South Park - General Discussion

[DoctorAtomic]

Sometimes my google speaker starts blathering on from the other room when I'm talking to my dog down the hall. 

[Ottis]

For a lot of this episode, I couldn't figure out which side of pandering SP was championing. Finally it all made sense in the City Wok discussion. SP called out Disney for making creatively bankrupt movies by going to the same well over and over (and honestly, you could paint most of the entertainment industry with that brush), and set up Kennedy as someone who initially just wanted to do good through diversity but with too much power went way too far. It was lame that they credited her overreach with her emotional response to hate mail. That's not an excuse, and she (and all of us) can do better.

The most insightful comment in the whole ep I thought was one of the boys pointing out that the Spider-Man multiverse stuff was cool because it was original thought with characters born there, while so much other diversity stuff was just replacing established, usually white male, characters with diverse actors. 

In other words, pandering/diversity is welcome and can succeed, just make it original and stop changing established characters in often beloved stories just to scratch an itch.

That seems pretty clear. 

At times I have thought about shows like Star Trek: TNG, and the fact there was no complaint about the doc and counselor being female, or any of the new, original characters being diverse. Because we didn't care, they were new. But I wonder then about the reaction to Michael Burnham in ST: Discovery, also a new character but who seemed to get a lot of flack. That's a different franchise so I'll stop there. Just an example to note that even approaching diversity through original characters might not do well in the society we have today.

 

[rmontro]

4 hours ago, Ottis said:

In other words, pandering/diversity is welcome and can succeed, just make it original and stop changing established characters in often beloved stories just to scratch an itch.

That seems sensible. 

 

4 hours ago, Ottis said:

At times I have thought about shows like Star Trek: TNG, and the fact there was no complaint about the doc and counselor being female, or any of the new, original characters being diverse. Because we didn't care, they were new. But I wonder then about the reaction to Michael Burnham in ST: Discovery, also a new character but who seemed to get a lot of flack. That's a different franchise so I'll stop there. Just an example to note that even approaching diversity through original characters might not do well in the society we have today.

The problem with Michael Burnham, as I understood it, was that she was a Mary Sue, just automatically good at everything without having to earn it.  I never heard complaints about her from a diversity standpoint personally, but if you say there were some, I'll take your word for it. 

[Lantern7]

Anyone else disappointed there were no callbacks to “Spooky Fish”? The boys were doing multiverse stuff way before it was cool and/or played out.

[Lantern7]

In case you didn't hear, Paramount+ announced a new special ("(Not Suitable For Children)") (yes, with parentheses) and just dropped it into circulation. Basically, it's a dual-track episode that includes Randy getting into OnlyFans. Warning: there are a LOT of unblurred dick shots. Probably too many. Meanwhile, we have an energy drink fad sweeping South Park Elementary, with Cartman trying to outdo another kid in showing off his Cred (don't look for subtelty), while Clyde has to cope with being the only kid without Cred.

There are some fun moments, and we have Nathan (free of any plots with Jimmy) hawking Cred at inflated prices and generally being a dick. Clyde gets some choice scenes with his lack of Cred and dealing with his stepmother. Warning: If you have a low tolerance for Randy hi-jinks, this might not be the special episode for you. He does Randy-type stuff . . . some of it funny, most of it out-of-pocket. And some of the story beats are easy to predict. It's still a decent episode . . . and given the time of year, we could've have next-level Mr. Hankey action. I think we lucked out.

Here is the opening scene:

Edited December 23, 2023 by Lantern7

[rmontro]

13 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

given the time of year, we could've have next-level Mr. Hankey action. I think we lucked out.

Agreed, I've never been a big Mr. Hankey fan.  Or Towelie either, for that matter.

I do like these Paramount + South Park specials though.  They've all been good, IMO.  And aside from not really wanting to see Randy's junk so much, this was one of the better ones.  It was funny that he thought more people would want to see him than his wife.

The kids' storyline was your typical "what kids have to do to be cool" kind of fare, very solid.

[DoctorAtomic]

I liked the opening 80s late night cable theme opener.  

As soon as Randy piqued at the $10K a week, I knew where it was going, but I don't know if I needed to see it. I don't think why he thought Sharon wouldn't do better. 

Actually, just filling a few empty Cred bottles is a great scam. Just don't let anyone take it. 

I'm fairly active, and I was looking for an electrolyte drink powder, and it took *forever* to find something that didn't have caffeine and added sugars. I was really ticked because I found good energy bars with only a few ingredients but they had a ton of added sugars. I don't watch social media for influencers though. 

The special was really well done and showcases that the show still has vitality.