South Park episode tonight spoofing the Food Network
Hilarious. Watch it!
-
i've never been a devoted South Park viewer, but this was brilliant. (the vulgarity - particularly the masturbation - was a little over the top, but i know that's Parker & Stone's MO...though Matt Groening & Seth MacFarlane are proof that it's really not necessary.)
after i watched this, i found myself thinking "cream freeeezh" at random moments throughout the day and laughing to myself! i know i'm going to *lose it* the next time i buy creme fraiche at the store. and before i watched this i already had trouble keeping a straight face any time i saw an ad for the Shake Weight...
›7 Replies-
-
re: thew
my point was that in this particular instance i didn't think that the constant profanity and graphic under-the-blanket action really amplified the hilarity. it didn't offend me - i'm hardly modest or prudish. i just felt like they did it simply because they could, not because it made the whole thing *that* much funnier.
but hey, one of the wonderful things about humor is that it's open to subjective interpretation. we don't all have to agree on what's funny...which is good, because i disagree with your assertion that profanity & vulgarity are *necessary* for humor. there are plenty of comedians who manage to be pretty f-ing hilarious without it.
now if you'll excuse me, i suddenly have an urge to watch my DVD of Eddie Murphy Raw for the thousandth time ;)
-
-
re: thew
They are not necessary, but important, which is why South Park get its points across very effectively. One of the trademark of South Park is unapologetic about its core messages. The strong languages and images are reprenstations of this. It does not simply want to tell you something as a passive narrative. It wants to F--king tell you something as a compassionate person.
Both humor and vuglarity are vechicles of it. One can also ask if the humor aspect is necessary. No, but it is important too.
It is very different from the Seinfeld show. Seinfeld is funny but it is a pure comedy show. It is a show about nothing. It does not seek to get a message across. South Park always has a message and often a social or political message.
-
-
-
-
-
re: linguafood
they always have a few of the TVs at my gym tuned to FN, and i glanced up today while Paula Deen was spooning something white & creamy into a bowl - i don't know if it was sour cream, or mayo, or whipped cream, or what, but i immediately thought "cream freeezh" and just started laughing! totally startled the guy next to me - i'm pretty sure he thinks i'm insane :)
-
-
-
i'm sorry i spent time on that vulgarity.
satire = man masturbating to tv food shows and food prep?
swiftian, for sure!
›8 Replies-
re: alkapal
South Park can be very vulgar, but it almost always contains some levels of truth. I can talk about other episodes, but I will focus on this one.
Now, men masturbating to food prep is an exaggeration, but it is true that some people get a certain level of "high" by watch food prep. Afterall, we know some people are addicited to Food Network and merely watch the food preperations without ever trying any of the recipes. I know a few ladies who did just that when I were in school.
We have less and less people cook at home, yet we have more and more people watch Food shows. It is known that many noncooks love to watch cooking shows
-
re: Chemicalkinetics
people get "high" watching food shows? addictions?
come now, ceekay, where's the evidence?
watching a show but never preparing the recipes is a problem?
i watch gardening shows and rarely garden. i can dream of that beautiful "cottage garden" or having that spanish courtyard with the fountain, spanish tiles and majolica figures.i love "law & order" and haven't murdered, committed an SVU crime or investigated or prosecuted one.
~~~~~
i'm tired of the word "porn" applied to things that aren't -- food porn, e.g., as used in the bruni article. geesh!"Porn" is now used to mean "anything we like to look at"? we all complain about the "dumbing down" of language, culture, etc, yet we engage in sloppy, easy labels and superficial analysis. (that's a generic rant and not about your post, ceekay).
-
re: alkapal
Ok, I do admit there are two classifications of addiction. There is the true addicition in medical terms, in which the addicited subjects will undergo "withdraw" when the addicted substances are denied. Cocaine for example. There are the more popular and loose usage of addictions which simply means a very strong desire, like cell phone texting. Some people just seem to love texting and do so very regularly and often they cannot even explain why, but they do want to. They get a great deal of pleasure or high from texting or twitting. I don't believe they will undergo withdraw symptoms if the cell phones are threw away.
-
re: Chemicalkinetics
texting is an interesting phenomenon.
social media are, too. sometimes <ahem> our online connectedness detracts from our real life interaction in the physical space we're in -- with the people around, or the tasks at hand. of course, i know that this affects none of us. <cough, cough...gotta go now. ;-)>
-
-
-
-
re: scubadoo97
Thanks. Yeah, I was going to mention the term "food porn" too, but I think there are two definition. One is exactly what you said. The other is to sell foods through sexual images, like beer TV commercials with beautiful women. Either way there are a small and substantial segement of people get high from these food images. :)
I haven't watched enough Food Network to see if I will get addicted.
-
-
-
-
-
Even funnier - I watched this episode yesterday, then went to the gym and while I was on the treadmill I saw an ad for the "shake in your hand" exercise machine - it's REAL!
Maybe people who habitually watch TV commercials knew this but I had never seen it before and assumed the South Park guys made it up. Though obviously they did make up the extra features the cartoon version displays, like having a personality and dispensing "cooling lotion." ;-)
›6 Replies -
-
-
These guys who create South Park always key into the current zeitgeist with something like this. I suspect that Parker and Stone kept running into supposedly normal grown men who were taking "culinary arts" as a hobby reeeeeal (too) seriously owing to celebrity chefs like Guy Fieri.
The only thing is that the impersonations of the second tier chefs (Fieri, Alton Brown) had nothing to do with their real personalities or speech patterns. They only tried to get the network TV stars (Ramsey, Oliver, Paula Deen) "right".
They did nail the title card for "Good Eats".
›5 Replies -
-
-
-
All the impersonations of the food network celebrity chefs were spot-on.
Eric Cartman as Gordon Ramsey = Hilarious
›2 Replies -
-
-
-














