|
|
Post by pfrsue on Jul 3, 2006 5:30:12 GMT -5
No, I haven't seen that episode - but it sounds hilarious. What you're saying there, is the idea makes you sick. No, no, I checked. He did not say the idea made him sick. I used to watch Ren & Stimpy, and yeah, it was gross, but I thought it was sort of funny. However, the dozen or so episodes I endured of South Park were so objectionable on so many different levels that I won't even glance at it any more. |
|
|
|
Post by blinkfan on Jul 3, 2006 12:27:32 GMT -5
In Scott Tenormen must die Cartman Makes Scott Tenormen eat his parents y fluid and mucus, bile, puss, slime, sludge, and other absolutely unmentionably filthy "gags." How can you honestly compare that to South Park's violence? The only really gross things I've seen on South Park was the rodent that "journeyed" inside someone's body, and the stupid Mr. Hanky character, the poop stick - which I absolutely hated seeing in commercials, it's one of the reasons I didn't like the show before I saw an episode with him in it. Remember, I said as a kid I always hated jokes about gross things. Well, then I actually watched the Christmas episode where Stan (or Kyle, I can't tell them apart) can see him and the others can't - and I swear to Jesus, I nearly died laughing. They actually found an ingenius way to make it funny (for 1 episode - they shouldn't have brought him back). To me, it sounds like you haven't seen Ren & Stimpy in a long time, or you'd probably remember just how incredibly gross and unfunny it was. Okay, The whole Lemmiwinks episode was comic gold. And yes it was a little offensive but I was to busy laughing to really be truly offended. Also HOW CAN ANYONE EVER HATE MR.HANKY. Mr. Hanky beats Santa by a long shot. For one thing he is a piece of poo another he has a hat and he can talk and he is married and finally he named his kid Turd Wallus. Long Live Mr. Hanky and long live Ren and Stimpy |
|
Lazario
Boomstick Coordinator
(this is the one)
Posts: 297
|
Post by Lazario on Jul 3, 2006 15:15:48 GMT -5
No, I haven't seen that episode - but it sounds hilarious. What you're saying there, is the idea makes you sick. No, no, I checked. He did not say the idea made him sick. No, you're right he didn't. But that's what he meant. How many people are made sick seeing something they don't think is sick. The purpose of this is to determine whether or not he finds some kinds of violence disgusting - because South Park seems like a violent show to me. I've seen enough episodes to know, several people or animals are often killed. HOW CAN ANYONE EVER HATE MR. HANKY? That was sort of my point. I hated the idea of it before I saw it. I haven't watched 'him' past the first Christmas episode with him in it, where the joke related to him was different than most episodes with him in it I've seen in passing (having not watched the whole way through). |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Jul 3, 2006 18:24:26 GMT -5
To define something as offensive or gross is, of course, a highly subjective matter -- although not completely. It could be the visual (which Ren & Stimpy primarily played to), or the suggestion, or the verbal, or all of the above. I think South Park used a combination of all the above, and I would be hard-pressed to think of a more offensive show on the tube. It offends decency, it offends beliefs, and it offends the sacred and innocent -- all in the name of a joke. Humor is a way to make the offensive seem acceptable or at least tolerable (see: black comedy).
And the point at which you say "no more" and switch something off is also subjective, unless you live your life based on a morally objective course.
This is something I struggle with, often in movies, because I realize that much of what I watch is pure garbage, and much has garbage mixed in with the art. I have to discern the point at which a film or show or book has enough beauty and truth and other positive virtues to outweigh what bad it holds.
Case in point: Freddy Got Fingered. Called a cult comedy by some. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't be offended by it in the least, seeing it on the same level as a Warner Bros. cartoon. But personally, I shut it off about ten minutes into my first viewing, sick to my stomach, a lost child in my mind looking for mommy's leg to hold on to tightly. The only reason I forced -- forced -- myself to watch it completely a second time was that it needed a review on our site to warn people away from it, if they were attracted by the notion of it being a somewhat infamous cult comedy "classic". There was simply nothing redeemable in that film, nothing other than two hours of drugging my mind into a stupor. And giving me a bowl obstruction.
|
|
|
|
Post by blinkfan on Jul 3, 2006 21:05:51 GMT -5
So you did Write a review for it but where is it ? Also I am not going to lie I like Tom Green , I think he is a funny man and also you can quote me on this I liked Freddy Got Fingered. But after I watched the second time ( I saw it for the first time when I was 12 at my friends house) ( I was 14 when I watched it the second time) On my second viewing I was Just disgusted. I guess I "matured" or something like that.
|
|
Lazario
Boomstick Coordinator
(this is the one)
Posts: 297
|
Post by Lazario on Jul 4, 2006 3:33:06 GMT -5
I like the fact that South Park goes out of it's way to offend certain overrated or outdated institutions. I honestly believe Jesus himself would laugh at his portrayal on the show if he could. South Park is also the only place where Tom Cruise and Bush are getting what they deserve (although Bush will go to hell one day, so that's enough for me).
|
|
DTH
Ghostbuster
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Posts: 582
|
Post by DTH on Jul 4, 2006 7:20:47 GMT -5
This is something I struggle with, often in movies, because I realize that much of what I watch is pure garbage, and much has garbage mixed in with the art. I have to discern the point at which a film or show or book has enough beauty and truth and other positive virtues to outweigh what bad it holds. Great post, Justin. I'd like to just add my own comment: one of the reasons I get accused of 'liking every film' ever (and this really is not the case, having completely trashed the movie Ultraviolet for 2 days straight) is because it only takes one great idea or that one great scene for me to be hooked in. As long as that one thing outweighs all the negatives, I'll happily put a film in the 'I enjoyed it' camp. To example my point: I watched Fearless on Sunday. This is a wushu flick based on true events with Jet Li playing a character with the [Chinese] historical significance of, say, Winston Churchill (NOT a direct analogue, I might add!). Jet Li is a great wushu actor because he can not only do the stunts but can act as well. Imagine James Earl Jones and Ray Parks in one body and this is the man's talent. The film, Fearless, doesn't quite manage to hit the same mark as Hero or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, yet it could have. SPOILERSAbout half way through the movie, Jet Li's character ends up in a village where he learns some lessons about himself which grants him the courage to return to competition. In this village, he becomes a member of a family, helps with the crops and he is there for several years. This is an important part of his character development and yet it is handled in about 20 minutes. So he goes from being an arrogant, pig-headed man filled with hubris which led to his downfall, to a learn'd man with a purpose. I realise I've got overboard on the explanation (I can't help myself, I talk/type too much  ). What I'm driving at is that I can see the heart of the movie and what it was trying to achieve. While I was watching it, I could hear the restlessness in the people around me: there wasn't enough action for half the audience and there wasn't enough character development for the other. And yet I came away having thoroughly enjoyed myself, despite the snarkiness I could hear upon my exit. I don't mean to sound like I have any special gift or anything, I just think that you don't have to dislike a film because it is bad if there are good elements. If you can walk away and have enjoyed it, despite it failing in some elements (whether it be technically or through poor acting/writing etc), then it can't be a bad film. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Jul 4, 2006 7:27:58 GMT -5
I like the fact that South Park goes out of it's way to offend certain overrated or outdated institutions. I honestly believe Jesus himself would laugh at his portrayal on the show if he could. Hm. I doubt that. And I could throw a couple hundred verses at you to back up how serious God takes His name and blasphemy, but it's neither the time nor the thread for that sort of thing. There's a difference between gentle humor in love and a humor that mocks, belittles and slanders. |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Jul 4, 2006 7:28:49 GMT -5
The FGF review will be arriving on the front page, one of these days.
And Ultraviolet... ha. Best "bad" movie of the year so far. Me and my friend are STILL mocking it.
|
|
|
|
Post by blinkfan on Jul 4, 2006 12:13:12 GMT -5
I'm guessing it is going to get a zero.
|
|
Lazario
Boomstick Coordinator
(this is the one)
Posts: 297
|
Post by Lazario on Jul 4, 2006 16:05:53 GMT -5
Hm. I doubt that. And I could throw a couple hundred verses at you to back up how serious God takes His name and blasphemy, but it's neither the time nor the thread for that sort of thing. There's a difference between gentle humor in love and a humor that mocks, belittles and slanders. And I could easily go Oliver Stone and say you're giving us the 'establishment's' version of religion, then trying to cast aspersions on the right to free speech. Time and place matters nothing to me, instead it matters what kind of person would even say things that were meant by someone else to control their lives. It doesn't matter who the messenger is, these words are not meant for everyone. And I didn't know you knew Jesus. That's all I have to say about that, I don't expect any kind of reply on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Jul 4, 2006 17:37:41 GMT -5
I have no problem with free speech; I did not call for the removal of South Park from the airwaves, but that I personally will not be watching it because of its content.
My problem is that you made a gross assumption based on your whimsical notions of what someone might or might not like. I know very few people in this world who like to be teased or mocked or outright ridiculed, whether it's Jesus or Bob next door. My response was to simply say that Jesus affirmed, in his own words, that his name is precious and sacred, and not something to be treated lightly. I am not making an assumption on his behalf, but to relay what he said. Whether or not you accept the sources of those words to be accurate and true is, of course, your choice. I just ask that you don't make assumptions on other people's behalf or put words in their mouth, as you seem to be doing on this board.
|
|
Lazario
Boomstick Coordinator
(this is the one)
Posts: 297
|
Post by Lazario on Jul 4, 2006 18:02:11 GMT -5
I have no problem with free speech; I did not call for the removal of South Park from the airwaves, but that I personally will not be watching it because of its content. To each their own. I know very few people in this world who like to be teased or mocked or outright ridiculed, whether it's Jesus or Bob next door. My response was to simply say that Jesus affirmed, in his own words, that his name is precious and sacred, and not something to be treated lightly. I happen to believe Jesus's words have been manipulated by the sources you're trusting so faithfully to have them related to you, and the religious masses. So again, I stand firmly by what I said. Every bit as faithfully as I'm sure you stand by your belief. |
|
|
|
Post by blinkfan on Jul 4, 2006 22:10:24 GMT -5
Jesus' word's manipulated. Are you saying that you think the Bible is all Lie's? If so as a christian I am offended and everyone is allowed to to their own opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Jul 4, 2006 23:06:57 GMT -5
*nudges this back on topic, which is mostly gross stuff and naked sea cartoon people*
|
|
). What I'm driving at is that I can see the heart of the movie and what it was trying to achieve.