John Cleese and Eric Idle are continuing to duke it out on social media.
The Monty Python legends exchanged barbs earlier this year, locking horns over their estrangement after Idle complained that he still had to work because Python’s earnings had dried up.
Idle blamed the mismanagement of the Python brand on Terry Gilliam and his daughter, Holly. The latter runs HDG Projects, which manages Python and helped stage Monty Python Live (mostly) – One Down Five to Go, the group’s 2014 reunion shows at the O2 in London.
Now, in a fresh post on X (once Twitter), Idle has accused Cleese of firing former manager Jim Beach and installing Holly. He said this was the reason their relationship was “over.”
Cleese fired back on the same platform, accusing Idle of “invention.” He added: “Jim, who was an old friend of mine from Cambridge days, became Python manager after the O2 show. About four years ago he suffered a bad stroke and subsequently resigned as our manager. His number 2, Holly Gilliam, automatically took over as Python manager.”
Oh no, the horror of not being able to coast off of some popular skit shows and movies from 40 years ago!
I really enjoy a lot of MP movies, but you can’t expect what was already somewhat niche comedy to pay for a comfortable life forever. Come up with new material and, y’know, put effort in.
It’s a global phenomenon, not “somewhat niche comedy”.
Yes, they deserve to “coast”.
I’d argue that the movies were global phenomenons, but the skit show was actually very hit-or-miss (like basically every skit show is.) Skit shows really shine on places like TikTok where you’re able to just watch the highlights. Give viewers a quick 3 minute long skit, and move on. But that’s because the highlights are ignoring the bad or unfunny skits.
Okay, but I dont think they had places like tiktok 40 years ago
Which is exactly why I say the show was hit-or-miss.
It’s things like this that make me mad copyright was extended so long. It was originally set at 20 years to prevent this from happening and encourage people to make new art.
The dude is 81. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect to be able to retire long before that. Entertainers generally don’t have pensions, so earnings from their copyrighted material can function like one.
I have no problem with copyrights held by an artist lasting for the life of the creator. But copyrights maintained by corporations or other entities indefinitely, especially after the death of the creator, are bullshit.
If they made millions off their content and are now penniless, that tells me that poorly managed their money seeing as most middle class people will only make maybe a couple million over the entirety of their lives.
Very true. But that’s different from not deserving the proceeds from their work.
If I mismanage my money and am completely broke when I hit retirement age that doesn’t mean I don’t deserve the pension I’ve been paying into my entire career.
You can blame companies like Disney for getting copyright protections extended to the absurd length it is now. Hell, because of them, Steamboat Willie only just recently fell into public domain and that came out in 1928.