Slashdot Mirror
South Park The Movie
"South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" is sometimes savagely, inventively funny, and, therefore, for better or worse, will be mistaken for a comedy by many of the adults and journalists sure to take the bait and be outraged by it.
It isn't really a comedy, though. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, geeks through and through, have made the most political movie in quite a while, perhaps the most biting film ever about the hypocritical, irrational piety raging in America over the mostly false issue of wholesomeness, popular culture and children.
This movie really takes the wood to America's Morality Industry, the William Bennett - Bill Clinton - Tipper Gore- Joe Lieberman -led campaign so prevalent in journalism and politics. In this country, epidemic and graphic violence and abuse is tolerated, on-screen and off.
But when smutty language or pictures appear, Congress and our many other moral guardians go into meltdown. Kids are caught in the middle between their culture and the nuthouse atmosphere created by many of the people running their lives.
This defiantly subversive movie might send the legions of virtuous right over the edge. Any film that has the U.S. declaring war on Canada is off to a great start. The trouble begins when the South Park heroes finagle their way into a Canadian movie where they hear dirty words.
When they subsequently call their teacher a "butt-fucker" and worse, all hell literally breaks loose, including - here the movie is at its bitterest and most satirical - the insertion of an experimental "V-Chip" into Cartman's brain which causes an electric shock whenever he curses.
Thus a concerned nation - off-screen, our President argues with a straight face that V-Chips are an answer to high school massacres -- sets out to save its children's moral souls at any cost.
This movie flips the bird at pompous adult society in every imaginable graphic tasteless way possible. It's hard sometimes to know whether to laugh or cheeer as the movie goes after an array of irresistible targets - Disney, "Les Miz" Bill Gates, Brooke Shields, Winona Ryder, the Baldwins, Satan and God, teachers, parents who want everyone but themselves to take responsibility for the moral environments of their kids.
In a way "South Park" is too relevant and angry to be uniformly hilarious, and the eerie shadow of Columbine hovers over the movie.
But it is frequently a stitch, and its lever lets up in its savage pounding of the way so-called grown-ups and leaders posture and lie while invoking morality.
The film?s very existence totally exposes the insanity of Hollywood?s ratings system (this movie got an "R" rather than an "NC-17"? It violated every taboo imaginable, from ethic and religious stereotyping, to vile language and a score of references to anal, oral and bestial sex.) In scenes that could easily come from the movie itself, movie theaters all over the country have adopted stringent security procedures to keep the under-17 crowd out of "South Park." This includes the posting of extra ushers at the door to card moviegoers, as if any exposure to graphic language and scatological humor will damage the fragile young.
At the theater where I saw it, adolescents waiting outside easily got older kids and adults to go in with then, and others slipped in the door while the bored usher was yawning. By the weekend, of course, the movie will be all over the Net.
Which, of course, is exactly the point this Parker and Stone are trying to make.
"South Park" was always an idea that geeky people loved more than something many people watched or flocked to see. The series was a hit early on, but has flagged the last year or so.
But this movie is a crowning achievement for its makers. They really show up their mostly gutless, cowering counterparts in the entertainment industry. South Park goes out in a blaze of glory, not only because it?s funny and bizarre, but because it?s out at precisely the right moment, making the right point.
I fully expect it to be banned in various tight assed midwest areas, which of course will make it a hot movie this summer. The hypocrites are already livid and dreaming up boycotts and various other insanities.
America attacks Canada, Satan ( and Saddam ) are going to rule the world, T & P are going to die... and just about some naughty words.
I felt the message was simple, "what's the big fucking deal ?". A couple of bad words ( or hundreds in this case ) isn't going to cause the world to end.
Plus the songs were GREAT.
-Chris
christ@insynq.com
Indomitus is correct. Personally, I don't like his articles that much either, they are a bit TIME like. The only reason I read this one is because it was about SP, which I enjoy very much. But if you don't like it don't read it or don't complain. Posting something like, "Is it just me, or are his articles a little to TIME like for Slashdot? And he seems to just lump all geeks into one bunch when I think he shouldn't," is OK if you ask me though.
I will NEVER understand what's so funny about
South Park. I watched it a couple of times to find out - but didn't. Actually, I have more fun watching my cereals swimming in a bowl of milk each morning.
I think that the reason they got the timely Jar Jar line in was because of the second advanced Star Wars trailer that was realeased sometime before the movie. After about the second or third time of seeing the E1 trailer I was basically conviced that Jar Jar was going hose the movie. I guess they got the same impression. I guess great minds thing alike.
These guys hate everything...
They all but advocate declaring war on Canada for producing this movie... Oh GOD, I do so love irony.
It may be a guy flick, but I thought that the outraged comments of the women during the movie made some of the scenes even funnier. The lady behind me sceamed "Oh no, not the Baldwins" when they were blown to bits.
Also, the whole movie was done on computers, so it was probably really easy to do last-minute changes (assuming the JarJar line was last-minute...)
Yes.
Matt and Trey saw Star Wars before they were done their movie, in a normal theatre. They told a magazine reporter (I think it was Time) that they were still adding stuff to the movie a week before it was released.
You have become your parents.
I refuse to "grow up" and give up my unique sense of humor. I think that South Park is one of the funniest things out on TV right now. Where I work we have quite a few fans of south park, most are over 30 (including me, 35). I even gave our site manager a Mr. Hankey doll for Christmas (wraped in toilet paper of course, he is over 50). Working in the defense industry makes South park seem as normal as Dilbert.
Undisclosed
From the last issue of Time magazine: ... To viewers with sturdier cerebellums, here's another warning: you may laugh yourself sick - as sick as this ruthlessly funny movie is.
For the South Park film is that happy surprise, an idea that is enriched as it expands from 20 minutes of TV time to 80 minutes.
Have another line, you friggin crackhead. :)
Seriously, could you manage to form a complete sentence? One with a subject AND a verb would help your cause. If English isn't your first language, my apologies... If it is, then well, I blame the public school system.
I showed my fifth gen copy of "Spirit of Christmas" (A few of my friends were the first to digitize and distribute it; remember the 42 meg Quicktime file??) to my 50 year old Mom and Dad, and it had them both chuckling. My Dad's now an avid fan, and while my Mom says she can't stand the show, she can't help but laugh when it's on.
Hope that answers your question.
Didn't Baseketball come out before Orgazmo? I'm pretty sure it did here in Dallas. Plus, don't forget Matt Stone's stunning performance in Orgazmo as well.
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm
Sigh. This is wandering off-topic, so feel free to drop it below your threshold if you want...
Because the ability to harm or do violence is a very strong form of power. Giving your government all of this power with no corresponding recourse on the part of the individual or minority group is a fundamentally very bad thing. United States citizens in particular should appreciate that old Georgy Washington, Benjy Franklin and crew were also revolutionaries who without the means to do violence to their oppressors would never have been able to buy the freedom of future generations.
The framers of the US constitution were thinking of their own situation (as revolutionaries freshly escaped from tyranny) when they wrote that right. The right to bear arms is not about crime at all. Crime is not even part of the discussion. It's all about the transfer of power between a people and their government.
crabby, aren't we?
crack isn't done in lines, ya big dummy. it's done in rocks.
Oh come on, be nice to these folks. They're just indulging in their censorship fetish.
Well, I was born in 1959 and I can't wait to see it. I have a friend at work who is at least ten years older than me who carries on about South Park like you wouldn't believe. He's a serious computer geek, a Control Data veteran from the old days who's now into Linux. He also has children in their late 20's.
Are you sure you're not older than 33? You're hittin' the buttons twice. Is your parkinson's acting up again?
>The problem with humanity is simply this: The hypocrites are the only ones trying.
The problem with hypocrites is that they are trying very hard to do the thing that they are protesting against.
I've got no problem with someone trying to follow an ideal and failing. I despise those who are just faking it. Aren't they the hypocrites that people react to ?
Did anybody see the jacovasaurus episode a few weeks ago. Damn that was funny. They really let Jar Jar (and Lucas) have it. I'm still laughing just thinking about it.
I just saw the movie, the best f*# movie I have seen in a long time.
The mos hillarious thing about the review is, the movie writer actually predicted this reaction!! The reviewer apparently is dim-witted enough NOT to pick this up! Now that's funny!
Natural Born Killer-CAP ID 7.46
South Park-a CAP ID 10.65
If you have seen both movies, you would know this is OUTRAGOUS.
All you christains out there, if you still have a doubt there is something fundamentally wrong with this religion, don't bother to reproduce, you are Darwin challenged.
Oh man, there's so much much more to it! They didn't discribe the most funny parts.
What about the hell analogy? I think it's very philisophical. In an athiest point of view, religious people makes up hell in order to threaten people.
I personally consider this movie full of political statements.
This movie was NC-17, and Paramount forces the two writer to cut it down to R-rating so that the box office won't suffer.
Granted it may not be appropriate for anyone under 17, I REALLY REALLY WANT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL NC-17 uncut movie! will it be poissible to get the uncut DVD in the future?
Can't you see that it's already clearly answered in the movie: blame the movie; blame the society; blame everything but don't blame yourself and don't blame the children.
I'm not an American, in the east, children have thier own responsibility. Why is it that no one would blame the children? Why would Americans assume no responsibility for thier children until the age of 18, and then suddenly drop an entire load of responsibility on thier shoulder? Wouldn't that make people depress?
I understand that parents are usually the cause of bad behavior, but in reality, no parents are perfect. No child is perfect, either. Why can't you take the responsibility, blame yourself for letting the children in the R rated film, blame the children for sneaking into the theater or speaking in foul language?
You just have to "blame canada", right?
Someone email Matt and Trey with a link to this one.. They're gonna love it. =) My favorite quotes: 'An even worse influence than Natural Born Killers!' and their classification of the movie: 'Animated Pornography'. Don't forget to send them your money!
But most parents would rather boycott things than discuss things with their children...
I caught a bit on the Atlanta news the other night. They were interviewing some woman who made the comment that this movie (or was it 'cartoon'?) offers absolutely no redeeming value to children. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO! Just because something is animated, does NOT mean that it's great for your 9 year old. To me, this assumption just implies that some parents are lazy (hey, another assumption). "It's a cartoon, let that keep 'em busy for a while." Hate it because it's disgusting, vile, whatever. Don't hate it because it doesn't teach your toddler not to shoot heroin in a dark alley with a syringe found in a puddle of liquid that smells like a bottle of Mr. Clean does not. Here's a wild idea, see if you can convey that one to your kids yourself and quit relying on TV to do it for you. GRRRR!
That made me laugh my 'behind' off... Can't you just see those people sitting through the movie trying to tally everything up on their notepad!! "Everybody stop laughing! I'm trying to hear what Kenny just said!!"
When I was 17, not so long ago, all I wanted to do was see Nancy and Tipper burn in hell.
:)
:)
I'm 29, the same age as you, and still do. What those two, and the other William Bennetts of the world want to do is infantilize teens and young adults. Ever see the Simpsons episode [3F01] where Bart & Lisa introduce the Flanders kids to Itchy & Scratchy? You can't shelter a child all his life; doing so will ill-equip him for a world where he's going to have to make his own decisions. Good parenting is knowing when to let go and let a child make some mistakes or try things which might be distasteful or disturbing to you.
Now, I would not let an 8 or 10-year old see the South Park movie. I'd question letting a 12-year-old see it. But by the time my kid turns 14 or 15, I'd have done a piss-poor job of parenting if I felt I needed to make up his mind for him, or think he'd curse like a Teamster in the Naval Reserve after coming back from it. (Fact is, he'd probably learn his cursing from me or my father, particularly if bad free throw shooting lost my dad's bet on a game.
Don't make the mistake our parents did (Young adults of the late 60's)...there *is* a such thing as too much freedom, in the wrong hands.
Too little freedom is much more poisonous; you end up overprotecting the child or abusing him or her. Parenting is balance, and it appears today's parents are being too overprotective and trying to micromanage every detail of childrens' lives.
Look around you. Can you walk into a record store and *easily* find something you'd play for your Grandma, or a 4 year old?
Swing went through a revival, and I'm sure there are plenty of children's records around. Strangely enough, my Grandma's favorite TV show is Married...With Children.
Do you feel safe outside your home? Been to a typical big city? Know where to find the open-air drug markets? Ever been a kid, and seen a kid shoot another kid in the face?
Yes. I live in Portland, and have lived in Chicago and Miami; I feel more ill-at-ease in rural areas. I know where the drug markets are, and I avoid them. I have not seen a kid shoot another kid in the face, but my great-uncles have; it was called World War II.
Ask your Grandma what here childhood was like. Even if she couldn't drink out out of certain water fountains, or eat in certain restaurants like mine, I'll bet she'll tell you that over all the world was still a better place.
I have, and she didn't think it was a better place. People have romanticized the past, forgetting that crime, abuse, racism, religious intolerance, and ethnic intolerance has always been with us. (People seem to think that high crime rates are a relatively new phenomenon, but crime was high during the previous Drug War, alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s and early 1930s.)
Getting back on-topic (somewhat): I saw South Park and laughed my ass off. Parker and Stone nailed the hypocrisy of the moralists' blaming the media for every evil of the modern world dead-on.
By producing an incredibly vulgar movie, they took away all of the shock value of vulgarity, demystifying it. Yes, the kids in South Park say "fuck" over 100 times (I didn't count, but I read that wacko fundie review of it). So what? When you say "fuck" once in a particular situation, it is powerful. When you say it dozens of times, it loses its aura of being forbidden, and thus its power.
I do think it isn't suitable for *young* children, but teens should already have been taught how and when to swear by their parents' examples.
As for the supposed degeneration of society, it's not the case. How can you say we have degenerated when you compare a sometimes-raunchy popular culture to the attemped genocides of Armenians, Jews, and Cambodians, not to mention the recent examples of Rwanda and Kosovo?
South Park made me laugh. Seeing the skull of a Kosovar victim of a massacre in a recent issue of Time made me want to vomit. Yet the cultural conservatives who seem to be in power are more concerned about an American teenager seeing a vulgar movie than stopping the Serbs from slaughtering Kosovar teens.
As Stan would say: "Dude, this is pretty fucked-up right here."
Aaron, Portland OR
Bart: Lisa, if I ever stop loving cartoon violence, I want you to shoot me.
Lisa: Will do.
I just wonder how many kids injured themselves in the fifties/sisties imitating Superman by jumping off buildings? If memory serves, I believe the immortal Mr. Steve Reeves made a plea to kids about it not bieng real to stay the flow of "not so much flying as plummeting" children. I almost bought my final reward by disobeying newton's law a time or two, and learned because of it..
That being said, I think the "Good" of the message of the film "Hypocracy" far outways the "Evil" of the method, OF all those of life, Hypocracy is the most insideous evil of all.
And never forget that the Bible (or collection of writing that make it up, and change depending on who you ask) was a book of IT'S time, I can't emphasize that enough, IT'S time. For Hebrews by Hebrews (At the time anyway) pushing thier morals of thier time. Perhaps thier moral,s were better than thier neighbors, perhaps not, but certainly differing than mine, and in reality probably yours as well.
Elim@softronics.com
there are a few other interesting things at that site, check the Star Trek reviews, especially the one for Wrath of Khan!
Also look at the review of scream.
Don't know for sure, but I think Chef's song must have been one of the cuts to get it to R from NC-17. I think he must have definitely had a clitoris song...Also, I have my hands on some cell repros of scenes that weren't in the movie..can't wait for the NC-17 DVD...
Actually, my crowd is now obsessed with trying to pinpoint all the cuts in the movie...
--diva (from another planet, so not logged in)
> Many will see the violence that befalls Kenny (for instance) and revel in their self-righteous indignation at the playing of violence against children for laughs. Others will look a little deeper and realize that it's no accident that the 'poor kid' dies in every episode. This type of thing will go right over the head of most pre-adolescent children. It will go over the head of far too many adults. It will go over the head of many teenagers; but not all. So who should decide? As you pointed out, it should be their parents, who one would hope knows them best.
Just wondering, how did Kenny get resurrescted?
> The problem isn't the limits as such, its who is imposing them, every child is different, yet all the ones under 17 are (supposed to) be denied access to this film, why? Because a bunch of old people say so.
But how can you enforce movie rating without using age? It's not like you can take a handheld brain scanner to detect which viewer is capable of 'handling' a film. Even if you can, the scanning method can still be questionable.
> If a large quantity of parents don't want their children seeing this, I have no problem with that, in fact based on what I've seen in reviews and TV episodes, I'd recommend that most parents not let their children see it, but to put that choice into the hands of a bunch of old ppl is ludicrous (sp?).
This argument is rather ludicrous. Parents _ARE_ older than their children by definition.
The movie title is a lie. It is cut before it was shown on theatres. How else would SP not get NC-17?
You might be selling the "Anime" influence a bit high. what I see is the end of return of the jedi, and a tiny anime referance (in regueards to the battle aura) the cuss words called out are not used like attack calls in some anime shows.
Sometimes steriotype and generalizations are not necessarily bad. As a matter of fact they are necessary to function at all since we cannot thoroughly evaluate every person, place , and thing from ground zero and still do anything in life.
However, the geek, nerd, and hacker sterotypes are becoming specialized in the mainstream where I no longer fit into geek (I drink green tea and red wine, listen to satriani, primus, and deftones, and I dont care for South Park...and yes I 'get the little bits and cuts'...and yes I know Primus does the theme.) This is not a problem of society, Katz, or anyone else. It is not a problem. You just have to adapt both your incoming and outgoing pattern matching at all times. My self geek match is dropping due to the shift in geek meaning, so I take geek references in an updated manner. In this case the geek referencing by Katz simply carries less credibility for my purposes over time. Not that the review is bad, just that it's value to me is adjusted.
(camera zooms to Senate Chambers, Mr. McCarthy waving list in air)
"I have here a list. On the list you'll find the names of ten Slashdotters who use Microsoft!"
(audible gasp from crowd heard)
and, yes, I am even dismayed by this CAP group because they are flagrantly using a biased, weighted standard deviation to skew the numbers! Anyone with a slide rule and a lick of sense can calculate that the blasphemy quotient of this movie is 7.53, a full TWO POINTS lower than the minimum requirement for being instantly sucked into hell. I wish these groups would check their math before launching ad-hominum attacks.
Up front, I apologize for being a semi-conservative 33-year-"old" guy. With that out of the way...
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if any of these glowing reviews are from anyone over 30. Does anyone past their teens and twenties actually like South Park? Yeah, yeah, social commentary, generational issues, blah, blah. I see the serious content, I just dislike the distasteful delivery. Vulgar language and crude behavior just doesn't crack me up any more like it did when I was a 25 year old kid and I'm just a little too conservative to enjoy crass rhetoric and confrontationalism for its own sake.
Am I really getting to be an old fart just because I don't think this stuff is that funny?
"I recommend you avoid exposing you child(ren) toMatilda if you can. I found this movie to be yet another example of the subliminal
style of child abuse from the entertainment media. If this movie makes you as a parent uncomfortable, it should!"
The only thing he liked was Mary Poppins. Which surprises me, it involved evils such as levitation, death, fantasy, hero worship, and the use of the name Mary, which obviously is slander against the Blessed Virgin.
Hehe... I ought to write a review of that... I'm damn good at this, if I do say so myself
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
> My wife and I applauded at this scene (only
:)
> ones in the movie, however) and I usually think
> it's lame when people applaud at movies.
Depends on the crowd, I guess. Our *entire* theater cheered at that scene...
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
> So to anyone who has seen both the movie and
> the original "episode," how do they compare? Is
> the movie really that far out there?
Just think of how much you laughed the first time you saw the Spirit of Christmas clip, and do that for an entire movie... I think the movie was funnier than Spirit of Christmas (and they even made some references to it).
Suprisingly, I think it came off as more vulgar overall than the short, but it's hard to judge.
Oh, and did anyone notice some of the "cameos" doing voices? I remember Mike Judge (Beavis and Butthead), and Brent Spiner (Data from Star Trek), and I know there were others... pretty funny.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Alex Bischoff
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
By the time I was 12 years old, I knew that swearing was inappropriate in many social situations. I knew that drugs (heroin, specifically) were *very* bad things to get involved in.
I knew what it was like to live in a completely different culture as a *total stranger*, courtesy of my parents lust for world travel.
I could hold my own in many adult conversations, and I understood the requirement that one choose their words carefully.
This is because I was more *experienced* than many others in my age group - my parents had taken the time to actually teach me things instead of blindly shove them down my throat without any form of rational whatsoever.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Every person the same age has the same amount of experience, regardless of intellect.
That is to say, that unless they are brain-damaged or suffer from mental illness, a 22yaer-old CEO has the same amount of practical, real-world survival experience as a 22-year old drummer in a garage band. They may excel at different disciplines, but overall they are on the same level.
If you really believe that, you've had an easy life. Congratulations; not everyone is so lucky. Whether you are willing to believe it or not, there are many 16 year olds out there who have far more 'life experience' than you do; many of them even have time to see the occasional movie. I don't think that's the point though.
While South Park is definitely full of what you might call 'low-brow' humor, it's also shot through with fairly biting social commentary. The two are frequently inseparable. Many will see the violence that befalls Kenny (for instance) and revel in their self-righteous indignation at the playing of violence against children for laughs. Others will look a little deeper and realize that it's no accident that the 'poor kid' dies in every episode. This type of thing will go right over the head of most pre-adolescent children. It will go over the head of far too many adults. It will go over the head of many teenagers; but not all. So who should decide? As you pointed out, it should be their parents, who one would hope knows them best.
I agree with your comments on the need for parents to take responsibility for their children. However, I would hope that by the time a child is 16 that the process of transferring that responsibility to him or her is well under way. If not, the extra two years on the way to 18 aren't going to help much.
It was either the funniest piece of self-reference I've seen in a while or (more likely, unfortunately) proof positive that the reviewer (and probably most of his audience) needs a serious thwack with the clue stick.
Stop reading it. Wow, I'm no genius or anything, that came to me in a flash of insight. Jeez, since nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to read it, don't read it! That's the lesson for today, print it out and think about it a bit.
Amen. I don't have kids (I'm 27). If I did, they would definately *not* be going to this movie, nor would they be watching the TV series (there's a reason it's on at 10AM). My parents took responsibility for what I saw as a child, and when I have kids, it will be up to me what they see.
All that aside, I did enjoy the movie.
Posted by The Incredible Mr. Limpett:
That was hilarious but scary. These people are serious...help!
My favorite line: "Male chorus line dancers wore pink bikini briefs" as one of the vile scenes in the movie. HAHAHAHA
Also the end of the second review when it's also a Commie movie with Marxist influneces!
Please someone tell me it is a joke.
Oscar "CAP influence rating of 15.00" Caballero
Posted by The [not so] Little Hacker:
Please don't start a rant on christianity. What they mean was that it's incredibly dangerous for them, because they don't seem to understand the Gospel well enough yet. There are good, non-hypocritical christians out there, believe me. As soon as I find one, I'll let you know.
Posted by linuxrulz:
Ok, first I agree with you for the most part, parents need to take responsibility for there children, however I do not see any problem with anyone older than 12 going to see this movie. I don't really think theres anything in this movie (or any other for that matter) that could be so dangerous as to change the way anyone over 12 would react to it. I do not agree with your idea that a 16 year old can't have just as much experience if not more than a 20 year old, it all depends on how your raised, if as you seem to think children should be moderated and prevented from seeing certain movies and such, then obviously they will have less experience than someone who does get to watch those movies. I personaly am 16 right now, and I have every entention of going to see the south park movie, even if it means sneaking in through a back door (or calling in some favors with some friends who work at the theater) and I believe that anyone who wants to see the movie should. The only reason the movie got a R rating is because it insulted the beliefies and ideas of a majority of the US for the sake of making a point that people are to uptight about everything.
P.S. they really have to put a spell check on these things, I don't have time to dig out a Dictionary.
well you CAN do lines of crack...it just sux when the rocks get lodged in your sinuses :P
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
if youre avid you would have seen The Spirit of Xmas (its all over the net)...the boys swore up a blue streak in that one too (not like this movie tho...god i loved that flick...my g/f and I are gonna see it again this weekend)
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
I doubt any movie could make me laugh as hard as I did reading that review! I almost fell out of my chair! I think I'll have to pass around that link :) Way too funny...
I wonder though, what happened to these people that made them the way they are? It seems like they have the ultimate guilty conscience or something. It's kinda scary. Seems like these kind of people are the ones who cause so many problems in this world. They are about the most intolerant bunch I've come across yet. They hate too many things. Not a recipe for peace and happiness.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I was just plain scared! Well, not really. :)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I agree with some of what your saying here. I think you make very good points in relation to why children shouldn't see it. I think in the same way though, we as adults need to realize that we arn't immune to it's effects either. Certainly more so than children, but adults in the same ways as children get caught up in the emotional response that such films promote. It might not even be that the ideas are bad, but that it's an emotional response rather than a well thought out response.
This is were we factor in those notions that you mentioned earlier, specifically rebellion. South Park is the visible, and probably one of the most dramatic examples of the feelings of rebellion in our society today. So much so, that as long as they can portray what they are rebelling against in a bad light, people will find it humerous, and form opinions based on that. It's one of the best forms of propaganda that exists. The ironic thing, is that often times rebellion's object is to be to rid hypocrasy, propoganda, and those who are power hungry from being in control. At the same time, shows like these are the very tools used to affect how people might feel about a specific group or thing. Perhaps South Park isn't used to this extent, but I'm reminded of the 3 minute hates that exist in the book 1984. While the hate is to be directed at goldberg, it's easily transfered to other targets, even Big Brother, then back at goldberg again. It's disgusting in a way, because of it's extremity. If a movie can portray a group of people in a way they choose, that re-enforces other people's ideas about that group, even if it is all done in satire, that gives those who made that movie an encredible amount of power, doesn't it?
Very good post, I like your points. I'd like to just say that not all of us, as christians, readily accept our morals handed to us on plates. I like to think mine are well thought out. You are correct in saying we all are hypocrites, especially we as christians, in that we still do evil, though we teach not to do it. I'd content that this isn't necessarily a bad thing, in that effort is made to follow what we believe to be correct.
:) Wether your having hot flashes or cold flashes, ultimately it still means your sick.
Btw, I found your reference to the church of South Park particularly humerous..
I'd agree with you in most cases, generally pg-13 movies are much better to air than R rated movies. However, south park has the popularity behind it, and regardless of how the writers wrote it, it should generate a good deal of revenue. Had the writers watered the movie down, would people still want to go see it as bad? Now, if I remember correctly, this is aproximately how paramount makes money. They lease the copies of the film to a theater for a given number of shows regardless of how many tickets are sold. That means that as long as theaters keep playing the movie, they get money. Now, Paramount wants to keep people watching the movie so the theaters keep it playing, so it's a mutual relationship, but paramount doesn't really need to worry if a given show doesn't fill up, they are getting thier money. For this reason, it's important for them to make sure the theaters keep playing it.
The flip side to this is President Clinton's recent condemning of the movie industry for not being strict enough on enforcing the R rating. South Park is exactly the type of movie that would be perfect for him to use as an identifier as to how the movie industry is doing. It basically came at a really bad time. The last thing Paramount, and the movie theaters in general want is for the government to come in and start forcing thier hand in things, so the theaters are making sure to put on a good show. Once the topic has cooled down and the guys over in washington move over to something else like the video game market, then they'll probably relax thier guard a bit, and carry on more like usual. In the end, they would make more money by sacrificing some of the south park funds, than to have washington get up in arms. besides, the kids will eventually see it, if only on video, and paramount knows that. It might mean less revenue, but it won't be totally lost.
Well, I'm in the minority here, but I really don't like South Park all that much. At times the show is funny, they have some talented people working on it. At the same time though, the shock value isn't terribly appealing to me. When I've watched it in the past with some other friends, I think to myself sometimes why people find it so funny, and like it so much. It seems to be a way to rebel against the establishment in a way, both through the right to make choices, but also because it goes against what many of those in power claim to represent. (I think most are being hypocritical anyway, and really don't care.) It seems that this is mostly brought out with emotion though, and that bothers me, because emotions can easily be controlled. Paramount released the movie to make money, and because it's what people, specifically, teenagers want. Any kind of political message is there because it's agreeable to the crowd that would be interested in watching the movie for the shock value and cynicism. Indulgance, wether in power, hate, sex, or rebellion seems to me to be a scary thing.
Can you imagine the sort of movie those guys would like? (shudder...)
--
Jake
From their 'review':
The most foul of the foul words was clearly spoken *by the children* at least 131 times and
many other times in a muffled or garbled way. The three/four letter word vocabulary was used at least 119 times. God's name in vain was used 11 times without the four letter expletive and 6 times with it."
How many times did they have to see it to count?!?!?! They were probably laughing too loud to count accurately...
The movie was all out hilarious, I heard to many song and dance routines but they were at the least amusing. I liked and wuld voluntarily see it again. P.s Any bootlegged copies around Yet???????
Greatest Quote from that site:
:)
GENRE: Animated Pornography
Also, under Content:
(Quote)
CONTENT: (AbAbAb, LLL, VVV, SSS, NNN, A, DD, MMM) Anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-morality, intentionally immoral, with the most vile content in the history of mainstream moviemaking; 340 counted obscenities (there may be more that are muddled), 14 profanities & many disgusting bodily functions, including vomiting; bloody violence including ripping out heart, ripping body parts apart, splattering blood, & putting heart in micro-wave oven; extreme sex including homosexuality & pedophilia; extreme nudity including pictures of male & female genitalia, & jokes about the same; smoking by young boy & drug use including hash pipe; and, rebellion, theft, lying, cheating, & a surplusage of other depraved content.
(/quote)
In other words, off the scale.
--I hate people when they're not polite -"Psycho Killer", Talking Heads
You Said:
:).
:)
"Ok, first I agree with you for the most part, parents need to take responsibility for there children, however I do not see any problem with anyone older than 12 going to see this movie."
Two questions, and neither is meant to be condescending:
1) How old are you again? 16. Ahh to be 16 again
2) Do you have children? If you parents are doing their job, I'd say no.
That fact that you agree that parents should be responsible for their children, but then state that it's not a bad idea to have a 13yr-old a jubilent catchy Broadway-style musical piece titled 'Uncle Fucka', as well as checking out Saddam and Satan in bed whilst Saddam reveals several life-like dildos makes me wonder about your judgement.
You said:
"I do not agree with your idea that a 16 year old can't have just as much experience if not more than a 20 year old, it all depends on how your raised, if as you seem to think children should be moderated and prevented from seeing certain movies and such, then obviously they will have less experience than someone who does get to watch those movies."
This is a horride example about one of the ills of they so-called 'Human Potential Movement' that started in the 60's, which is now only rearing it's ugly head with my generation and the one below.
It's also a fallacy, as well as mathematically incorrect
Exposure does not bring experience, time does. it is the essence of what experience is. Exposed brings information, but not necessarily the facilities to handle it.
Look at the impact of children exposed to sex and violent abuse, or, if you want something less moralistic and more on the geek track, the experiences of prodogies thrust into adult and young adult situations.
I remember a boy that went to my College Prep High School named Bala. Some of you old enough may have heard of him as he made national news in the late 80's. he breezed thru City College high, and ended up at JHU at 12. He couldn't take it. He was not socially equipted for the environment. Most 17 and 18 year-olds aren't.
Putting a brilliant 12-year old in with a bunch of college freshmen has proven time and time again to be a bad idea.
What is needed is something that feeds the intellect, in an eviron that matches the experience.
You said:
"The only reason the movie got a R rating is because it insulted the beliefies and ideas of a
majority of the US for the sake of making a point that people are to uptight about everything."
As someone who has seen the movie twice, I assure you that the R rating was well deserved. It is solidly aimed at adults and for adults. It contained more than enough nudity, adult language, adult themes and strong sexual content to warrant an R rating, regardless of it's socio-political message.
After you defy authority and sneak in to see it, let me know what you think.
And try to let me know from the point of view of a 29-year old Dad with two young boys.
I promise you that you won't be able to...but I well understand where you are coming from. It was not that long ago that I was 16
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
This nealy brought a tear to me eye, in the very real sense.
I've always had a small fear that us 'Atari Babies' might look to some of the ills of our Moms and Dads as the Final Blueprint, and ignore some of the Good that their parents tried to instill in them before they fell the hell off.
I know the yougest of the young don't have the bennies of having a Grandma that was able to instill if not some "Good Old-Fashioned God-Fearing 'Mrekin Values" but at least some "Common Sense" (as opposed to what my Grandmother reffered to as "Book Sense"), but I always feared that enough of it didn't get thru to the 25-34 year olds like myself.
I'm glad I was wrong. Thanks.
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
You said:
" Every person the same age has the same amount of experience, regardless of intellect.
...
If you really believe that, you've had an easy life. Congratulations; not everyone is so lucky."
Heh. I wish that was the case. Heh.
But no one will be able to convince me that second and third graders have a 'natural right as individuals' to drink, curse, have sex and be generally beligerant. It's not good for them, or us.
As as parents, and responsible adults, or in the case of some here, soon-to-be adults, we would be wise to keep an eye on this.
Rememeber folks, Bill Gates (who gets a nice turn in the movie...heheheh) didn't become as rich, powerful and dare I say, dangerous as he is overnight. It took years and years of folks downplaying the threat and taking their eye off the ball.
So if you think some snot-nosed cursing disrespectful self-centered and self-absorbed *child* in the real world (as opposed to the movies...) is *cute* or *going through a phase*, remember this when they are twenty and have no regard for anyone or anything.
If you have a kid and you think it's no big deal now (not the poster, his position was clear) be not surprised when they are 16, bigger and faster than you and knock you on your ass when you try to put your foot down.
I've seen it happen. Repeatedly. It makes me...sad.
And in every case, the parent had a 'hands off, let 'em be their own person' attitude, and truely believed they were doing the right thing...
Slapping your Mom or Dad around certainly does not seem like the right thing to an 'old' guy like me...
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
I find it odd that in today's world, especially teenagers, folks are so 'causal'...but the causes have nothing to do with consequence.
When I was 17, not so long ago, all I wanted to do was see Nancy and Tipper burn in hell.
But I grew up in the 70's and 80's before Sex and Drugs were an unlikely but remotely possible path to death, not synonymous to it.
It's just wierd for me, someone who likes youthful things, to see a generation that is SO SMART about so much be so oblivious to the future.
Well, you got the smoking thing right, at least...although i ain't too keen on methods that are being used to drive the point home.
Preaching aside, my point is this: Let's not rule out or toss aside the responsibility that comes with the power.
You said it yourself:
"I have no problem with that, in fact based on what I've seen in reviews and TV episodes, I'd recommend that most parents not let their children see it..."
This proves you *know* its not right.
BUT, you then say...
"but to put that choice into the hands of a bunch of old ppl is ludicrous (sp?)."
Who else would you put it in the hands of?
Don't make the mistake our parents did (Young adults of the late 60's)...there *is* a such thing as too much freedom, in the wrong hands.
Look around you. Can you walk into a record store and *easily* find something you'd play for your Grandma, or a 4 year old? Do you feel safe outside your home? Been to a typical big city? Know where to find the open-air drug markets? Ever been a kid, and seen a kid shoot another kid in the face?
Ask your Grandma what here childhood was like. Even if she couldn't drink out out of certain water fountains, or eat in certain restaurants like mine, I'll bet she'll tell you that over all the world was still a better place.
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
What I meant to say was...
Ask your Grandma what here childhood was like. Even if she couldn't drink out out of certain water fountains, or eat in certain restaurants (mine was not), I'll bet she'll tell you that overall the world was still a better place.
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
I refuse to believe that any sane person in their right mind would allow a child to see this.
Before you break out the naphtha, read on.
As an adult, i enjoyed the movie very much. it goes right to the heart of something that has bugged the hell out of me for many years: the lack of responsibility that parents take, or refuse to take, for their children.
Now, I'm by no means 'old' (I'm 29, to be exact) but the one thing I refused to get caught up in is the whole society/movie/tv/radio/Canada Blame Game.
Modern society has, I'm sorry to say, shifted its focus FAR, FAR away from the *proper* upbringing of our children. And the *worse* group is *not* the Moralists...oh no. It is the group that wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, that wants to remove sane limits because 'limits' in and of themselves are 'bad'.
Are they? There are reasons why *children* should not be exposed to certain things, and they aren't that complicated: Children have limited experience. As adults it is *supposed to be* our job to allow them to grow long enough to have the *experience* to make good judgements.
It has *nothing* to do with intellect, rebellion or any other romantic notion. It has to do with a cold, hard truth that often escapes the average mind, but geek culture especially:
Every person the same age has the same amount of experience, regardless of intellect.
That is to say, that unless they are brain-damaged or suffer from mental illness, a 22yaer-old CEO has the same amount of practical, real-world survival experience as a 22-year old drummer in a garage band. They may excel at different disciplines, but overall they are on the same level.
Now, put a 12 year-old in a typical situation of a 22-year-old. No matter how *smart* they are, they lack the saavy that comes with the additional 10 years of life experience.
We are all smart here, and if we put our respective flag-wavings aside, you can see that there is merit to this.
*I* know that South Pak is a compelling look into the evils of society *as a whole* refusing to accept the responsibily laid upon them...especially today's career and goal oriented Dads and Moms, who feel it is perfectly OK to leave your 10 year-old unattended for 18 hours a day. If they tun out bad, the blame is easily shifted away from irresponsibe parents. If I had my way, the *parents* of those murderous Littleton boys would be dropping trou and grabbin' ankles...they are just as guilty, if not moreso. The kind of parents and their enabling society who feel that it is not *their* job to monitor the crap their kids watch on TV, the garbage they listen to, who the hell they hang out with and where they get things from that they as parents did not buy, or give them money to buy.
That's the messae behind the movie, cursing, killing, pandering and taboo-blasting aside.
I'm 29...I understand this. If I were 12-16, my understanding, or more to the point, what I did with that understanding, is another point entirely, and would most likely be to my detriment, and the detriment of others around me...simply because I just wouldn't know any better.
The South Park movie contains strong statements about the way parents in our country and society *should be* and I for one agree with the message 100%
That's why my kids, and any other person's kids I know who's parents will listen won't be getting anywhere near that movie.
Responsibility is a bitch. Parental responsibility is something I feel a lot of you here haven't faced yet, but when you do, and you know that the long-term existance of another life rests squarely on your shoulders, then you too will know just how much of a bitch responsibility is.
Go see South Park. Leave your little cousin at home.
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
MS Word has done nothing but scatter useless question marks all over the web. The sad thing is, IE5 doesn't even display the pages properly.
support gun control: take guns from cops
?I don?t know what you? losers are talking about. You?re probably just jealous of Bill Gate?s billions?. Yeah MS?HTML. Right/
support gun control: take guns from cops
It had a message that was eerie, that people are responsible for what comes out of there mouth and that children are going to be inevitably corrupted, and the ever popular one that parents don't listen to their kids. It was hilarious and I loved it. It is guaranteed to offend alot of people of different races, religions and intelligence levels. But man what funny ass movie..
That darn Slashdot is so cool... Hey did you pay the phone *(#(Q%$#$ NO CARRIER
My wife and I applauded at this scene (only ones in the movie, however) and I usually think it's lame when people applaud at movies.
*shrug*
:)
Restrictions are prohibited. Be well, get better.
I thought it was absolutely wonderful to see that movie at 12:15AM on Canada Day! Perfect timing!
I don't think I stopped laughing from the beginning until about half way through the movie when I finally started to hurt.
In fact, it's beginning to look a little green, and its eyes and cheeks are bulging out... uh oh, DUCK!
(Of course, the spoilers only made me want to see the movie more.)
I can see the fnords!
I never cease to be astonished by the capacity for humans to be so dogmatic and intolerant. I've worked with a few myself, and it seems that their self-righteousness and intolerance are inversely proportional to their intelligence and education. And they actually have visceral reactions when their belief systems are threatened or put under scrutiny - you can see them turn red with anger and begin to shake. It's like you're threatening their lives or something! They demand that you not only tolerate their intolerance, but tolerate their rabid expression of it... even when it's as offensive to you as South Park is to them.
I can see the fnords!
... of the attitudes of the people behind this site:
.......INCREDIBLY dangerous."
(Note: I haven't seen the movie yet)
"*South Park* is an *incredibly dangerous* movie for those who do not understand or are developing an understanding of the Gospel
How can a movie be "dangerous"?
I can see "offensive"; I can see "disgusting"; I can see "perverse"; but "dangerous"?
Because it makes you think? Because it might make you question your trust in hyper-sensitive, self-appointed "guardians of morality"? Because it shows that you can't expect the whole world to raise your children for you, and you might have to put some time in for yourself?
The only "danger" is to the agendas of certain self-righteous, repressive factions of our society...
Jay (=
I thought it was really good, but there were a lot of 17 yr olds there chuckling at every curse. I thought they were gonna get more strict with carding ppl....I look 13, and all I had to do was flash my school id really fast (which doesn't even have my b-date). Oh well
-mark
If your computer says LINUX, run...computers can't talk! [unless you have text-speech software]
sorry....my html got screwed (i can't type).
-mark
If your computer says LINUX, run...computers can't talk! [unless you have text-speech software]
went something like this. (Laser hologram sputters, goes out.) [Army General] "Damn, it's Windows 98!" (Drags Bill Gates in). [AG] "I thought you said Windows 98 was a faster easier way to the internet... (etc)" [Bill Gates] "But Windows 98 IS a faster and" !!BLAM!! (Bill falls to the floor dead.)
All in all a great movie. They really made it feel like a Disney movie. I didn't expect all the disney musical stuff, but I enjoyed it anyways.
If you've seen the movie, it's really kind of ironic to hear people complaining about the gratuitous vulgarity in the movie!
Great Flick!
Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com
this is an excellent movie. i highly recommend it to any slashdotter, especially if you enjoy the series (you will enjoy bill gates' role).
i cannot wait until this gets released to the home video market, because i'm looking forward to seeing the bits that the mpaa made them cut out to get the r. (it's becoming very frustrating to me that the mpaa exists at all.)
i suspect most of the chopping was done at the very beginning (T&P) or at the very end..
- pal
Actually Matt and Tre did a movie called "Canibal, the Musical" before both Orgasmo and Baseketball.
And it's hilarious. Many of the same actors as Orgasmo.
I think you can order it from www.crapcrapcrap.com
CIA Industries - Running the world for fun and profit
my thoughts:
o p-me mentality that us geeks so powerfully cling to.
- the movie's humor relied on the NASTY, NASTY language...that really depressed me. what i like about south park is the social satire. sure, cockmaster is a funny word. but i timed my free Coke refill so that I wouldn't have to listen to that inane 'uncle fucker' song.
- the "parents should spend more time paying attention to their kids instead of fighting for their morality" thing has ALREADY BEEN DONE BY SOUTH PARK - remember when death killed kenny?
so. we've established in the thread that south park, although a hilarious movie, relies almost completely upon things that the "morality police" feel are wrong. jon katz glorifies this to no end in his article, and, understandably, certain people are made angry.
both geeks and right-wingers are inadvertently stereotyped (I'm assuming) by katz; i was hoping you kids would prove him wrong, but you didn't.
if you're this far in the thread, you probably saw how the older, more mature, more experienced folk discussed how they'd never let their kids see the movie. (incidentally, i told my mom to NOT let my 11-year-old brother see the movie...partly because i didn't want to be 'cockmaster' for eight months.) and this is fine.
however, some of us took it to the extreme...blaming adolescents for not living in an adult's world, getting gun control (GUN CONTROL!) into the thread somehow (but that's an issue I'm not gonna touch), and letting God get mixed up in this...an all-out mistake, considering the tongue-firmly-in-asscheek way that the movie handles God and Satan.
the geeks didn't make it any better. firmly banding together in support of themselves, the general feeling was that south park wasn't JUST about swearing. (i so badly wish that were true.) but then we have the extremists again, rattling on, echoing mr. katz's sentiments about how this was a stunning, amazing, mind-blowing political achievement, more powerful than woodstock in its fuck-the-man-i-have-my-rights-my-parents-can't-st
this whole mess is an excellent microcosm of the way things really are - most people are pretty indifferent to the whole mess. "what's the big deal with the swearing?" "sure, it was funny, but I won't let my kids watch it." common statements echoed by many a slashdotter. the rest? well, every cause has its overzealous followers.
the point?
*ben stein's voice* stereotypes are not based on the common man. they're based on what we see on the evening news, and only the extremists get on the news.
*normal voice* so katz's stereotypes were more or less justifiable. the man took your average geek and pitted him against the morality industry. and what we got...is now ancient history.
i promise i'll never do that again.
vector
To make such a movie really takes guts. Southpark takes all real things that are so taboo and brings them out into the spotlight. Just as sex, and swearing, are right there with going to church. I appriciate someone acutally doing this as a slap to the Americian culture. I honestly think the most of the people who have power are increadibly over-conservative. Sex is a fact of life. Swearing is pretty damn stupid. Come on. Someone made up this word, somewhere in the past, and it came to some negative connotation. Who the hell cares? Listen to what we call profanity. Say shit 20 times in your head, considering the sound of the word and the meaning. That becomes pretty silly.
I hope soon America, and the world's culture at large, reaches a point of acceptance of whats there is there. Dont try to hide people from it. Ween them into knowing these kind of things. If we say NO DRINIKING, NO SEX, NO SWEARING UNTILL YOU ARE 18, most people (especially the kind that were trying to protect against this sort of thing) are going to DRINK till they pass out, have SEX with everyone around, and EVERYTHING will be FUCK this FUCK that.
Ok.. I'm done ranting (and i forget what i started this all about, oh yeah Southpark)
More power to Matt and Tre.
--Sean
...but this movie has earned the most severe CAP Influence Density (ID) of almost 200 movies: a CAP ID of 10.65! *Natural Born Killers* (R) earned a CAP Influence Density of 7.46! Most R-rated movies earn CAP IDs between 1.00 and 3.00.
Yeah, what's up with this crazy pseudo-scientific formula? Nothing more ridiculous than a fundamentalist trying to convince you that his ravings are really based in irrefutable logic. Why not just say it's blasphemous and move on?
Yeah, just send mail to postmaster@mpaa.com for free bootleg copies!
I'll be the first to admit, the first time I saw "South Park" on Comedy Central, I laughed out loud. The juxtaposition of kindergarten construction-paper aesthetics with graphic sexual content was pretty damn funny for the first couple shows. Hilarious, even.
But Jon Katz's übermorality schtick is really grating on me, here.
I'm always disgusted when ideologues use the protection of children as an excuse to rape the rights and privileges of adults. (2nd Amendment rights come to mind as a primary example, here.)
I am *equally* disgusted, however, when ideologues (like Jon Katz) promote children as some bizarre sort of breed of "adults from the future"; as beings who exist on a higher intellectual plane than their parents, and should therefore be immune to the backward rules that we primitives would foist upon them.
Both attitudes come from exactly the same mentality; the ultra-glorification of childhood. Both sets of ideologues believe in their shriveled bleeding hearts that adolescents are so perfect and precious that their well-being supersedes that of the adult society they exist in.
But what always is neglected in these conversations is that these adolescents *become* the adult society at some point. You don't protect children by denying adults certain rational rights -- such as gun ownership -- because the damage you do to their future society outweighs the damage you protect them from.
Conversely, adolescents are not miniature adults. Childhood, adolescence, and even teenage years are still primarily formative ones. Jon Katz practically guffaws at the the idea that children are different in any fundamental ways than adults: "...as if any exposure to graphic language and scatological humor will damage the fragile young," he says. The-Geeks-vs.-The-Moralists. Well, hell! Why not shoot some smack in front of your kids, then? As if any exposure to illicit narcotic usage will damage the fragile young. Why not invite them to an orgy? They know what sex is, don't they? While were at it, let's add some shiny, happy incest, too! There's no reason it should be wrong for a father to fuck his 10-year-old daughter, right, Jon? As if it could damage her! Ha! How truly ludicrous! Those goddamned moralists. Always telling you and me what to do.
My point is that we *all* have some morality, and we all foist it upon others. It's perfectly reasonable to see the "South Park" movie as a vehicle of another morality. It's actually unreasonable not to.
And I wonder how much those of us who have children now, or plan to someday, would like to teach the morality of "South Park" to our kids. Hey, if you want your kid to call you "motherfucker" at every opportunity, be my guest. But I doubt that most of us do. We may not base our morality in Exodus, like the Christians do; we may feel that we reason out our morals instead of having them handed to us from on high. But in any case, I wouldn't let my hypothetical 14-year-old go see the "South Park" movie, the same way I wouldn't go buy a bottle of vodka for him. When he's older, he can make his own choices, and I'll respect his right to do so. He can choose to defy me, and sneak in, and I'll find out, and we'll have to talk about it, and he'll have to take some punishment for it. That's the way values are transmitted, it seems to me, through conflict and resolution of it.
Are the moralists hypocrites? Sure they are. We all are. Unless you're one of those whose only virtue is in claiming that you have no human virtue at all.
The problem with humanity is simply this: The hypocrites are the only ones trying.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Actually, I think Male chorus line dancers wearing pink bikini briefs are kinda vile myself ;)
um, that's what he said!
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
They did get Slashdotted. Check the statistics at http://nl.viewstat.ne dstatbasic.net/cgi-bin/viewstat?name=CAP
I want to see a South Park
episode where the kids meet the
ghost of Lenny Bruce. He was in
trouble for doing this kind of
comedy in nightclubs. Now it's
all over TV.
It would be funny.
Hold on a sec.
How many TIME or Newsweek articles are going to give "Southpark" a positive review. Or that can even look around the crass to see the point. Time spends time on stories about "how to spot the next columbine killers" softened so that even gramma can read it. If I'm not mistaken I read the word "butt-fucker" in this last review, which I thought was good (the review, not the word).
I'm gonna see the movie tonight (if I can find some bud....somebody, yea somebody)
+&x
K, I didn't read Time and I reverently apologize to them for besmirching their good name...in other news.
I just saw the movie.
Outstanding, great flick, I laughed my ass off. (WARNING!! WARNING!! SPOILER MATERIAL!!!)
Two great scenes:
1) The military looking at the Death Star style map of Canada before the Invasion. Saddam (who has been consorting with the devil) flashes a couple times, then the thing crashes. General says bring him Bill Gates. Bill walks in with two guards, the General says "I thought windows98 was supposed the be faster,..."yada, yada, yada. Then he pops him right in the forehead. Great.
People actually started clapping (the only time they did, and yeah I was one of 'em)
2) Stan is getting a message out to all the children, sits down at a computer, gets on the 'Net, does a quick search, see's Cartman's mom eating shit (he was looking for the clitoris), then does a bit of hacking (cracking, yea, yea, yea). The good part is while he's doing it,he does that quick sidelong self-conscious glance at the boys. The exact same thing I've done when showing off the geek skillz to other clans.
Anyway, there are a ton of jokes, more swear words than you can comprehend, a great ending(Cartman goes Anime). Highly recommended, but NOT for the children (unless you want to answer a whole bunch of questions.)
-Fin-
+&x
"Should not exist" is bait for censorship. The debate needs to stick with the issue of what the quality of the movie is. As for children seeing the movie, well, I'll do my part to see that mine won't.
What I was trying to say was that reading CAP's review was enough to tell me the film is unworthy of my attention. I can't defend CAP's assertion that it is "dangerous;" however, it's clear to me from CAP's review that the film contains no quality as an object of art that is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy.
How utterly naive. Parents should of course do both. My oldest son accidentally caught a glimpse -- only a few seconds -- of "The Exorcist" when he was 5 or 6. It happened be a scene portraying demonic possession. That brief image continues to haunt him years later. As a child and teen, I myself was polluted with an unrealistic expectation of women and a twisted sense of sex that masked its deeper, true delights because I had access to pornography growing up. I'm sure I'm in the minority of Slashdotters who believes there's something inherently wrong with pornography. I therefore have nothing to do with pornography -- by choice.
I thank God for the innocence that my kids (6 and 8) still possess. In our house, we don't draw the line at obscenities. We draw the line at calling someone stupid, or saying, "That sucks." Why do I draw the line so far back? To compensate for society's pressure to erase the line completely. When my kids do begin exercising their "free speech" in more vulgar ways, they'll have been taught the example of just how far over the line they're going. By the time they make their own choice whether to see "South Park," I hope they will appreciate how far over the line that movie is.
This brings up an interesting point. I don't know when I'll begin permitting my kids to read Slashdot, but I do think thal and I would agree that it's the same time when it's "safe" to let them watch South Park. I mean that with all sincerity. It's just that thal and I might disagree about the age when that might be. Just how old are you, thal? Have kids of your own, yet?
I like to be reminded of why I try to be civilized by seeing examples of the triumph of civilization. Or maybe there are those who want to compare the R-rated content of "South Park" to the R-rated content of "Saving Private Ryan"? Now that would be a good debate, too. I saw SPR twice. And I want my kids to see that movie. Not yet, but before they start reading Slashdot.
There's a worldview that believes depravity is inevitable -- that we need to poke around in the feces until our noses have grown accustomed to the smell and it's as if there's no smell at all. Then there's a worldview that expresses the conviction that the depravity of the world has been overcome and we've merely been living through a "cleanup operation" for the past 2,000 years. I subscribe to the latter worldview. "South Park" appears to subscribe to the former.
thal wrote:
I can't speak for CAP, but perhaps your wording is clumsy. I, too, would prefer that South Park would disappear. It's crap, IMHO. Perhaps you meant that you believe CAP would be in favor of censoring crap. There again I can speak for CAP, but I'd rather point at crap and say, "That's crap," than to censor it. CAP took on the distasteful job of viewing the whole film to enumerate why it's crap. That's why I don't think I need to see it to agree with them.
I guess we'll never agree on that point. Quality is directly correlated with positive influence. Having said that, I'll add that I found a semblance of quality in "Pulp Fiction," a film which I'm sure CAP would disapprove of. I liked the original way the story was told, and I liked the theme of redemption. Still, the fact that I couldn't find a single character in the film that I liked lowers my rating of its quality as either art or entertainment.
I can end on a point of agreement with you, though I've found my taste for depravity decreasing as I grow older. That's why I am selective about which R-rated films I'll sit through.
I meant that it is politically correct to be "tolerant," and it is posturing to make a public display of one's "tolerance" by condemning "intolerance."
You're demonstrating the "posturing" that I'm talking about. You are condemning CAP's"intolerance." Why should it offend you that they say the movie is straight from Hell? Isn't that a badge of honor in today's culture war? (Depending on the side you're on, of course. :-)
Interesting. "Fundamentalist" used to mean a Christian arguing for the "fundamentals" of the Faith, but as J.I. Packer points out in "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God , the term became derogatory because the original fundamentalists earned a reputation for lacking -- to put it delicately -- intellectual horsepower. I would say that CAP is a conservative, evangelical Christian organization. The content of their Web site represents an intelligent and informed viewpoint, albeit a viewpoint not popular on Slashdot.
I'll ask you the same basic question I asked thal -- are you a father? To assume that CAP is trying to "shield" children from Shakespeare is jumping to a conclusion. When my kids are old enough to read Shakespeare, they'll be old enough to watch a rendition of the play (or film).
Yeah, I read the underwear comment about "Doug's First Movie," but in context it's typical of CAP's uncompromising standard of decency. I'm surprised you didn't react to their objection to the '60s peace symbol. Still, they didn't just give the movie a "good score;" they made it "the first movie to warrant a CAP 'Green Light'".
Exactly. They don't have the intellectual horsepower of Jonathan Swift, so they dumb-down what might very well be legitimate political ideas to the point of depravity, thereby missing audience members such as me. They don't want to effect political change -- they want to make a buck by shocking people.
On a related subject, I know of only one real satirical publication that works within the Christian community (as opposed to all the secular publications that ridicule Christianity from the outside). It's called The Door . Check it out.
Media Index is a company that specializes in quantifying the use of adult language, the number of violent acts, sexual situations, and nude scenes "so parents and other moviegoers can make up their own minds." SP is "minute for minute the most profane movie the ... company has ever counted." The Colorado Springs Gazette published an article about it today. (After today, the article will be available for a few months at an archive URL.)
His attitude is a typical media-elite mocking dismissal of the numbing-down of what's socially acceptable. GnrcMan's comments about the Childhood Action Project's review also smack of politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing. And replies to GnrcMan's comments reinforce the "what a funny, harmless movie" lock-step opinion. But words and images have consequences. A tragic example of that is the story on the Reuters wire yesterday about a 7-year-old boy killing his 3-year-old brother by copying a move he saw in televised pro wrestling.
I have no desire to see the movie. I can't even sit through the TV show. I never made it through an episode of Beavis & Butthead, either. Heh, heh, heh. Click. I seem to be one of the rare Slashdotters who sympathizes with Childhood Action Project (CAP), though, ( I'm a Christian raising two sons with my stay-at-home wife) so into the fray I go...
CAP is trying to quantify their analysis of the film. They offer their reviews as a tool for parents like me so I can decide which movies we'd like to take our family to see. (I'm not alone, BTW. Financial analysis shows that R-rated movies make less money than G, PG, or PG-13. Nowadays, Hollywood has to make R- and NC-17-rated movies to puff themselves up and say they've created "art." Of course, occasionally those ratings merely serve to attempt to make up for bad writing with less-than-mass-appeal shock value, too.) CAP makes subjective measures of Wanton Violence/Crime, Impudence/Hate, Sex/Homosexuality, Drugs/Alcohol, Offense to God, and Murder/Suicide. Sure, such metrics look like foolishness to the so-called "modern" worldview. In Katz' world, Wanton Violence/Crime and Murder/Suicide are harmless unless they happen in RL; Impudence/Hate is lauded as long as it's targeted at people of faith or anyone with conventional authority; Sex/Homosexuality and Drugs/Alcohol -- the more the better; and Offense to God -- well, he's dead, so he's an easy target.
Am I a repressed fanatic because I do my best to keep my kids innocent and to teach them what I know to be the truth? Hardly. It's my job as a parent to raise them with the values that I believe will serve them best. Do I teach my kids the value of free speech? Certainly, but freedom comes with responsibility.
Those values, BTW, do include tolerance. Intolerant Christians need to be confronted with Jesus' own central teachings -- he freely associated with the outcasts of society while he sharply condemned religious self-righteousness and hypocrisy. But Jesus taught tolerance in the context of having a personal, obedient relationship with God, denying our self-centered nature, and loving -- that's agape (look up the meaning of the Greek) -- one another. Such ideals can hardly be understood by a culture that doesn't even believe in God, celebrates selfishness and self-absorption, and lusts after one another without ever knowing what the word agape means.
My kids will have plenty of opportunities as teenagers to rebel against my values and choose for themselves. But it's still my job as a parent to show them where I stand on moral issues and to teach them responsibility.
Katz declares that, instead of being a comedy, South Park is actually a sharp, political film that exposes the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the so-called "Morality Industry." It's a sad, sad thing that people fall short of perfection. The only perfect man got nailed to a cross for his trouble. But careless critics confuse the Perfect Message with imperfect followers. Let anyone hold up a standard for (conventional) morality, and today he or she is denounced as an intolerant, self-righteous hypocrite.
As I once heard Ravi Zacharias say, "Before you tear down fences, be careful that you know why they were put up in the first place." Ethics and morals -- whether they are based on examples set by Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, old, dead Greek philosophers, or Bill Clinton -- exist to draw boundaries for social behavior. South Park, it seems, wants to show what it's like without bondaries. And ... Parker and Stone want to show me this because ...?
The Apostle Paul sums it up: "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." ( Philipians 4:8)
As has also been said, "If you swim in the sewer, you're bound to get dirty."
One final comment -- if you think hackers can't be Christians, what is to be done with Larry Wall?
i perhaps took your agreement with the CAP too far. you do believe south park should exist (free speech), while CAP would prefer that every single thing related to south park would suddenly disappear.
since you asked, i'm 19 years old. i don't have any kids of my own (shockingly enough). most of what i say about parenting is what my own father has said. i like myself and i tend to think he did a pretty good job.
certainly saving private ryan is a more positive influence than south park could be. saving private ryan is probably art. south park probably isn't. however, i'll bet that eyes wide shut will be even higher in artistic quality than both of those two movies combined, yet the cap will most certainly condemn it because it has naked people having sex.
my real problem with the cap is that they equate "quality" with "positive influence". movies aren't good or bad because they influence people in a good or bad way. PEOPLE are good or bad because they are influenced by something in a good or bad way. the cap's favorite movie would be one that merely regurgitates their values. regurgitating values is something that any english professor will tell you is not artistic.
i do not believe in either of the world views that you describe at the end of your comment. i simply believe that depravity MAY happen. and because it may happen, we should be able to recognize it and not let it hinder our own values. and sometimes we should be able to laugh at it too.
i too mentioned the pro-wrestling imitation death in my comment above, though i do not believe this is evidence that south park is something that should not exist or should not be seen by anyone under 17.
yes, images and words have consequences. people can and will be influenced by them. otherwise, what's the point? but who exactly is influenced? you obviously would not let your children watch the south park movie, because you think it would have a "bad" influence on them. it would make them say curse words and try to light their farts on fire. this is quite possible. but would the movie have the same "bad" influence on you? would you, an ADULT, after watching the south park movie, increase the number of curse words you say and do dangerous things?
i would presume that you must say no to this question. you may not _like_ south park, as you said, but since you "know what is the truth" (read: "i know what i believe", as i pressume you are not christ and don't know perfect truth as you insist), your behavior certainly wouldn't CHANGE because of this movie? your beliefs of how to act and what to say would remain the same?
this is because you are a thinking, rational human being. you can make decisions. you can say "i like this" and "i don't like this." children have the same ability, except their ability to do this is very primitive and selfish. yes, many children might say after watching south park "saying fuck is cool! i like to say fuck!" but you are wiser and older and realize the reasons you shouldn't say curses all the time (i.e., people won't listen to what you have to say if you're vulgar all the time). or perhaps you just don't say "fuck" because jesus says you shouldn't. i'm not sure. but either way, there is a REASON you act the way you do and you have control of it. i believe that if someone asked you if anyone could change your beliefs against your will, you would say no. i do not know how old your children are, i would hope they could say the same thing once they are about 14 or 15, maybe younger. south park is not for children who can not clearly make decisions for themselves, however it is not harmful the person viewing it has a stable system of beliefs, like you do.
let me throw a christian proverb at you. "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime." keeping all children away from everything that is not "innocent" is much like giving a man a fish. the child is hidden from bad things for the day, but he still needs you to protect him when south park part II comes out. rather, you should teach him how to judge for himself what is good and what is bad. this is not done by simply "showing where i stand on moral issues." your children will no doubt have many opportunities to rebel against your beliefs and perhaps may take these opportunities. but if you shield them from all evil things in our culture, as they become older and less attached to you, they may be too naive to make rational choices. let them see the evil and discuss it WITH them. tell them WHY it is wrong, not that it IS wrong.
hearing a curse word is not the same as saying a curse word. seeing a person murdered is not the same as murdering someone. if you understand why killing is bad (and to primitive creatures such as children, there is no reason why they should think it is bad) for society, then you can see 1000 murders and still will not kill. but the real point is this: south park is not real. it is not supposed to be a substitute for reality. it is funny. it is supposed to be funny. if your children are too young to understand that something seen on a movie screen meant to be funny is not something that should be imitated, then they should not see south park. but if they do understand this, there is no reason why they shouldn't see it (though there may be no reason why they SHOULD, but that's beside the point.) seven year olds shouldn't watch wrestling, but 23 year olds should be able to. the difference is in the content of the viewer's brain, not the content of television screen. parents should concentrate on shaping their children's thinking ability instead worrying about what their eyes might see. it is really much more effective.
south park is a world without fences, yes. if we keep the fences up all of the time, we will forget what is hiding behind them. and that it is when it will come to haunt us. south park is a hilarious reminder why we try to be civilized.
Thank you, CAP, for showing the rest of the world how much of a bad influence The Phantom Menace really is! Even though they admit that "the ignominy in the movie should clearly be fantasy to the young and impressionable and should thus be easily redirected", methinks these people need some serious help.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
This is just the kind of knee-jerk flame we get all up in arms about whenever it's directed at us. Just because Jon Katz writes an article, someone's always sworn to curse him and the horse he came in on. So what if he stereotyped geeks a bit? It's easier to generalize than to break down the entire /. population into smaller (and equally incorrect) sub-stereotypes, and he needs *some* way to address us as a whole. Jon's just trying to congratulate a movie that dares to go where no one else does. He's reccomending that those of us who are anything like the 'JOLT-drinking' geek (and admit it, if you're reading slashdot, you've got something in common) should see the movie for the wicked attacks it makes on a hypocrytical pop culture.
Just because it's South Park doesn't mean it's bad.
Just because Jon Katz wrote this review doesn't mean it's bad. Give the guy a break, for chrissakes!
---------
---------
Get back to me when my brain starts working.
Wow... now I really want to see this movie! :)
Really, does anyone out there think that reviews like this are going to keep more kids from seeing this movie? For lack of a better term, they seem to be "preaching to the choir". (And the easily amused, but that's not important right now ;) ) Just about everyone who's reading this review will already know that watching South Park on cable is a one-way ticket to Hell... is it going to be better (from these wackos' perspective) if they don't have to cut out all the naughty bits?
--
When they release this movie on video or dvd they should put this review in after the credits.
I find it very funny how close minded these people are.
BTW isnt Big Gay AL white, the reviewer says he is black.
I loved the movie. If you dont know the diffrence between fantasy and reality. You shouldnt take the whole world seriously. It was a social satire that movie was. I could take evreything in the movie and agree with. But the hell analogy was kinda awful. I could take the swearing, drug use, and sexual imagry. Yes that movie was vile, but it was so funny. T&P should have another south park cartoon. They are funny!
Friday's salon dug it, maybe I'll go see it instead of sleeping.
George
Actually, Tom, JonKatz's been doing it for some time now. He stopped for a while with his article on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but it looks like it's happenning again. Sigh...
"My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
I just loved the fact that I had to buy tickets for my 15 and 16 year old friends so they could get in and then saw it pop up like that in the movie. Katz is right, this movie exposes more of the bullshit out there than anything else I have ever seen. Maybe congress, the president, and every church ladie's society out there should be forced to watch this movie for a month or so.
And the best part was the treatment Bill Gates recieved, heheh!
Jon Katz has kind of a Time style. Good, bad, whatever. He writes like that, and it seems to work for him. It annoys some people. I'm not a big fan of the style (one reason why I don't read Time anymore) but there are worse styles.
Jon's content is rather different, though. He tends to have more to say, and his articles tend to show more thought and insight than the average Time article.
By using the Time style, he gains a certain credibility with the un-geek community. And that is a good thing, sometimes. In particular, his hellmouth series brought a tiny amount of balance (I'm picturing a mouse leaning into the wind on a sailboat) to the whole Columbine media phenomenon.
I'm planning on taking my kids to see South Park. My son and I don't get along all that well (no big conflict, we just don't have much in common and get on each other's nerves) and one of the things we do together is watch the cartoon every week.
I'll continue to read Jon's articles. If they bother you, don't read them.
Fear my wrath, please, fear my wrath?
Homer
We apologize for the inconvenience.
I am an avid South Park fan, but I was truly shocked at what I saw and heard. I thought that I was a seasoned man of bad language, but I even felt like blushing after the first 3 minutes of the movie. Be prepared for this movie, the boys get ALOT more loose with their language and the sexual content is very nasty. But once the desensitization kicks in the movie is very funny. This movie didnt turn me off to South park, I still love Cartman, but I was truly caught off gaurd. I am seeing it again this weekend, and I am sure I will enjoy it better the second time, just because I will be prepared.
I'm sure the South Park movie was well past completed when Star Wars: Episode 1 was released, but that leads me to wonder, how did Trey and Matt get their hands on that wonderfully-timed Jar Jar line? Did they perhaps have advance notice that Jar Jar would be a hot target by the time the movie was released?
Two comments: "politically correct "what's the big deal?" posturing"??? I'm not sure I agree with you there. That attitude is most decidedly not politically correct, especially in light of recent events. Anyway, on to my main point.
I have no problem with CAP rating movies. They can do what ever they want as long as it doesn't affect me. I do have a problem with statements like: "*South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell." I think that's rude and gratuitous(I also think the review as a whole was gratuitus, and I can almost guarantee that page would be blocked by filtering software) I also think that this group is way, way out of line from what can be considered reasonable. The fact is CAP is an extreme fundamentalist Christian organization. Look at the review of A Midsummer Nights Dream. I mean, C'mon, it's Shakespeare (everything they mention as bad ("other stuff") is in the script.) we should be teaching Children Shakespeare, not sheilding them from it. And in the review of Doug's 1st movie (which got a good score, by the way), one of the bad points listed was adolescent underware...what?!
Okay, hopefully that clarifies my point...On to the next one. Don't worry, this one's a little shorter. I don't expect you'll ever see the movie (and don't think you should if you will be offended by it) but let me assure you, it IS a sharp, political film, with wonderful satire. I would say it's in the same vein (but not nearly as subtle) as Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". (Where swift proposes helping the poor Irish out by slaughtering and eating their children.) (If you want to read it, go here) Shocking? Yes. Especially for the time (1729) But, that's the point. Stone and Parker are sharp fellows, if you go beyond the language. They have real and important messages in South Park.
I'm going to stop now (self imposed limits, don't you know), but I hope you can see my point of view and respect it.
Thanks
Casey
I dug up this review from the Childhood Action Project (A Christian group devoted to saving the children.) Needless to say, this review is almost as funny as the movie itself was.
Here's a choice quote from the review: "WARNING! This analysis is blunt. *South Park* is another movie straight from the smoking pits of Hell."
Actually, Time gave SouthPark a pretty good review (minus most of the colorful metafores of course). But I agree, give the man a break.
Nose -Common Sense isn't.
Ugh. How purple can you get? You should work for Matt Drudge.
Is this the price of acquisition, or are the article filters not checking for valid characters? If the current codeset were available, I'd send in more bug fixes. Will we ever see it, or has it gone the way of all fleeceware in the acquisition, locked away from prying eyes?
What's next? No more "clean" interface, maybe? Mandatory pop-up adverts with sound-clips? ActiveX controls and client-side Visual Basic with epileptic spinners?
Alas. What a sad day!
i thought the musicals were overdone...i would of liked to see more of stans uncle and ned.
they could've incorporated more of Chef's songs. however, like job katz said...this movie is political and it did have cleverly hidden messages hidden.
i thought it was great....if you want to see more genius at work go see Orgazmo...tre parkers first non-animated movie....its the funniest movie ive ever seen.
Sensei
Sensei
Linuxnewbie.org home of the NHF's
I've been a major SP fan for some time. We have a group of friends that get together to see this show every week, and a damn good time is had by all. So it was with some excitement that my partner and I headed to this movie.
First of all, I was amused at watching two 14 year olds trying to buy tickets, getting carded, and buying tickets to something else saying "She's just a bitch. We'll sneak in." and then watching those two same 14 year olds curse out loud and throw a tantrum worthy of Cartman when they got to the door of the theatre and there was an usher right outside, checking IDs and tickets before he would let anyone in to sit down.
So I had to chuckle when the movie started.
I liked some of the themes of the film, I thought they were truly timely, as does Jon Katz. I just wasn't as impressed with the movie as I have been with the tv show. Why? Maybe it was the shotgun swearing at every turn. Maybe I am secretly some puritan in my heart, and it just turned my mind off. You could probably come up with all sorts of reasons why I didn't "get it". But to be honest, no matter what the reason was, this fan of South park left the movie feeling really let down.
Big thumbs down from me.
>>south park is a hilarious reminder why we try to be civilized.
That's an important point to remember. I loved South Park. I would never want to live in a world like South Park, though. Matt and Trey give us an unbelievable, ridiculous, and even frightening world filled with slapstick humor and fart jokes. That's funny--that's entertainment. Any social commentary or satire one derives from the movie comes from the parallels between the awful world of South Park and our own.
There is more going on in the movie than what I'm addressing right now, but the big picture is clear to me. I want to live in a society where the situations in South Park are completely fictional; I choose to strive to make that so.
Jonathan Pearce jonathan@pearce.name
3EAAFB2A http://www.jonathan.pearce.name/
The film had very poor taste, bad swear words, violence, sexual parts, and Windows 98. I think that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are geniuses for becoming successful on their own right.
The duet have come up with an original style that hasn't been seen since Howard Stern first started.
If you haven't seen it, bring your mom and dad to see it with you. This film is more or less a guy movie, but it is definitely worth seeing.
Didn't your mother tell you, don't say anything if you can't say something nice? You're entitled to your opinion, but form it first.
If you intend to call names and make blanket stereotyping statements, not even mentioning the article or what you dislike about his writing style, you come across as a 12-year old child throwing a temper tantrum - and this looks bad for us, for the Linux community, and for yourself.
If there are specific parts of Jon Katz's writing style or his previous articles that you find offensive or annoying, you can always feel free to post them to him as a private e-mail. Even if you rant, post it as e-mail, although ranting won't have much more effect.
Katz is a newbie in the Linux scene trying to report on both inside and outside topics from a newbie's point of view, and I for one think it's important to see the newbie's side and the outside world's view. And he's not a half bad writer Either. Learn from your enemies =P
In short, save the flame for e-mail, and actually find something to flame about instead of just rapid-fire insulting him. It's best for both of you.
Yes you are too old to appreciate it.
Am I the only one that remebers how this all started? Does anyone remember the original "Jesus vs. Santa Claus" South Park that made it's way around the net a few years ago? I haven't seen the movie yet, but I can say that the series can be pretty tame compared to that original installment. So to anyone who has seen both the movie and the original "episode," how do they compare? Is the movie really that far out there?
well, i've been a south park fan since the first pilot was available on the internet (ps. it was frosty vs jesus first, santa vs jesus came later) and i saw the movie last night and was not impressed. SP has always had a good balance of offensive humour and satirical humour, a good balance between the beeped out swear words and the parallels to the real world, the screwed up society in which we live. stone and parker always managed to make jokes relating to the real world and didn't solely rely on toilet humour for laughs. maybe it was because they were alway just on tv, and couldn't make use of the wonderful words that the cinema's allow. this movie was hilarious, but every time i laughed, it was because someone swore. the political satire and the pokes at society were well deserved, and done well, but they just weren't funny. a few things also really yanked my chain the wrong way. satan was always complaining that he'd never gotten to see what the real earth looked like, yet he came up to box with jesus and rip off the citizens of southpark (and he did appear in a field at first, so he does know what grass and flowers and other things look like). i was angered that brian boytano (sp?) never gave any guidance to the children as he has in the past. there were no jokes whatsoever about kenny's family being poor. AND WHERE THE HELL WAS CHEF'S SONG?!? there were some neat bits thrown in every so often, like Damian making a cameo in the movie theatre, the mecha streissand poster in the background outside the theatre, and a few others. all in all though the movie relied solely on swearing and various other 'toilet' humour for laughs, and it's not like it didn't have me laughing my ass off, it's just that nothing else was funny.
After a discussion via email with the reviewer
at the capalert site, this item was removed from the list.
But he still feels that Hollywood deserves it's
share of the blame for kid's negative behavior.
In the "CapAlert" review, here's one of the things
that makes it a bad movie:
> blaming parents for character of children
Oh no, not that. It's much easier to blame SP!
This is probably being posted too late for anyone to read, but I think it's interesting so here goes...
I was perusing the CAP site's movie reviews. Now, these people are pretty darn picky: Mary Poppins got a perfect score of 100, while Ride a Wild Pony only managed an 87. With these exceedingly tough standards, I was somewhat surprised by the review of THE APOSTLE. Here are some excerpts from that review by CAP president Thomas A. Carder:
"There was adultery (between the preacher's wife and a youth minister) and a baseball bat murder (by the preacher)..."
"This is the kind of high [positive] influence movie we need! While little tykes will not likely be able to connect with the movie, late pre-teens and up should understand it well" (end excerpts)
It seemed for a while like CAP was down on most everything, what with their high standards and all, but now, here is an example of the kind of movie we need.
Now, let me say that I have seen The Apostle, and it is a high-quality movie. And I am a fan of Robert Duval. So don't take the following comments as critical of the movie.
It's just that I don't recall someone being BEATEN TO DEATH WITH A BASEBALL BAT, in full cinematic realism, in that movie from hell, South Park.
But wait! Now I see the logic... The Apostle is pro-religion! South Park mocks religion! All becomes clear. A movie that portrays a preacher with a deep faith in God is (even though he commits brutal murder along the way) a "high positive influence" on our youth. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe it's not just about the religion. Maybe those scores really do mean something...
The CAP final score for The Apostle was 89, two points higher than for Ride a Wild Pony. Bring the late PRE-teens, says CAP president. Brutal bat-beating? Not a problem, so long as the kiddos get religion. There ya go.
When a movie spreads our favored memes, oh, what a different tune we sing(s).
Happy 4th, Slashdot'ers!
A funny view from the Christian right can be found at http://www.capalert.com/capreports /southpark.htm. If you haven't seen the movie yet, watch out, as this contains a few spoilers!
Thank you for providing that link. That was AMAZING.
QAExpress: Solid bug tracking for you. Graphs and reports for your PHB.