The point isn’t that they don’t “say what they think,” it’s that they don’t think very LONG about anything. They have VERY conventional opinions for people their age, and they don’t really explore or do anything but wrap up an ignorant, knee-jerk opinion in a lousy show.
As for ruffling feathers, SP ruffles exactly the same feathers as all the shows that preceded it. “Political incorrectness” of the fart and slash variety is actually status quo with the targe demo.
What would be brave is to do anything at all that challenged people to really think. The “I learned something today” lessons are never really that thought provoking, usually of the variety where any political action group of any kind is shown as very extremist and exaggerated, and the lesson is to lighten up. Pretty bold stuff. Yawn.
Of course there will always be those who think that because they have annoying voices, lampoon celebreties, and use bad language, it’ll be considered in-your-face and cutting edge, as if it wasn’t all done on SNL 25 years ago.
A show I think that has shown thoughtfullness on issues and integrated them into funny and interesting shows is King of the Hill. That show is under-rated. It might be the smartest show on television. The Simpsons is more clever, better comedy, but KOTH has more versimilitude.
You can’t tell me that THEY don’t think very long about the opinions they present on the show, because they don’t have the time to express a full argument in one 30 minute program, that has to be entertaining above all. Just as I couldn’t claim that they stay up nights thinking about these things. You don’t know that they don’t THINK very long about anything. I think that the show might provoke people to learn about these issues on their own.
I understand that people commonly say, “why watch something if you think it’s lousy?”, whenever someone makes a negative comment about a TV show. I hate it when people react that way. For all I know, you don’t watch the show that much. So I’m asking you, are you a regular viewer of the show? You sound like you know a lot about it. What made you watch this time? I mean, it sounds to me like you hate it. I don’t mean to attack you, I just want to learn why you decided to watch last night.
I think it does take a lot of balls to do what Matt and Trey do. I can understand how viewers may feel that their confidence/boldness is misplaced because they don’t thoroughly argue their point, (or to some, don’t even have a point to begin with). That doesn’t mean they aren’t bold. I understand what you’re saying. Of course South Park isn’t the first show to ruffle feathers, but I think it does more than most Television these days.
I rarely watch SP any more. But often around 8 PM I want to hop on the treadmill and there’s nothing else on. Last night and again tonight I turned it off in the middle, I was so bored with it. I used to think it was funny, but I’ve grown tired of it. Sometimes my brother tells me about an episode, which is fine, because I get the funny parts without the over-reliance on catch phrases and zany plots with aliens and giant spiders.
I still say the show is not that bold. They pick on celebreties and unpopular political groups. They pick on Saddam Hussein. Their “themes” are completely in alignment with what their demographic already thinks, and I seriously doubt their treatment of subjects invites more discussions. Most kids already think anti-smoking commercials are dumb. Do you think Matt and Trey opened their eyes to that? Oh, but what about their cruel portrayal of Barbra Streisand. I bet that got kids thinking. :roll: There’s nothing that would risk losing their demographic of self absorbed teenagers.
Yeah … but when the Tobacco Company employees were singing “I like to smoke a cigarette now and then”, I was kinda hoping they’d throw in a little jab about how nicotine addiction won’t let most folks stay at just “now and then” for very long.
Now that would’ve worked. You can hammer the militants while still showing what weasels the tobacco companies are (and they are weasels). South Park is usually great at showing up all sides. This time they weren’t and the episode was weaker for it. Why were they soft on big tobacco? I think ** eli_the_fanatic** nails it:
While I would’ve found the “Butt Out” dancers working for bi tobacco funny, I also found it amusing that they made the tobacco execs nice which is the opposite of their portrayal every other time you see them (not that its inaccurate, but an amusing change of pace).
For people complaining about all the food Reiner was eating, I think it was to emphasize how America has a massive obescity problem which is a serious health problem, yet no one is up in arms about it.
So the guy said he liked to smoke now and then? I know many people who like to smoke every now and then, and have been for years, (I’m one of them). Yet, you don’t see a lot of casual smokers on TV or in movies. Casual smokers do exist, and there are a lot more out there than some would have you believe. I don’t know why everyone on TV with a cigarette in hand HAS to be a chain smoker. It’s not the writers responsibility to drive it into the viewers head that smoking is extremely addictive every time a character lights up. Some people don’t have the urge to smoke all the time.
They weren’t easy on Big Tobacco. They portrayed them in such a ridiculously bright, pleasant light that they were trying to show absurdity. Making slavery sound positive, etc etc. It was an implied bashing of the tobacco company - anti-tobacco lies but tobacco isn’t squeaky clean either.
Had they presented big tobacco reasonably but not really lampooned them, and not as absurdly happy and squeaky clean, then they would’ve been going easy on them.
No doubt that last sentence is true. But given your characterization of the show as “shallow libertarian proselytizing”, what evidence do you have that their demographic (I’m assuming this is teenagers and young adults) are uniformly or even largely libertarian? I ask, mind you, as someone who would be delighted if that were true, but I don’t see the evidence.
