South Park

Nah, this isn't about this thread. I'm new to this thread. Just venting about my offsite experiences whenever I try to enjoy the show while also expressing discontent towards anything. Seems pretty chill in here.

South Park just gets extra defense on the basis that anything offensive is "just satire." But it isn't even always meant to be a serious political show. Sometimes the writers just want to explore characters or simply make jokes. Many episodes aren't really trying to make any big statements. Sometimes they just want to make stuff look dumb because it's funnier that way, even if it doesn't really connect to anything in real life. A lot of celebrity parodies aren't saying anything specific about the celebrity, just often some gratuitous nasty joke at their expense (like when they beat up Selena Gomez just because Cartman didn't like her with no explanation of why). And that's fine. Doesn't have to be a ~statement~.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 16th 2020 at 9:33:24 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I think my problem with South Park is, I no longer find it sharp or witty or satirical, I find it clueless, toothless, and rather incurious.

When they still complain about PC culture at this time, when there are a million other more important things happening in the world, it makes them come off as creators who never really grew beyond their 1990s Gen-X It's just politically incorrect dude impulses and at this point, it seems dated and it doesn't help that the show is over 20 years old and they got some stuff really wrong, their Iraq War and Global Warming episodes from the early 2000s have aged poorly. There are still gems sure, but the basic shtick is played out. South Park Republican seems like a really cringey term at this point.

Edited by Overlord on Sep 16th 2020 at 8:53:48 AM

They probably have to maintain that "edgy and politically incorrect" image because it makes them the most money. Cartman's got a Misaimed Fandom that's hardly misaimed at this point, after all.

At least they apologized for their global warming hot takes. That was a pretty good two-parter since it actually said "we shouldn't be apathetic because it will get people killed if we don't take action."

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 16th 2020 at 11:45:40 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I won't argue with the Global Warming Episodes, but for the life of me I can't remember a single episode that directly dealt with the Iraq War. The closest I can think of being I'm A Little Bit Country, but that was less about the Iraq War and more about the Political Divide over it (which was a pretty poor take on it); and Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants which was about 9/11 and the Afghani War.

"I'm a Little Bit Country" was a good example of the show's centrism without consideration for consequence, but I did kind of like their criticism of hypocrisy. Plus Cartman trying to involve Flashback... Back... Back... was genuinely funny.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I agree that South Park has lost its sharp wittyness, and that the creators seem to be stuck in 90s political satire. Their crusade against political correctness is a prime example. Back in the 90s, accusations of political correctness could come from all sides on the political spectrum, and that sentiment was much more mainstream. These days, liberal politics have largely moved beyond that sentiment, as has the public, but South Park is still stuck in the past.

I'm seeing a bit of a pattern with this. 90s comedians and satirists often seem to be stuck in a mode of thinking and a sense of humour that has really become rather outdated. Bill Maher is another example of the political-correctness-gone-mad taboo-breaking comedians that have aged poorly. Dutch comedian Youp van 't Hek has a similar issue. That sort of in-your-face rude comedian making fun of real or perceived smallmindedness and political correctness is just past its prime.

And I think Matt and Trey feel this. This is ultimately why we got Cancel South Park, and why we are getting cynical meta-commentary about their audience just not getting it. That's what the Randy plots are about, basically: the show makers forging ahead the way they want to, and everyone else should just stop complaining and smoke their weed.

Optimism is a duty.

I was talking about "I'm A Little Bit Country" because it seems like it tried to both sides the Iraq War and all the towns people who would supported the war, now will have washed their hands of it. The whole we can have our cake and eat it too message of the episode has aged poorly.

Yeah, I think that episode was implicitly about Iraq as well, it was about the War on Terror in general after all.

Optimism is a duty.

I interpreted the episode as "You can try to have your cake and eat it too but because of that, America can't actually make put their money where their mouth is" but maybe I'm giving the show too much credit there. But the kids go complain about the adults even after they all make up.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 17th 2020 at 9:38:49 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I would watch a new episode only if it had cannibal pedophile antifa satanists in it, and they put the caption "This is what Qanon actually believe", like they did with the Church of Happyology a decade or so ago. Or, given that they recently love being so meta, if it had avatars of Parker and Stone (no, not Terrance and Phillip, the actual authors) blowing their brains out in desperation since the real world is becoming more absurd than their own show.

---

Another thing I don't like (but I didn't want to make another post) is how they used to brutally eviscerate celebrities but, in the case of Mark Zuckerberg and Pewdiepie, they got off very easily. Zuckerberg was just an off-putting robotic dude and Pewdiepie was even the hero and savior in the story. Given the negative effect that the social media and celebrity worship are having on the real world, if anything they should be more villainous than famous people who got demonized just because Parker and Stone don't like them.

"Effective Altruism" is just another bunch of horsesh*t.

Like you kind of indicated, the creators already had their avatars blow their brains out. They also had them grow old and fat. Because yes, Terrence and Philip are the author avatars.

And I'm really getting tired of the celebrity bashing too. It is ultimately very petty and childish, and there are much better targets to pick on. Like the other things mentioned before, "everyone gets shat on equally" has not aged well either.

Edited by Redmess on Sep 17th 2020 at 4:47:04 PM

Optimism is a duty.

Without getting into detail, making Pewdiepie the savior of their story didn't quite age well.

Honestly, that episode kind of illustrates one of my least favorite satire problems in general. They can't be that hard on Felix because they wanted him on the show, presumably to snag the young crowd that watches him as their older fans peter off. Luckily they usually averted this by not casting celebrities and thankfully they don't really do it much elsewhere.

But yeah, even before that their celebrity bashing got quite petty. They made fun of Phil Collins just because his song won an Oscar over "Blame Canada." So much for that aura of being above it all.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

The thing with South Park is that it has always had precisely two voices, Parker and Stone, throughout its entire run. There is little to no network interference, running it through test groups or scrambling to be hip with the latest trends. The lightning fast turnaround time with production means that they have almost no opportunity to revise and refine their approach to their stories, and so what is presented is something about as raw and unfiltered as it can be. This reflects the content of the show itself. Their satire, their opinions and the presentation of the facts are not without flaws, but the underlying voice is something that is uniquely theirs.

I was thinking how Brooklyn Nine-Nine has approached some very sensitive topics with a careful, delicate and even hand, but at the same time made it almost generic in that they weren't willing to push the topic as far as it needed to go. Inoffensive, but also largely unremarkable. South Park refuses to take the subtle approach and tries to hit those issues as hard as it can.

Of course, much like The Simpsons, South Park has been responsible for a major shift in satirical content on television, and especially as internet culture has grown and social media dominates discussions. South Park's approach to their topics has generally been about addressing all sides of an issue, pointing out hypocrisy wherever it shows up. Jon Stewart's Daily Show was another frontrunner in that area. Without either, I'm not sure we would have meme culture as it is today or stuff like Adam Ruins Everything. In turn, South Park just can't be as innovative as it once was.

That is indeed a problem. South Park is inherently geared towards a younger audience, but Matt and Trey are getting older and increasingly out of touch with who their audience is and what they care about. "You're getting old" was very meta in that regard.

Optimism is a duty.

Did Collins really do nothing wrong? Granted Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped and South Park's lack of a filter does a phenomenal job at that. The quick in and out of their political commentary is why they're so popular.

Season premier is this week. How are you guys feeling?

Edited by ChicoTheParakeet on Sep 27th 2020 at 2:54:19 PM

Well, what did he do wrong, then?

Optimism is a duty.

Something about Tarzan getting an Oscar for its Phil Collins soundtrack, while the South Park movie didn't

I knew that, but above poster is suggesting that Phil Collins actually did do something wrong, without saying what he did.

Optimism is a duty.

The only thing I've heard about Phil Collins is that he's insufferable; apparently no one in the Music Business actually likes him.

Otherwise, yeah, the mocking of Phil Collins in South Park really is because "Blame Canada" lost to "You'll Be In My Heart" at the '99 Oscars.

When I saw the pandemic promos, I immediately assumed that the episode was basically going to mock people's reactions to slowing the spread of the virus ('look at these people wearing masks and gloves. Stupid idiots. Let's point and laugh at them.') or exaggerating preventative measures ('oh, here's a scene of a worker at a temperature scanner but he also has to suck the machine too to go to work'). Then near the end of the hour they make a quick joke about the people not doing anything about protection just to go 'See, both sides are bad and we mock everyone.'

Sometimes Matt and Trey give off the vibe that they hate minor inconveniencing issues far more than seriousy impacting ones, or issues where one side has a more logical or beneficial conclusion by fault. If there was a debate about playing football with and without helmets, they would spend much more time taking apart and mocking people wearing helmets because they think they look wimpy or uncool.

-Witty line-

South Park has run on two ethos throughout it’s history -

1. It’s our (Matt and Trey’s) show, and they will write about what’s funny. (They actually talked about why they dislike writing movies, doing cuts over and over as jokes lose their impact is antithetical to their style).

2. Giving a shit is the worst thing you can do. Even so, the past few years has been them reckoning with that, like admitting they were wrong about Global Warming.

Honestly, this show would probably be better if they kept out of politics altogether. Earlier seasons were much more fun when they didn't try to give a political message.

Optimism is a duty.

I'm of the opposite track. I grew up with the earlier seasons' more immature comedy and it hasn't aged particularly well imo. I think the show's grown up a fair amount in the last decade or so, and is better now than it has ever been - though it still has its clunkers when the creators get opinionated.

It strikes me as at least attempting to be something akin to The Boondocks, but directed at middle class white audiences instead of black ones.

Sounds like the feud the Animaniacs crew had with Bonkers.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 28th 2020 at 9:10:20 AM

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Politics works fine, you just have to actually have something to say about them. If your just going "Both sides suck and you suck for caring about them". Then yeah of course it is going to suck. That is one of the problems with South Parks stance on things lately it just hasn't picked a side and done anything it has all just been toothless both sides. Like take the shots episode that was really weak for south park.

I'd argue South Park's point isn't usually "both sides suck" (though they do it sometimes) but typically more "the public sucks for forming opinions too easily and not thinking about the situations presented to them, right or wrong."

Which is another thing that reminds me of The Boondocks. When that show did an episode about how Obama's election victory left its protagonist depressed, it wasn't doing that to claim that having Obama was just as bad as not having a black president, it was specifically targeting its criticism on the public who threw celebrations about a superficial victory and ignoring the problems still going on in the world around them.

South Park has transitioned somewhat from political commentary to social commentary. Focusing attention on relationships, the kind of people who buy into certain things, the kind of people who attack certain things, mob mentality, social apathy, etc and so on.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 28th 2020 at 9:29:09 AM

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.