Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media It's funny.  Laugh.

South Park Creators Have A New Film 446

Posted by michael
from the they-killed-kenny dept.
Vince C writes "Trey Parker and Matt Stone are back to filmmaking again. No, it is not a South Park movie and no they are not acting. In fact, it is a totally different media... marionettes. Yep! Puppets folks. They are making Team America:World Police. If you liked the original Thunderbirds and hate the live action remake but also love comedy sticking it to our current government then you are going to love Matt and Trey's new project. Trailer and more info at the movie's site."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

South Park Creators Have A New Film

Comments Filter:
  • by BarryNorton (778694) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:07AM (#10036568)
    F*** you, I'm just big boned, me lady!
  • fuck this (Score:5, Funny)

    by Neotrantor (597070) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:08AM (#10036569)
    i want to see it for free as a refund for baseketball
    • Re:fuck this (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SpryGuy (206254)
      Hey, now... I really liked BASEketball. Not as good as Orgasmo, perhaps, but I still thought it was quite funny.
  • Just saw the preview (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anamanaman (97418) <jcNO@SPAMcomicjunkie.com> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:09AM (#10036572)
    Just saw the preview. Can't wait! Seems like Matt & Trey love being the only conservatives/libertarians in hollywood. Expect to see a lot of Michael Moore/Barbara Steisand bashing. Should be great

    Guess this explains why they haven't produced a damn south park episode in so long!
    • by Akai (11434) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:10AM (#10036577) Homepage Journal
      Actually my bet is everyone is a target. Matt and Trey have happily attacked all sides in south park, so I expect that BushCo will be in for at least as much abuse as the "Liberal Elite" in this one.
      • I'd like to see how, considering Trey Parker has said Bush isn't in the film [nydailynews.com]. Normally when they make fun of someone, they characature them. If Bush isn't going to be shown, he's unlikely to be made fun of, at least all that much. But hey, it's nice to see the story submitter jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by the facts.
        • by pohl (872) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @11:52AM (#10037835) Homepage
          But in the trailer, there's a long list of names, (presented as though they are actors) followed by "...are all going to be really, really mad when they see..." George W. Bush is one of those names. While it's possible that Bush will not be directly caricatured, the movie must contain something that would make him really, really mad...or it would violate all of those laws against false advertising that...oh, wait. Nevermind.
      • I recall a quote by one of them that went, "I hate conservatives. But I really fucking hate liberals."

        Seems to jive precisely with what I see on South Park, and what I see in the trailer. Some on the right complain about the language and such, but most conservative pundits seem to like the show's message.
    • Makes you wonder how they could be accepted. The (very few) hollywood/tv types I knew in L.A. were vurrrrry correct about everything. They wouldn't dream of doing a project with anyone who disagreed with their beliefs.
      • by gad_zuki! (70830)
        >vurrrrry correct about everything

        Like that piece of war porn The Jessica Lynch story?

        Or how they pulled the Reagans?

        Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?

        Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.

        Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?

        Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?

        Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and h
        • >Like that piece of war porn The Jessica Lynch story?
          And? What you a sadist and prefer to only see bad shit happening all the time? I can't believe you are expecting any kind of "high art" film when it's in the same group as "Not without my baby", "The Long Island Lolita Story", etc. really you might want to come down to reality with your expectations

          >Or how they pulled the Reagans?
          Or maybe it was more like, the viewers we get paid to get in don't like to see a guy in late stages of alsheimers kick
          • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22, 2004 @11:22AM (#10037681)
            The only problem was they were saying "Bush=Hitler" and "Oil Grab", nobody was saying they didn't have WMD, didn't hear it from France, Germany, Arab states, etc.

            Actually, that is what was being said. The whole point of Powell going before the United Nations was to show the world our case for WMD. And he failed.

            The world, and much of the U.S., was unconvinced that compelling evidence was there. The non-believers (remember the Freedom Fries?) were mocked. And there was much name-calling about how they were cowardly, or were corrupt and only trying to cover shady deals.

            And even now, the administration is making the intelligence community out to be the scapegoats, when so many were not convinced. What does that say about the President's judgement?
          • by Chris Carollo (251937) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @12:55PM (#10038166)
            Or how Moore can go and make film, books, etc that basically say Bush and Saudi Arabia conspired to kill 3000+ Americans because he wants some oil. He's now significantly richer and on the even shorter list for the shows.
            I'm not a huge fan of Moore's one-sided rhetoric, but he's certainly never said that Bush had specific knowledge of the attack before it happened and was a coconspirator in its execution. He's been very critical of a lax attitude that allowed it to happen and extremely critical of Bush's reaction to it, but you're putting words in his mouth. Please provide a quote with a credible source.

            Now, speaking about Ann Coulter, she said [nationalreview.com]: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In the same article she advocates carpetbombing Muslim countries (and thus knowingly killing innocent civilians). And yet she remains a top conservative pundit.
        • by isa-kuruption (317695) <kuruption.kuruption@net> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @09:41AM (#10037351) Homepage
          Or how they pulled the Reagans?

          Public opinion "pulled" the Reagans off CBS. Viewers of CBS threatened to boycott the network, including it's advertisers, and because CBS's revenue is based on the money it makes from it's advertisers, it felt best to hand it over to Showtime (who's money is made based on subscription rates) where it was shown many times. There is no "conspiracy" here, just the facts of cold, hard cash.

          Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?

          Because "all the people" that mattered were not dissenting, including people like oh.. John Kerry... who was for the war just as much as the President was. However, he heard PLENTY of how dissent from the French and the Germans in this time period.

          Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.

          Not the first, probably won't be the last. However, remember Arnold is married to a Kennedy and is socially liberal while economically conservative. Bush did not support Arnold during his run, and therefore, now, Arnold is not supporting Bush. So, this has less to do with a "ring wind conspiracy" as you would have us believe and more to do with getting Grey Davis out of office for being an idiot.

          Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?

          I don't know where you get your information. Ted Turner? Hardly a conservative. Yet, he owns several networks. This has nothing to do with politics. Although you conspiracy theorists would like us to believe that "big media" is controlled by the right in order to convince us there isn't a liberal bias in the media (which there is).

          Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?

          Again, that's about money... Disney was threatened with a boycott of it's products, and when it came down to the cold, hard cash... they backed away. However, it was the Miramax "brothers" who saved the day and gave us that enlightened film produced by Michael Moore... (yeah, right, enlightened....)

          Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.

          Why wouldn't a histoical movie of WWII be highly pro-American? If you remember, the US was attacked without cause on December 7. Not only was the war effort in response to that unprovoked attack, but it was also to remove from power one of history's worst criminal to humanity, Adolf Hitler, who had killed millions of Jews. Now when you consider that the effort the US took both militarily and industrially to pull off such a thing, it should make one sit back and awe at the pure ability of a people to come together for a common goal.

          Or how the Pentagon will lend Hollywood any equipment they want but they get to edit the script for right-wing pro-military ahistory "patriotic correctness?"

          I'm sorry, but I would not lend Michael Moore by computer to check his webmail if I knew he would then turn it against me somehow because I used Mozilla instead of MSIE. And the Pentagon does not lend, it leases... and 99% of the time it's either footage and not equipment itself.

          Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?

          Yeah, this was nuts... but it was Hollywood. Again, it's the cold, hard cash that influenced this one.

          Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?

          Considering PBS is, at least partially, federally funded, it's strange you would say "gov't influences history" and then say "except PBS, they're cool". I dunno... seems odd.

          Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals? Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity. Both of whom are still on the pundit short list for other shows.
        • Wrong about Malkin (Score:5, Informative)

          by jayrtfm (148260) <jslash@nospam.sophont.com> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @09:45AM (#10037363) Homepage Journal
          >>Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals?

          from her site (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000418.htm)

          Here is how I responded verbatim:

          "Well yeah. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound."

          Matthews frantically stuffed words down my mouth when I raised these allegations made in Unfit for Command that Kerry's wounds might have been self-inflicted. In his ill-informed and ideologically warped mind, this transmogrified into me accusing Kerry of "shooting himself on purpose" to get an award.

          I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.

          Only someone who had not read Unfit for Command would interpret what I was saying the way Matthews did. The book raises questions by vets, many of whom were with Kerry, about whether there was or wasn't enemy fire during the Dec. 1968 incident that led to his first Purple Heart (Patrick Runyon is quoted in a Boston Globe account on p. 35 saying "I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn't say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm.") and whether the injury came from a self-inflicted wound after he caught a tiny piece of shrapnel when he fired a grenade from his M-79 grenade launcher too close (p. 36); whether or not there was "intense rocket and rifle fire" during the Feb. 1969 incident that led to his second Purple Heart (Rocky Hildreth, officer of an accompanying boat on Dam Doi Canal that day, says there was no "intense rocket and rifle fire" on p. 78); and whether the shrapnel wound in his buttocks, which Kerry says he sustained in March 1969 and led to the awarding of his third Purple Heart, was the result of a mine explosion while on a mission or from a wound from his own grenade that he set off too close to a stock of rice he was trying to destroy (p. 87). See also pages 30-31. I was trying to get to these points, but Matthews would not let me finish a sentence.
          • What's sad about all this crap is that not only is his political agenda not getting across because he's paying so much attention to it, his opponent's political agenda isn't getting across either.

            As a result, if that's what they want me to pay attention to, I'm going to pay attention to the guy who's trying to get his viewpoints and solutions out there so at least if I don't agree with him 100%, I have a good idea of what he's going to do for the next 4 years.

            I'll write in or vote for Nader, or no one at
        • Spin Cycle (Score:3, Informative)

          by The Monster (227884)

          Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals?

          You mean how she can go on TV to promote her book [amazon.com], but only if first she'll do a segment talking about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [swiftvets.com] ad campaign and the accompanying book Unfit for Command [amazon.com] which includes the idea that two of his Purple Heart injuries were the result of Kerry firing a machine gun and lobbing a grenade at nearby targets, which were so close that he actually caught shrapnel indirectly from his own actions.

          You'd nev

        • by rd_syringe (793064) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @08:52PM (#10040607) Journal
          As usual, the liberal mantra of "oppressed dissension" is a paranoid lie invented to make Bush look bad.

          Or how they pulled the Reagans?

          The script for the movie was almost entirely falsified. They portrayed everybody in a negative light and even implied Reagan was completely senile. CBS pulled the show after fan complaints--the government didn't do a thing. CBS could have gone ahead and aired it if they wanted to. Fuck, man, Barabara Streisand's husband was playing Reagan!

          Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?

          This is the most laughable claim in your list. Protesters were "barely heard?" Are you freaking kidding me? Every channel on TV aired protester opinions, all the newspapers--even a feature film "documentary" that made $100 million. There are endless liberal smear books on the market right now. You're completely lying, and you know it.

          Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.

          What this has to do with anything, I have no idea. Just a random jab for no reason.

          Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?

          Most of the media is liberal, according to all the polls.

          Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?

          Yeah, it was dropped LAST YEAR. Moore was told about it way back in 2003. Gee, he brought it up right before Cannes as some sort of conspiracy, I wonder why?

          Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.

          Another irrelevant lie. Not every history movie is ahistoric and highly pro-American. Not only have you not viewed every history movie, but I could list endless films that contradict your claim.

          Or how the Pentagon will lend Hollywood any equipment they want but they get to edit the script for right-wing pro-military ahistory "patriotic correctness?"

          Care to cite a single example for this false claim?

          Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?

          What the FUCK does this have to do with the left OR the right wing? It was done out of sensitivity for 2,000 people being lost in New York. It's not a right-wing conspiracy to wipe out the twin towers in an episode of Friends. Jesus H. Christ.

          Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?

          "Honest and non-partisan way" = liberal or anti-American. PBS is well-known as a liberal station. You just demonstrated your bias, lol.

          Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals?

          She didn't. Another complete lie. This is why liberals are frowned upon by the majority of the folks. It's not about issues anymore, it's about personal vitriol toward people you actually HATE because you disagree with them.

          Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity.

          Yet another complete lie. Care to cite a single quote or example?

          Or how only a satiric comedy show (the Daily Show) can actually break and frame issues in a manner which isn't corporate media ass-kissing?

          Funny, since Comedy Central ran ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 an average of EVERY FIVE COMMERCIALS. John Stewart and Stephen Colbare are--you guessed it--self-proclaimed Democrats.

          As a matter of fact, before every taping (as well as in interviews), Stewart always expresses his surprise that people view the Daily Show as a non-biased source of news analysis. It is not.

          Yeah, its pretty PC lefty out there!

          Hollywood is liberal. This is common knowledge. A journalism poll showed that the majority of journalists are liberal.

          You many know some liberals in the industry, bu
    • As a left-leaning liberal (and that's not necessarily a term of abuse in the UK), I have to say that this looks likely to be very, very funny and I'm looking forward to it.
    • by Aqua OS X (458522) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @05:29AM (#10036769)
      hehe. Since when did Matt and Trey become conservative. Matt was in Bowling for Columbine ;)

      • Matt Stone is a Republican and Trey Parker is a libertarian.

        I saw an interview with Matt where he professed his Republicanism, and here [lp.org] is an article about Trey Parker's letter writing campaign and endorsements of Libertarian candidates.

        Oh and their appearence in Bowling for Columbine? One thing about Michael Moore, if you agree with his views or not, is that he is extremely deceptive with his filmmaking. They didn't make the "History of the USA" cartoon that is in the movie. Michael Moore wrote the c
    • libertarians? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! (70830) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @07:08AM (#10036971)
      Parker and Trey both recieved public aid to goto college at the the University of Colorado.

      Both are now multi-millonaires with very little in common with you and me. If they have a philosophy its contrarianism and vulger/shock humor. To hold them up to anything else is being a bit pretentious about their work, which is as anti-pretentious as it gets.
      • Re:libertarians? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 88NoSoup4U88 (721233)
        "To hold them up to anything else is being a bit pretentious about their work, which is as anti-pretentious as it gets."

        As Rembrandt's Nightwatch (Nachtwacht) was showing how people were living at that time ; Southpark is giving a very good contemporary look at today's society.

        I'm not saying that a piece of art like the Nachtwacht is on the same levels as Southpark ; but merely the uses and effects of different forms of art , made knowingly , -or- unknowingly so by the creators.

    • I am a tad confused about your description of them as conservatives and libertarians. They make obvious political messages through many of their shows and they don't seem libertarian, and certainly usually take the liberal route.

      Old people should not be able to drive if they are a risk. This is both liberal and non-libertarian.
      South Park shows that America was founded on hypocrisy. The conservative ideal is that America was founded perfect and the founding fathers are infallible. The US is also regul
      • by Rhone (220519) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @09:14AM (#10037247) Homepage
        South Park does a great job of making fun of everybody--which is good, because every side of our political system deserves to be made fun of relentlessly.

        However, if you pay close attention, despite South Park episodes happily making fun of both sides of an issue, they often end up agreeing with the more conservative side (think Libertarian-conservative, not necessarily Republican-conservative).

        Take the Cripple Fight episode (the one where Big Gay Al gets kicked out of Boy Scouts for being gay). While the episode relentlessly makes fun of those who would keep gay people out of Boy Scouts, in the end, Big Gay Al himself proclaims that as a private organization, Boy Scouts has a right to not hire him because of his sexual orientation.

        And then there's the Underpants Gnomes episode (with the Starbucks knockoff) you mention, which ends up giving us the message that big businesses are successful because of smart business practices and because they serve consumers better than little businesses, and it's thus okay when they trample little businesses that can't compete.
        • by Ath (643782) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @09:39AM (#10037343)
          Wow. You should be banned from watching South Park because you are too stupid. In your cited examples, the "lesson learned" is actually doing two things. First, it is making fun of the way sitcoms always have to spout off some lesson at the end of the show. Second, it is making fun of the whole concept that there is a right answer to most issues. The so-called right answer inevitably comes down to a person's own views, which bias how we each look at situations.

          The idea of trying to stick Trey and Matt into some political category is ridiculous. They make fun of everything and clearly show that they don't find anything beyond reproach. That's why many of us love their comedy, not because we think they agree with our particular political bias.

          The only problem is that morons like you come along and "see" that Matt and Trey are really making some moral statement that reinforces your own biases. I mean, if you can watch the Underpants Gnomes episode and read into it a pro big business message, you are using some concentrated crack. Who knows if Matt and Trey feel that way and who cares if they do, but they sure didn't stick the message into the episode to teach you that lesson.

          • "Who knows if Matt and Trey feel that way and who cares if they do, but they sure didn't stick the message into the episode to teach you that lesson."

            Then why do you care so much if he is interpreting those episodes that way ?

            As with all forms of 'art' : It's in the eye of the beholder.

      • Lawyers are a nuisance. [liberal]

        Why? Lawyer-bashing is pretty much a bi-partisan sport. Liberals tend to criticize corporate attorneys and prosecutors, while conservatives hate ACLU lawyers and anyone who uses an insanity defense.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:09AM (#10036574)
    And the White House has already called it abhorrent that someone's making fun of the War on Terror...

    No, really [haifa.ac.il] (this is just one reference; Google finds many more).


    • Yeah, I'd imagine those who are responsible on making sure no new terror attacks happen, are a bit touchy on the subject.

      I can hardly wait for the responses from cancer ward patients when the next movie makes fun of cancer. Those guys need to lighten up!
      • That's right because politicians never use tragedies like 911 in their personal political interests so they can tell others what's wrong and what's right to speak or make fun about.
        • What are you talking about?

          I'm explaining why someone might be pissed about the movie. Maybe you're responding to someone else's post?

          • by ArcticCelt (660351) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @05:17AM (#10036748)
            I was just pointing out that the ones who where the firsts to complain and who are right now "pissed off" are the politicians and that I think it's kind of hypocritical to say to the people how the subject of terrorism should be used in a movie when they are continuously using it in the interest of their personal campaigns.

            In my opinion humor is a valid medium to communicate social or political messages and opinions and I don't think it should be directly or indirectly censured. When we look back in history we can see that comedy as been continuously used in literature and on stage to denounce injustices or promote new ideas and event start revolutions.
      • Yeah, I'd imagine those who are responsible on making sure no new terror attacks happen, are a bit touchy on the subject.

        I'd be a bit more sympathetic if I thought the Bush administration actually gave a crap about anything other than getting re-elected and cutting taxes. I really do care about the War On Terror, which is why I'm not voting for Bush. (Of course, I'd feel better if Kerry showed some sign of caring too, but at least I don't think he'll go out of his way to start yet another war just for t
        • So, your response to the Bush administration not fighting terror vigorously enough...is to vote in an administration that won't do anything?
          • Actually, the gist of the idea was, were all other things equal, it'd be better not to elect a warmonger.

            But I suppose that's why you're modded as flamebait...
            • "Actually, the gist of the idea was, were all other things equal, it'd be better not to elect a warmonger."

              How do you get that from what 'thegnat' posted?
              • Probably from

                "(Of course, I'd feel better if Kerry showed some sign of caring too, but at least I don't think he'll go out of his way to start yet another war just for the hell of it.)"

                Main Entry: warmonger
                Pronunciation: 'wor-"m&[ng]-g&r, -"mä[ng]-
                Function: noun
                : one who urges or attempts to stir up war : JINGO
          • If you're going in the wrong direction, moving faster isn't going to help you get where you should be going.

            Bush is wasting literally hundreds of billions of dollars on actions that are not only not addressing why terrorists are attacking us but are making us more vunerable in the process.

            Kerry has shown little inclination of moving where we need to go, but at least he won't sink us that much further in debt while greasing the wheels toward further tragedy the way Bush/Cheny are.

            It wouldn't surprise me i
    • Their response (Score:2, Informative)

      by rd_syringe (793064)
      They were hardly called "liberal traitors." Nice hyperbole on your part. Nonetheless, they quickly responded that the Bush administration should actually wait and see the film--it criticizes the left more than the right. They are libertarians who despise both parties.
  • by ErikTheRed (162431) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:11AM (#10036580) Homepage
    From the rumors I've heard and interviews I've read, they hardly make fun of Bush at all... most of their sarcasm is directed towards Hollywood celebreties that have "opinions" (err... groupthink) relating to foriegn affairs...
    • Yeah.. and they're also the ones who had that show on comedy central "That's My Bush!", which made fun of sitcoms more than Bush, it actually portrayed Bush as someone intelligent.

      And it had the very hot Kristen Miller in it. ::drool::
      • by brett42 (79648) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @05:11AM (#10036742)
        Since pretty much every episode started with Bush being unaware of an important issue, then taking a stupid stance on it, I wouldn't really call the character intelligent. He did seem like a typical sitcom character, but on a national scale.

        <obvious cheap shot that I feel compelled to take(of course using lame psuedo-html to denote)>
        Of course, the character might have seemed pretty intelligent compared to the original.
        </obvious cheap shot that I feel compelled to take(of course using lame psuedo-html to denote)>
    • According to Terry and Matt, he's not even in it.
    • From the rumors I've heard and interviews I've read, they hardly make fun of Bush at all...

      Dude, look at the title of the film... The whole damned movie is aimed at making fun of that idiot's foreign policies...
  • by iamdrscience (541136) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (ppirtmleahcim)> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:12AM (#10036585) Homepage
    I cannot fathom what made the producers of Thunderbirds think that it would be a good idea to do it as a live action movie and not with puppets. Thunderbirds' whole fucking gimmick was the puppets. Without the puppets it would have just been another mediocre, wholly forgetable kids action cartoon.
  • by LqqkOut (767022) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:18AM (#10036610) Journal
    I hope there's a steamy nude scene with that hottie Lady Elaine... Whoah! Nevermind she's been supplanted by the nubile Queen Sara [pbskids.org]

    Free Related Link... No, uh, strings attached!!! [puppetuniverse.com]

  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Copperhead (187748) <[ten.ysaekaeps] [ta] [hcerblat]> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:19AM (#10036614) Homepage
    For a second, I thought I was at Ain't It Cool News [aint-it-cool-news.com]!

    How exactly is this news for nerds? Yeah, I'm looking forward to the movie, but I'm not looking for information about it on slashdot.

    • How exactly is this news for nerds?

      All nerds are teenage boys who live in their mom's basement.
      All teenage boys who live in their mom's basement love South Park.
      Ergo, news about a movie from the makers of South Park = news for nerds. QED
    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by da_fiend (778188)
      Nerds also often have interests outside computers. This nerd for one appreciated the link.

      No more open source/*nix news pls.
  • The best thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (ppirtmleahcim)> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:20AM (#10036615) Homepage
    The thing I like the most about Matt Stone and Trey Parker's shows/movies is the extraordinary balance they generally provide. They make fun of the ridiculousness of all political perspectives. They make fun of people on the left, people on the right, liberals, conservatives, etc.

    And that's really the way it should be, because both "sides" in politics are, for the most part, composed of reasonable people, the problem is the people to the extremes of both sides.
  • by thermopylae300 (583506) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:22AM (#10036621)
    Actually Parker called in to Matt Drudge's radio show to dispute that this film was just another attack on Bush. Drudge Report: Team America [drudgereport.com]

    Marionette puppets are used throughout the film to mock terror threats, and media figures who dominate the nation's airwaves. But Parker and Stone save most of the mocking for left-wing pundits and Michael Moore.

    "Bush is not even in the film," Parker said Sunday night from Los Angeles during the DRUDGE REPORT radio broadcast.

    "I would ask that people wait and see it, before passing a judgement."

    • It was from them calling in that I really want to see this. It sounds kind of like The Thunderbirds Go To the Middle East.

      What started all this "movie will be bashing Bush" crap was people who had an early shot of some guy in the movie and ASS-umed that it was supposed to be Bush.

  • by iamdrscience (541136) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (ppirtmleahcim)> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:22AM (#10036624) Homepage
    From stop-motion construction paper cut-outs to stupid looking puppets. How far we've come!
  • If you liked the original Thunderbirds and hate the live action remake but also love comedy sticking it to our current government then you are going to love Matt and Trey's new project.
    Umm, yeah, I'm not sure liking Thunderbirds is actually required to enjoy this movie.
  • Hah.. (Score:2, Informative)

    by bmantz65 (642864)
    Can you say, "Puppet Sex?" [thestar.com]
  • by iamdrscience (541136) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (ppirtmleahcim)> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @04:30AM (#10036650) Homepage
    Screw Thunderbirds, this would be even cooler if it were in the style of Thundercats.

    I mean, besides the obvious fact that Thundercats was a cooler show, cats kill birds, it's a fact of nature. Plus, you know, there's Cheetara.
  • How's your news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joe Tie. (567096) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @05:52AM (#10036813)
    I wish the blurb would have mentioned the recent dvd release of How's Your News [howsyournews.com], which Matt and Trey funded. The basic premise is that a group of people with various mental disabilities go on a tour of America and interview people along the way. They're not prompted at all, they and the people interviewed are the only ones you ever see. Which is one of the cool things about it, they're just out there being themselves and having fun. It's really facinating seeing their reactions and those of the people around them as the interviews progress, or they check into a hotel, or pick up a hitchiker. The movie's not easy to describe as much of it comes down to the tone rather than the premise. There's a link to an interview on This American Life on their site which gives a better picture than I'm able to.
  • by mrjb (547783) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @06:14AM (#10036855)
    Marionets are different from puppets. Marionets have wires, puppets are directly hand-controlled.

    Hybrids of those are possible of course, and they exist too -- Muppets. They got both someone pulling their strings AND someone's hand up their ehrm... back. What a way to make a living.
  • by dr_eaerth (149359) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @06:36AM (#10036909)
    Puppets, eh? I hope they do the right thing and hire the best puppeteer in the world, John Malkovich [imdb.com].
  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @06:53AM (#10036947)
    What about the rest of the world, you insensitive clod!
  • by Neo-Rio-101 (700494) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @08:11AM (#10037085)
    Lady Penelope.... now that's a bird I wouldn't mind thundering! Seriously though, I Matt and Trey are usually really good at finding good targets to aim at - evidenced by South Park ... so I'm looking forward to this.
  • How original! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rjamestaylor (117847) <rjamestaylor@gmail.com> on Sunday August 22, 2004 @09:05AM (#10037215) Homepage Journal
    • also love comedy sticking it to our current government
    How refreshing! It is so hard to find a comedic medium willing to "stick it" to "our current governement." What an artistic risk!


    (sarcasm, of course.)

    Truly, could anything be more formulaic than a punkish slam at out Government? I don't care what you think of "our government" -- there is no lack in this overrun category. In web terms, a plot line attacking GWB is like a website in 1998 having "Pamela Anderson" in the META tags. Lame.

  • by SpaceRook (630389) on Sunday August 22, 2004 @09:17AM (#10037266)
    I recommend Trey/Matt fans check out Cannibal! The Musical [imdb.com]. If you liked the musical numbers in South Park, you'll love this one. Some great squibs, also. Trey's horrible acting and 80's hair (even though the movie was made in the 90's) are hilarious. Don't let a slow start fool you. Listen to the drunken commentary track, too.

Old programmers never die, they just become managers.

Working...