No arguing with you there. But these guys aren't the first, just the most effective. I won't take anything away from them, either.
I'm not in the business of making sweeping generalizations, it's all about public perception. You see who wears South Park shirts, you see who buys loads of Criterion DVD's and drinks at Starbucks. It's just common perception, and I'm not trying to say EVERYONE fits that mold, it's just making an assessment on what I see. Of course, I wouldn't necessarily want the same treatment, thing is, people know how varied I am, tastewise. Unless, of course, getting Casablanca, Dog Soldiers, The Blue Lagoon, and Cat in the Hat on DVD all at once isn't considered varied, lol.
I just find a hard time percieving people tuning into a show (religiously) to see what someone elses standpoint is on something. It's just different. I know the guys themselves are actually very smart, and I'd like to hear what they have to say personally.
That's what I see as an almost failsafe way of winning with both sides. It's not fair, then partial debaters/movie fans like me can't win, lol. The question is, what reputation is more important to them? The one for outrageous/hilarious sketches, or the one for having the biggest balls in the movie world, and putting their bravery and non-chalant attitude out there on display? I don't like the sex jokes, I love their humor (i.e. "Basketball" is a personal favorite.) I wish it were one or the other. In their defense, "Team America" is my only gripe, content wise.
Craziness. Atleast they aren't watched MAD TV. I'd watch "The Daily Show" but I hate politics, personally. I haven't seen South Park personally in months, but, that shows doesn't even bother me, like I said.
The shock value analogy about Manson is what I was implying here. It's not entertainment, it's wanting to see how far these cats will go. I guess it's pretty far, but I'd rather see them exploit something else. People have got to see it as more intentionally offensive and crass than entertaining. Thing is, there are people that thrive on that humor, being kids.
Don't be so generous, man! Is it not in bad taste to say that someone doesn't want to be an ******* because..then goes about graphically describing the male and female anatomy, down to the ****ing INCHES AND DIAMETERS BETWEEN THEM!?
I can appreciate the parody in that, the whole smart assed description, but did it REALLY have a place in that flick, or merit such a vivid description? You know, I was hoping that before too long, people would tire of toilet humor, but as long as there are kids, I guess it's a pipe dream.
But they had their chance for absolute spoofy greatness in "BASEketball", working with David Zucker. You could tell that the two brands of humor mix 100%. Thing is, spoof comedy is slowly going the way of the dinosaur. Just like slapstick, it's safe and always funny, but eventually people are going to be drawn towards the more outrageous brand.
I won't make excuses, but Zucker is rusty, and "Scary Movie 3", while not his best by far, wasn't THAT bad. Spoof humor IS dated, and all spoof humor is is satire. Honestly, I think that Christopher Guests 2 films are better satires/parodies than Parker/Stone's. I dunno if peopl e will percieve that as bold, or said in spite, but I honestly feel that way. ESPECIALLY "Best in Show". I do think however that Parker/Stone are the best in dragging out dirty laundry of the world. Especially "Operation Human Shield" in "SP:BLU". There were so many instances that were uproarious, but totally true. Mission accomplished. I hope that Zucker is taking the time to put together a spoof for all the diehards that's worthy of his namesake.
Fair enough. I always keep the traditional definition of the term in the back of my mind. Even when it comes to comedic genius, Marx Bros, Zucker/Abraham/Proft, Three Stooges...they all come to mind before Trey and Matt. I think their day will come, but just not yet.
Right back at you. I'm glad there's people like you around that will actually listen to me, lol. God knows we'll be the only two debating anything in this thread, anyway. It's always fun, and I needed a good, solid verbal sparring. It's been waaaaaaay too long.
I never took it that way, man. If I had, I woulda made it a point to exploit the "***ile little mind" quip. I never turned against the movie personally. I never saw it, and based my opinion on the script, quotes, and everyone elses input. I personally don't care how people get their entertainment, I just hold higher standards, and am not amused by puppets ****ing, crude sexual dialogue, and whatever other graphic displayes filmmakers think they need to add to get across messages, and entertain others. Whereas Fritz Lang did just fine with "Metropolis". A silent movie that still stands the test of time, and that's a fact, whereas the value of the comedy in "TA:WP" is subjective. Incredibly subjective.
Besides, there are only so many ways a line about analogies to the anatomy can be delivered in a high spirited parody, and monotone isn't one of them.