Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

South Park The Movie

JonKatz posted more than 15 years ago | from the The-Geeks-Moon-the-Moralists dept.

Movies 177

"South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" is eerily timely. While often funny, it's as political as comedic, joyously taking the wood to America's booming Morality Industry.

"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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It Kicked Ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822961)

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.

Frigging amazing... simply wonderful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822962)

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

Re:Here's an idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822963)

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.

South Park is funny - NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822964)

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.

Re:Wonderful movie, but something's nagging me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822965)

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.

Check out the other reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822966)

These guys hate everything...

It's TIME! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822967)

They all but advocate declaring war on Canada for producing this movie... Oh GOD, I do so love irony.

Re:Great Flick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822968)

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.

Re:Wonderful movie, but something's nagging me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822969)

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...)

Re:Curious about age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822970)


Yes.

Re:Wonderful movie, but something's nagging me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822971)

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.

Re:It Kicked Ass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822972)

Uhhm. It's Too Late (TM) for a real boycott camaign. If someone was serious about a boycott, it should've taken place BEFORE the movie came out, or at least've been in planning.

As for localizing it to the Midwest, I think that's a little trite. You could make an argument for everyone from the deep south to the ivy-covered halls of acadamia (in the form of academic 'research'). You could see it in the west coast in interviews with oxygen starved stars or in the vastly moronic glazed eyes of Westboro...

...


wait a minute, I'm starting to sound like katz.

The movie's a commentary on American society, much like the tv series. It isn't the second coming. It isn't the end of the world. It isn't a paradigm shift. It isn't the end of the world is we know it (but I do feel fine)

-No Name Specified.


Re:Curious about age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822973)

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

Re:www.jonkatzmustdie.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822974)

From the last issue of Time magazine:
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. ... To viewers with sturdier cerebellums, here's another warning: you may laugh yourself sick - as sick as this ruthlessly funny movie is.

Re:South Park Reviews (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822975)

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.

Re:Curious about age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822976)

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.

Re:This movie was great...but! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822977)

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.

CAP LOVED THIS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822978)

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm

Re:The First Church of South Park (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1822979)

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.

Good point, wrong place. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1823008)

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.

Curious about age (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1823011)

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?

Re:My Favorite Quote... (1)

Ranger Rick (197) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823013)

> 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... :)

Re:What about the original South Park? (1)

Ranger Rick (197) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823014)

> 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.

Re:South Park Reviews (1)

abischof (255) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823015)

I must heartily recommend reading that review [capalert.com] . I almost fell off my chair laughing :). Another choice quote:

  • ...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.

Alex Bischoff
---

Re:Do *any* of you have Children?!?! (3)

Analog (564) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823017)

Yep, I've got kids. Nope, they don't watch South Park and they're not going to anytime soon. But then again, my oldest is eight. Were he 16, I might rethink that.

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.

Which came first, the movie or the society? (4)

Analog (564) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823018)

I saw a review of this the other day wherein the reviewer (don't remember his name) described the movie scene, then went on to rail about how that's exactly what will happen, and that the movie was evidence of and a catalyst for our ongoing societal corruption because (sin of sins) it portrayed children swearing.

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.

Here's an idea! (1)

Indomitus (578) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823019)

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.

Re:Do *any* of you have Children?!?! (1)

Enry (630) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823020)

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.

Re:South Park Reviews (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823021)

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

Re:Even more telling... (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823022)

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.

Re:Do *any* of you have Children?!?! (1)

gavinhall (33) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823023)

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.

Re:Do *any* of you have Children?!?! (1)

Nite_Hawk (1304) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823028)

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?

Re:The First Church of South Park (1)

Nite_Hawk (1304) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823029)

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.

Btw, I found your reference to the church of South Park particularly humerous.. :) Wether your having hot flashes or cold flashes, ultimately it still means your sick.

sigh. (2)

Nite_Hawk (1304) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823031)

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.

And it's a good thing too! (1)

Fandango (2618) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823032)

Can you imagine the sort of movie those guys would like? (shudder...)

Re:Curious about age (1)

judd (3212) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823033)

Well, my 60 year old father watches it avidly.

I bought an "Ohmigod they killed Kenny" T Shirt, which he now proudly wears, much to the confusion of his students.

The interesting thing is that I cannot ever recall Dad swearing; he smoothly changes the subject whenever sexuality comes up (you should pardon the expression); and is generally regarded by his peers as an upright and moral citizen.

My theory is that he loathes hypocrisy, and tolerates the crudity in return for the pleasure of seeing the Establishment get shafted. (He's always been a sucker for adult animation though).

Anyway, South Park is nothing on 18th Century authors. Ever read Jonathon Swift? "Cecilia shits?"

10x Funnier then I hoped, a lil' to musical IMO (1)

Chevelle (3787) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823035)

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???????

Re:South Park Reviews (1)

Ether (4235) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823036)

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. :)

My reply (small spoiler, but a good read) (1)

MrKai (5131) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823037)

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

Thank you. There is still hope among us. (1)

MrKai (5131) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823038)

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

Reasonable (1)

MrKai (5131) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823039)

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

Do *any* of you have Children?!?! (5)

MrKai (5131) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823042)

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

I hate that CRAP (1)

cthonious (5222) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823043)

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.

SouthPark was hilarious! (1)

Vertigo1 (5415) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823045)

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..

Re:My Favorite Quote... (1)

Ommadawn (5636) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823046)

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*

:)

Canadians (0)

Vic (6867) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823047)

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.

Re:Check out the other reviews (1)

matasar (8397) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823048)

The answer to the question of what they do like is Mary Poppins. As far as I can see, it's the only movie to receive a 100 in their pseudoscientific rating system.

CAPCom Review Spoiler Alert (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823050)

It should be noted that the movie reviews on that site are corpulent with spoilers.

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.)

Re:South Park Reviews (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823051)

What amuses me the most is that these arm-flailing, expectorating, bible-drumming indigniati actually sat there and counted the expletives. One can't help but suspect that they seek out the taboo thrill of listening to the words that they've conditioned themselves to be shocked by.

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.

Even more telling... (2)

TrentC (11023) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823052)

... of the attitudes of the people behind this site:

(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 .......INCREDIBLY dangerous."

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 (=

Well I liked it :) (1)

marks (12185) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823053)

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

that should say "less than 17" (1)

marks (12185) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823054)

sorry....my html got screwed (i can't type).

My Favorite Quote... (2)

andyf (15400) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823055)

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!

mpaa (1)

pal (16076) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823056)

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

Re:This movie was great...but! (1)

c64k (16259) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823057)

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 [crapcrapcrap.com]

This really takes guts (2)

digsean (19076) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823060)

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.

Re: High CAP Influence Density (1)

jslag (21657) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823061)

...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?

Re:bootlegs (1)

sporkboy (22212) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823062)

Yeah, just send mail to postmaster@mpaa.com for free bootleg copies!

The First Church of South Park (3)

Dan Crash (22904) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823064)

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.

um, that's what he said... (0)

delmoi (26744) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823068)

um, that's what he said!
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"

Lenny Bruce (1)

Jimhotep (29230) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823070)


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.

Re:Curious about age (1)

NightParrot (29838) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823071)

I'm 31, I don't have a conservative bone in my body, and I loved it. Of course, I'm a big fan of satire, and I have an especially soft spot for metahumor, so I'm just absolutely giddy at the orgy of social self-reference this movie is already starting to provoke. It is a gloriously elegant joke perpetrated by crudity, and that just fills me with awe. By implying that the message could have been delivered less offensively, you become Mr. Mackey, mmmkay?

And by the way, if "Vulgar language and crude behavior just doesn't crack [you] up any more", what the fuck were you doing in that theater? Were you under some illusions about it being a Merchant/Ivory production?

One thing that's occurred to me about SP, that the movies raises the stakes on in a big way, is how people's experiences of it are affected by "Spirit of Christmas". Now I take it for granted that (1) basically all geeks saw SoXmas long before anybody thought of a SP series, but that (2) mainstream audiences, presumably a large majority of people exposed to SP, have never seen SoXmas, and most of them have never heard of it. So while mainstreamers can intellectually fill in the bleeps, they don't actually hear Cartman saying "pigfucker" like we do. (The movie, btw, keeps up the series' tradition of SoXmas in-jokes, I'd say to the point where they're deliberately snubbing people who haven't seen it.)

So. Non-SoXers will presumably be shocked to hear the kids' unbleeped language. They are probably expecting to be shocked, given the controversy and all, but hearing the kids say "pigfucker" will be a new experience for them. For SoXers like me, the movie should feel more natural than hearing the bleeps on CC.

GENERAL SPOILERS FOLLOW. NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION BUT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE YET THIS WILL PROBABLY AFFECT YOUR EXPERIENCE OF IT.

I went in expecting the movie to be more like SoXmas than the series. It is, in the sense that 500 million is closer to 10 than it is to 5. SoXmas set a lewd, gory, blasphemous standard, and even by that standard, the movie is absolutely depraved. Matt and Trey knew that I would be less shockable than someone who hadn't seen SoXmas, and they set their sights on blowing away, not only the Mrs. Broslofskis of America, but me as well. Wow. Dude, this is pretty fucked up right here!

Re:www.jonkatzmustdie.com (1)

Wah (30840) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823072)

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)

Re:Curious about age (1)

Maclir (33773) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823083)

Does anyone past their teens and twenties actually like South Park?

Yup - I am 41 - and while the movie hasn't reached Australia yet - South Park "kicks ass" (or down under - kicks arse).

Actually, there is little controversity about it here - but then us Aussies - descended from convict stock with our disdain of authority - are nowhere near as uptight as the general 'merican - those pilgrim fathers (the utlra conservative christian fundamentalists of their day) still have a huge influence on your society and values.

Anything that takes the piss out of the hypocritical "moral majority" is A Good Thing

Ken

The CAP versus The Phantom Menace!!! (2)

cje (33931) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823084)

Did you read what they had to say about The Phantom Menace? They started out by praising Lucas for the lack of nudity/swearing/drugs, but then went on to point out some of the movie's flaws. Here are the highlights:

  • In "Wantom Violence/Crime" they listed "sword fighting" and "eating of animals by animals."

  • In "Impudence/Hate" they listed "a small issue of a little boy's arrogance against mother's authority re: going to bed."

  • In "Sex/Homosexuality" they listed "statue nudity."

  • In "Offense To God" they listed "forseeing the future" and "levitation/psychokineses."

  • In "Murder/Suicide" they listed "murder by Sand People shooting racers."

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.

Re:www.jonkatzmustdie.com (1)

InferiorFloater (34347) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823085)

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!

---------

Re:South Park Reviews (1)

Red Knight (35944) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823088)

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.

Re:South Park Reviews (1)

munson (42819) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823090)

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!

Re:mpaa (1)

Negator Inverse (44282) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823093)

From what I understand (this is from a Leno interview), the parts they cut out aren't nearly as "offensive" as the parts that replaced them. Apparently it was all part of the grand joke; whenever the MPAA had a problem with something the creators substituted something worse with which the organization had no problems whatsoever.

It would seem that the MPAA is somewhat random in its judgements. (Someone told me understatement was funny, so I decided to try it here.)

-- NI

Re:MS-HTML Strikes Back! (1)

tmhsiao (47750) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823094)

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...

So true (1)

m|sTaMoFo (50402) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823095)

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!

Re:www.jonkatzmustdie.com (1)

Error 404 (50896) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823096)

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

Re:Curious about age (1)

Error 404 (50896) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823097)

Yes.

I'm 38.

I don't, in general, like offensive language. Boring. Usualy it is a cheap way to get a laugh out of little boys and a rise out of everybody else. I've outgrown both enjoying it and being upset by it.

But I do enjoy SP. Haven't seen the movie yet. Plan to.


Fear my wrath, please, fear my wrath?
Homer

Re:Well I liked it :) (1)

Carthies (51064) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823098)

It's already far too late to late to do anything about the under 17 folks from seeing any-and-all the crud that floats down the stink pipe.
So i say enjoy the ride it's only going to get worse!

My ears are still burning! (1)

Matrix8 (51214) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823099)

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.

Wonderful movie, but something's nagging me (1)

CraigMcPherson (52487) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823100)

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?

South Park Reviews (5)

GnrcMan (53534) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823102)

I dug up this [capalert.com] 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."

Re:www.jonkatzmustdie.com (1)

Nose (54007) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823103)

Actually, Time gave SouthPark a pretty good review (minus most of the colorful metafores of course). But I agree, give the man a break.

"The eerie shadow of Columbine"? (0)

marlowe23 (54624) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823104)

Ugh. How purple can you get? You should work for Matt Drudge.

Re:Which came first, the movie or the society? (1)

PotPieMan (54815) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823105)

Nicely put. I went to the movie with a bunch of friends thinking I would not like it too much. I was surprised, though, at the underlying message. All in all, I am very glad to have seen it. I only wish that the people who need to understand that message would understand it.

MS-HTML Strikes Back! (1)

Tom Christiansen (54829) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823106)

Our very own Jon Katz, to all appearances recently taken prisoner by the Evil Empire and spirited away to their torture chambers in Redmond, doubtless writes from his prison cell:
The film?s very existence totally exposes the insanity of Hollywood?s ratings system
And then later:
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
So, now Slashdot is even posting feature articles in MS-HTML [perl.com] . That's why there are question marks up there. Checking with the server, however, yields this for that page:
Cache-Control: private
Pragma: no-cache
Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_perl/1.20
Content-Type: text/html
Client-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 18:05:40 GMT
Client-Peer: 206.170.14.75:80
Title: Slashdot:South Park The Movie
So it says it's text/html, but it's not. It's MS-HTML [perl.com] .

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!

This movie was great...but! (1)

linuxnewbie.org (56524) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823107)

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

Re:Do *any* of you have Children?!?! (2)

Stitchley (57917) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823108)

I don't have kids, but if I did, you can bet your ass they'd be coming to see this movie with me. I pity children that aren't exposed to strong language, booze, smoking and other things like that, becuse one day, when we withdraw the curtain of protection from them... WHAM!! Suddenly there's beer everywhere, no parents to tell you to watch your language, and you can smoke whatever you damn well please without mom smelling it on your breath. If you disagree, I encourage you to hang out at an American university for a while (Since America is primarily where this puritan mindset prevails). At university, there's always a bunch of people who are pure little innocent angels, but that lasts about a week. Then, their curiosity at these things that have been hidden from them for so long takes over. Others, like me, had parents who respected their intellect, and knew that "dirty" words have no power if you don't let them, that alcohol makes you feel nice and invincible for a while, unless you take it to extremes, and puke, and smoking just makes it harder to breathe. What's the difference? I had the option to try these things if I wanted to. My mother smoked, and I learned from the smell that it wasn't my thing. My parents let me wath movies with swearing, and let me swear feely, which I never did, as I could never understand what made the words magical, they just seemed stupid to me, and they let me drink alcohol, which I learned to do in moderation, and at ppropriate times, none of this drink every night till you puke mentality that many perople who are more in line with the "positive" (read: athletic) lifestyle.

"Still, you must admit that similar measures have put an end to underage drinking." - Seen on The Onion

Feeling let down (1)

bairkub (60965) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823112)

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.

Re:Well I liked it :) (0)

gatech (61342) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823113)

don't you mean worse? ;)

Re:The CAP versus The Phantom Menace!!! (2)

Jonny Royale (62364) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823116)

And here I thought the only influence Lucas was trying to exert was on the spending habits of 12 year olds!

Re:South Park Reviews (1)

SpaceCadet (63397) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823118)

Heh. That was amusing. ;) And scary, all at the same time...

Of course, they're probably filled with a warm glow of accomplishment at how many people are viewing their "message," since they're probably being slashdotted. Oh, wait, I forgot - computers are evil works of technology and are things to be used, not learned about. They won't check their logs.

Re:Do *any* of you have Children?!?! (1)

toast0 (63707) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823119)

>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.

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. 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?).


Sidenote: I'm 17

Re:The First Church of South Park (1)

AndersW (64204) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823120)

>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.

I had to comment this example. Exactly what damage is done to the future society by banning guns?
And what makes gun ownership a 'rational right'?
Yes, i'm being picky here. But I think I have a point.
Otherwise, a good piece, I tend to see some things differently, but it makes good sense.

Anders.



____

Great Flick (1)

MrGarrison (65220) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823121)

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.

Re:www.jonkatzmustdie.com (0)

Uller-RM (65231) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823122)

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 an old fart (0)

Violent J (65296) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823124)

Yes you are too old to appreciate it.

What about the original South Park? (1)

WeeeZer (65308) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823125)

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?

Long-time SP fan quite disappointed (1)

The Digital Satan (65324) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823126)

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.

Re:South Park Reviews (1)

ecd (65327) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823127)

Well, he's just so darn tan. Of course, the reviewer must have missed his naked member- pale as a Sierra Nevada brew. They probably also consider all homosexuals to be of a different "race," so they're not guilty by association. I sense massive repressed homosexual tendencies coming from those reviews. Own up, gentlemen! We know you like boys!

Just a thought.
ecd.

Re:Missing the point!! (1)

cgadd (65348) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823128)

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.

Missing the point!! (2)

cgadd (65348) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823129)

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!

Alternate View of the movie (1)

czetts (81411) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823134)

A funny view from the Christian right can be found at http://www.capalert.com/capreports /southpark.htm [capalert.com] . If you haven't seen the movie yet, watch out, as this contains a few spoilers!

Re:Curious about age (1)

Jart (100459) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823136)

Yup. 31 pigfucking years old. Southpark rocks.

Re:Wonderful movie, but something's nagging me (1)

commyfelix (122183) | more than 15 years ago | (#1823137)

I've read a couple of articles and interviews about the changing rating of this movie and I think that would explain it. Up until just a few weeks ago the MPAA (or whatever the abbreviation for the ratings association is) gave the movie NC-17. (Check out the IMDB [imdb.com] for more info on this) Parker and Stone didn't want this rating so they toned it down, if you can imagine, through "extensive editing." I would guess that it was in one of these edits that they added the line. After all, what good satirist wouldn't have done something like that.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?