OT: South Park does it again

[BloodyChamp]

Did anyone catch last night's first episode of South Park during the 1 hour block? They hit the nail on the head once again with a current issue that society has totally backwards. The issue was the dadblasted edits on our films. The episode pertained to movies, not theatrical cartoons, but it was definitely the same concept that drives us nuts. I laughed and as usual at the end, I said "You know the 2 idiots that made this show are right lol!"

[CyberFox]

Did anyone catch last night's first episode of South Park during the 1 hour block? They hit the nail on the head once again with a current issue that society has totally backwards. The issue was the dadblasted edits on our films. The episode pertained to movies, not theatrical cartoons, but it was definitely the same concept that drives us nuts. I laughed and as usual at the end, I said "You know the 2 idiots that made this show are right lol!"

I checked South Park Studios and there's no such episode
any proof?

[Mr. Semaj]

It was probably the "Free Hat" episode, where Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were making edits to some their 80's films for DVD releases.

[CueBallCat79]

It was probably the "Free Hat" episode, where Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were making edits to some their 80's films for DVD releases.

I'm almost positive that's what it was.

[Bugsy-Kun]

It was probably the "Free Hat" episode, where Steven Spielberg and George Lucas were making edits to some their 80's films for DVD releases.

Oh yeah i remember this episode.
I can't understand why some genius directors tried harder to edit their own films. :rolleyes:

[ebrand11]

For the most part I can't stand South Park. Its just way too sleazy. However edits on movies/cartoons can be a very funny situation to make fun of. I'm surprised not many other shows do this.

[SatStorm]

Huge fan of South Park here.
I remember that episode, is pretty old I think (about 4 years)

I believe that South Park is among the smartest things I can watch right now from that side of the Atlantic. And probably among the few things I can watch more than once!
Oh yeah, and it's a great test for my english listening skills too!

[BloodyChamp]

I know. I've said it here alot lately and I'll say it again. South Park is better than it has ever been. They are ace on all of the current issues, and you better believe that they scale everyone of them, making it funny in the process.

ebrand11 you MUST check out some of the newer South Park's if you liked this one. This one wasn't the most hilarious, but still pretty good. There are loads of them that smoke this one, which is a testament.

[Marty26]

Love South Park, although the last two seasons (ie. Season 11 and the first half of Season 12) have been kind of dismal IMO.

Anyway, yeah, it was probably the Free Hat episode. That's from 2002 (just look at the fake "Digitally Enhanced First Episode Of South Park" commercial and you'll see).

[CyberFox]

South Park relies WAY too much on satire that and the show's killing off kenny per episode idea has to be the lamest running gag ever

[Bugsy-Kun]

South Park relies WAY too much on satire that and the show's killing off kenny per episode idea has to be the lamest running gag ever

They didn't now. Kenny is supposed to be dead for good in one episode but one year later, they bring back because they haven't any replacements for the boy. I think even if it's satire, it's very good for be current of the later events. Sure the episodes today miss the charm of the earliest seasons but at least, they can keep 11 seasons without lost their integrity and improvements in the designs plots.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

South Park can be very funny, but sometimes Parker's and Stone's libertarian politics get in the way of the satire. (In my opinion, they've always had trouble pulling off satire. Usually their blunt sense of humor isn't suited to a type of comedy that requires looking at all sides of an issue.) They're better at parody -- they really know their bad movie cliches.

[CyberFox]

The show has a few strikes against itself
- Demeaning Race and Religions
- Make Kenny Dead Permamently for ONLY 1 season
- Way Too Much Shock Value
- Being Disrespectful To Adults
- Being Way Too Smart Ass on Various Topics when it comes to satire

No wonder animation on television is going downhill, it's because of adult toons like this that plague the animation industry to no end. no more decent animation (outside of "Chowder) instead just halfassed writing with cheap pop culture humor and toilet humor

[Marty26]

South Park can be very funny, but sometimes Parker's and Stone's libertarian politics get in the way of the satire. (In my opinion, they've always had trouble pulling off satire. Usually their blunt sense of humor isn't suited to a type of comedy that requires looking at all sides of an issue.) They're better at parody -- they really know their bad movie cliches.

That's the problem I've had with the last two seasons in particular. Every episode now seems to rely either on some kind of socio-political parody, or some kind of movie homage you can't possibly understand unless you've actually seen the movie being parodied. Seasons 9 and 10 also had this problem in some episodes (Smug Alert being a prime example), but it really went into overkill with the last two seasons. And even the show's "shock humor" now seems like it's just tossed in for the sake of keeping the show "edgy." A lot of recent episodes (Cartman Sucks, for example) IMO crossed the line between comically shocking and just plain stupid.

[CueBallCat79]

That's the problem I've had with the last two seasons in particular. Every episode now seems to rely either on some kind of socio-political parody, or some kind of movie homage you can't possibly understand unless you've actually seen the movie being parodied. Seasons 9 and 10 also had this problem in some episodes (Smug Alert being a prime example), but it really went into overkill with the last two seasons. And even the show's "shock humor" now seems like it's just tossed in for the sake of keeping the show "edgy." A lot of recent episodes (Cartman Sucks, for example) IMO crossed the line between comically shocking and just plain stupid.

Or that "More Crap" episode. Seriously, what exactly was that?

I've been watching the show since the very beginning, and I agree with you 100%.

[Thad]

The show's a lot better than it was in its infancy. On average, it's probably the smartest show currently airing on television behind The Office. The stop-motion techniques have improved too.

Not every episode is a hit. There's a three-way tie for most retarded episode between "Douche and Turd", "A Million Little Fibers", and that one with the cat piss/Ruby-Spears cartoon parody.

Parker and Stone are definitely more well-read than their target audience, which is probably why the Grapes of Wrath parody went over everyone's head weeks ago. And FYI, Brazilian fart porn is real.

[CueBallCat79]

The show's a lot better than it was in its infancy. On average, it's probably the smartest show currently airing on television behind The Office. The stop-motion techniques have improved too.

Only the first episode was done with stop motion. Everything else is done on computer, and episodes now are created mere days before they actually air. It's actually pretty amazing they can get completed episodes done that fast.

Not every episode is a hit. There's a three-way tie for most retarded episode between "Douche and Turd", "A Million Little Fibers", and that one with the cat piss/Ruby-Spears cartoon parody.

I hate that "Fibers" episode. I didn't need to stare at Oprah's crotch for 22 minutes.

[Marty26]

I thought the cat piss episode was okay, if just because of the Heavy Metal references. I agree with you about A Million Little Fibers, though. An entire episode devoted to a minor character (or set of characters) was funny once (Terrance And Phillip In Not Without My Anus). Did we really need another such episode? As for Douche And Turd, while Parker and Stone's message was pretty apparent, it really could've been conveyed a lot better IMO.

[Thad]

In my mind, I'll always see it as stop-motion, even if that's the wrong term.

I hate that "Fibers" episode. I didn't need to stare at Oprah's crotch for 22 minutes.

When it originally aired, I only could take the first three minutes. I didn't even make it to that. I only saw the whole thing recently.

[Marty26]

Parker and Stone are definitely more well-read than their target audience, which is probably why the Grapes of Wrath parody went over everyone's head weeks ago.

I definitely agree with you here. It's amazing how a lot of South Park's audience doesn't seem to even remotely "get" what certain episodes are really trying to convey. Such as with the Death Camp Of Tolerance episode. Everybody raves about it for showing Mr. Garrison stuffing a gerbel up Mr. Slave's rectum. But when you mention the whole message behind the episode (how political correctness has twisted our common definition of "tolerance"), people just give you blank stares.

[UncleJunior]

South Park has definately improved leaps and bounds from its earlier seasons. They did have lots of strong episodes early on but after the release of Uncut, the quality of episodes dipped for a few years at least. It picked up with Scott Tenorman and the episodes from that timeframe, including the Simpsons episode.

The two best timeframes of SP are seasons 7/early part of season 8 and the entire 10th season. They completely destroyed FG in Cartoon Wars (that and the 9/11 conspiracy episode are two of my personal favorites) Most of the episodes from those timeframes were 4-star episodes.

The past couple of seasons haven't been as strong, though the Imaginationland saga was a classic. I'm not bothered that much at the socio-political parodies, but they do tend to go overboard with the bloody stuff as they have a graphic killing now, every 2 episodes it seems. Still these past couple of seasons have been better than season 9, the bottom of the SP barrel. And its still one of the few cartoons that I can safely enjoy every week, knowing that it won't drive me to the point of tuning it out, the way I've tuned out MANY shows I used to watch the past few years.

[CyberFox]

What i'm trying to say is that South Park is one of those shows that are so popular that will unfortunately let a kid (influenced un curiosity) that it's younger than it's intended demographic (inspite of it's TV-MA rating) watch the show and get the wrong idea about the society around them. I'm writing these things because i'm objecting to the series and the content it provides. Why? I watched a few seasons when i was in middle school (under curiosity) and i witnessed the most outrageous show ever made, the most flabbergahasting thing about it is that they killed Kenny permanently for ONLY 1 season and the brought him back a season later which makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, I acknowledge that Animation is an art form but people like Seth McFarlene and Matt Stone/Trey Parker are going a doing it a little bit irresponsibly.

[Mr. Semaj]

Unlike Family Guy, which has gotten progressively worse since its comeback by living off its shock factor reputation, South Park has evolved beyond that. Nowadays, I see more than a show that's trying to piss people off for its own sake. Even the movie had a point behind its record for swearing in an animated film.

Even when it doesn't succeed, like in "The Return of Chef", SP has intelligent commentary and clever satire that has become a rarity in television today.

[Matthew Hunter]

I despised South Park for a long time, because its original focus was a bunch of potty-mouthed kids and pointless toilet humor. But it did what few shows on TV, animated or otherwise, have had the chance to do. It evolved!

The movie was hysterically funny, and I think it gave them a chance to develop and explore the characters further. A bunch of kids saying and doing outlandish and offensive things can only go so far. But if you make South Park a believable community with believable characters, where it's up to the kids to keep the adults from destroying themselves, you've got a different thing altogether.

The more recent seasons are the best, as they take on current, real situations and make them work in South Park's own twisted world. Very few TV shows had the guts to take on the issue of 9/11, but South Park did it with humor and class. Once they developed the kids' parents further, things really got good, and the addition of the naive, relatively innocent "Butters" character was also a plus.

Unlike "Family Guy" or the more recent "Simpsons" stuff, South Park dares to develop its characters and make you identify with and care about them, in well-written, comprehensible plots (imagine that!)

The only one I saw recently that I couldn't stand was one where Britney Spears attempted suicide and ended up blowing her face off but surviving. It was graphic, gruesome, offensive and unwatchable. But that's a rarity these days.

It's a crazy show, but I actually enjoy it!

[BloodyChamp]

[quote=Matthew Hunter;113874] Very few TV shows had the guts to take on the issue of 9/11, but South Park did it with humor and class. Once they developed the kids' parents further, things really got good, and the addition of the naive, relatively innocent "Butters" character was also a plus. [quote]

South Park is like All in the Family. It is rude, gross, etc but there's always a good lesson in the end. It's not always a blueprinted lesson either, such as things aren't always what they seem and such and such and such and such. Sometime the lesson is something like HAAAAWWWWW THE INSANE GUY REALLY DID RAPE THE BABIES! I use the All in the Family analogy because in that show, sometimes the lesson was that ARCHIE WAS RIGHT TO BEGIN WITH.

[ebrand11]

What i'm trying to say is that South Park is one of those shows that are so popular that will unfortunately let a kid (influenced un curiosity) that it's younger than it's intended demographic (inspite of it's TV-MA rating) watch the show and get the wrong idea about the society around them. I'm writing these things because i'm objecting to the series and the content it provides. Why? I watched a few seasons when i was in middle school (under curiosity) and i witnessed the most outrageous show ever made, the most flabbergahasting thing about it is that they killed Kenny permanently for ONLY 1 season and the brought him back a season later which makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, I acknowledge that Animation is an art form but people like Seth McFarlene and Matt Stone/Trey Parker are going a doing it a little bit irresponsibly.

Amen, South Park is one of those shows you love it or hate it. I'm not gonna say that In hate it because I don't want others to take it personally but if I could I would say it.

[Marty26]

I despised South Park for a long time, because its original focus was a bunch of potty-mouthed kids and pointless toilet humor. But it did what few shows on TV, animated or otherwise, have had the chance to do. It evolved!

The movie was hysterically funny, and I think it gave them a chance to develop and explore the characters further. A bunch of kids saying and doing outlandish and offensive things can only go so far. But if you make South Park a believable community with believable characters, where it's up to the kids to keep the adults from destroying themselves, you've got a different thing altogether.

The more recent seasons are the best, as they take on current, real situations and make them work in South Park's own twisted world. Very few TV shows had the guts to take on the issue of 9/11, but South Park did it with humor and class. Once they developed the kids' parents further, things really got good, and the addition of the naive, relatively innocent "Butters" character was also a plus.

Unlike "Family Guy" or the more recent "Simpsons" stuff, South Park dares to develop its characters and make you identify with and care about them, in well-written, comprehensible plots (imagine that!)

The only one I saw recently that I couldn't stand was one where Britney Spears attempted suicide and ended up blowing her face off but surviving. It was graphic, gruesome, offensive and unwatchable. But that's a rarity these days.

It's a crazy show, but I actually enjoy it!

Agreed with this entire post. And I agree that the Britney episode was pretty moronic.

Butters is probably one of the best things that ever happened to the series, because the kids' interactions with him really developed them further as characters. Such as in Good Times With Weapons. Where we see that the other kids really don't care at all about Butters (they only care about how, if their parents find out what they did to his eye, they'll take their weapons away).

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Butters is my favorite character from South Park. I like the episode where Butters' parents think they've killed him, and they create an elaborate lie to cover it up. (Butters is actually okay, though.)

[Pieless]

The only one I saw recently that I couldn't stand was one where Britney Spears attempted suicide and ended up blowing her face off but surviving. It was graphic, gruesome, offensive and unwatchable. But that's a rarity these days.

Agreed with this entire post. And I agree that the Britney episode was pretty moronic.

I can see where the episode was graphic, gruesome, and possibly unwatchable to some viewers. Even offensive I can sort of see. But moronic? That I disagree with. It'd be one thing if the episode was just piling on making fun of Britney Spears. That would have been a waste of time, and yes, would have been moronic. But the episode came out right around the peak of all that insanity, and was making fun of the media and public, not Spears herself. Actually, by South Park standards, it's actually really sympathetic to her. That might sound weird considering they have her try to kill herself, but the whole message of the episode is "Can we all leave her alone before it comes to this, and actually start paying attention to things that are important and have relevance to our lives?" I just think there are recent episodes of South Park that were much more juvenile and moronic than this one, say, the episode involving the world's largest crap and Bono.

[Larry T]

South Park was a show that I abandoned way back in season 4 because at the time, the place where Parker and Stone were going with it had indeed become a bunch of offensive stabs at society in a crude, disgusting way.

That has changed.

I have again picked up on watching the show and totally agree with all the comments about how the show has evolved. What really led me back into watching some of the past episodes was the movie "Team America".... which was brilliantly creative, IMHO.

Parker and Stone have perfected this outlandish way at parodying entire genres and creating self-satire whenever they write an episode. They don't just deliver a one-line insult... they wrap it all up slyly in a story and deliver a second level of humour.

I agree, the Britney episode was one of their poorest. But the coverall message was about society and the paparazzi, not the fact that people couldn't tell the difference in Britney's performance whether or not she even had a head.

Parker and Stone obviously don't like a lot of other celebrities, and my guess is that they've probably been exposed to them at one point or another in Hollywood and had an impression made one them... so they incorporate it into their shows (eg Bono is nothing but a piece of crap, John Edwards = douche of the universe, Mel Gibson = eccentric wacko, Britney = headless or not, she can't sing, etc).

But the best part is how they step outside their own settings and believably use their characters as vehicles for their purpose. And "believably" is something not a lot of shows can do, because their characters are so one-dimensional that the second they do something out-of-personality, we don't buy it as an audience (FG is severely guilty of doing this, and the Simpsons does it on occasion too.... but not as badly). We can believe Butters' character changing after he watches the sex tape ("... my precious"). We can believe Cartman's mentality changing when he thinks he's a Ginger Kid... we can believe Stan getting paranoid about kids going to hell...

"Cancelled" was one of the best episodes I'd seen in a long time. They even parodied their own pilot episode in that show to lead into the story. This is a step outside what most animated sitcom creators are able to do these days.

Oh yes, then there's the base-level potty humour. Well, as long as you're going to make a joke about crap, make it a big one. ;)

[Marty26]

I know what Parker and Stone were trying to convey with More Crap, but that didn't make the episode any less retarded IMO. If Parker and Stone want to rail on Bono, they should do it in a manner that's a little less cheap IMO. That goes for the Britney Spears episode, too.

I think a significant portion of the quality of South Park's celebrity parodies also depends on the actual celebrities the show is railing on. Let's face it: Some celebrities are more parodiable than others. If you're railing on a rather normal celebrity like Natalie Portman, you're probably not going to be nearly as effective as you would be if you were railing on a more colorful and extravagant celebrity like Paris Hilton (which was a brilliant episode IMO).

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Parker and Stone obviously don't like a lot of other celebrities, and my guess is that they've probably been exposed to them at one point or another in Hollywood and had an impression made one them... so they incorporate it into their shows (eg Bono is nothing but a piece of crap, John Edwards = douche of the universe, Mel Gibson = eccentric wacko, Britney = headless or not, she can't sing, etc).

I think a significant portion of the quality of South Park's celebrity parodies also depends on the actual celebrities the show is railing on. Let's face it: Some celebrities are more parodiable than others. If you're railing on a rather normal celebrity like Natalie Portman, you're probably not going to be nearly as effective as you would be if you were railing on a more colorful and extravagant celebrity like Paris Hilton (which was a brilliant episode IMO).
That's one of my main problems with Parker's and Stone's sense of humor. They spew a lot of vitriol against essentially harmless celebrities. It's one thing if the celebrity did something crazy or offensive, like Mel Gibson, or is spoiled and annoying like Paris Hilton. However the only reason they rail against people like John Edwards or Bono is because of Parker's and Stone's conservative politics, and not because Edwards or Bono did anything wrong. (In opposition of Larry T's observation, I don't think Parker and Stone have actually met any of the celebritites they roast on their show. It all seems to be based on how those celebrities come off on television or in the tabloids.)

In all the years that South Park has been on the air, Parker and Stone have basically let the Bush administration off the hook, ignored corrupt politicians like Tom Delay, and giant scandals like Enron, Jack Abramoff, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/06/22/LI2005062200936.html) and annoying celebrities that espouse right wing views like Ron Silver, Bruce Willis, Charlton Heston, Shannon Doherty, Dennis Miller, Jessica Simpson, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Clint Eastwood.

Team America is the worst offender when it comes to the South Park creator's irrational ire. They conflate dissenting liberal celebrities with being traitors, which is reactionary and unfounded. It also turns out, in hindsight, that those celebrities were correct about the faults of the Iraq war, while Trey and Matt were completely wrong. The two never seem do enough research into the subjects they try to satirize. Their "satire" is often weak or toothless, such as ridiculing a celebrity or politician because of their weight, and not addressing said celebrities beliefs. (It often seems the only crime these celebrities commit is that they are liberal and outspoken, as well as being smarter than Matt and Trey.) They often set up straw men to knock down, too, and repeat the talking points set up by right wing radio. (On a rare -- extremely rare -- occasion they will go after Republicans or conservatives, like in the show they did about the Terry Schiavo case.)

Parker and Stone are better at parody, and should stick to that. Team America would have been better had it just stuck to parodying the Jerry Bruckheimer type of blockbusters, instead of wandering into "political satire" that was childish and vindictive.

[Thad]

Umm, an FYI, the guy cited as "Douche of the Universe" was John Edward of the TV show "Crossing Over", the show that exploits people's beliefs in the afterlife. John Edwards the politician has never appeared on South Park.

J.J. is correct that their attacks on liberals have been fairly awful and ill-researched. Global warming is indeed happening, Trey and Matt.

[Marty26]

That's one of my main problems with Parker's and Stone's sense of humor. They spew a lot of vitriol against essentially harmless celebrities. It's one thing if the celebrity did something crazy or offensive, like Mel Gibson, or is spoiled and annoying like Paris Hilton. However the only reason they rail against people like John Edwards or Bono is because of Parker's and Stone's conservative politics, and not because Edwards or Bono did anything wrong. (In opposition of Larry T's observation, I don't think Parker and Stone have actually met any of the celebritites they roast on their show. It all seems to be based on how those celebrities come off on television or in the tabloids.)

In all the years that South Park has been on the air, Parker and Stone have basically let the Bush administration off the hook, ignored corrupt politicians like Tom Delay, and giant scandals like Enron, Jack Abramoff, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/06/22/LI2005062200936.html) and annoying celebrities that espouse right wing views like Ron Silver, Bruce Willis, Charlton Heston, Shannon Doherty, Dennis Miller, Jessica Simpson, Fred Thompson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Clint Eastwood.

Team America is the worst offender when it comes to the South Park creator's irrational ire. They conflate dissenting liberal celebrities with being traitors, which is reactionary and unfounded. It also turns out, in hindsight, that those celebrities were correct about the faults of the Iraq war, while Trey and Matt were completely wrong. The two never seem do enough research into the subjects they try to satirize. Their "satire" is often weak or toothless, such as ridiculing a celebrity or politician because of their weight, and not addressing said celebrities beliefs. (It often seems the only crime these celebrities commit is that they are liberal and outspoken, as well as being smarter than Matt and Trey.) They often set up straw men to knock down, too, and repeat the talking points set up by right wing radio. (On a rare -- extremely rare -- occasion they will go after Republicans or conservatives, like in the show they did about the Terry Schiavo case.)

Parker and Stone are better at parody, and should stick to that. Team America would have been better had it just stuck to parodying the Jerry Bruckheimer type of blockbusters, instead of wandering into "political satire" that was childish and vindictive.

If, by "railing on celebrities for their weight" you're referring to Sally Struthers, let's remember that that was one of the first episodes of South Park. Back when the show was basically picking random celebrities out of a fishbowl, rather than deliberately choosing a celebrity to rail on.

Parker and Stone were railing on Bono because they felt all his "good deeds" were purely out of self-righteousness (particularly with the way he constantly gloats about them), rather than actual compassion. And they were railing on John Edward because they felt his show was a hoax. I don't think it had anything to do with their conservative views. Remember, too, that South Park typically shows homosexuality in a positive way. Which definitely isn't very "conservative."

As for the Bush administration, you do remember That's My Bush, right? (although that show was really railing more on sitcom cliches than the actual Bush administration - which is why so many people didn't like the show).

[Thad]

I don't think Bono's presence had to do with his liberal politics either. Whenever Bono shows up in certain music documentaries, the normal reaction amongst fans is the same as here when John K. turns up in one on Popeye or Frank Tashlin.

Stuff like Al Gore believing in "Manbearpig" (re: global warming) or Hillary Clinton having an alien in her vagina ("It hasn't seen action in thirty years") is just cheap shots and not very clever.

[Mark J]

If, by "railing on celebrities for their weight" you're referring to Sally Struthers, let's remember that that was one of the first episodes of South Park. Back when the show was basically picking random celebrities out of a fishbowl, rather than deliberately choosing a celebrity to rail on.

Perhaps he is referring to the episode with Rob Reiner and the anti-smoking campaign where he is gorging on food etc. I'm no fan of Reiner, but the episode is full of cheap shots on Reiner's weight and goes a bit extreme it it's Libertarian view of anti-smoking laws. The John Edward episode is excellent, mocking a scammer who plays on the worst kind of human weakness, a desire to have contact with dead loved ones.

[Marty26]

Perhaps he is referring to the episode with Rob Reiner and the anti-smoking campaign where he is gorging on food etc. I'm no fan of Reiner, but the episode is full of cheap shots on Reiner's weight and goes a bit extreme it it's Libertarian view of anti-smoking laws.

I think it's supposed to be ironic because Reiner's supposedly "fighting for good health" with his views of smoking, but then he has that weight problem.

[Larry T]

I think it's supposed to be ironic because Reiner's supposedly "fighting for good health" with his views of smoking, but then he has that weight problem.

Which is an example of the "Second level of humour" I was talking about.

I agree, they use a lot of cheap shots- this is to appeal to the less intelligent that watch the show, to come off as a "ba-dum-dum" joke. The more subversive humour comes from the other plotline in the show, like the episode where people were spewing crap from their mouths.... and the rest of the episode was about the hypocrisy of Catholicism. Draw the connection.

Right, I meant "John Edward".... sorry I didn't realize "Edwards" was another person, a prominent figure in the subject of American politics (which, as a Canadian, ranks extremely low on my roster of interests. :p )

I don't think Bono's presence had to do with his liberal politics either. Whenever Bono shows up in certain music documentaries, the normal reaction amongst fans is the same as here when John K. turns up in one on Popeye or Frank Tashlin.

:) heh heh.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Umm, an FYI, the guy cited as "Douche of the Universe" was John Edward of the TV show "Crossing Over", the show that exploits people's beliefs in the afterlife. John Edwards the politician has never appeared on South Park.

J.J. is correct that their attacks on liberals have been fairly awful and ill-researched. Global warming is indeed happening, Trey and Matt.
Oops, my mistake (and my apologies to the South Park creators for the error). I haven't seen the show in a long time (I no longer have cable), but I would have to agree with Parker and Stone regarding a charlatan like that "Crossing Over" psychic. (I didn't know his name was John Edward 'til Thad's correction.)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

If, by "railing on celebrities for their weight" you're referring to Sally Struthers, let's remember that that was one of the first episodes of South Park. Back when the show was basically picking random celebrities out of a fishbowl, rather than deliberately choosing a celebrity to rail on.

Parker and Stone were railing on Bono because they felt all his "good deeds" were purely out of self-righteousness (particularly with the way he constantly gloats about them), rather than actual compassion. And they were railing on John Edward because they felt his show was a hoax. I don't think it had anything to do with their conservative views. Remember, too, that South Park typically shows homosexuality in a positive way. Which definitely isn't very "conservative."

As for the Bush administration, you do remember That's My Bush, right? (although that show was really railing more on sitcom cliches than the actual Bush administration - which is why so many people didn't like the show).
I was referring to the way they portrayed Michael Moore in their puppet movie. He's constantly feeding on hotdogs and such. You wouldn't know from that joke what Matt and Trey have against the man and his politics, 'cause it never goes deeper than that. The same type of fat joke could be applied to Rush Limbaugh for example, yet everyone would agree that his politics are different from Moore's.

I had forgotten about the Sally Struthers cameo in that South Park episode. I think one could justify that joke though, because Struthers was portrayed as a glutton yet is leveling guilt on people to help with those who are starving. At the very least it's ironic, which you couldn't say for the Michael Moore joke.

Personally, I think everyone's fair game in satire, but let the punishment fit the crime. If Parker and Stone hate Moore, then they should at least show us why. I prefer shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, where the satire is more even-handed, and let's face it, more sophisticated.

Bono may or may not be self-righteous, but who cares, as long as his good deeds have positive results? I'm reminded of Chistopher Hitchens book against Mother Theresa, where he exposed some of her less than perfect practices (taking money from unsavory sources, forcing the poor to adopt her religion if they wanted help). In the end though, it was irrelevant since she was really the only person caring for the destitute and sick in Calcutta.

South Park's tolerance towards homosexuality might not jibe with right wing views (especially Christian conservatives), it does however fall in line with Libertarian views -- which tend to believe in civil liberties, but also that there should be no regulation of the "free markets". So they have some conservative views, but some liberal views. (Yeah, it's kind of confusing.)

"That's My Bush" was pretty toothless as satire, especially considering the rich source for humor that is George W. Bush. As you've already stated, it was mostly a parody of sitcom conventions rather than any biting commentary on policies of the Bush Administration. (They did touch upon some social issues of the day in that show, as I recall, but Bush was usually portrayed as bumbling but well-meaning -- essentially a harmless figure.)

[Marty26]

As I said, that's why so many people didn't like That's My Bush. Most of the show's target audience was expecting a biting satire on the Bush administration. Not only that, but their knowledge of sitcoms typically didn't go beyond more modern sitcoms like The Simpsons and Seinfeld. So most of the show's classic sitcom parodies (ie. the meddlesome maid, the pushy mother-in-law, the "lesson learned" and corny catch phrase at the end of each episode, the annoying next-door neighbor, etc) went over the heads of most viewers.

Personally, being myself more a republican than a democrat, I find Parker and Stone's republican leanings refreshing. Particularly since there's so much one sided republican-bashing in the media already. It's nice to see the faults of democrats and ultra-left wing liberals finally being exposed (and remember that it's mostly ultra-left wingers who are ruining classic cartoons for us ;) ).

[Thad]

Bono may or may not be self-righteous, but who cares, as long as his good deeds have positive results? I'm reminded of Chistopher Hitchens book against Mother Theresa, where he exposed some of her less than perfect practices (taking money from unsavory sources, forcing the poor to adopt her religion if they wanted help). In the end though, it was irrelevant since she was really the only person caring for the destitute and sick in Calcutta.

Is the fact that her "Houses for the Dying" were just places for people to come and die, and not be medicated/treated as the public was led to believe they were irrelevant too?

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Personally, being myself more a republican than a democrat, I find Parker and Stone's republican leanings refreshing. Particularly since there's so much one sided republican-bashing in the media already. It's nice to see the faults of democrats and ultra-left wing liberals finally being exposed (and remember that it's mostly ultra-left wingers who are ruining classic cartoons for us ;) ).
No offense, but the Republicans deserve their "bashing" because of their current behavior. If registered Republicans and conservatives don't like the negative attention, then they shouldn't elect such venal and corrupt politicians. (http://www.beyonddelay.org/)

It's not one-sided, since the Republicans are the party in power, and have been for at least 8 years. For a time they controlled all three branches of government (most of the Supreme Court is filled with conservative judges), and things have never been worse for the country. Of course they're going to be the butt of comics' jokes. I'm not defending the Democrats, either. I dislike many of them, too. However, I don't believe most of them are liberal. Most are centrists or even right of center, such as the "Blue Dog Democrats". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition) Look at their voting record if you don't believe me. (To be fair, the Bush administration isn't traditionally conservative either, but headed by radical counter-revolutionaries doing big corporations' bidding.)

Satire should be an equal opportunity offender. It shouldn't be a matter of only ridiculing one side, such as Parker and Stone do. "The Daily Show", Spy Magazine, Mad Magazine, etc., always made fun of both sides.

The press hasn't bashed the Bush administration, but been complicit with them. Take the case of Judy Miller (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2362/) of The New York Times. She basically parroted every lie (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2700) the Bush administration told her about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The press became cheerleaders (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2700) for Bush's war. The administration also paid reporters like Armstrong Williams, (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm) Maggie Gallagher (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36545-2005Jan25.html) and Michael McManus (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/jan/29/pressandpublishing.usnews)to hawk their policies. Then there is the bizarre case of fake reporter Jeff Gannon, (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/15/guckert/) for Talon News, who always asked softball questions friendly to Bush at White House press conferences. It turned out he was a male prostitute named James Guckert, (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/) and his reporting credentials were a quick course in jouralism funded by GOPUSA. Recently some reporters admitted to being pressured (http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/reporters-pressured-by-executives-to-stoke-“patriotic-fever”-in-war-news-coverage/) to put a patriotic spin on war reporting.

As for censorship, many conservative Christians --People like Rev. Donald Wildmon, Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, and James Dobson of Focus on the Family -- have called for censorship of our favorite cartoons (as well as the Harry Potter books and films like The Last Temptation of Christ). There aren't many "ultra-left wing liberals"* left in this country (this isn't the early 30's or late 60's afterall), but of the ones that are I've never read any statements by them calling for editing certain cartoons. Most of them -- say, like Norm Chomsky -- aren't concerned about entertainment. In fact they're against censorship, to wit: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." ~Noam Chomsky

(*HAIR-SPLITTING: many on the far left don't consider themselves liberal, but anarchist. In fact, they don't like liberals.)

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Is the fact that her "Houses for the Dying" were just places for people to come and die, and not be medicated/treated as the public was led to believe they were irrelevant too?
I don't want to turn this thread into one about the faults or merits of Mother Theresa, but the House of the Dying was for lepers. Generally, for people without much hope of being cured.

Hey, I think reporter should be skeptical towards everyone and expose their faults too, including people who have been sainted like Mother Theresa, but Christopher Hitchens (who used to be a great polemicist and essayist until he went over the deep end after 9/11) takes it a bit too far sometimes.

[Daffysleftfoot]

Satire should be an equal opportunity offender. It shouldn't be a matter of only ridiculing one side, such as Parker and Stone do. "The Daily Show", Spy Magazine, Mad Magazine, etc., always made fun of both sides.


I personally don't mind if some satire is one-sided. It only really hurts if you're on the "other side" of it. I think anyone who doesn't appreciate the position Parker & Stone present should create their own bit of satire presenting their side. Simply getting upset about it just makes them high-5 each other at your expense.

I certainly don't agree with some of Matt & Trey's philosophies either. But I do admire how iron clad they present their arguments whether it deals with a major global issue or if they just want to call someone a douche-bag. When they feel a certain way, they're not going to pull punches. They will make sure that the object of their satire is thoroughly put through the wringer. South Park's best example of this, of course, is their feature length movie Bigger, Louder, and Uncut (incidentally, that movie inspired me to create my Censor Monkeys. Well, that, and when they said "our goal is to bring to movie rating committee down". I want to do my part.)

One example though of which I STRONGLY disagreed with them is the smoking episode with Rob Reiner. I'm fine with the idea that people should be allowed to smoke in bars and such. However, there was a part of that episode that really showed a HUGE flaw in their argument. "Meathead" took the kids to a tobacco museum where they could learn all the horrors of smoking, not just the effects but also it's turbulent history. The kids however were able to put a positive slant on all the historical facts. One in particular was ridiculous. The tour guide said "the tobacco crop was what the slaves first worked on when they were brought to America". So then, Cartman (somewhat out of character) says, "so if it wasn't for tobacco, many of our African-American friends wouldn't be here." WHAT??!! They pretty much defended slavery right there. That one was just dumb.

The rest of the episodes I've seen have been nice and solid though. The Scott Tenerman one is pure genius. In summary, while I don't always admire what they say, I do admire the brazenness inwhich they say it.

[BloodyChamp]

I just saw the STEROIDS episode! I was a Chris Benoit fan so...yeah...

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I personally don't mind if some satire is one-sided. It only really hurts if you're on the "other side" of it. I think anyone who doesn't appreciate the position Parker & Stone present should create their own bit of satire presenting their side. Simply getting upset about it just makes them high-5 each other at your expense.

I certainly don't agree with some of Matt & Trey's philosophies either. But I do admire how iron clad they present their arguments whether it deals with a major global issue or if they just want to call someone a douche-bag. When they feel a certain way, they're not going to pull punches. They will make sure that the object of their satire is thoroughly put through the wringer. South Park's best example of this, of course, is their feature length movie Bigger, Louder, and Uncut (incidentally, that movie inspired me to create my Censor Monkeys. Well, that, and when they said "our goal is to bring to movie rating committee down". I want to do my part.)

One example though of which I STRONGLY disagreed with them is the smoking episode with Rob Reiner. I'm fine with the idea that people should be allowed to smoke in bars and such. However, there was a part of that episode that really showed a HUGE flaw in their argument. "Meathead" took the kids to a tobacco museum where they could learn all the horrors of smoking, not just the effects but also it's turbulent history. The kids however were able to put a positive slant on all the historical facts. One in particular was ridiculous. The tour guide said "the tobacco crop was what the slaves first worked on when they were brought to America". So then, Cartman (somewhat out of character) says, "so if it wasn't for tobacco, many of our African-American friends wouldn't be here." WHAT??!! They pretty much defended slavery right there. That one was just dumb.

The rest of the episodes I've seen have been nice and solid though. The Scott Tenerman one is pure genius. In summary, while I don't always admire what they say, I do admire the brazenness inwhich they say it.
Even if a satirist is going to be one-sided they still need to be truthful, and get their facts straight. Sometimes in the past the South Park guys have made specious arguments in their favor. I guess I wouldn't mind so much if the South Park guys didn't get so viscous towards essentially harmless targets. Contrast it with the satire sometimes seen on The Simpsons, where anyside gets ridiculed if they deserve it.

I haven't seen the Rob Reiner episode (and I don't agree with his position on banning cigarettes from films), but maybe the South Park creators mean Cartman's remark to be ironic? You know, like Jonathan Swift's essay A Modern Proposal? (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) In it he argued that the children of the Irish poor should be eaten. In reality he was ridiculing the cruel way the English treated the Irish.

[Mac]

I think some people get too caught up in the 'politics' they feel South Park represents and forget that a lot of the time Matt and Trey are just being funny in a show with a very cruel sense of humour. Sometimes I don't know much about what they're satiring or disagree with the stance they seem to be taking, but I usually still find it funny. In the episode where the kids learn about smoking and put a positive spin on things like slavery, the writers were taking the mick, just as they were in the scene where all the workers in the cigarette factory sing merrily while they work about how 'harmless' smoking is.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

I think some people get too caught up in the 'politics' they feel South Park represents and forget that a lot of the time Matt and Trey are just being funny in a show with a very cruel sense of humour. Sometimes I don't know much about what they're satiring or disagree with the stance they seem to be taking, but I usually still find it funny. In the episode where the kids learn about smoking and put a positive spin on things like slavery, the writers were taking the mick, just as they were in the scene where all the workers in the cigarette factory sing merrily while they work about how 'harmless' smoking is.
I think most of the South Park shows are funny, too. I see your point about the smoking episode, since they did the same thing once in regard to the Vietnam War. It was presented, in Uncle Jimbo's recollection, as a great time, where the soldier's camp was actually a carnival ground complete with rides. Of course Parker and Stone are only kidding by countering the usually grim image of the Vietnam War with something completely over the top in the other direction. I don't think anyone would take what they did seriously.

It's their anger towards certain liberal celebrities that I find tiring. They may not believe it, but most people don't have much animosity towards people like Liv Tyler, Alec Baldwin, Bono, etc.

[Marty26]

I think the Smoking episode, like the Marijuana episode before, was also railing on all those "Infect Truth" TV commercials that were airing at the time. I remember how, particularly from 2001 through 2003, every third commercial you'd see was some "Harmless?" anti-pot commercial or some "Infect Truth" anti-smoking commercial. Often with a completely exaggerated scare tactic to keep kids from smoking and doing pot (such as suggesting that marijuana "funds terrorism" or that certain ingredients in cigarettes are also found in urine); rather than giving an honest, convincing and legitimate reason why people shouldn't smoke or do pot.

[Mac]

It's their anger towards certain liberal celebrities that I find tiring. They may not believe it, but most people don't have much animosity towards people like Liv Tyler, Alec Baldwin, Bono, etc.

I generally prefer episodes that don't use celebrities as the punch line so much. The humour in South Park is very mean so if they're going to do something with a celebrity you know it won't be so much making fun of them, but rather completely ripping it out of them – it's all part of the show. Since I'm not interested celebrities and don't follow celebrity stories in the media, I often haven't heard about what they're making fun of in the first place (e.g I hadn't heard of that fat guy in the smoking episode before I saw it).

My favourite episodes are often the ones where the story and humour comes from the characters. It's nice when you don't have to have seen a certain film, followed a certain news story or know about a certain celebrity to get the jokes.

[CueBallCat79]

My favourite episodes are often the ones where the story and humour comes from the characters. It's nice when you don't have to have seen a certain film, followed a certain news story or know about a certain celebrity to get the jokes.

Which is why episodes like "Scott Tenorman Must Die", "Awesome-O", "The Death of Eric Cartman" and "Casa Bonita" are some of my favorites.

[Der Captain]

I generally prefer episodes that don't use celebrities as the punch line so much. The humour in South Park is very mean so if they're going to do something with a celebrity you know it won't be so much making fun of them, but rather completely ripping it out of them – it's all part of the show.

As much as I enjoy "South Park", I keep feeling a certain disgust whenever Parker and Stone rag on in interviews about how celebrities are the dumbest and shallowest people in the world. Having seen "Orgazmo", "Cannibal The Musical" and parts of "Base-ketball", I keep wanting to shout at them "HEY GUYS! GUESS WHAT?"

[Vdubdavid]

Could someone explain to me the genius of the Scott Tenorman episode? I've seen it and sure, it's presentation of a ridiculously convoluted scheme of revenge was good, but I'm sorry, engineering the deaths of two innocent people for a paltry $16 (and have "let's not mess with Cartman" be all Stan and Kyle can muster in response) crosses a line I don't think needed to be crossed.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Could someone explain to me the genius of the Scott Tenorman episode? I've seen it and sure, it's presentation of a ridiculously convoluted scheme of revenge was good, but I'm sorry, engineering the deaths of two innocent people for a paltry $16 (and have "let's not mess with Cartman" be all Stan and Kyle can muster in response) crosses a line I don't think needed to be crossed.
'Cause Scott Tenorman was a jerk and got what he deserved from Cartman!

Actually, the death of Scott's parents, and his eating them by mistake, is all part of the twisted, and over-the -top, joke about how dangerous Cartman could be. Tenorman is not presented as a likable character in the episode. One feels sympathy for Cartman, who was originally (and continuously) bamboozled out of his money by Tenorman. (And remember, it was Tenorman who sent his parents to walk into Cartman's trap.)

[Marty26]

'Cause Scott Tenorman was a jerk and got what he deserved from Cartman!

Actually, the death of Scott's parents, and his eating them by mistake, is all part of the twisted, and over-the -top, joke about how dangerous Cartman could be. Tenorman is not presented as a likable character in the episode. One feels sympathy for Cartman, who was originally (and continuously) bamboozled out of his money by Tenorman. (And remember, it was Tenorman who sent his parents to walk into Cartman's trap.)

Adding to that, the episode just did such a brilliant job leading up to that huge finale. Cartman had all these lame plans for revenge on Scott Tenorman, while Scott kept seeing right through them and getting the best of Cartman. So you really do find yourself hoping Cartman will somehow best Tenorman at the end of the episode. And, indeed, he does - in about the most brilliantly despicable way possible (notice too how Scott's parents were portrayed as being really loving and caring - making the finale all the more gruesome). Granted, it's definitely not an episode I'd watch every day (or even every month), and if you DID watch it every day or every week, I'd honestly have to worry about you. But I can't deny how brilliantly devilish it was.

As its Wikipedia stub once pointed out, usually Cartman's plans fail horribly. This time, however, his plan succeeded horribly.

If any episode truly crossed the line for me, it's Bloody Mary. Particularly being myself a proud Catholic, not only did I find the episode tasteless, but its "shock humor" didn't even have any real wit or purpose.