Disqus - Latest Comments for Dave

Re: Why we develop for the iPhone or “Swing where the ball will be”

Dave — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:45:47 -0000

What's with RIM's product names? I'm reminded of Principal Skinner choosing a detergent brand in the laundromat:

"Let's see: Tide... Cheer... Bold... Biz... Fab... All... Gain... Wisk. I believe today I will try... Bold."

Re: NOT news

Dave — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:16:09 -0000

I didn't know that Victoria was stricken with draughts. If this is the case, can't we just put those snake thingies under our doors?

Re: South Park is back but…

Dave — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:50:19 -0000

I wouldn't know what SBS' motivation is. I'm not sure why they would deliberately screw with viewers. There may be some contractual reasons behind the delays, but I don't understand the out-of-order showing.

Anyway, enjoy season 10 while it's on - it's definitely a high point. The first two episodes of season 11 have been pretty bad (and not at all topical from what I can see). Of course, Matt and Trey are known for having a few bad episodes in a row, and then producing a gem, so it may come good.

Re: South Park is back but…

Dave — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:37:15 -0000

Ah, I did not know about the NYC ban. Personally, I would have thought they would be better going after the "Obama Barack is not a real black" kerfuffle. It's more challenging, and has also had more worldwide exposure. Doing "nigger" is like shooting fish in a barrel.

That episode had some good moments, but I thought episode 2, Cartman Sucks errr, well, sucks.

Re: South Park is back but…

Dave — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:21:19 -0000

Well, South Park is one of the most controversial shows when it comes to different tastes. I thought that season 10's double-episode with Cartman going to the future for the Nintendo Wii, and Richard Dawkins and Mrs. Garrison getting together was South Park being great. As was "Mr. Garrison's Fancy Vagina" that opened the series, if I'm not mistaken.

Re: Futurama Update

Dave — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:46:48 -0000

That there will be a new Futurama is the best news the universe has ever heard this millenium. Who cares if it's direct-to-DVD? TV sucks. DVD is the better medium.

The real WTF is - why does the iF magazine interview have the name of every TV show in bold? And why is the text formatted like a monkey on crack wrote it?

TV does suck, but website "designers" suck even more.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 77

Dave — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:17:14 -0000

I'd have to disagree with Josh's comments on South Park.

I don't expect a lot from South Park. I continue to watch the show because I expect so little. In contrast, I used to expect a lot from The Simpsons, because they had such a high standard to live up to. This made their decline in quality so much more disappointing - it was like sacrelige.

However, South Park never had a high standard to live up to. Therefore, any time they have a good episode, it seems really good, because your frame-of-reference is such a low standard.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 79

Dave — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:22:33 -0000

Altthough not mentioned in this week's episode, I'm going to continue ranting about South Park versus The Family Guy.
Part 1: Reasons why The Family Guy is funny.

There are moments of comedic genius in The Family Guy that South Park has never even come close to. Here are three examples:

1. That time when Peter gets his own theme music.

2. That time when Stewie performs a homage to William Shatner performing a homage to David Bowie's "Rocketman" at the 1978 Science Fiction Film Awards.

3. That time when Stewie hassles Brian about the novel he hasn't written yet:

How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Got a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Got a nice little story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for three years, Huh? Got a compelling protagonist? Yeah? Got a obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Got a story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh?Yeah, talking about that three years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? No, no, you deserve some time off.

4. That time when ... what, no clip?

Stay tuned for our next installment - South Park episodes that suck. Broadcasting next time I have the chance to use working hours inappropriately.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 79

Dave — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:12:41 -0000

Brett - how about adding preview to comments, so we can fix our munged HTML tags?

Catbrain - If you find that Peter's being a mean-spirited idiot turns you off Family Guy, then how do you handle watching South Park? Cartman is about ten times more mean-spirited than Peter. In fact, one of my reasons why South Park is often unenjoyable, is because the writers are so often mean-spirited, while Family Guy is more light-hearted and fun. More on this later.

Ross - If you don't watch it, then how can you criticise? Presumably you have managed to sit through such abominable SP episodes like "Manbearpig" and the one about Oprah's vagina. There isn't a single Family Guy episode that is as unbearable as those.

How about you offer some reasons why South Park is so great? I suspect that you wouldn't be able to articulate it any more clearly than the "random and abstract" explanation you dislike about FG. Humour is something that largely defies explanation. Jokes when explained are not funny any more. It's like pornography or art - "I know it when I see it."

Note that I am not saying that South Park is terrible or unwatchable - just that Family Guy is also a good show, and South Park frequently misses the mark. Yet SP fans seem to enjoy denigrating FG, saying there can be no way it is funny. Yet FG fans are not saying the same about SP. So, who are the more fanatical fans - those who diss FG and are totally willing to overlook SP's flaws, or those who say that both shows have their strengths and weaknesses?

This condescending tone comes through strongly on boxcutters, where it seems to be considered a crime that Brett enjoys Family Guy. Have those of you who say you can't watch FG even seen the scenes/episodes I cited above?

To be continued...

Re: Boxcutters Episode 79

Dave — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:13:57 -0000

Part 2 - Why some South Park episodes suck.
South Park is generally fun, but the problem arises when what appear to be the writers' true beliefs start to intrude on the parody and humour. For example:

Parody: Cartman making fun of Kyle being Jewish. It's obviously not meant to be taken seriously, and is a parody of bigoted idiots.

Serious beliefs: The episode making fun of Al Gore. This appears not to be parody. It seems that Matt and Trey actually believe that global warming is not real, and that Al Gore is just creating a scare campaign to draw attention to himself, because he's unpopular.

There doesn't appear to be any decent parody there. It would be easy to make fun of Al Gore in ways that are actually funny, and reflect the man and his politics. But instead they chose to go with a bizarre smear campaign that doesn't actually have any bearing on reality, or Al Gore.

For example: Gore saying, with a lisp: "I'm totally serial, guys!"

When would Gore say anything like that? He may have many flaws, but he is a very educated and articulate person. I seriously doubt he would ever mispronounce the word "serious," and I have never heard him speak with a lisp.

And the allegation that he just wants attention is also absurd - Gore has been talking about environmental issues for years before he was Vice President. He also didn't decide to make a movie about himself. A film-maker came up with the idea and approached Gore about it.

--------

Anyway, that's just an example of South Park going off into crazy land, and not in a funny way. You can see this in other episodes about the environment. It seems that Matt and Trey seriously believe it's "all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy crap" - it's not just joking around.

I can laugh at these issues just as much anyone else, especially when the parody is insightful and incisive. I thought "tree hugging hippy crap" was hilarious when Cartman said it, I thought it was just a joke. But I increasingly get the feeling that it's not really a joke.

And it's not really a left/right thing - it's a propaganda thing, and a good humour thing. When they try to push their politics, it just isn't funny anymore.

Contrast this with The Family Guy. They push all the same taboos and political correctness that South Park does - but it's just entertainment. It's light-hearted, it doesn't have these cruel and serious overtones that South Park does at times. They don't take themselves seriously. Plus they make better pop-culture references than SP - whose cultural references seem to be solely aimed at 13 year-olds, while FG has much more obscure and mature references (as well as ones that a 13 year-old could understand).

Long story short - Family Guy can show misogyny, ignorance and homophobia for a laugh - but when it's on South Park it probably isn't a joke.

Which brings us to the next part of our saga...

Re: Trump retains hair, loses dignity

Dave — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:39:48 -0000

Why do "pingbacks" exist? God they are annoying. You go to read what you think is a new comment, and all that's there is a quote from the article you just read.

Just say "no" to pingbacks.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 79

Dave — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:58:10 -0000

Manbearpig was a great ep. So much so I rewatched it on Monday night.

Ahhhh ... why?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 79

Dave — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:49:17 -0000

It was funny when they were lost in the cave, especially Cartman finding the gold.

Yes. That was the only funny thing in the episode. But one funny thing doesn't make it a good episode. Despite that one funny bit, the taint of political propaganda reduces the enjoyability of that bit.

Basically, it seems as this episode was designed to indoctrinate South Park's young viewers to see global warming as some kind of fairy-tale gimmick that Al gore made up.

I donâ€™t instantly believe that is what he is like or that global warming is not real and he is drumming up a completely ridiculous, self promoting scare campaign.

But many of South Park's viewers would believe this. Remember, this is an American show. And many Americans seriously believe that environmentalism is some kind of communist plot.

How are they going to parody Gore? Just say heâ€™s boring? Itâ€™s been done.

The question is - why parody Gore at that time, at all? It's not like it was election time. Heck, at the time this episode was made, President Bush made "human-animal hybrids" a key point of his State of the Union address.

Surely, Manbearpig is more appropriate as a parody of Bush, who actually spoke of his opposition to Manbearpigs in a national address?

There is a difference between parody and agenda. I donâ€™t feel there is any subtextual agenda there to discredit him and global warming to the South Park audience. They are just parodying that perception of him.

Really? Wow. South Park has been consistently trashing any concept of environmentalism. And, as I said before, Americans seriously hate environmentalism. They don't have the same perspective on the environment as Australians do.

I think you are giving them too much benefit of the doubt. That episode was obviously designed to trash An Inconvenient Truth, and I don't think they were joking.

They aren't using a percpetion of him - they are creating an entirely new one. For example - where did the "I'm serial" stuff come from? When was the perception of Gore one of someone who had a lisp and couldn't pronounce simple words?

Moreover - how is it funny in any way? Parody works when it reflects something well, or when it is so over-the-top that it is funny in itself.

Now tell me - what's funny about "I'm serial" in itself. Especially - what's funny about using it again and again and again and again in that episode? It wasn't funny the first time.

Aside from any political taint, the episode sucks from being a one-joke episode. Al Gore is a loser and says "I'm serial." Now, how is that joke enough to sustain a whole episode?

At least that's something you won't see on Family Guy - they have lots of different jokes in an episode. But South Park seems to think it can get away with using the one tired joke repeatedly throughout an episode.

Cartman is funny. Adding a Cartman joke to an otherwise dull and stupid episode does not make the episode worthy. Why don't they just stick to the Cartman humour?

For example:

Cartman's "hippie" episode was hilarious. Firstly, it showed Cartman's indefatigable intolerance, and the measures he goes to achieve it. But, most importantly, the observations about hippies had more than a grain of truth to them, and were keenly observed.

The drum circle hippies, the college know-it-all hippies, the giggling stoner hippies. We all know somebody close to these archetypes. Even if hippies are our beloved friends, that's still funny.

But the Gore episode just didn't have any resonance like this. It was pure political posturing, without any actual humour.

Re: Trump retains hair, loses dignity

Dave — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:08:28 -0000

Well, I'm not sure what "Pringbacks" is, but I imagine that's what happens when you eat a bad batch of Pringles and they don't agree with your stomach.

But a "pingback" is a mechanism by which narcissistic bloggers masturbate each other to feel more important. This is how it works:

1. Blogger A reads a post on Blogger B's blog, while masturbating.

2. Whenever Blogger A reads something on the internet, s/he thinks "I must put this on my blog, so someone else can masturbate to the things I've been masturbating about on the internet."

3. Blogger A posts a link to Blogger B's blog on his/her blog.

4. The Wank-ur-bation software on Blogger B's blog detects that Blogger A has posted a link to his/her blog.

5. The Wank-ur-bation software thinks "Hey, someone is masturbating about my blog. I must make a note of this!" The software then infects the comments section with a "pingback" telling everybody that Blogger A is masturbating about this blog post.

6. Readers of Blogger B's post start masturbating about how someone linked to their blog.

7. Thus the circle-jerk is formed. In some cases, Blogger B will link back to Blogger A's pingback, creating a masturbation frenzy.

8. The masturbation gets so great that participants have to clean themselves off with something known as a "Blogroll."

9. Somebody's father gets fucked.

10. Humanity edges a little closer to total self-erotic asphixiation.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 79

Dave — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:59:32 -0000

Ross, if you doubt that Matt and Trey are serious about their hatred of Gore, here's a quote from Matt Stone himself:

"I hate conservatives, but I really [expletive] hate liberals."

Surely you are aware that Trey Parker is actually a member of the Libertarian Party? That there's been a book written called South Park Republicans?

One needs only look at South Park messageboards and blogs after the Manbearpig, to see dozens of posts from youngsters expressing their hatred for Al Gore. Not in jest. There is a growing body of youth who take South Park's political messages very seriously.

And you're very mistaken in thinking they aren't serious when they attack public figures. In your own example - sure Barbara Streisand is not a mechanoid monster. But she pretty much is in Matt and Trey's mind. They fucking hate her. Just like they hate Ben Affleck and Angelina Jolie.

Do you think they were joking when they showed how insane Scientologists are? When they portrayed Mel Gibson as a psycho? When they called Mormons dumb?

Of course they weren't. South Park is consistently deadly serious in their attacks. If you haven't noticed by now, you aren't watching closely enough. Do you think the things they portray don't mean anything, that they're just randomly chosen for a laugh?

It is funny, when the attacks are on target. Scientologists do believe some crazy shit, and don't deserve much sympathy. Hippies do tend to form drum circles, and go on about "the corporations" when they hit college.

That's what makes it funny. But when they attack people without that grain of truth, and cross over into misinformation and propaganda, it's not that funny. Sure, they can throw in some Cartman antics to keep people watching, but the aim is to rally their political base and create new memes for them to parrot.

Ross, I really think you are missing out by not stepping back and analysing the show. It's a really fascinating study in American politics. And there are definitely strong agendas there amidst the humour. I think there's much more to be enjoyed by taking a deeper look at the show, rather than just laughing along with the jokes and dismissing it as meaningless fun.

Next up in dishy's South Park saga: Misogyny in South Park.

Re: South Park Vs Family Guy

Dave — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:27:03 -0000

See how hard it is to explain humour? Many of the same things could be said about Family Guy - it does great parodies of TV shows, too. It has quirky characters and political satire. Anyway, the thrust of my comments have moved way beyond Family Guy versus South Park.

Forget about Family Guy for now. Do you have no criticisms of South Park? Do you not see its negative traits? Do you not see where it goes beyond satire into political propaganda?

Something else I enjoy is something South Park has inherited from the Simpsons and that is that all are on an even playing field in SP. Rich, poor, black, white, democrat, republican â€“ everybody in the South Park universe is stupid. And everybody is as stupid as each other. Certainly the adults are.

Matt and Trey and South Park fans love to say this, but it just is not true. That's just their excuse. One thing you will never see on South Park, is an attack on Libertarians.

Kyle and Stan, representing Matt and Trey - are always above the fray. The egotism is fairly startling when you look at it. "Everybody is stupid except us." Kyle and Stan are always portrayed in the end of being the only ones with common sense.

You'll also notice that not everbody gets attacked equally. Republicans get off easy, as do hetrosexuals. Liberals, women and gays get totally disproportionately attacked.

For example, you say that you liked the 24 parody in the "snuke" episode. That was well done. But it seems to have succeeded in distracting you from the obvious misogyny and political motives of that episode.

I think that's one of the most worrying aspects of South Park. They use the sugar of funny antics to help you swallow the bitter poison of the message they want you to take seriously. It helps deflect criticism.

When they cover current events itâ€™s even better, like the beaver dam/New Orleans episode or the genius take on the 2000 presidential elections reworked as Ikeâ€™s kindergarten election

The election episode is an example of political satire that really works, because it does have a lot of truth in it, and is fairly even-handed.

The New Orleans episode, not so much. That was totally weak. It really demonstrates Matt and Trey's ignorance of the world outside their own, and their lack of courage as satirists. It was not very clever. I mean, what happened at Katrina was totally fucked up. They had the choice of hundreds of issues and targets they could have viciously skewered. Yet instead they choose to go with a lame "hey, shit happens, and you shouldn't blame anybody."

Fuck that. New Orleans brought to the surface some of the worst prejudices of American society, and all they do is talk about blaming Bush and global warming? What the hell?

Unfortunately, many people (particularly in Australia) aren't really aware of what went on in New Orleans - as our media stopped covering it quickly, before the truth came out. And South Park is only going to cement this lack of awareness in people's minds as a "shit happens, let's move on" event.

There really is an amazing synergy between South Park lately, and the talking points that Republicans and Libertarians want to get heard. I think a lot of their "current events" stuff lately is to distract attention from the real shit that's going on in American politics. The Al Gore episode was pretty obviously designed as a way to take the focus off the Bush administration and further the liberal ridicule. And then again with Hillary Clinton.

Ross, are you able to acknowledge that Matt and Trey have a political agenda? Are you able to acknowledge that the show is not all in jest?

And you know what else I love about South Park? Butters. Butters rocks. Whether

Yeah, Butters is totally awesome.

Re: Trump retains hair, loses dignity

Dave — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:34:45 -0000

You rock, Brett!

Yes, turn off pingbacks. The preview thing is even better though.

Supporting HTML lists would also be cool.

Re: South Park Vs Family Guy

Dave — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:28:02 -0000

I'm not sure where to leave comments/replies, now with three threads going on South Park. I'll leave the rest for the new topic, but address a couple here:

Rob:

When South Park does â€œitâ€™s thingâ€ on say hippies, is it parodying the hippy phenomenon, parodying the anti-hippy attitude or in fact championing the anti-hippy stance?

This is a murky area, but I believe that the key element is Cartman. When Cartman champions something, you can be pretty sure it's in jest. However, when Kyle/Stan (a.k.a Trey/Parker) champion something, I think it's more of a "straight" message.

(except that Ayn Rand was one I think and the only mention of her in SP was a completely caning for The Fountainhead, so bad Officer Barbrady swore never to read again after he read thatâ€¦).

Well spotted! I had forgotten about that. However, Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian. She was an objectivist, although many Libertarians gain inspiration from Rand's works. In fact, she attacked Libertarianism:

Rand said of libertarians that "They are not defenders of capitalism. Theyâ€™re a group of publicity seekers... most of them are my enemies... Iâ€™ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasnâ€™t my ideas badly mishandledâ€”i.e., had the teeth pulled out of themâ€”with no credit given."

I think it's more likely that Barbrady's digust for Ayn Rand stems from either:

1. That Ayn Rand's writing is extremely tedious.

or

2. That Ayn Rand attacked Libertarians.

Where I think we really disagree is the reading of the episodes. You say there was an obvious political motive in the 24 ep â€“ what was that?

This is to be dealt with in Part 3: Misogyny in South Park. I had intended to write this chapter much earlier, but kept getting distracted by other issues.

Apart from the attack on Hilary for political reasons, it is another example of the skewed protrayal of women on South Park, compared to men.

And I didnâ€™t get the â€˜hey, shit happens and you shouldnâ€™t blame anybodyâ€™ message from the New Orleans episode. Everybody else was too self obsessed and too self involved to stop and actually help the people of Beavertown. It was a damning of everyone who just sat around watching but doing nothing to help and not demanding better from their leaders. People were trapped on their rooftops but as usual the people of South Park were too busy panicking to help.

Except that really distracts from what really happened. For example, the New Orleans Police actively opposed helping people, and instead created hysteria about black gangs and violence that never really happened. And the media happily perpetuated their racist notions.

To this day, many people still believe in the mass rapes, shootings and lawlessness that were initially reported by the media. Even though there's no real evidence of it happening.

Like many South Park episodes, I believe this is one of the ones where it actually gets people to think less about the issue than more about it.

Ross, you say that one of the strengths of South Park is that it gets viewers to think more. I firmly believe the opposite - most episodes are designed to encourage not thinking about an issue deeply, and instead being apathetic about it.

For example, what was it about New Orleans that you thought more deeply about because of South Park? What was it about Global Warming that you thought more deeply about after the Manbearpig episode?

It was funny. And it was funnier than yet another parody of Bush would have been. I mean seriously do we really need any more jokes about how dumb GW is? The fact there is a semi literate American President â€“ surely the joke is on us

Again, we come to another problem. Rather than really attacking the administration, South Park merely focuses on George Bush being kind of slow and illiterate. And the attacks are usually very light-hearted compared to the attacks on liberals and Democrats. Bush is portrayed as kind of dumb, but liberals are portrayed as a source of evil.

The world has had to endure Bush, but all the jokes about his intellect donâ€™t seem to have got us very far. Why not target Gore?

You are seeing this from a very Australian perspective. America, on the other hand, is awash with more jokes about Gore, Hilary and Bill, and Democrats in general than there are jokes about Bush. We just don't see that down here.

I admit, I do follow American politics very closely. Probably more closely than I do Australian politics.

Why do you think they spent time attacking Gore, who was already "washed up" and no longer an influence in US politics, when there were many more pressing issues to be addressed?

There is far more left humour out there in the world anyway.

Again, maybe to an Australian, especially one who uses the internet a lot and visits more liberal sites. But in America this isn't true - right-wing comedy is very popular there, probably more common than the left-leaning variety.

They've set up a myth of the "liberal media" - even though people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have a lot more media presence than any "liberal" shows.

This is all a part of an acknowledged "culture war" by the right to entench control of media. Again, something Australians aren't particularly aware of - with the exception of the current culture war against our ABC. Which pitifully few Australians are even aware of.

I just read a very interesting article in the age about this, which I immediately felt resonated with South Park and the US version of the war. When I get some time at work, I'll OCR the article, so I can post the text.

Re: Opinions on Southpark and Family Guy

Dave — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:45:53 -0000

This whole things seems to have gotten off on the wrong foot. For those who think that I don't like South Park because of my criticisms of it:

I am a South Park fan. I have seen every episode at least twice, most more than that. I own much South Park merchandise.

My question to Ross was not really a "challenge" to explain why South Park is worth watching. I know it is funny. It was just that the objection to Family Guy on the grounds of an inadequate explanation is not really sufficient. Not every episode is great - but neither is every episode of South Park or The Simpsons.

Ross and Josh ask "why so much love for Family Guy" - but I ask why there is so much hate? I mean, I couldn't sit through an episode of The Amazing Race, but I don't go around dissing the show, or people who like it. Each to their own. I even put up with Josh gushing over it on the podcast without hitting the fast-forward button.

And Riley - Family Guy is puerile? It's predictable? Do you like South Park? It's goddamn puerile and predictable. In fact, it's marketed as being puerile. But that doesn't mean it's not funny.

I'm also not sure how you can imply that Family Guy is more predictable that South Park. With a South Park episode, you can usually predict the entire storyline from the opening minutes. I'd really like to see you predict the tangential cut-away scenes from Family Guy. They may often be unfunny, but predictable is one thing they certainly are not. Unless you're a Manatee, I guess.

Anyway, you can be sure to see another dozen or so pages of my ranting about South Park in days to come, but for now I leave you with a little treat from Matt and Trey:

Universal Studios Employee Video

Enjoy!

Re: South Park Vs Family Guy

Dave — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:50:57 -0000

P.S:

Also, how funny was this weeks ep? St Peter was a rabbit, hehehe!!

Or did I miss something?

It was pretty funny. I think the only thing you overlooked was that Bill Donohue attacked South Park, therefore he was attacked on South Park.

Although, in this case, I think he deserved to be attacked for other reasons. But I think that if he hadn't been critical of South Park, they would have chosen someone else.

Re: Get your red-hot talking Coonan Parrot dolls

Dave — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:54:04 -0000

There is no talking Coonan parrot doll.

Re: Opinions on Southpark and Family Guy

Dave — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:11:23 -0000

Itâ€™s just mindless, pointless garbage. And before you say it, no it is not that same with South Park. There is always some sort of level there.

Hmmm ... the Oprah's Vagina episode wasn't pointless and random? The Terance and Phillip episode wasn't just throwing out a bunch of fart jokes?

All that having been said, I am clearly in the minority when it comes to wanting more from entertainment than might please the average ten year old boy.

I find this hugely ironic, because Family Guy has many cultural references that someone that young wouldn't pick up on. It references a huge body of film and entertainment.

Meanwhile, South Park's cultural references never go much past what a 13 year-old wouldn't be familiar with. Like current TV hits (24 for example), Playstations, and celebrities like Tom Cruise.

Family Guy isn't always great, and doesn't have much of a plot, but when the jokes are funny, they are way funnier than any joke ever told on South Park.

South Park is consistently sort-of-funny, but rarely laugh-out-loud funny. Family Guy is often paoinfully unfunny, but also often gut-bustingly funny.

I say again: Stewie doing Bill Shatner? Osama bin Laden doing stand-up comedy? Peter's personal theme music?

How can you not piss yourself at those?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 80

Dave — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:19:19 -0000

re: YouTube

I think you should avoid the technical hassle and copyright issues of posting actual TV recordings.

Instead, you guys should wear jumpsuits, and use mime and interpetive dance to illustrate the TV shows being discussed.

Of course, that's exactly what the video podcast is like, but it would mean people could just download the best bits.

Re: Opinions on Southpark and Family Guy

Dave — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:35:34 -0000

P.S:

You are wrong about the end of society.

Society will actually end because of MySpace and Twitter, not Family Guy.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 81

Dave — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:35:04 -0000

Isn't granola just muesli?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 85

Dave — Wed, 16 May 2007 03:49:03 -0000

I don't get Eurovision either. Is it actually supposed to be bad, or do a significant fraction of Europeans actually enjoy the songs on their own merits?

It strikes me as kind of sad. Europe is good at so many things. They even produced some of the world's best music back in the day of Mozart and Beethoven. And of course, if you count the UK as part of Europe (I don't) there was amazing rock and pop, and still is. And of course, there was the brilliance of Kraftwerk.

But how is it that Australia, a country with a miniscule population, can kick the arse of the entirety of continental Europe when it comes to producing music?

Re: McGuire boned or willing career shift?

Dave — Sat, 19 May 2007 01:36:51 -0000

Ross, I know Carbon Rob personally, and he's a great guy and hard worker.

Re: Mick Molloy’s The Nation starts on Nine

Dave — Thu, 24 May 2007 08:43:16 -0000

It will run until around 2015, because Australia loves crap TV shows. And this sounds like total crap.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 87

Dave — Tue, 29 May 2007 07:12:49 -0000

You used the word "nerds" to describe the people protesting Jericho's cancellation. From my online encounters with people who participated, they don't seem like nerds to me.

They seem more like creepy "family first" types who want "wholesome television" to watch with their children, and feel like they are on some moral crusade to save the world from reality TV and "gutter values" including profanity.

I find it both amusing and quite disturbing. Isn't "wholesome television" an oxymoron anyway? They remind of a combination of Bible-belt Americans, anti-abortionists, and rabid home-schoolers. And this combination has fused with the decaying brain of a couch potato.

So, they want to take a moral stand but do it to preserve the goodness of TV, from their couch and the "remote boat."

In other words, they seem a lot like the kind of people who would order nuts online instead of just buying them the next time they do grocery shopping. And they think they are saving the world by doing it.

Nuts online, indeed.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 87

Dave — Wed, 30 May 2007 02:30:26 -0000

Who buys nuts online? Or indeed any foodstuff?

Well, I do buy my steaks from the New Yorker.

Re: Boxcutters hits the dancefloor

Dave — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:48:48 -0000

It's when you go around hitting wiggers with a baseball bat.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 88

Dave — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 04:04:21 -0000

I found boxcutters when I Googled "boobies".

Re: Boxcutters Episode 88

Dave — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:20:20 -0000

Rob:

Your search - â€œsemi-solid pensioners porkâ€ - did not match any documents.

I don't get the joke.

Re: New Boxcutters Portrait

Dave — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:35:34 -0000

Shouldn't Brett and Ross be the same dog? You keep trying to push this myth that they are different people. I don't buy it.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 90

Dave — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 03:42:50 -0000

Is South Park actually pushing a right-wing agenda, or is it just its lefty viewers arcing up about any episode that isnâ€™t anti-war/anti-Fox/anti-SUV?

I think it's pretty clear they are. Matt Stone is actually a registered Republican, Trey Parker a registered Libertarian. They are on record as saying that hate "liberals" more than Republicans.

Their style of balance is like Fox News - very misleading. It is funny when they aren't doing their political schtick, though.

Re: Now it is getting ridiculous…

Dave — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 18:19:44 -0000

Where will it end, Ross? It will end with either the heat death of the universe, or the "bring back Con the Fruiterer" petition. Whichever comes first.

BTW, what the fuck is "The Class"?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 91

Dave — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:04:48 -0000

This episode of Letters to Boxcutters was brought to you by the Letters to Boxcutters and the number eight.

Don't you guys even remember the Sesame Street special last week?

Coming up on Boxcutters Episode 92: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 ... 11,12!

Twelve!

Re: Boxcutters Episode 91

Dave — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:14:35 -0000

Screw Daryl - bring back Marty the Monster!

Re: Paris burns

Dave — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:04:53 -0000

Unlike Today Tonight which was all too happy to lick Paris Arse. Not only did they spend like 10 minutes covering the Hilton prison non-story - they didn't even bother making their own lame half-arsed commentary. Instead they simply rebroadcast Larry King Live's half-arsed commentary.

Why was I watching Today Tonight? Family was over for dinner. For some reason I do not understand, this is what they watch in the evenings. I know, it doesn't make any sense.

Re: Paris burns

Dave — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:21:39 -0000

Actually, after having watched the Youtube video - that's not a principled stand. That is a total fake. It's all acting.

They only wanted to make it seem like she was taking a stand against Paris coverage - while still managing to devote time to Paris, instead of serious stories. They could have covered quite a bit of real news in the time it took to create that unfunny comedy skit.

Does anyone believe that this is real and it wasn't arranged with the producer beforehand? Because I've got a bridge in Manhattan to sell you.

Re: Paris burns

Dave — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:26:03 -0000

I could use a bridge in Manhattanâ€¦ How much you want for it?

A photo of you and Brett in the same place at the same time.

Re: Paris burns

Dave — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:29:36 -0000

I reckon they would have put it on the side of the desk so she didnâ€™t have to walk out of frameâ€¦

Nah, that would have made the setup too obvious. They also wanted the drama of her "storming" away from the desk.

Seriously why would they have a shredder there? If that's where the shredder normally is, it's an Occupational Health & Safety nightmare. Plus a dumb location. They are usually located in the offices. It seems pretty obvious someone's put it there for the stunt.

Who puts desktop shredders on the floor?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 91

Dave — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:40:26 -0000

While they were surely clutching at straws to try to keep their jobs, the point was a valid one. Even now, we only get one band at the end of Rove, one non-regular band on The Sideshow and the occasional local band on Spicks & Specks on Melbourne prime time TV.

No, I don't think it's valid.

Bands appearing on TV shows is one of the lamest things in the world. There isn't much that sucks more. I think I'd rather watch stories about Paris Hilton than bands making promotional performances.

Re: Paris burns

Dave — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 02:38:30 -0000

That looked more like a shredder that would sit on a floor than a desk

Nah, if it were designed to sit on the floor, the input area would be at a more ergonomic height - like waist-height. They'd be asking for OH&S lawsuits if they actually regularly used the shredder in that position.

Plus the fact that's it's sitting on the studio store amidst a ton of cables and lighting stands. There's no way that's its permanent position.

Of course news orgs have shredders - but not on the studio floor.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 92

Dave — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 18:54:52 -0000

How can Ross be "gone" if Brett is still in the studio?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 93

Dave — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:18:54 -0000

The overdubbing was remarkable this week. Nice stereo effect.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 93

Dave — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:28:24 -0000

Did you catch the panel "discussion" attached to The Great Global Warming Swindle last night?

Incredible. A couple of the guys on the panel were fairly nutty - but then they crossed to the audience, who were just insane. There was the carbon-14 guy, the "eugenics" woman, and the "environmentalists are the Nazi reincarnation of Hitler" guy.

I'd love to hear coverage of this litttle debacle on the next episode of Boxcutters.

Re: Boxcutters Episode 93

Dave — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:34:02 -0000

Has anyone got a recording of the panel discussion including the audience members? I got the first half of the panel, but the best part at the end was cut off, damnit.

I need to have an archive of this. Perhaps send it into boxcutters if you have it, and I'll get in touch with them?

The whole thing was absolutely hysterical. It was just bad on so many levels - down to that ominous synthesiser chord, and "swindle" logo on a blood-red background as they slowly panned and cross-faded to the panel after showing a clip.

They should do this every Thursday night - and get even weirder audience members in. Though it would be a challenge to do better than some of the UFO cultists in this audience.

Who the hell selected that audience?

Re: Boxcutters Episode 93

Dave — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:46:04 -0000

But can I get it on videotape or DVD, so I can have proper quality video to match my existing digital recording? The quality on Google Video and Youtube sucks, and it's a pain to convert for DVD.