Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

How South Park Beat an NC-17 132

Posted by CmdrTaco from the beefcake! dept.
IMDB (I love this site) has an article on how the South Park movie escaped an NC-17 rating. Comments on editing, and featuring the most amusing quote " As with the comparatively harmless Big Daddy (1999), the comic premise of South Park is based on the hilarity ensuing from the corruption of children." This and Austin Powers were the 2 comedies I was looking forward to this summer.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How South Park Beat an NC-17 More

How South Park Beat an NC-17

Comments Filter:
  • Here it comes. Duck!

    Now that I am older and wiser, I would find this repulsive South Park "movie" to be totally without social and meaningful content. Of course, I haven't seen this movie nor would I stoop so low to actually see something that I would criticize. I'm told that this movie is harmful to children, is the leading cause of AIDS in this country, and has deep homosexual undertones (just like that Jar Jar character). Cartoons should be like Fantasia with dancing elephants wearing pink tutus (I hope they weren't gay).

    This is extremely similar to when that horrible Ed Sullivan Show had the broadcast where Elvis Presley gyrated his hips. Well actualy pictures below his waist were not shown, but teenage girls knew what was happening. And don't get me started on the negative influence of the Beatles, Alice Cooper, Kiss, or John Tesh.

    Okay you can look up now.

    There is going to be a lot of "feedback" with regard to this movie. I suppose that this will lead to lead to the next "Columbine" in that Americans will swarm across the border to kill or neuter (not that need to be neutered) those awful Canadians:-). This is a knee-jerk time in the US and I fear the worst but hope for calmer heads to prevail. Unfortunately, politicians love sound bites, and a few will take advantage of this opportunity. Hey Liddy, wanna see a movie with me and leave Mr Viagra at home with his bigger, longer, and uncut?

    Geez, I also hope they that they don't burn an American flag in that movie. Hopefully they will abide by the Ten Commandments, like thou shall not kill. Oh no, They killed Kenny!

    Bonus Question: Name the only X/NC-17 movie that was chosen as best picture by the Academy Awards. Hint: Think thirty years ago.
  • I agree completly on SP not just being for kids, I had an english teacher once who absolutly loved the show, I can remember many an afternoon we wasted watching SP tapes when she ran out of things to teach. I haven't watched it in ages, but from what I remember a lot of the jokes would go right over the 11-14 year old's heads, heck I remember some that went over my head. but what the kiddies really miss is the satire. I personaly believe that childeren under the age of 15 or 16 shouldn't watch SP at all, I don't think any of them really understand the satire, they just see toilet humor.
    -Ted
  • A Clockwork Orange? Well, almost thirty years ago.

  • >Bonus Question: Name the only X/NC-17 movie that
    >was chosen as best picture by the Academy Awards. Hint: Think thirty years ago.

    Midnight Cowboy?
  • Urban Cowboy.. or Midnight Cowboy.. I always get those two confused...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • "Bigger, Longer and Uncut" is in reference to a penis.
  • With the R rating, the largest market of south park viewers (those 11-14) is shot. I wonder how the movie will do at the box office.

    Austin powers was funny, i want/need my own mini me.
  • heh, were you struggling for something to say to make first post too?

  • I think it's going to be a riot. I don't see how it could be worse than Austin Powers. Good greif, the trailer for AP has oral sex jokes in it. But lets face it, the rating system is a joke. Most movie theaters don't check the ages of the individuals going in.

  • I'm not so sure that SP is only for kiddies... I think it's one of those comedies that works on two levels - a base one for kids and a higher level for adults.

    I consider myself an adult :) yet I find SP bloody funny...

    Cheers
    Alastair
  • Way to labor up a pun, captain wetblanketron.
  • I'm not so sure that SP is only for kiddies... I think it's one of those comedies that works on two levels - a base one for kids and a higher level for adults.
    *snort*
    No, i think it works on a base level for the adults as well.

  • Hold on a minute... (Score:3)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @04:23PM (#1825957)
    They were going to give this thing an NC-17 solely on the basis of swear words? When's the last time anyone did that? (Come to think of it, I don't think it's ever been done).

    Then again, count in the inevitable Kenny death and Chef's singing and I suppose you might have enough that's strong enough to get it an R, but I think there was something else going on here. I'd imagine the ratings board was afraid of our friends the zealots screaming at them (considering that they were talking about the "corruption of children" that seems likely; I've never seen anyone but the zealots use that term). They already hate the series, so of course they'd go after the movie (both of these being thanks to their own rather blind assertion that animation isn't a medium but a genre).

    Oh, yes, I'll be seeing this one. In fact, I can show this article to more than a few of my friends and it'll probably convince them to see it even though they hate the series (just to keep the zealots from having their way).
  • Or, if there was a sequel they could say:

    "From the people that gave you Head."
  • >Now finally with South Park the danger is clear. >South Park is animated characters saying swear >words *out of context* it would certainly be rated >only R it is so offensive only because of the >ideas it presents.


    Oh, come now. Next you'll be telling me that a country could ban an operating system because of language contained in...er, never mind [salonmagazine.com] :-)

    JL Culp
    Chairman, LPSC
  • Very good! But do you know why it was rated X at that time? (Now down rated to R).

    Interesting enough, John Voigt was the lead role with Dustin Hoffman as the supporting actor. Hmmm, John Voigt was recently in the NBC movie "Noah's Ark." A pornographer actor playing Noah?
  • yeah, or they could call it "Head II: twice the Head"
    or, "2 Heads are better than one"
    (or something dorky like that......)
  • The funny thing about the MPAA, is that it's by far the most influential censorship organ around, and nobody pays any attention to it.

    As you and I know, the MPAA ratings are totally capricious, and are heavily influenced by the Big Studios. ("Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer" is an X (it was released as "unrated"), while "Silence of the Lambs" is an R?) Any coherent person would look at the MPAA and say "OK, and the raters are on what drugs?"

    The problem with the MPAA is that their ratings get turned into laws. What most people don't know is that most communities have zoning laws against various theaters showing "unrated" or X/NC-17 movies. And now, with the push to legalize (ie codify) the "under-17 not admited without an adult" of the R, they're actively engaging in censorship.

    I think the MPAA should just go away. Period. I'd love it if there was some way for a PICS-like system to work for movies, but I doubt this will happen. Perhaps something like a 4-number rating system that others have suggested (a Sex/Language/Violent/Adult Content thing). In the end, though, I hate zoning laws, and I absolutely refuse to accept any codification of a ratings system.

    Thing is, this is so much more pervasive and allows no discretion on a community basis. At least with indecent/obscenity laws, there is the "community standards" basis. With the MPAA and the coming trend, some bunch of people that you don't know, can't talk to, and have no idea what you're interested may be dictating your viewing simply by applying a label to some movie.

    This is simply about as un-American as it gets.

  • I just saw the movie and the bottom line is: if you like the show at all go see the movie. I was really afraid it was going to be the a lame longer rehash of the show - but it really is "bigger, longer and uncut" as advertised. If you imagine the tv show as lite beer the movie is vodka served through a fire hose.

    The scenes that make this movie worth it on their own:
    -The Bill Gates scene
    -Satan and Sadam in bed
    -Coach's advice
    -The Jar-Jar Binks moment
    and so on...

    It is basically a musical but don't let that throw you - I had musicals but I loved it. Let's face it - Saddam Hussein singing to profess his love for Satan is not exactly Andrew Lloyd Weber. (Although the lyric "Giving hand-jobs for crack" in the chorus may have come from _Cats_...)

    Anyway - I'd say see it. If you liked South Park at all on TV it'll rock your world. I'll probably see it again because I missed about a 1/3 of it because of the laughter.

    Enjoy -

    =tkk

    "Where is your God now? He is the biggest bitch of them all...."
  • I like them. I don't have to worry about my little brother seeing people having sex, or picking up cuss words. I do think it's rating system is flawed sometimes, but I'd rather have a rating system than no rating system.
  • If teenagers can be restricted from seeing a movie on the basis of the words spoken there, why are they not restricted from going to junior high school? As I recall, the continuous stream of profanities and imagery to which I was subjected caused me to learn a lot more during my formative years about atypical sexual behavior than reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic.

    I did not have any money when I was in junior high so I did not see very many movies. My eye-opening experiences occured between classes. Kids who had discovered something potent would shout in the halls and talk about other kids they thought were homosexual, bisexual, or radical in some other way. I did not want to hear it but the phrases slipped into my head. While watching a movie with profanity can be detrimental, I'd have to imagine that three straight years of near-subliminal suggestions are much more harmful.

    Thankfully I made it through without being affected by it all, but I know that not everyone in my graduating class was as fortunate. Shouldn't parents be trying to do something about junior high profanity rather than bickering over movie ratings?

    That's just a thought that's consistent with my personal experience. Feel free to tear it apart. ;-)
  • ...and not Debra Winger (An Officer and a Gentleman).

    Yeah, I know, it's late, and I'm tired too. Good night.
  • I'm not fat, I'm festively plump :)

    I don't consider myself an adult. Everyone else around me does.

    No longer trustable... I'm 30.
  • That's the point with the MPAA now. What is an "R", or a "PG-13"? There are no published guidelines about what they mean. Sure, you can be reasonably certain that a G movie won't have full frontal nudity, but that's about it.

    I've seen PG movies which had enough gore in them to make Scream look mild (though it was "animated" or "fantasy" violence), and on the other hand, the original Pyscho is rated R despite being free of anything I could deem offensive (though it is certainly scary).

    Point is, you can't depend on the MPAA for anything other than a massively sweeping generalization, which I can get from looking at a 30-second preview. It serves no useful purpose. How am I supposed to be able to tell if my 14-year old cousin should see the latest super-action PG-13 flick? Certainly not though the MPAA.

    I'd rather there NOT be any rating; that way, parents would actually have to pay attention to what reviewers and writeups of the movie said, and be able to make some sort of an informed opinion. Trusting the MPAA to do your judging for you is being a bad parent.

  • Just curious ----- how many people when compiling one of last few versions of Eterm noticed during the config script when it output the following;

    Checking kenny for signs of life...........
    none

    You killed kenny
    You bastard!!!


    I laughed my ass off.
  • Possible Spoliers??

    OOOOH NO! You ruined it! How could I go see it now that you've ruined the suspense that is an integral part of South Park.

  • ...there is no way in hell I'd let any child of mine anywhere near that movie.

    The Soundtrack is foul and funny as shit. They are pushing it to the edge.

    Remember movies get ratings based on conent and context. The corruption, excuse me, the complete and total corruption of little White Kids is not something censors have any sense of humor about in 'Merka.

    Remember the movie Kids, a movie that should be *required viewing* by teenagers (IMHO)? They cut the movie to hell and gone and still could not get an R-rating?

    Or how about the horrible Spawn movie? They wanted to, and damned near did, give it a R rating simply because it was about a guy who went to hell and came back...just to keep the kids away from it since it was based on a comic book.

    BTW, South Park ROOOLS...when it isn't in perpetual repeats...

    -K
  • You'll see.

    It's a great movie for aduls, but 13years/younger really have no business in the theatre.

    I think limits should be placed on *kids* not adults.

    My two boys won't be seeint it hat is for damned sure.

    I'll be at the matinee =)

    -K

  • Damn, sounds like me growing up. The people I hung around back then were my dad's friends (bunch of oil workers/ex-sailors), and I picked up on a bunch of stuff that they still won't put in movies from that lot of dirty ol' men. To this day I have yet to hear profanity in a movie that beats them out. So I laugh at any sort of censorship or rating based on language. Real world is a lot harsher than movies.
  • Only thing I can think of is Heavy Metal...damn that's a fun movie to watch drunk
  • >Okay, now name the first major American release cartoon movie that got a X rating?

    Heavy Metal in 1981??
  • Yes...but the computer animation is made to look like it's being animated with construction paper. The original "Spirit of Christmas" short film was animated with construction paper, so they had to maintain this distinctive visual style for the series.

    Side benefit: it probably made it really easy to convert portions of the episodes into Shockwave files and post them on ShockRave...

    Eric
    --

  • With a budget of only $20 Million (relatively low these days for a hollywood flick), I think SP is gonna totally make some mad cash.
  • huh
    after doing a little searching...

    Fritz the Cat (1972)
  • I'm afraid that "we're doing it for the children" has become a catch-all reason for trying to take away rights.

    Wake up and smell the excrement, friend. Its ALWAYS merely been an excuse to take away our rights. Rather, its been a way to frame an issue in a way that your opponents cannot disagree with and still manage to keep a following.

    Do you really think "DARE" was/is to prevent kids from using drugs? Even though it doesn't work? No. The point of DARE was to make all the baby boomers out there consider drugs to be such a threat to their children, that even the government is stepping in!

    Columbine is another good example. The republicans have used the premade "protect the children" issue to further their anti-rights agenda, namely freedom of speech (potentially offensive speech and media regulation) and freedom of/from religion (ten commandments in the schools, prayer, etc.), while the democrats have used it to further their anti-rights agenda, namely gun control.

    The reason it works is because if its properly done, anyone who opposes the measures ends up looking like they oppose the well-being and saftey of children.

    Perhaps sooner or later the public will catch on to this, but I really don't have much confidence in the masses.

    Ben Franklin's quote really does apply here, its too bad more people don't heed it. To paraphrase that quote, anyone who would forfeit liberty for saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey.

    I get highly skeptical whenever anyone starts talking about the neccesity of forfeiting a right to "protect children". You would do well to do so, too.
  • I know Matt and Trey are pretty proud of the TV-MA rating that South Park garners on TV, but I can understand why an NC-17 rating would be... less than acceptable. A lot of theaters won't show NC-17 movies, I think, and Blockbuster (obviously the foremost video rental chain in the US) refuses to rent NC-17 rated movies. It would've severely limited the movie's exposure. I would've done my best to see it regardless, tho. (I'm going to see it tonight. I may end up in the hospital - they might hafta sew my ass back on after I laugh it off!)
  • Posted by Windigo The Feral (NYAR!):

    Limp said:

    Just curious ----- how many people when compiling one of last few versions of Eterm noticed during the config script when it output the following; Checking kenny for signs of life........... none You killed kenny You bastard!!!

    Yup, I've seen it, and I likewise had a good chuckle from it. (Then again, I tend to be a fan of "joke tags" in general--like the infamous "configure --with-coffee" tag in Tin configuration. ;)

    What's interesting...I actually happen to know the fellow who put the Dead Kenny in Eterm (the main developer of Eterm happens to be on a local LUG list I'm on). Apparently (unfortunately) he's gotten some flack from folks who apparently think compiles should be serious :P and one thing he is considering is...putting a --with-dead-kenny tag in future versions of Eterm. ;)

    If memory serves, he recently got hired on at VA Research, so any in-house mods for VA Research might have future "dead Kenny" easter-eggs. ;)

    Speaking of easter-eggs and dead Kennys in general...I've heard it rumoured that there is in fact a "dead Kenny" easter-egg in some of the later versions of the Linux kernel itself. I also have to wonder if a canonical list of easter-eggs and "funny compile options" has ever been done for Linux or other Unix-ish OS's (If not, I'm always willing to start one :)...

  • I didn't catch it until Parker and Stone said it out loud on Jay Leno. Nobody I told it to had caught it before, so I thought I'd share. Oh well. (shrug)
  • Americans never cease to amaze me. Why are sexual references corrupting, and why is it okay to kill Kenny ? (Actually I don't know Kenny so I don't have an opinion on whether it's okay to kill him ;-) )

    In this discussion about this rating thingie there seem to be two themes that, according to the peeps here, (don't) justify this rating.

    Sex:
    It seems that victorian values are still in place. Sex is bad, especially when someone speaks about it or even covertly refers to it. Kids should be kept completely ignorant about the existance of anything remotely connected to sex. Why bother them with knowledge that could prevent teenage pregnancies and perhaps even sexual abuse. We wouldn't want to give the kids any ideas now would we ?

    Violence:
    On the other hand it's apparently okay to show kids people being killed, mutilated or violated. Kids can judge what's real and what's not. Kids know satire when they see it. Kids know they shouldn't kill any reallife Kennies.

    I don't want to say what's the best way to teach children values, or whether it's good to expose them to violence or sex.
    I just want to point out that there is a weird difference in the way these two issues are judged by a lot of people, even very intelligent ones.

    Sidenote:
    A poll might be interesting: Would you rather have your kids:
    - having safe sex ?
    - beating people up ?

    Message on our company Intranet:
    "You have a sticker in your private area"
  • I saw an interview where Matt and Trey were talking about how they had made some really nasty songs up just to parody Disney movies. You know those disney movies that break into some inane song at random times? Well, SP does it too but with a more, how shall we say, "lower" level.

    I can't wait to see it :)
  • Apparently, it is ok for women to be fully nude in movies but show one inch of a man and BAM! X. Unless there is a nature theme or Jungle element...

    While I don't mind that Women are nude in movies, I think they should treat nudity the same with both genders.
  • I liked Drugstore Cowboy much better...
    The William S. Burroughs cameo was great
  • That's:

    "We train our young men to drop fire on people. But we won't let them write the word 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene."
    --- Kurtz, _Apocalypse Now_
  • South Park is real bi in college. In fact I've never seen/heard anyone under 17 mention it.
  • I'm pretty sure I saw a copy of Orgazmo at my local Blockbuster.... and the director's cut of films like Basic Instinct, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, etc.

  • I remember when License to Kill came out it was rated R. A few years later when it came out on tape it was PG-13. Just think in a few more years Sout Park could have that low a rating.
  • I know one major reason no major production houses will release NC-17 rated movies is because Blockbuster Video has specifically refused to carry NC-17 rated movies in any of their stores.
  • I do not believe that tv/cinema influence children really, Oh, of course not. Television has no infuence on people's actions whatsoever. And the billions of dollars spent on advertising during the superbowl/world series/othermega$porting event are entirely wasted.
  • Screw you guys, I'm a-goin' home.
  • The link given in the main article only worked on the day the article was published; its permanent location is here [imdb.com].
  • I think most of these theater chains are counting on making up the lost teen audience by forcing kids to drag their parents along (even parents can't buy tickets for their kids, they have to physically accompany them into the theater). At $8.25 a ticket, they just might be able to.

    Actually, at least around here, theaters make no money from ticket sales, only popcorn and stuff. Now you know why that stuff is so expensive.

  • I don't think that just because it's a cartoon, that SP is supposed to be geared towards kids. I'm guessing that a large percentage of SP viewers are probably high school/college age individuals. Although I'm well past that demographic, I think it's hilarious. Personality-wise I'm more like Cartman than I'd like to admit. Being fat doesn't help either.

  • I certainly hope South Park is better than Austin Powers 2. That movie sucked... I mean, even austin's characters acknowledged the jokes were lame...

  • I'm afraid that "we're doing it for the children" has become a catch-all reason for trying to take away rights. It should be the other way around: strengthing individual liberties/rights so that our children will be able to exercise the same rights. I hate it when people try to use emotional reasons instead of facts and/or logic to try to get a law passed or anything else done in the public sector. Given that they will allow the words that normally get bleeped out in the series, I don't see how an NC-17 would be justified.

    Maybe it was Striesand(sp) trying to get back for the episode where she tried to take over the world =)

  • Actually, there is one movie that has recieved an NC-17 for language. Martin Lawrence's You So Crazy [imdb.com] (1994) got it. It's just him doing a stand up routine.
  • I saw the creators of South Park on the Late Show
    They said they actually made the movie more
    obscene as a joke after they got the nc-17 rating
    The committee told them they liked the changes
    but that more were necassery. so they made the
    movie more obscene and changed the title from
    South Park all hell breaks loose to
    South Park bigger longer, and uncut "penis?"
  • "Personality-wise I'm more like Cartman than I'd like to admit. Being fat doesn't help either."

    Beefcake!!

    I'm not fat, I'm big-boned. :)
  • no kidding.......
  • Damn I gotta start reading these things like 2,000 times, someone always manages to exploit my text. What I MEANT, is that if someone sees an act of voilence on tv, that I do not believe it will influence them to go out and kill someone. Not that if they see a candy bar commercial they may want one.
  • I think people need to take another look at this whole thing... I don't know about you all, but i knew all the offensive four letter words there were to know by the time i was 8 years old. So did all my friends... When there are no adults around, most little boys have a good sailor's mouth.
    The thing that is funny to me is the social comentary, and the nothing is sacred type of satire... I personally think that anybody who can't laugh at themselves should be shot, or at least castrated/spayed.
    I think the cursing and such all is just an excuse for all the uptight brainwashed homorless masses trying hard to maintain their false dignity and their stiff uppper lip to try to keep a lid on something that makes fun of them (and everybody else).

    P.S. I don't even have a TV but i will probably go and see the movie...
  • Why is it that we're so hung up on not giving films an NC-17 rating? It just keeps the damned kids out and lets mature adults laugh at the hilarity without the brats sitting behind us being stupid. Unfortunately it's also the kiss of death since you'll never get it into one of the
    megaplexes.

    NC-17 being the "taboo rating" is extremely ironic, seeing as how it was devised solely to give an "acceptable" rating for movies for mature audiences without using an "X" rating, which by then had become synonymous with pornography and considered "taboo".

    But now NC-17 is considered taboo as well, because it deals with "mature content". Sure, it's not hardcore porn, but we Americans really don't care to make such classifications. Mature content means not for kids and since kids must be protected, this mature content sure must be bad, sick and wrong. When was the last time you saw an NC-17 film in regular distribution on major theater chains?

    I get rather upset when I realize that not only do we Americans like to pander to the lowest common denominator, but also to the youngest common denominator as well.
  • hear hear... we americans seem to have the delusion ingrained into us that cartoons are merely for kids... that seems to be why anime fails so badly on our side of the pond... many people wont even give it a look because they think cartoons are only for kids.
  • Duh, you answered your own question. If you can't get your movie into a chain theater, you can't make money, end of story.

    Why do people release movies (note: release, not make :)? They do it to make money, and you can't make money with an NC-17.

    And if I believe my child is mature enough to handle the content inside a movie, then why shouldn't I be allowed to make that decision?
  • actually... a lot of things (including certain rights) are excluded until age 18. I do believe this is why it is illegal to sell porno to 12 year olds. you are a second-class citizen as a child (basically... you aren't a citizen, but property of your parents... to an extent). Kids, under current law, don't have a "right" to knowledge. I'm not saying this is a good thing at all. don't get me wrong. kids should be educated, but we need to change some ideals first.
  • Two crazy local DJs, RacistGomer and DickJoke, will be interviewing...

    Don't get me started. Criminy! Did you CnP from the press release? "Two crazy local..." Morning radio "shows" are the biggest waste of electricity since they stopped showing "Leave it to Beaver". "Morning DJ's" are the biggest losers... AIGH! Too frustrated to make a coherent sentence! It sucks! Make them stop! Lame!

  • catchy tunes?

    Well, I guess "Uncle Fucker" was pretty good....
  • Funny you should mention that. Kyle's mom in the movie says something just like that.
  • enlightenment really checks to see if you have
    a library called libFridge and if the function
    mass_quantities_of_any_ale (or something simmilar)
    is in the library. You can make a check for it
    yourself just compile a library full of stubs.

    then it won't complain
  • I disagree -- I think the perfect market for it is 18.5 - 19 years of age. These people can get tickets AND enjoy the movie in all its goodness.
  • It may have something to do with the alleged giant talking clitoris. (Just something I read in the latest issue of TIME)
    JeC
  • obviously someone missed the circumcision episode
  • Sure they can get in, but speaking from experience (I turned 17 this year), often times the only option is to buy tickets to other movies. Tarzan tickets will skyrocket, but the Tarzan theatre will be empty :)

    Erik
  • Well, the previews DO have scenes of military action. Probably those Canadians fighting Saddam or something.

  • SP Review (WARNING! POSSIBLE SPOILERS!) (Score:4)

    by Narbo ( 11006 ) on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @05:23PM (#1826053)
    I saw a screening of the movie last night.

    For those of you who are curious it varies from
    completely hilarious to completely awful. And yes
    the NC-17 rating is completely deserved, if not for the continous stream of bad language (more then a Dennis Leary/Andrew Dice Clay combo special) then for many, many downright nasty allusions/jokes (most of the sexual).

    Now onto the movie itself.
    Its actually a musical.
    The plot more or less runs like: Kids go see new Terrance and Philip movie (its a foreign film from Canada doncha know?) which contains profuse amouts of bad language (one whole musical number is compesed almost entirely of swearing :O) from which they develop potty mouth. The rest of the movie involves the parents of sp lead by Kyles mom
    attempting to cure/rescue thier children from this
    awful affliction.

    The movie is at its best during the musical numbers which are grand in the finest broadway/classical tradition. (Cartmans solo song about Kyles mother is particularly memorable)

    The jokes are extremely crude and crass, (and I mean REALLY crude and crass) anyone who has not
    seen an episode of southpark in thier lives might be offended to the point where they might walk out if they have strong religious/moral views. Parents be warned, be sure to explain to your kids the difference between satire (the movie) and blind repetition lest you risk your kids coming down with the same problems the sp kids have. (trust me the tunes are pretty catchy, and not a one is something you want to be singing out loud in public :)) As I said the movie swings alot between really great and really awful, most of the awful bits are stupid tasteless dialog (dont get me wrong I like stupid tasteless dialog, but it gets a bit tried after the first 15 minutes) parts.

    Anyhow, overall impression was that it was a decently entertaining movie. Bad dialog, great musical numbers, average (crude) jokes and one truly great scene involving Bill Gates. :)

    I can imagine there wont be much of a middle ground for reviews on this movie, you will either like it, or absolutely detest it.
    Having said that I suggest you go see the movie and find out which category you are in!
  • Actually, around here (suburban Massachusetts) the Hoyts theater chain has become extremely strict about their R policy. I couldn't take my 16 1/2 year old sister to see "Go" (I'm 20). They simply refused to sell me the ticket. God help me if I tried to let her see "The Matrix." The unfortunate thing is, these Hoyts megaplexes are about all that's around, so there's little alternative.

    I think most of these theater chains are counting on making up the lost teen audience by forcing kids to drag their parents along (even parents can't buy tickets for their kids, they have to physically accompany them into the theater). At $8.25 a ticket, they just might be able to.

    This whole situation has me very upset. I would have missed seeing a lot of excellent films (and maybe a few just fun ones :) ) if this policy had been enforced when I was a teen. Somehow I didn't turn into a crazed monster... it must be the fact that I have responsible parents who trust me not to be warped by movies.

  • Finally Proof (Score:3)

    by PG13 ( 3024 ) on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @05:26PM (#1826055)
    It seems most people accept movie ratings (especially the NC-17 rating systems) as acceptable because they merely protect children from swears and nudity and not political speech or ideas. I mean if we tried to prohibit even children from hearing the republican platform because it referenced abortion the civil rights activists would be up in arms.

    Now finally with South Park the danger is clear. South Park is animated characters saying swear words *out of context* it would certainly be rated only R it is so offensive only because of the ideas it presents.

    If south park didn't offend tradiational religious views or racial issues there would have been no question it would recieve an R. This means it was threatened with an NC-17 rating BECAUSE OF THE IDEAS IT PRESENTED.
  • When they have children they act like they're cabbage patch kids. When the children start needing guidance they ignore them and have more babies.

    Pretty soon we'll be overpopulated like China and as a direct result a fully totalitarian state.

    We can thank the publishers of See Dick and Jane for this.

    When it's obvious that children are in fact capable of learning multiple languages and having a great time doing it they get See Dick and Jane.

    What is this? Some conspiracy to dumb down prallel processors like our world's kids so that serial processors like parents can pretend to understand them?

    Here's a challenge:

    See Dick. See Jane. See Jane chase after Dick.
    I'm willing to bet you couldn't explain those three sentences to kids in the context I meant them without failing in one or more of the following ways:

    Guaranteed you'd leave them confused. No chance in Hell they'd grow up without a sexual complex.

    Could never do it with a straight face and openly.

    And you'd probably wait till they beat you to it (God bless them, they might just turn out normal without contracting a disease)

    You know, it's expected in some cases. Not everyone knows enough history to know whom to listen to. Not everyone can dismiss religion without flinching and at the same time embrace spirituality. (if that confuses you I'm sad really) I know of one exception. My local pastor knows the whole media = murder school theory is bullshit.

    seriously go get a dog the next time your parental nerve itches.
  • It's what drives the 13 minute hate.
  • Take some mescaline a touch of acid and watch that a couple of times. A full education into everything about humanity and the universe and of course:

    SEX, FOOD, LOVE, and MURDER! :)

    Director Peter Greenaway rules!
  • I was carded TWICE while going to see this movie.. once at the ticket counter and once when they took my ticket. They then had someone standing at the doors to the room checking tickets. I'm 28 years old for christ's sake.. I nearly left twice (imagine that), but of course I'm a weak spineless slave to the movies (where else would I find out how to think?).

    Seriously though, the movie still could have gotten an NC-17 and I wouldn't have been surprised (once I saw the movie, that is). I just resent the fact someone thinks I look like I'm 16 or they are just doing a blanket "card everyone" policy to protect their little asses from crazy parents and religious zealots.
  • Is anyone else getting sick of all these morons who are taking SouthPark at face value and calling it "crude, sick and corrupting?" When you look at a movie like this, you can't just listen to the dialogue -you have to interpret it, and disover what it really means for yourself. As i watched this movie, although I found most of the jokes hilarious, I also think I understood the deeper meaning of them. Nearly *all* the jokes are a commentary on the things wrong with american society. Think about it -from the jokes making fun of the MPAA to parents laying blame on a single TV show for thier problems (sound familier?)- these jokes make some valid points. As for those of you criticizing the movie/show without actually watching it, you are the corrupt ones. Please learn to think for yourselves.

    --

  • Bah (Score:1)

    by UnkyHerb ( 12862 )
    Personally, I can't stand that freaking show. Yea, a bunch of kids swearing racial slurs in an annoying voice which kids love to mimick. Funny at first, after a while the show got very repetative and annoying (mad magazine had a nice parody of the theme song and such). And even though I do not believe that tv/cinema influence children really, this show/movie probably will. Yea don't ya love it when children start using racial slurs they found from that lame show? It should've been nc-17 if it was that bad, and it would make it even harder for kids to get in. Yea, sorry about the flame bate, I probably wouldn't say the same for any other show, I just started hating this one after it got old and all them damn little kids started wearing those stupid south park shirts and hats and saying "HHHEHHH!, ahm cotman!, HHHEEHH!". At that point it got very annoying.
  • This article:

    http://www.mrshowbiz.go.com/reviews/moviereviews /preview/summerpreview99/southparkbiggerlo ngeranduncut.html (making a real link didn't work, it added a space in the URL due to its length, I think)

    from mrshowbiz.com suggests that this movie is almost guaranteed to make money. Why? Making two hours of South Park-style animation isn't very expensive. The budget is only $1.5 million and about 2 million people tune into South Park every week. Even if only those 2 million go to see it, they'll probably about double their money. And I'm sure even more will go. I almost never watch the TV show, but I'll definitely go to see the movie. It's pretty much a no-risk situation for the studio.
  • Is there any inside info about what was cut to give it an R?
  • ok guys....tomorrow (wednesday) morning at 7:10am Pacific time, Vancouver radio station 99.3 the Fox [cfox.com] will have an interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone (creators and voices of South Park). Two crazy local DJs, Larry and Willy, will be interviewing them supposedly. There will be a LIVE web feed from their web page (www.cfox.com....see link above).

    -Doviende

    "The value of a man resides in what he gives,
    and not in what he is capable of receiving."

  • Here's a new idea... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    South Park is NOT for kids. That's why it's on at 10:00 pm in the middle of the week. We may also find NYPD Blue and ER at this same time. These shows are meant to be viewed by adults. Any parent that complains that his/her child picked up a racial slur or bad word from South Park should have monitored the child's viewing in the first place.

    Most political views and language patterns are learned from parents and peers, not evil old TV. Some kids may enjoy mimicking fat old Cartmen, but I'm sure they wouldn't really laugh if their poor friend got killed every week.

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close