South Park Creators Have A New Film 446
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."
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The best thing (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Memo to all movie websites (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:You say... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you answered your own question. One of the main things the American third parties accomplish at this point is to provide a viewpoint apart from the kneejerk opposite reaction that will be found in the other second party. Much of the party platform of both Republicans and Democrats is formed because it's the opposite of what the other party wants, not on the merit of whatever it actually means. Opinions coming from outside both sides at least have a slightly better chance of getting into consideration than the same idea might have if proposed by whatever party the person in question is in opposition to.
Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it? Who cares? There are plenty of idiots to fill their places. Certainly more than 3 years ago.
one major terrorist state has been liberated
Mission accomplished, eh? Not exactly the impression you get watching the news.
and either Syria or Iran will also fall if Bush gets the second term
They will "fall"? What's entailed by that? Nation-wide anarchy? Terrorism? Tens of thousands killed by weaponry, hundreds of thousands starved to death? Proliferation of arms that were previously in the hands of the respective government? Sounds great.
Re:worrisome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm proud of the fact that (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:5, Insightful)
Max
Re:You say... (Score:5, Insightful)
So instead we're supposed to engage in groupthink, join the Borg, and "be one" with one of the two major parties - despite the fact that we disagree with both of them on a number of fundamental issues?
Nice attitude, that.
Max
Some counter examples (Score:3, Insightful)
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 highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.
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?"
Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?
Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?
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.
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?
Yeah, its pretty PC lefty out there! You many know some liberals in the industry, but it doesnt make a difference if their bosses (who dictate policy and bias and call the shots) are conservatives like Rupert Murdoch, Rev Moon, etc.
libertarians? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Just saw the preview (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, if you know that Trey left Littleton to go to CU Boulder, where he met Matt, well, that is night and day. Believe me, Trey has seen it all and lived it all: Hellmouth, Columbine, Boulder (Berkeley-esque), Hollywood, Orange County... don't even try to pin him down... he could talk the talk of any old side he felt like. He is an excellent satirist because he has seen almost every face of absurdity that exists in America.
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a break, For every Michael Moore there's a thousand flag-waving "My Country Right or Wrong" types making stuff like Pearl Harbor, We Were Soldiers, etc ad nauseaum.
Re:Stick it to the current government? (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude, look at the title of the film... The whole damned movie is aimed at making fun of that idiot's foreign policies...
Re:The worst thing, in my view... (Score:4, Insightful)
How original! (Score:3, Insightful)
(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.
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Some counter examples (Score:2, Insightful)
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 kicked when he's down with issues that they can't verify. And see above and relate the truthfullness of previous shows and how public might react to kicking around an old man who's brain is gone.
>Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?
They were heard all the time, they just didn't make any convincing arguments. There wasn't a day that went by that I didn't see "protestors" in a newspaper, etc. 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. If the best statement a person could give was to call a person another name (and extreme at that) with no facts you WILL get ignored.
>Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.
Because of the extreme failing by the Democratic parties group. That's like saying almost the whole US shifted to Dem after Nixon since a conservative didn't get voted in
>Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?
And? Are you saying that dissenting opinion isn't on TV? I see desent all the time; maybe you ought to look at TV more as a device for those owners to make more money then as a public service. Every single one of them is there to make money, maybe in reality the public will spend more money on advertisers when they are told America is a piece of shit or maybe the public wants to just sit back and be entertained without a whole lot of cerebral work going on. So hop back to reality, TV is about money not about anything else.
>Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?
Again, and? Disney told Moore a year before he announced anything that they weren't going to be distributing it. There's no possible way that movie was not going to get picked up, it was all a very well crafted publicity stunt.
>Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.
So you are saying that to be liberal you've got to be anti-american? That america should have actually lost those wars?
>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?"
Comeon now that's about as stubid as you can get, what you are asking is akin to going to Ford company telling them you are making a film on how dangerous their fuel tanks were and asking for them to give you a couple of vehicles. Seriously what are you expecting there?
>Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?
I'd say that actually was more of a traditional left "PC" tactic than anything else
Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?
>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.
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.
>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?
Maybe because shows on TV really isn't there for the "good of the public" but to get a nice big check.
Re:Some counter examples (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
You proved his point (Score:2, Insightful)
You just proved his point. There were plenty of people with strong arguments against the war. The mainstream media only showed you folks that would be written off as nut-jobs. It's a variation on the straw-man argument. The media showed you that the opposition was a bunch of loons who only know how to yell and wave signs; but it ignored the reasons why these people were protesting just as it ignored the more intellectual opposition to the war.
People who complain about the liberal media don't know what liberal means. The media in this country is far to the right of the media in most nations.
Re:worrisome (Score:3, Insightful)
Poor Georgie, he might find out that people don't like him!
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of fiscally conservative socially liberal democrats too. Did you miss the whole Howard Dean thing?
Re:Some counter examples (Score:2, Insightful)
The world's most oil-thirsty nation invades the nation with the world's second largest oil reserves.
You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to be suspicious about that.
It's a whole different matter to say the war was only started for oil though.
Re:Some counter examples (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:This isn't new... or funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some counter examples (Score:2, Insightful)
Throw away your vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
A vote is only thrown away when you don't vote.
Vote against your principles only if you think voting for your principles would result in some catastrophic intrusion in your life, but I don't think Bush vs Gore was such an event, nor do I think Bush vs Kerry is also such an event.
Re:Some counter examples (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe if you're posting "Frequency"-style from 6 or 7 decades ago. If you vote Republican in 2004, you aren't a "pragmatic libertarian" any more than someone who votes for the Socialist Worker's Party is a "left libertarian". Neither party is "pro" individual rights as far as voting records go. If you use political rhetoric as the basis for voting, you are quite gullible. There are roughly equal numbers of liberty-minded individuals in both parties, and in both parties they constitute a minority. If you think you're being practical and that your vote will *eventually* move the USA in the direction away from statism, you're rationalizing and self-deluding. And if you're willing to ignore this Republican administration's assault on the Constitution to promote them as the "libertarian" choice, you're unethical.
To paraphrase Badnarik: If you're unjustly imprisoned and have a 48% chance of getting lethal injection, 50% chance of electric chair and 2% chance of escaping, which is the "pragmatic" choice?
Re:fuck this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:1, Insightful)
I find it hard to understand how a libertarian could support Bush or his administration in any way. It's more of a 'nanny-state' than Clinton's government was in many ways.
I mean, if you really care about economic issues, look again at the Democrats: balanced budgets, smaller government growth than any other administration in recent memory, better economy, more jobs... and compare that to the last several Republican administrations, with the huge and balooning budget deficits, loss of jobs, crappy economies, etc.
Why again do you associate economic issues with Republicans?? The historical data just doesn't back that view up.
The current administration isn't really Republican, it's neocon. And it's the worst possible mix of everything else, imho. No sensible libertarian should be backing the Bush administration in any way.
Re:Just saw the preview (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
What a crock of shit--but it got modded up anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
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