I stopped watching this regularly over ten years ago. I've been hearing a lot about the new season, so I'm caught up on the first ten episodes.
I don't quite get it.
What is going on?
I was the same, I don't get the new season. It was new Simpsons tier imo tbqh
>>63521131
Right? They're obviously building toward some larger overall point, but I don't understand what it might be.
>>63520870
>What is going on?
Well, did you watch the season?
A lot of the praise was for their takedown of PC culture, which is a hot topic at the moment. They threw in gentrification as a subplot which worked fine, but then veered off course with a segway into internet ads.
It seems like they didn't really have a pay-off planned for the season, or did and decided they wanted PC Principal back next year and chose not to kill him.
>>63521303
I did. I don't quite get it. By that I mean that I followed all the plot points, but I can't seem to put my finger on what they were trying to say. Somewhere during the last two episodes, I lost the ability to draw a line between the events in the show and phenomena in the real world. I don't understand what comment they're making with the events in the finale.
I mean, I started watching because I was seeing people saying "South Park is relevant again" and whatnot, which, I mean that's like saying The Simpsons is relevant again. That's interesting. It started off a bit scattershot, but then they started to weave it together. And then it just didn't seem to come off properly.
Basically, plot-wise, I don't quite get what the ads (Ads?) were doing and why they were doing it. I don't get the big catharsis everyone seemed to come to at the end.
I guess overall I enjoyed it, but I feel slightly ripped. I was expecting an actual payoff, something that could, I guess, be translated into a thesis statement (or whatever) for the season as a whole. But if it's there I don't see it. Just wondering if I missed something.
>another south park thread
The progressive redditor state of /tv/ doesn't like south park, you're only going to get mixed emotions here and that faggot that spams /co/.
Nobody is going to explain the newest season, because nobody has any idea what in the actual fuck is going on
>>63522503
This season will probably continue into the next one, the same background but with a new plot.
>>63522503
Right, OK. So do you think this is a multi-season thing? Are they going to pick up where they left off?
Because I'd love it if they did. It's never been the kind of show that I'd think that, but if they're actually going to continue onwards to develop that premise, that might be fucking amazing.
Honestly, if they don't, I'm going to feel slightly gypped.
>>63522625
With PC principal staying on and Garrison as president they're definitely extending the premise of this season.
>>63522503
>>63520870
Everything that happened was quite literal. I don't see what the problem is. There isn't some deep message or anything. They're spoofing current culture, while also stringing together a narrative for shits and giggles.
>>63522766
>I don't see what the problem is. There isn't some deep message or anything.
Well let's ignore 'deep' because honestly I only ever see it used pejoratively. If you look at let's say the Imaginationland trilogy, it was always clear what they were saying, at every stage. There was never a point in those three episodes where I said to myself "I feel like there's a point they're trying to make, and I don't know what it is." Every scene was either "They're doing that because it's funny" or "They're doing that because it's funny and it makes the case that [whatever]". You know?
Whereas here, I really felt like maybe there was something the viewer was meant to take away from the finale. Not something 'deep', but something that could be translated into an actual position, agree or disagree (and I have sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed with various positions the show has staked out, I assume most people have).
>>63523131
I think the message was literal: if you try harder to improve yourselves, then you don't need gentrification.
If you want your "super clever" subversive liberal statement. Then you could take away the message that it's clearly absurd to think an armed society is a polite society, like many gun enthusiasts would want you to believe.
Also, the PC culture is going to be around for a while, so get used to that.
And adds will always become more sophisticated.
You can keep pointing the figurative gun at others, and blaming everyone else for your issues. But ultimately you all played a role in the way things are.
I just don't think there is "the point". There were just a series of spoofs strung together.
You know, it's really easy to fool an audience into thinking there's something greater than what there really is. All you have to do, is throw a bunch of shit at the wall, and then make all the shit reference each other. And somehow, this mystifies people. And they hope for a greater purpose. The think there's a point. But there is none. It was a wacky series of events that just happened to reference each other in certain way.
>>63523515
>You know, it's really easy to fool an audience into thinking there's something greater than what there really is. All you have to do, is throw a bunch of shit at the wall, and then make all the shit reference each other. And somehow, this mystifies people. And they hope for a greater purpose. The think there's a point. But there is none. It was a wacky series of events that just happened to reference each other in certain way.
Maybe you're right. But in my defence, I wouldn't think this of just some random show. South Park has a history of taking stands and forming coherent statements, and in the past (eg Imaginationland), it's always been in furtherance of doing exactly that. So I'm just going by precedent.
You could be right, though. The individually staked-out positions you mention (which I did understand) might just be exactly what they say on the surface they are, and the rest could all just be a bunch of stuff that happened.
>>63523727
>in the past (eg Imaginationland), it's always been in furtherance of doing exactly that.
Dammit I meant to make the specific point that in the past when they've experimented with longer-form narratives, it's always been towards a particular overall end.
The finale that came out yesterday was an extreme disappointment. They've been pulling punches throughout the entire season, but because every episode progressed through a consistent narrative I was expecting a killer finale, or at least hoping to find out that crab people were behind PC culture. Instead the final episode was possibly the most bland in the entire season and I no longer have any misconceptions about how mediocre s19 is. They had a few good jokes but everything just seems to be played safe and de-offensified.
>>63523727
I don't even remember imaginationland. Damn, google says that's 8 years old. Was it really that long ago?
Look, I'm telling you, the best way to sucker people in, is to just start with a bunch of random pieces on the board. Just go nuts. And then, when you're like a season or two deep, you start referencing events from previous episodes, or previous seasons. And start connecting things. Do call backs. You will have people eating out of the palm of your hands. And if you're a good writer, then you can make it all fit into a point, and pretend like that's the message you were trying to make from the beginning.
>>63523934
Sure, but what I'm saying is that South Park always took positions on things. And whenever they moved towards longer-form narratives, doing so always led to a place where the broader narrative had an overall point to make. Like I said before, you could look at the overall arc and elicit from it something like a thesis statement. That history is the reason I was expecting something similar here. If you need a counterpoint, I can't say the same of The Simpsons. It's always been a really broad church, it's never really tried to go long-form and so, if it did try to go long-form, I wouldn't have any sense like "There must be something they're trying to say with this." That's all I mean.
>>63524097
>>63523856
they were saying PC is a way to sterilize things so that ads can come in. PC is the real life version of ads, in other words a PC world is more commercially friendly, hence we see the gentrification and sterilization of south park.
I think there's something to that and I also think they didn't fully put in enough revision and editing before revealing the final product.
>>63520870
Another oldfag checking in; I stopped watching 4-5 years ago. I actually watched the yaoi episode recently over the hype.
What do you youngfags see in the new stuff all of a sudden?
Have any of you compared this new season in particular to the, er, "classical" turn-of-millenium era, or the middle period? I actually have a knowledge-gap with this show now like my knowledge-gap with Simpsons, for similar reasons.
I really don't think it's that complicated. Send to be that south park has always been like this, minus the continuity of course. Of course they had points to take away, they always do.
Points imo:
Ads are bad, even immoral, but they aren't going anywhere. People need to learn to tell when news, people, or companies are really lying and shilling them shit. Ads lead to a sort of cultural gentrification, making people jump on bandwagons or movements when really they are just being sold.
PC culture is just gentrification of communication. PC people may think they are doing good but are just forcing people out of conversations. Generally they are people who want to look good without doing good.
Guns are both a problem and a solution.
That's what I got out of the episode. Seems like most people are just being pretentious bemoaning some fall from grace that I don't really think has happened. South park occasionally trades humor to make a point, that isn't new. Usually they can do both, and I think they've done fine this season.
>>63524097
Definitely not in this season I'm afraid. They've been reduced to out of context activity like the other anon has explained.
Have they taken a single position on anything? I can't think of any statements besides agreeable non-issue points such as "trump is satire" and "I hate pop up ads". No "emperor has no clothes" moments this time around, they may have lost it.
Still a good show, lost all of its edge though. Show sucks now, leslie was an ad
>>63524329
The yaoi episode is overrated, it gets praise because of pandering alone. There are definitely far better episodes from the same season.
The only good contemporary satirical TV show desu.
>>63524238
I get what you're saying. It's not about plot consistency, though. The problem is that they are pulling all the punches.
I mean... ads? Really? This is your nine episode build up? Leslie was an ad? And on top of that the finale ends in the same ambiguity that made this season feel lackluster? We all know for a fact that the owners of comedy central won't allow for any criticism of Hillary, but the least they could do is mock other talking points. How do you go from unforgiving ridicule of every authority and every religious figure to ending a nine episode buildup on "we won't openly say that PC is bad" and choosing the most agreeable adversary they could think of.
>>63520870
HEY LESLIE
>>63524537
This is worth being cunty to in reply. I was obviously looking for granular detail on the WHY from the younger set (and an ep-drop to juice things) only to get "yah but that one weren't good tho, there were totes better ones but I can't be fussed, r-tard."
No defense of the season that this board likes, no context, just , C'HAAH. GOL.
Just taking that one data point, I didn't see anything path-breakingly different. They're just doing what they've always been doing and you're choosing to like it this year, I think.
>actually analyzing south park of all things
stop
>>63524965
agree, i made the same observation that they presented hillary as legitimate and everyone else is ridiculous. It seems like the show is generic and less offensive than it used to be; it's ok to do something shocking, but certain areas are completely off limits.
It was kind of funny that whole foods was sort of like wal mart in an earlier episode, but i don't think that was an intentional statement on their part, nor is whole foods a hard target for anyone on either side of the political spectrum.
their message ended up as "political correctness is good, the media is just painting it in a bad light. ALSO CONSERVATIVES ARE DUMB I MEAN GUNS RIGHT!?!"
>>63526044
>their message ended up as "political correctness is good, the media is just painting it in a bad light.
they never said that.
