayings and blurted them repeatedly at the LoG as catchphrases. And the LoG quite obviously must have noticed and basically the only thing Papa Laz has said in his other outings has been *only* those two catchphrases. "Oh - the fans like it when he says *that*, we'll have to stick him in the Christmas special saying *that* to please them. Reece, we'll have to scrap that ending you and Steve wrote because it's original and the fans might not like it. We can't have that can we, then they might not buy the DVD."

>Surely that's what people like Chris Morris are for? It's always been the same; for every Peter Cook/Python etc there's been many more mediocre artists. The day the LoG do something really outstanding I will eat my proverbial hat. I'd love them to do something really intelligent, but they've been promoted too fast, and their work reflects that. It doesn't mean I find their marketing offensive, as it does what I would expect it to do.

What I found annoying was that they've been touring this show around for very very many years before actually getting it onto TV. And it just seems incredulous that they basically had run out of material by the 2nd series and were scraping the ideas barrel a bit. I would have thought they'd have reams of stuff from all that practice, and since the TV and radio versions don't vary greatly, it's basically still the same tiny amount of material they've built their reputation up on, two series, one approaching mediocrity, and a christmas special free of jokes, it's really not much hard work is it.

(very quietly and apologetically) The crack I made at Eric Idle was a sort of flippant parody of the way people diss him a lot around me (including me) called into service to amuse myself in the context of a series of suggestions for alternative DVD covers and not a serious opinion worthy of a ten-message-long debate.

Also, I am pleased to see that TJ liked Papa Lazarous in the first episode of series two. That was one of the few highlights in that series, although the weaknesses are glaring throughout. The main problem is the same one Mike de la Sotcaa mentions about the live show - the audience braying at anything they vaguely recognise (and sitting in grumpy silence at anything else.) Add to that the team's tendency to throw some really clunking material into the mix and you have an overall stinker of a series with a few lively moments.

Without wanting to repeat points others have made...

>>So what your essentially saying that any comedy group that performs at Drury Lane is doing so to capitalise on the Python's success. Ridiculous.
>No, just the League Of Gentlemen. The comedy team we're talking about in this thread.

So the LoG can't perform at Drury Lane on the off chance someone might get confused and come along expecting the Dead Parrot sketch...?

>>>Even given the debatable notion that Gatiss et al had nothing to do with the cover picture I find it highly unlikely that they were forced against their will into making that TV advert.
>>But you've no idea though. You might be able to make a rough guess, but it's still a guess.
>It's an assumption based on things they've said about their general motivation in the past, set against a backdrop of their work to date. In any case I gather the team aren't the sorts to just leave it to other people oversee their projects. They do get hands-on, checking edits or designs.

An assumption is still a guess. It doesn't matter how 'educated' you think that guess is, it's still a guess and it doesn't make a good basis for an entire arguement.

>>Great alternative, thanks Joe.
>It wasn't an alternative. It was an analogy. As you well know.

Yes, but you were asked for alternatives and you chose to ignore it. If you're not going to be constructive you can't expect people to just excuse it.

>>Python Album covers were always recognisably Python thanks to the use of TG's artwork and they usually reused ideas from animations featured in the TV series.
>No they didn't. 'Another?' was a fake Classical record sleeve with no 'recognisable' Gilliam artefacts.

Granted - I meant to put 'Most Python Album covers', sorry...

> 'Previous?' had a twisty arm thing wrapped around the sleeve.

I can recall that arm in quite a few Python animations.

> 'Matching Tie?' was a fake tie box (the Gilliam neck-hanged character only revealed as an insert).

But what about Gilliam's instantly recognisable writing and the design of the 'fake' box. When I brought my CD copy, I didn't have the benefit of the insert either, yet it was still obviously Gilliam artwork and I only had my knowledge of the TV series to draw upon.

>'Drury Lane' was a television on a stage. Etc.

Which featured the *extremely* well known Python foot.

>None of the above even comes close to selling their stuff on the strength of the 'popularity' of one specific character or sketch. None of it boasted the 'Extra Spammy Parrots' factor into which the Lazarou cover fits snugly.

The Lazarou cover doesn't fit into that category on the basis that it isn't a Lazarou cover. I would also argue that the Python team wouldn't of had recognisable characters to market with (with the possible exception of the Mr Gumby) but that because Python is a sketch show and not a sitcom with running characters.

>>They aren't as different as you suggest, particularly given that they wouldn't of been able to use the original animation artwork.
>Yes they would . If they'd wished to.
>>which would of been copyright to the Beeb.
>The original cut-outs were re-used extensively as filler in their first book (and then only because Terry Gilliam didn't particularly want to be involved in the artwork so Idle had to break into his studio to rescue bits and pieces for the paste-ups.). The artwork on the next book was 100% original. Copyright evidently wasn't an issue.

Copyright could well of been an issue - just because it's used in a book doesn't mean that it hasn't been paid for. It's likely that's the reason why the second book features original material only. Yes, that's a guess...

>>The point is, this is the entire SOTCAA arguement. You're having a go at them based entirely on what you imagine to be the case. If you'd criticised the show and then raised the issue of the title and marketing you'd have a more complete picture to support your guess work.
>Sounds a bit too much like when we were having a go at Danny Wallace' ridiculous self-serving promo tactics and those die-hard fans came out with "How can you even begin to criticise if you've not seen Dave Gorman's show?" - as if the total unmitigating marvellousness of the programme somehow justified the preceding PR idiocy. In the event the show came and went, was watchable but dull and Wallace' actions remain stupid in retrospect.

The problem with the Wallace/Gorman situation was the persistent use of Wallace's weekly (licence fee paid) column to promote Gorman - hardly the same as an inoffensive DVD cover/title. You can disagree with that if you like, but you won't convince me otherwise unless you come up with some better points (which is why it might be a good idea to view the show first)...

>I laughed uproariously at Papa Lazarou when he appeared in the series. However, I winced at his appearances in both the live show and the Christmas Special. Both were entirely predictable retreads of the exact same joke.

Papa Lazarou's appearence in the live show is repeat of a sketch from that first episode in the second series. It's exactly what comedy acts the world over do with their material, including the Pythons (Dead Parrot anyone?), so why is that an issue here? Although I agree his part in the Xmas special was a mistake.

I don't even think Papa Lazarou is that good a character. In fact, when I saw the live show I hadn't even seen that episode, so I was rather surprised by the 'raaaaaaaaaaayyyyy!!!' sound emananting from the audience. I think, for many of them, it was more a reaction to its popularity than a genuinely excited response to the character.

I thought the first half was excellent - very little crowd-pleasing involved, just amusing sketches and nice suits. But the jokes ran dry as soon as the costumes arrived. I haven't seen the DVD but even the trailer suggests it might be a painful experience.

so let me get this right, its wrong of a comedy dvd to try and appeal to the casual buyer in its cover art? why dont all comedy dvds just have the title in a bland font so that only people who really like the artists buy it?

ive seen some fairly pointless arguments on this forum before but this must rank pretty highly.

Yeah, but that's just facts, isn't it?

>Yeah, but that's just facts, isn't it?

Exactly. Remember that a vague allusion to an ill-defined 'wider picture' will trump a factual argument every time.

Barfe.

I don't understand this thread... surely it's undeniable fact that comedy, like every other medium, has been taken over by cynical marketing practices which rely on an invented set of demographics, imagined 'target audiences' which bear little relation to your actual punter, whose responses are far more complex than they are given credit for by marketing people. Some people are quite happy to be complicit in this reduction of everything to 'units' and so-called LDC, others are uncomfortable with it. Jeez... Bill Hicks points this out and everyone whoops and cheers... I don't know what the problem is here.

Comparing the LoG's stage performances reusing unchanged old jokes with Python supposedly doing the same is not relevant here, and frankly a bit of a pointless comparison. The main Python live shows took place in an era before home video, DVD, repeats etc (in fact, it is said that the first series - which contained the parrot sketch in question - was never repeated until 1989). I would have thought that the fact that this thread is concerned directly with a League Of Gentlemen DVD should have been enough of a pointer towards this.

> ...surely it's undeniable fact that comedy, like every other medium, has been taken over by cynical marketing practices which rely on an invented set of demographics, imagined 'target audiences' which bear little relation to your actual punter, whose responses are far more complex than they are given credit for by marketing people.



I don't think the LoG cover and advertising campaign, though slightly annoying in its chummy "all yer favourites, ladeees and gents" appeal, is another symptom of a perceived "decline".

From Orwell's "Keep The Aspidistira Flying" and "stick in a swill bucket" observation, to production executives on The Avengers picking a girl with "M(an) Appeal" to helm the next series of the show, we have always been treated like idiots by advertisers and market-hunters. In fact, the basic 1950s-60s "buy this, a man in a white coat is telling you it's great" advert is way more patronising than modern ad techniques.

The choice is whether you ignore it or not. At least the LoG's LCD DVD packaging is honest in its direct appeal to fans. Branding is a different debate, but this is basic, old-fashioned, Barnum & Bailey ballyhooing, to get the punters in, isn't it? Nothing so horrible and "modern".

The sort of thing that a certain black-faced carny might try, actually...

Yes but the difference now is that it's the artists who think that way, not just the marketing men. That's what I meant by complicity - not the punters, the artists.

>Comparing the LoG's stage performances reusing unchanged old jokes with Python supposedly doing the same is not relevant here, and frankly a bit of a pointless comparison. The main Python live shows took place in an era before home video, DVD, repeats etc (in fact, it is said that the first series - which contained the parrot sketch in question - was never repeated until 1989). I would have thought that the fact that this thread is concerned directly with a League Of Gentlemen DVD should have been enough of a pointer towards this.

I'd agree with you except the Dead Parrot sketch appeared on the very first Python album (which only existed because home video was still in it's infancy).

There's a well known Python documentry which features one of the team (I think it's Cleese) talking about their live shows and how the audiences mouthed the words to the sketches as they are played out on stage. It doesn't matter how the audience knows the material, the fact is they knew it, so how is what the LoG (along with most/all other acts I know) do different?

> we have always been treated like idiots by advertisers and market-hunters.

"Two c's in a k", indeed.

> In fact, the basic 1950s-60s "buy this, a man in a white coat is telling you it's great" advert is way more patronising than modern ad techniques.

But this is where the argument erupts. Maybe it's actually more patronising when they pretend to be your friends. Maybe insidious advertising is worse than blatant advertising. Maybe marketing is Satan's work. Etc.

>Barfe.

TJ.

I'm sorry but saying "ONLY MONTY PYTHON CAN PERFORM AT DRURY LANE" is madness. I bet some people here would go to `My Fair Lady` and expect John Cleese and Steve Pemberton to jump from behind the curtains? I know some SOTCAA member don't really like TLoG but to moan at every release not because its poor quality, which I have mentioned I think this live DVD for Extras is, but because "Oh look. They have Green Curtains on the DVD/Video. Monty Python have a copyright or something!" For God Sake. Get an HMV copy of the TLoG live and with the DVD you take AWAY the Green curtains, oh and you can watch it as well, though I doubt thats want you want to do.

>There's a well known Python documentry which features one of the team (I think it's Cleese) talking about their live shows and how the audiences mouthed the words to the sketches as they are played out on stage.

It's Monty Python: Live at Aspen. Or something like that.

What colour curtains did it have on the front? ;0)

Look your the second person to mention the curtains and, i might be wrong about this, but I tihnkMike was joking.

you're not your, you're not your...

I wrote this an hour ago before my girlfriend rang. But hey, it's still relevent today:

>I'm sorry but saying "ONLY MONTY PYTHON CAN PERFORM AT DRURY LANE" is madness.

Of course it is. Totally preposterous. But we didn't actually say that. You've chosen to respond to the hyperbole-ridden reactions ("So what you're basically saying is LoG want to kill everyone's parents and rape our dogs! How pathetic!") rather than our actual argument. And by ossifying it in nice big capital letters you've managed to add to the hyperbole too.

>"Oh look. They have Green Curtains on the DVD/Video. Monty Python have a copyright or something!" For God Sake. Get an HMV copy of the TLoG live and with the DVD you take AWAY the Green curtains, oh and you can watch it as well, though I doubt thats want you want to do.

Some people evidently don't understand the concept of bathos (must be all that LoG). So I'll break it down:

Joe4 - very long post with lots of arguments about changing attitudes, PR and other blethers.

Deliberately followed by:

Mike4 - silly throwaway post about curtains.

The latter lightening the argument and obviously not intended to be taken as a serious addition to the debate. Get it?

To summarise, whether intended as a tribute or a rip-off, the marketing attitude is all wrong and sullies the very thing they're emulating. I'd rather have a grouchy Cleese writing "Oh not again!" under the Parrot Sketch listing on a Python 'best of' sleeve (or indeed a TV compilation which deliberately chooses not to include that sketch) than a gushing member of the LoG team talking about how they brought back Papa Lazarou because "it's what the fans want", then using that character to advertise the video. Put into the 'wider context' it reduces the merits of their creation to the Del-Bar/Fork Handles/Meldrew-Puppy 'Classic' status used by advertisers rather than artists. This isn't a particularly healthy attitude. But, as Butler said above, it's up to you whether or not you choose to ignore it.

Incidentally isn't this a complete reversal of the "Oh look - the Corpses described the forum as their 'blue album' - how arrogant and self-important!" stuff barked out a while back? A joke about font colours, misunderstood by people - ho ho - refusing to consider the wider picture.

My sides already.

So what you are saying is that your only problem with TLOG Live is the curtains?(You still haven't watched it) yet that was all a joke. Papa Lazarou was a popular character. In the same Tubbs and Edward are. IMHO Les Mcqueen didn't deserve to be on the front as he has no speaking part. I find it stranger that they didn't show any pictures of TLoG in their tuxedos as this is Act I of the show, but it comes across in some postings that the only fault is a pair of Green curtains and Papa Lazarou not the actual show.

> I find it stranger that they didn't show any pictures of TLoG in their tuxedos as this is Act I of the show...

nicely proving a point i think.

>So what you are saying is that your only problem with TLOG Live is the curtains?(You still haven't watched it) yet that was all a joke. Papa Lazarou was a popular character. In the same Tubbs and Edward are.

But the point is, Papa Lazarou was a popular character who only appeared in one episode of the original series. They brought him back specifically _because_ he was popular, and not because they thought it would better serve the Xmas special or the live show to do so. They're acting in the interests of commerciality rather than comedy, and ruining a pretty excellent one-off character while they're doing so. I agree with the boy SOTCAA on this one.

>To summarise, whether intended as a tribute or a rip-off, the marketing attitude is all wrong and sullies the very thing they're emulating. I'd rather have a grouchy Cleese writing "Oh not again!" under the Parrot Sketch listing on a Python 'best of' sleeve (or indeed a TV compilation which deliberately chooses not to include that sketch) than a gushing member of the LoG team talking about how they brought back Papa Lazarou because "it's what the fans want", then using that character to advertise the video. Put into the 'wider context' it reduces the merits of their creation to the Del-Bar/Fork Handles/Meldrew-Puppy 'Classic' status used by advertisers rather than artists. This isn't a particularly healthy attitude. But, as Butler said above, it's up to you whether or not you choose to ignore it.

Cleese only wrote that scribble after they'd done the Parrot sketch to death and then some. All the LoG team have done is repeat a particular sketch on tour and used it on one video release. Papa Laz has hardly been over-done here.

If the team are acting solely in the interests of commericality, as rob jones put it, then what were Python doing?

The LoG team aren't done anything unusual here *at all* - convince me otherwise Joe...

> So what you are saying is that your only problem with TLOG Live is the curtains?

Must be sarcasm. Must be.

>(You still haven't watched it) yet that was all a joke.

Blimey. No - just the curtains bit.

>Cleese only wrote that scribble after they'd done the Parrot sketch to death and then some.

No, in fact they hadn't personally done any such thing. It was a comment on fans, etc heralding it as the best sketch they ever did (and it being the one everyone shows as a clip/generally identifies with Python) rather than the way they chose to sell it themselves.

>All the LoG team have done is repeat a particular sketch on tour and used it on one video release. Papa Laz has hardly been over-done here.

It has - by their fanbase.

>If the team are acting solely in the interests of commericality, as rob jones put it, then what were Python doing?

They were wincing healthily at the gushing nature of fandom and staying one step ahead of their fanbase.

>The LoG team aren't done anything unusual here *at all* - convince me otherwise Joe...

Rob, you and I both know that would be impossible!

My point was/is that Papa Lazarou DID serve a purpose in Series 2 and an even bigger purpose in the Xmas special. That ending could not have been done with another character. He also served a purpose in live show. The Papa Laz sketch also tied in with the previous sketch slightly. Another reason(Nothing to do with the show) is that people find Papa Lazarou attractive! The members on TLoG fan clubs practically doubled after the screening of S2 Episode 1, a strange coincidence I think not. Also had that character been played by the Steve Pemberton or Mark Gatiss it wouldn't have been as popular. Why? Reece Shearsmith is a handsome man and playing a mysterious character makes him even more sexier in a lot of peoples opinions(Including mine) that is why Papa Lazarou is successful but you coluld use the same reasons to question Tubbs and Edwards popularity. Have you actually seen the S1 & S2 covers not a Papa Lazarou in sight!

>>Cleese only wrote that scribble after they'd done the Parrot sketch to death and then some.
>No, in fact they hadn't personally done any such thing. It was a comment on fans, etc heralding it as the best sketch they ever did (and it being the one everyone shows as a clip/generally identifies with Python) rather than the way they chose to sell it themselves.

Oh so putting it in a TV show, a film, a few albums, as well as performing it live on numerous occasions isn't overdoing it then? Come off it, no wonder it's viewed as one of the best Python sketches... not that I have anything against the Parrot, you understand, the same is true of many well-loved MP sketches. They're repeated because they're good - and that's not the same as saying the rest of Python was shit...

>>All the LoG team have done is repeat a particular sketch on tour and used it on one video release. Papa Laz has hardly been over-done here.
>It has - by their fanbase.

And of course no other fanbase could be guilty of doing something like that...!

If that was a good reason for disgarding material, you would be personally be responsible for death of a hundred acts.

>>If the team are acting solely in the interests of commericality, as rob jones put it, then what were Python doing?
>They were wincing healthily at the gushing nature of fandom and staying one step ahead of their fanbase.

Rubbish - they revisited those sketches because the audience enjoyed them and they enjoyed performing them.

>>The LoG team aren't done anything unusual here *at all* - convince me otherwise Joe...
>Rob, you and I both know that would be impossible!

Well I don't know - at least I'm capable of admitting when I'm wrong...

Can't you all just try to love each other?

We tried that and it doesn't work. Anyway, why come to a discussion forum if you don't want to be confronted with people disagreeing with each other?

BTW have you seen the new Billy Connolly video? it's got a big picture of him on the cover. what shameful exploitative marketing.

PALIN: One day, lads, all this will be yours...

>BTW have you seen the new Billy Connolly video? it's got a big picture of him on the cover. what shameful exploitative marketing.

is there any new material on this video? it's called The Best of Billy Connolly Live or something isn't it?, which sounds to me like clips from previous videos.
sorry for interrupting the argument