How South Park Beat an NC-17

IMDB (I love this site) has an article on how the South Park movie escaped an NC-17 rating. Comments on editing, and featuring the most amusing quote " As with the comparatively harmless Big Daddy (1999), the comic premise of South Park is based on the hilarity ensuing from the corruption of children." This and Austin Powers were the 2 comedies I was looking forward to this summer.

Comments

The Sh*t gonna hit the fan

[craw]

Here it comes. Duck!

Now that I am older and wiser, I would find this repulsive South Park "movie" to be totally without social and meaningful content. Of course, I haven't seen this movie nor would I stoop so low to actually see something that I would criticize. I'm told that this movie is harmful to children, is the leading cause of AIDS in this country, and has deep homosexual undertones (just like that Jar Jar character). Cartoons should be like Fantasia with dancing elephants wearing pink tutus (I hope they weren't gay).

This is extremely similar to when that horrible Ed Sullivan Show had the broadcast where Elvis Presley gyrated his hips. Well actualy pictures below his waist were not shown, but teenage girls knew what was happening. And don't get me started on the negative influence of the Beatles, Alice Cooper, Kiss, or John Tesh.

Okay you can look up now.

There is going to be a lot of "feedback" with regard to this movie. I suppose that this will lead to lead to the next "Columbine" in that Americans will swarm across the border to kill or neuter (not that need to be neutered) those awful Canadians:-). This is a knee-jerk time in the US and I fear the worst but hope for calmer heads to prevail. Unfortunately, politicians love sound bites, and a few will take advantage of this opportunity. Hey Liddy, wanna see a movie with me and leave Mr Viagra at home with his bigger, longer, and uncut?

Geez, I also hope they that they don't burn an American flag in that movie. Hopefully they will abide by the Ten Commandments, like thou shall not kill. Oh no, They killed Kenny!

Bonus Question: Name the only X/NC-17 movie that was chosen as best picture by the Academy Awards. Hint: Think thirty years ago.

Re:The Sh*t gonna hit the fan

[craw]

Very good! But do you know why it was rated X at that time? (Now down rated to R).

Interesting enough, John Voigt was the lead role with Dustin Hoffman as the supporting actor. Hmmm, John Voigt was recently in the NBC movie "Noah's Ark." A pornographer actor playing Noah?

Re:the market for sp movies is low

[DeadFish]

I'm not so sure that SP is only for kiddies... I think it's one of those comedies that works on two levels - a base one for kids and a higher level for adults.
*snort*
No, i think it works on a base level for the adults as well.

Hold on a minute...

[Millennium]

They were going to give this thing an NC-17 solely on the basis of swear words? When's the last time anyone did that? (Come to think of it, I don't think it's ever been done).

Then again, count in the inevitable Kenny death and Chef's singing and I suppose you might have enough that's strong enough to get it an R, but I think there was something else going on here. I'd imagine the ratings board was afraid of our friends the zealots screaming at them (considering that they were talking about the "corruption of children" that seems likely; I've never seen anyone but the zealots use that term). They already hate the series, so of course they'd go after the movie (both of these being thanks to their own rather blind assertion that animation isn't a medium but a genre).

Oh, yes, I'll be seeing this one. In fact, I can show this article to more than a few of my friends and it'll probably convince them to see it even though they hate the series (just to keep the zealots from having their way).

Re:Hold on a minute...

[umoto]

If teenagers can be restricted from seeing a movie on the basis of the words spoken there, why are they not restricted from going to junior high school? As I recall, the continuous stream of profanities and imagery to which I was subjected caused me to learn a lot more during my formative years about atypical sexual behavior than reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic.

I did not have any money when I was in junior high so I did not see very many movies. My eye-opening experiences occured between classes. Kids who had discovered something potent would shout in the halls and talk about other kids they thought were homosexual, bisexual, or radical in some other way. I did not want to hear it but the phrases slipped into my head. While watching a movie with profanity can be detrimental, I'd have to imagine that three straight years of near-subliminal suggestions are much more harmful.

Thankfully I made it through without being affected by it all, but I know that not everyone in my graduating class was as fortunate. Shouldn't parents be trying to do something about junior high profanity rather than bickering over movie ratings?

That's just a thought that's consistent with my personal experience. Feel free to tear it apart. ;-)

Re:Hold on a minute...

[ksheff]

I'm afraid that "we're doing it for the children" has become a catch-all reason for trying to take away rights. It should be the other way around: strengthing individual liberties/rights so that our children will be able to exercise the same rights. I hate it when people try to use emotional reasons instead of facts and/or logic to try to get a law passed or anything else done in the public sector. Given that they will allow the words that normally get bleeped out in the series, I don't see how an NC-17 would be justified.

Maybe it was Striesand(sp) trying to get back for the episode where she tried to take over the world =)

Re:Thank you for pointing that out to us

[webslacker]

I didn't catch it until Parker and Stone said it out loud on Jay Leno. Nobody I told it to had caught it before, so I thought I'd share. Oh well. (shrug)

An observation

[_Spirit]

Americans never cease to amaze me. Why are sexual references corrupting, and why is it okay to kill Kenny ? (Actually I don't know Kenny so I don't have an opinion on whether it's okay to kill him ;-) )

In this discussion about this rating thingie there seem to be two themes that, according to the peeps here, (don't) justify this rating.

Sex:
It seems that victorian values are still in place. Sex is bad, especially when someone speaks about it or even covertly refers to it. Kids should be kept completely ignorant about the existance of anything remotely connected to sex. Why bother them with knowledge that could prevent teenage pregnancies and perhaps even sexual abuse. We wouldn't want to give the kids any ideas now would we ?

Violence:
On the other hand it's apparently okay to show kids people being killed, mutilated or violated. Kids can judge what's real and what's not. Kids know satire when they see it. Kids know they shouldn't kill any reallife Kennies.

I don't want to say what's the best way to teach children values, or whether it's good to expose them to violence or sex.
I just want to point out that there is a weird difference in the way these two issues are judged by a lot of people, even very intelligent ones.

Sidenote:
A poll might be interesting: Would you rather have your kids:
- having safe sex ?
- beating people up ?

Message on our company Intranet:
"You have a sticker in your private area"

SP Review (WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILERS!)

[Narbo]

I saw a screening of the movie last night.

For those of you who are curious it varies from
completely hilarious to completely awful. And yes
the NC-17 rating is completely deserved, if not for the continous stream of bad language (more then a Dennis Leary/Andrew Dice Clay combo special) then for many, many downright nasty allusions/jokes (most of the sexual).

Now onto the movie itself.
Its actually a musical.
The plot more or less runs like: Kids go see new Terrance and Philip movie (its a foreign film from Canada doncha know?) which contains profuse amouts of bad language (one whole musical number is compesed almost entirely of swearing :O) from which they develop potty mouth. The rest of the movie involves the parents of sp lead by Kyles mom
attempting to cure/rescue thier children from this
awful affliction.

The movie is at its best during the musical numbers which are grand in the finest broadway/classical tradition. (Cartmans solo song about Kyles mother is particularly memorable)

The jokes are extremely crude and crass, (and I mean REALLY crude and crass) anyone who has not
seen an episode of southpark in thier lives might be offended to the point where they might walk out if they have strong religious/moral views. Parents be warned, be sure to explain to your kids the difference between satire (the movie) and blind repetition lest you risk your kids coming down with the same problems the sp kids have. (trust me the tunes are pretty catchy, and not a one is something you want to be singing out loud in public :)) As I said the movie swings alot between really great and really awful, most of the awful bits are stupid tasteless dialog (dont get me wrong I like stupid tasteless dialog, but it gets a bit tried after the first 15 minutes) parts.

Anyhow, overall impression was that it was a decently entertaining movie. Bad dialog, great musical numbers, average (crude) jokes and one truly great scene involving Bill Gates. :)

I can imagine there wont be much of a middle ground for reviews on this movie, you will either like it, or absolutely detest it.
Having said that I suggest you go see the movie and find out which category you are in!

Finally Proof

[PG13]

It seems most people accept movie ratings (especially the NC-17 rating systems) as acceptable because they merely protect children from swears and nudity and not political speech or ideas. I mean if we tried to prohibit even children from hearing the republican platform because it referenced abortion the civil rights activists would be up in arms.

Now finally with South Park the danger is clear. South Park is animated characters saying swear words *out of context* it would certainly be rated only R it is so offensive only because of the ideas it presents.

If south park didn't offend tradiational religious views or racial issues there would have been no question it would recieve an R. This means it was threatened with an NC-17 rating BECAUSE OF THE IDEAS IT PRESENTED.