On last week’s 200th episode of South Park, series creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker rolled the dice by mocking the prophet Muhammad, and even going so far as to imply you were seeing him, without seeing him.

Episode “200″ was all about celebrating the long history of the series, but as is so common with this series, the true point of the episode doesn’t become clear for some time, and it was the fact that they can’t show Muhammad.  The characters go through all sorts of elaborate measures to bring the Prophet into the story, finally settling on putting him in a bear costume so he can walk around and be heard without being seen.

This of course all goes back to the Islamic law that dictates that the prophet Muhammad may never be depicted in any way, and the fact that Trey and Matt are doing this has led at least one radical Islamic website, Revolutionmuslim.com, to issue the follow warning:

We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably end up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.

Theo Van Gogh was a Danish filmmaker who was murdered over a documentary he made about violence against women in the Muslim faith.

While many people thought this might happen, the funny thing is that Muhammad is never actually seen in episode “200″ … but he was seen numerous times in the fifth season episode, “Super Best Friends“.  This episode aired on July 4, 2001, and yet it is this episode, where the religious figure is never even seen, that angers every one?  It is this one that warrants a “warning” for Matt and Trey?

I’m not going to debate this whole aspect of the Islamic religion which forbids the prophet being shown, but how is it everyone seems to forget that not only did Matt and Trey show him nine years ago, but that it continues to air in syndication, it is available on their website and it is on the DVD sets?  Everyone acts like this is the first time they have tempted fate, but all it really shows is no one knows what they are talking about.  So do we need a nine year retroactive threat?

Most of all I hope Matt and Trey stay safe, because without them, who will point out insanity such as this?

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Radical Islamic Website Threatens South Park Creators

ShareThis

It would seem Paramount is none too happy with the fall premiere of South Park that aired earlier this week.

-looks outside- Yep, the sky is blue.

Nikki Finke at Deadline Hollywood Daily is saying that executives at Paramount or more than just a bit displeased about the content of the episode entitled “The China Probrem”.  It wasn’t the “A” story that had to deal with Cartman trying to stave off an impending Chinese invasion of the USA, but the “B” story that dealt with the other boys trying to cope with imagery of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg raping Indiana Jones.

Yeah… you read that right.

The kids saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull over the summer, and having been dealing with the guilt of having watched their favorite adventurer getting “raped”, and not doing anything about it.  Of course the rape was metaphorical for the disaster the script was, but at three separate points in the episode, we were shown Lucas and Spielberg actually raping Indiana in scenes that were homages to rape scenes from A Clockwork Orange, The Accused and Deliverance, as well as sending up all the scenes in rape movies where people will finally agree to helping the victims.  At the very end of the episode we were also treated to Spielberg and Lucas raping a Stormtrooper from Star Wars… it was a very uplifting episode.

There are others who are saying the rape metaphor shouldn’t have been used at all.  While I certainly do not find the traditional definition of rape amusing at all, how many times have people and writers said, “They raped my childhood…”, “They raped that character…”, “The government is raping us…” etc?  The word has taken on so many meanings in our lexicon, but did anyone stop to think that was what the show was trying to portray?  I heard many people say Indiana got raped by the fourth movie, so the show just took it literally, and people get worked up over it.  You have to selective sensitivity.

According to Ms. Finke, Paramount execs are not happy with parent company Viacom as they also own Comedy Central, and allowed this episode to go forward.  I would image a lot of their anger is because the DVD for the movie is coming out on October 14th, so having the movie picked on so publicly this close to release probably doesn’t thrill them.  Also according to Ms. Finke, Paramount is planning to keep quiet on the subject in public venues as they want the issue to go away, but since when have bloggers allowed an issue to die?

This isn’t the first time Paramount has been angry at Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of the series.  Back in 2006 they were also displeased with them over the Tom Cruise/Scientology episode, “Trapped In A Closet”, as Cruise was one of their biggest box office draws at the time.  At that time they did complain, and the episode was pulled from the usual rotation after only one repeat airing.  I think it is rather obvious that the suits at Paramount need to get a much thicker skin about things.

South Park works because all subjects are equal fodder for them, and it is just about guaranteed that there will eventually be an episode that offends you/insults something you believe in. If the show was to consider Paramount properties off limits, how would that be fair? It wouldn’t.

It concerns me that comedy writing seems to be taking so many hits from various sides as of late. Earlier this week we had the Saturday Night Live video pulled from the web over two jokes at the expense of a couple involved in the sub-prime loan disaster.  Now we have South Park under fire again for making fun of another company in the Viacom family.  Are we suddenly seeing the rise again of the political correctness boom from the 1980′s and comedy writers are going to have what they can write about being dictated to them by committee and lawyers?

Comedy, and all of its derivatives such as satire, should enjoy the utmost freedom under the 1st amendment, but yet it seems there are many out there who feel it should have more and more restraints put on it.  Is it outright censorship?  No, but suggesting things shouldn’t be written about sure is a close second.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

Paramount Is Angry With South Park, Sky Still Blue

ShareThis

My friend Nikki sent me this news story today.

Female high school teacher fired for relationship with student
The Associated Press

MULVANE, Kan. | Spectators burst into applause as the Mulvane School Board voted unanimously to fire a female high school teacher over an inappropriate relationship with an 18-year-old female student.

Tiffany Garrison, 25, had submitted her resignation from Mulvane High School well before Wednesday night’s special school board meeting, but it was not scheduled to take effect until the end of the school year.

Garrison was suspended with pay April 9 when the district started investigating the relationship. Officials in the south-central Kansas district officials have said the relationship did not involve any illegal activity such as alcohol use or anything of a sexual nature.

About 60 people attended the special board meeting, which ended with the vote to fire Garrison for reasons that included insubordination and maintaining a relationship with a student. Garrison, who did not attend the meeting, has 15 days to appeal the dismissal and request a hearing.

The girl’s parents attended the meeting and said they were “elated and relieved” by the board’s decision.

As the board was in executive session discussing the matter, the girl’s mother read the crowd a letter she had sent to board members demanding Garrison’s dismissal.

The letter said e-mails between Garrison and the girl suggested that their relationship involved more than “pure friendship” and that it involved some physical contact.

“Ms. Garrison should have never allowed the relationship to escalate past the point of teacher and student,” the letters said.

“At the present time, we feel the only appropriate and acceptable action by the Mulvane school board is to fire Ms. Garrison.”

The parents said Garrison moved out of the area after the relationship was exposed.

Now, anyone who has read my blog for more than a month or two knows of my “fondness” for student/teacher relationships. They are… oddly intriguing. Wrong, yes. Intriguing none-the-less. And of course the fact it was a lesbian situation makes it all the more intriguing to the media. Bless them, they do love their sapphic laden stories.

So, why is this even remotely funny? Remember when I talked about the April 11th episode of South Park? Ms. Garrison, formerly Mr. Garrison, discovered she was a lesbian… and is a school teacher. Oh the jokes I would love to make here.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

This is funny, but for really bad reasons.

ShareThis

Last week’s episode of South Park was named “Hell on Earth 2006″ and featured Satan having a Super Sweet 16 Halloween party. (Their running portrayal of Satan as either gay and/or a teenage girl at heart is always good for laugh). During the episode though, the following scene took place at Satan’s party, mind you it was full of dead people:(Taken from the South Park Scriptorium)

Frank Sinatra: Hey, Satan, you got a little problem.

Satan: What?

Frank Sinatra: Somebody showed up in a Crocodile Hunter costume. It’s really offending some of the other guests.

Satan: Oh jeez. [walks over to the offending guest, who happens to be none other than Steve Irwin, with a stingray attached to his chest. Steve looks around with a smile on his face. Satan arrives] Hey, uh, hi, listen, dude, ya know, the whole Crocodile Hunter thing? It… it’s just a little soon, you know? I mean, he just dies a few weeks ago and… it’s just not supercool and you gotta leave.

Steve Irwin: But it’s me, Satan. Steve Irwin. I am the Crocodile Hunter.

Satan: [thinks a moment] Oh… oh, but then, dude, no costume. Sorry, you gotta go. [two bouncers come and escort him away]

Steve Irwin: Wait! I thought we were friends!

So, yeah, they went after Steve Irwin…or did they? There is an uproar with some bloggers saying they will stop watching the show and a media watchdog group in England calling for the scene to be pulled. Did I find it offensive? A bit. Do I think they shouldn’t have done it? Probably not. Will I stop watching the show? Nope. South Park, to me, is one of the greatest arguments ever for free speech. They take on all subjects with an equal amount of gusto, and that is only possible in a free speech system.

Now, as for people pulling their support of the show over one joke…good riddance. This reminds me a lot of the whole Isaac Hayes debacle from earlier this year. He stood by the show for years as they took on other religions, but when they got to his, Scientology, he left the show. It’s slightly different working on the show from watching it, but if you have sat and laughed at the other episode, how can you decide the whole show is a wash because of one joke? It is the height of hypocrisy to me. “Oh, well, it was ok to laugh at this offensive joke, but not this!” Whatever.

What kills me was the other things going on in this episode that no one is saying a word about. Catholic priests leading naked young boys around in harnesses and on leashes. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer as modern-day Three Stooges trying to bake a cake for Satan. But no, no, only the Steve Irwin joke was offensive.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

South Park Offends Again…People Are Surprised?

ShareThis

Trey Parker and Matt Stone were doing a press junket at the Television Critics Assn, to promote an upcoming “Best Of” DVD of South Park, some old stories got new twists.

- It was heavily hinted that “Trapped In The Closet” was pulled from it’s reruns due to pressure from Tom Cruise. It returns to the rotation on July 19th. This may be in part to it was the only episode Trey & Matt submitted to the Emmys, and it was nominated. Gee, win awards, get your episode back on the air. If it had not aired, there was going to be problems over it now.

- Issac Hayes did quit over Scientology being picked on, and they kind of expected it.

- They are afraid of getting “Tom Cruise stink” on them.

- After “Cartoon Wars” aired, where they picked on Family Guy with a vengance, The Simpsons sent them flowers, and King Of The Hill staff sent them thank you notes.

You can find more info about the press confernce at TVWeek Blog, Seattle P.I., LA Times, and the Washington Post.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

And the truth shall set you free

ShareThis

South Park is over, and as the title promised, it was indeed “The Return of Chef!”. They used pieced together sound clips of Isaac Hayes from various episodes to provide his voice and made no effort to hide it, just adding to the comedic effect.

In short, the episode was brilliant. We learn that Chef left town to join the Super Adventure Club (SAC), which sounds innocent enough. Upon his return to town though, the boys can tell something is…different about Chef, and it’s not his stilted speech pattern, it’s his desire to make love to young boys. It seems the SAC travels around the world so they can have sex with the young boys of the world. After the boys discover this, they also learn SAC brainwashed Chef and they do everything they can to bring him back to “normal”. They succeed, but in the end Chef tries to go back to the SAC and ends up being killed by a fall…then a mountain lion…and a bear. There was a funeral and then SAC rebuilds Chef in to…Darth Chef, complete with glowing spatuala.

It was much funnier than my transcript, but that’s not the point here. The episode was all about the boys (who embody creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone) trying to save their friend (Isaac Hayes) from the “silly little club”. While this episode could have been an all out attack on Isaac, it wasn’t. It was actually a touching story of how they are sad this happened and they want him to know they love him and will miss him. Kyle summed it up best at the funeral for Chef:

“A lot of us don’t agree with the choices Chef has made in the last few days. Some of us feel hurt and confused that he seemed to turn his back on us. But we can’t let the events of the last week take away the memories of how Chef made us smile. I’m going to remember Chef as the jolly old guy who allways broke in to song. I’m going to remember Chef as the guy who gave us advice to live by. So you see, we shouldn’t be mad at Chef for leaving us, we should be mad at that fruity little club for scrambling his brains.”

This is one of the things that kills me about this show. People look at it and just see crass toilet humor, and I’m not denying it’s there, but if you pay actual attention to it, you will find that Trey and Matt are very passionate men about any range of subjects. If tonight’s episode is to be believed, they are hurt by what’s happened with Isaac and feel no ill-will towards him, just towards the “Church” of Scientology. I, for one, stand firmly behind Trey and Matt and applaud them for their…classy…handelling of the situation. (Yes, there was a bowel joke towards the end, so not sure you can label it classy)

Now comes the question, will Darth Chef be a recurring villian? And also, will the seeming “war” with Scientology continue?

Post from: SeanPAune.com

The Return of Chef!

ShareThis

Just when you think you know everything in the South Park Vs. Isaac Hayes story, it just keeps getting weirder! According to this story by Roger Friedman on the Fox News website, Isaac Hayes is in no shape to quit the show due to a stroke he suffered on January 17th.

The article states that Isaac has a “sly sense of humor” and still enjoyed his association with South Park, so then the question begs…who issued the now infamous press release? If it wasn’t Isaac, who was it? Or, I think the more likely scenario, this is just idle speculation on the writer’s part.

And Comedy Central issued a statemant about this Wednesday’s episode:

The launch of South Park’s tenth season is marked by the triumphant homecoming of school chef, Jerome McElroy. “The Return of Chef” premieres Wednesday, March 22 at 10:00 p.m., only Comedy Central.The town is jolted out of a case of the doldrums when Chef suddenly reappears. While Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman are thrilled to have their old friend back, they notice that something about chef seems different. When Chef’s strange behavior starts getting him in trouble, the boys pull out all the stops to save him.

Set those VCRs/DVRs/Tivo’s boys and girls, this one should be a keeper!

By the way, if anyone would like to see the well-known Scientology episode, Trapped In The Closet, you can view it here.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

The South Park Vs. Issac Hayes Train Wreck Rolls On

ShareThis

Well, it seems Comedy Central pulled the Wednesday night repeat of the infamous “Trapped In The Closet” episode of South Park. It was replaced with two Chef-centric (Isaac Hayes) episodes instead. Some rumors are circulating that this was prompted by Tom Cruise threatening to not promote Missioin Impossible 3, which will be released by the same company that owns Comedy Central. You can read more about all that here.

What I’m getting to though is not so much if the Tom Cruise aspect is true or not, but what Trey Parker & Matt Stone said to Scientologists when they thought Cruise was invovled:

“So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!”

Trey Parker and Matt Stone, servants of the dark lord Xenu.”

Oh those nutty guys. I just hope they are willing to stick to their guns, because this COULD get ugly if Scientology really did choose to go after them. They may all be a bunch of nutters, but they are nutters with money.

So, I have been posting a lot about this, and I thought maybe it was time I did give you more than just my opinion on the cultists…I mean Scientoligists. So I recommend:

Wikipedia’s Entry on Scientology
Wikipedia’s Entry on Xenu
Operation Clambake, considered the leading anti-Scientology site
Why are they dead, Scientology?, is a list of people that have died in and around the “church”

And there is much more out there. And if you need even more evidence, well…have you seen Tom Cruise recently? Jumping up and down on couches and acting like a deranged man? How about his attacks on Brooke Shields? Yeah…that’s the poster boy for Scientology.

I have a feeling the South Park/Scientology war ins’t over, and I, for one, am glad. The longer it lasts, the more people learn about the insanity that is this “church”. Don’t just take my word for it though, go out and read the sites I listed above. And make sure to tune in to the new episode of South Park this coming Wednesday at 10:00 PM EST/9:00 PM CST…I am sure SOMETHING will be said.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

South Park Vs. Scientology Heats Up

ShareThis

From an interview on AVClub.com dated January 4th, 2006:

AVC: There’s some pretty harsh satire on South Park. They don’t really care who they offend.

IH: Well, I talked to Matt and Trey about that. They didn’t let me know until it was done. I said, “Guys, you have it all wrong. We’re not like that. I know that’s your thing, but get your information correct, because somebody might believe that shit, you know?” But I understand what they’re doing. I told them to take a couple of Scientology courses, and understand what we do. [Laughs.]

Um…so two months later he acts like this? Was it a slow burn of anger? Was it the fact season 10 is about to start? Was it the fact that Scientology told him to cut his ties with them? Who knows. All I know is, he looks like a bigger fool the more I hear about this.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

An Update To The Isaac Hayes Craziness

ShareThis

I was bored the other night

If you want to make your own South Park person, go here. A word on the checkered shirt, it’s a Ska thing. During the Two Tone movement in England, black-and-white checks came to represent the racial harmony that was a cornerstone of the sub-culture.

Post from: SeanPAune.com

True Randomness

ShareThis