I never watched South Park when I was 12 like a normal person so I'm 21 now and I've only seen about 5 episodes. Should I catch up? Is it too late for me? I worry I'll accidentally reference jokes that stopped being funny 15 years and look like a total retard.
Since every episode always tries to be topical, it ages like dogshit. Hope you like references to ancient pop culture and dead celebrities.
>>78200103
Eh, I'm used to overlooking pop culture references in American shows. As long as there aren't too many jokes I won't understand, I should be okay.
>>78200082
yes
its a good show
>>78200082
Maybe you should just, you know, watch it and decide for yourself?
>>78200103
>>78200174
Most of the topical jokes manage to work as a 'ridiculous thing happens' joke without understanding what in pop culture it is an analogue for.
For example in the latest episode you don't need to know about the heated gun debate to find it amusing that guns acted as a stand in for conversation and compassion.
>>78200082
You can at least watch the older episodes. Newer episodes are so topical it's hopeless.
>>78200103
Did you enjoy the first season? Cause its filled to the brim with ancient pop culture references.
>>78202335
>another underaged faggot that doesnt realize they have been topical since the first episode
>>78200082
Most of the jokes on the show are still funny no matter how old they are. The only really overplayed one that will definitely make you look like a retard is 'respect my authoritah'.
>>78203977
Yeah but the older episodes worked better in that regard.
>>78204115
They work better for you, is because you are an edgy 20 something faggot that crapping your diapers, while "uncle" came to play with your mom when the first season aired, and it was topical as fuck.
>>78204217
South Park has only been on since 2009 in my country, and think the old seasons hold up better
>>78204217
There wasn't an episode built around current events until Jakovasaurs. There were references but they didn't start basing plots on it until later.
>>78204320
and its always been topical.
>>78204217
>calls someone edgy
>uses an insult a edgy 15 years old would say
>>78204399
see
>>78204403
and picrel.
every episode was topical
>>78204403
I guess, but there's more other stuff going on or episodes that are as good as pop culture free (or look that way at least)
>>78204461
references really aren't the same as basing a plot around it mane
>>78204529
The whole plot of that episode was making fun of the 1997 avian flu epidemic.
you fags really are in your early 20s arent you?
>>78204612
that's the pink eye one, right?
Much less blatant than it is now, old man
read the synopsis, OP
try and skip over the topical ones, to try and get to the modern ones faster since there's only like 14 episodes that aren't topical
If you don't care about getting to the newer ones fast, then just watch 'em all
>>78204668
because you never knew about it, just like 12Yos right now, have no idea about the Jared Aids episode.
which was in season 5, and is according to many of you faggots the "GOLDEN AGE" of Southpark.
>>78204763
yeah, you giving that one example sure proves everyone wrong
>>78204798
>One example
>implying all episodes arent topical
Pick any episode you want, they all centre around 1 or several pop culture topics of the time they were made.
>>78200103
It's a bit like watching ancient TV news or quiz panel shows in that regard. "(Joke) (joke) (setup) (dated pop culture reference) (joke about reference) (joke)."
Sometimes it's still brilliant even after 7 years, sometimes it's dogshit.
>>78204971
finally, someone that gets it.
>>78204888
something being topical is not the same as it relying almost entirely on its topicality
>>78205343
funny you mention that, since most of the seasons after 14, started doing 3 or 4 topics per episode instead of just 1.
>>78203977
>I don't understand matters of degree
obviously, but the show used to be primarily about the characters and the town.
>>78204217
This reminds of people arguing that Simpsons always had celebrity cameos, therefore it is the same.
In particular, the treatment of celebrities in older south park is 100 percent different. They chose people to crap on more at random, rather than making obligatory, desperate commentary on whoever is popular this week.
>>78204668
It only seems less blatant because it's out of context. Back when the episode aired, and news stations were flooded with bird flu shit, it wasn't at all subtle.
>>78205484
>but the show used to be primarily about the characters and the town.
Bullshit, the first 3 seasons was the kids doing something stupid or ridiculous, asking chef for advice and then another plot device would be introduced to fix the problem.
they started getting more development during the first 3 parter, the one wild west, jewbilee, cult of stars, episodes, which all had 3 central pop culture topics to fuck around with.
>>78205546
>muh celebrities are mocked different now, than they were then.
really?
What changed from having Streisand being a featured as a big nosed annoying kaiju bitch, to Billy Mays being stuck in Limbo, to Rob Reiner being a fat fuck, to Christina Aguilera being a tiny pink monster?
what makes these 2 so different?
>>78200082
It's worth it. There will be plenty of episodes that are incredibly dates, but even then the absurdity of the jokes and situation delivered still make it hilarious. Some episodes hark HEAVILY on their topical premise and aren't nearly as good/shit, but in the grand total of episodes you'll find more funny ones you can enjoy than shitty ones. Also if you're referencing it you'll be referencing south park, so even if some one got or doesn't get the reference it would only be relevant to them if they've seen South Park DESU.
>>78205635
>the kids doing something stupid or ridiculous, asking chef for advice and then another plot device would be introduced to fix the problem.
That doesn't really negate what I said. The show was based on how children think and their misunderstandings, and how adults fail to respond and explain the world to their kids. That theme lasts forever.
>Christina Aguilera being a tiny pink monster
>anything Barbara Streisand
Those examples are especially timeless because they're not really saying anything specific about the person -- it's more about plastering their face on something silly to blaspheme their *image*. It's interchangeable, you could use other celebrities in the same place and it wouldn't make a difference. Building whole episodes around a particular celebrity gives the opposite impression -- "this person is important and deserves criticism".
>>78204217
what the fuck does this say
>>78206013
>That doesn't really negate what I said.
like hell it doesnt, the topic was always the central point, the kids were just the vessel for the joke to get across.
If you say it isnt, then the show has never stopped being about the town and characters, which is the complaint you made.
>>78206013
>muh celebrities
tell me, how many episodes are centered around railing against a celebrity?
Cause I only counted 8 and they are spread out through all the seasons.
I was in the exact same boat and never thought I'd like it, but now I love it. Even watching topical ones is just kind of a moment of "Oh yeah, this one must have aired when ____ was going on."
>>78206175
>the topic was always the central point
Except many many older episodes don't have a pop-culture based topic.
The modern kids are vessels for Trey's opinion about X topic, almost always.
>>78206342
>Except many many older episodes don't have a pop-culture based topic.
Name 3
>>78200082
Fucking do it.
>>78206381
Not like that's hard, but here's some, An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig, Ike's Weewee, Rainforest Shmainforest, Tweek vs Craig, Do the Handicapped Go to Hell/Probably, Cartmanland, AWESOM-O
These unavoidably have references to culture in them -- like for Ike's Wee-Wee, you could argue that the war on drugs or the circumcision debate are "pop culture", but those topics have a relatively long lifespan.
As topics you have either absurdity, family/friend/school problems, or non time-bound commentary on stuff like religion or environmentalism. Do the Handicapped Go to Hell even features Saddam Hussein, but I wouldn't say it's *about* him as a news item-- he's just a wacky asshole, which is about as vague as "commentary" can get. Future generations will understand just as well.
