Do you know anything about it?

Last week the Imaginationland trilogy was nominated for an Emmy - South Park's eighth, god bless them - and perhaps this has something to do with that, though I'm unaware of the specifics in scheduling decisions. Since Matt and Trey aren't big on pandering to the Emmy-Hollywood-Celebrity crowd, I'm pretty skeptical that the two are related, though I am sure that Comedy Central is interested in grabbing a third Emmy for its most popular, highest rated and most watched show (are all those the same thing?).

I, for one, absolutely love the Imaginationland trilogy. It's brilliant. At first I wasn't too keen, because towards the end of the first episode I didn't see it wrapping up to a point, but upon realizing that it was more than a single episode - and then three episodes! - I became enthralled by the depth to which the entire trilogy was taken and the sensational points that arose out of it.

Imaginationland is about the existence of the make-believe - how real imaginary things are. This hour and a half of philosophical speculation interwoven seamlessly with a plot about Kyle finally having to lick Cartman's particularly vinegary nuts - How do you like your sundays Kyle? With extra nuts? - is nothing short of genius.

From the perspective of The Zen of South Park, Imaginationland adds particular vibrancy because the understanding that imaginary things - like many of the religious figures we revere, and even, say, maybe, God - are real and can have far more importance and influence than tangible things has a dual effect. At once it provides us with historical fodder while simultaneously affirming the fact that historicity can be far less important than perception. For instance, haven't people like Superman or Jesus, with their values of justice and the importance of fighting for truth been more influential and important than almost every other person? What about Luke Skywalker - imaginary - vs. Mark Hammell, tangible. Skywalker is more important (by far) and has had far more of an impact on the world. Can we really say that just because he's imaginary he isn't really real?

If you haven't seen it or if you have, I highly recommend that you plunk down in front of your tv this Sunday night at ten and take a look at Imaginationland - and potentially an extended version, at that.

Have you seen it? What's your favorite part? What do you think about this debate between imaginary and real?

For more going on in the world of South Park, check out my quick question about the South Park video game, HERE. Don't forget, a review of Step-Brothers is coming later this afternoon (and hopefully X-Files sometime soon!).

Outstanding Animated Program (for Programming Less Than One Hour) : The Simpsons

Ok, I know that Robot Chicken and Creature Comforts America should be winning me over hands-down, but I have to give love to one of the best "Simpsons" episodes I've seen in a long time. It had a solid, yet playful narrative with an insight into Homer and family that I didn't think could seem so fresh after over a decade of exploring their characters in every way possible.

Outstanding Animated Program (1+ hours) : Imaginationland (South Park)

This special was just plain imaginative. I think the beauty of animation is that you can be more inventive with it than any other medium, and Parker an Stone have shown they know how to get the most out of their extra creative license.

Outstanding Art Direction for a Single-Camera Series: Pie-lette (Pushing Daisies)

I know, I know. This is such a predictable choice since "Pushing Daisies" really relies on its art direction. But really, would "Pushing Daisies" BE "Pushing Daisies" without the whimsicle set pieces, ambiguously-vintage costumes, and delightful pies? Production designer Michael Wylie really created an autonomous world that is unflinchingly sweet and nostalgic --- and that contrasts beautifuly with the grimmer themes of death the show's plot surrounds.

Outstanding Casting for a Comedy Series : Pushing Daisies

I'm pretty sure "30 Rock" is a shoe-in for this category because of its perfectly-casted guest roster, but I think "Pushing Daisies" ultimately earns this award for its initial casting as a new series. I mean, c'mon guys. It's Lee Pace.

(That said, if "The Office" were nominated, I would choose them right away because of the most perfect casting of Amy Ryan I've ever seen.)

Outstanding Cinematography for a Half-Hour Series : My Name is Earl

I just love the cinematography in this show. The washed-out whites and dull shadows just feel like a dingy border town.

Outstanding Cinematography for a One Hour : Dexter

I think the title sequence alone deserves the cinematography nod.

That's it for now! I'll get to the "fun" categories in a later post, complete with more pining over Lee Pace.

This episode, excellent as it is, has two things worth focusing on for The Zen of South Park. The first is it's self-reflective jabs regarding the length of a show's run and that it should be canceled. Yes, South Park is talking about itself...jokingly. South Park has numerous self-reflective jabs (think of the Cartoon Wars episodes, in particular). Can you think of any others?

The second thing that's great to focus on is the Jewish stereotypes. "What!?" you cry. "There are stereotypes involving people of Jewish descent?" Yes, I know it's shocking, but also shockingly true, and a number of them are explored in this episode, particularly the notion that Jews control the media. Yep, they're everywhere, especially when it comes to the media. Hitler knew it (see his Table Talks for evidence) and Trey and Matt know it. Considering the fact that Matt is Jewish, evidence of this stereotype is already emerging.

Joosians live on the planet Fognl, and are big green aliens that look suspiciously Jewish, have Brooklyn accents, control all the media in the universe and seem to be blood relatives of Kyle (discovered when they eat some gross food). If you don't understand any of the references I'm making or if any of the jokes from the actual episode seem unclear (and are related to Jewish stereotypes), don't hesitate to ask.

Did you like this episode? What was your favorite joke? What stereotypes did you notice that I didn't mention here?

In The Zen of South Park I'll explore the effects of revealing so many Jewish stereotypes as well as Cartman's anti-Semitism, and discuss why South Park has provided us with an excellent medium of leaning about these things.

A South Park video game, hmm...

Does anybody have any idea what the premise will be or how it will work? Have you heard anything else? Would you get this game (pending you have the platform for it and know more about it)?

What would you like to see in a South Park Video Game?

That's right. I said it. There is no global warming. Sure, excessive carbon is not good for our environment, ozone layer or collective health - I certainly won't deny that - but the notion that the world's temperature is increasing in an unnatural way is absurd. In fact, not only have global temperatures been decreasing for a few years now, not only should the earth have warmed up substantially after the mini-ice-age of the 14th-20th centuries, and not only am I always a little cold and appreciative of an extra degree or so, but some NASA scientists have attributed the global rises that were being detected to the sun's own increase in temperatures (did humans cause that?). Basically, there is no concrete evidence that it is actually humans and their activities that are contributing to the temperature of the earth.

All that said, I am not anti-environment. I recycle. I don't litter. I drive 55 mph because it's the optimum speed to conserve gas. I just think that before we go believing every little word that scare-mongers scream at us we should probably ask to see some actual scientific evidence and not just believe it because they say it's scientific. Let's question these things a little more thoroughly.

And that brings us to South Park. South Park questions the nonsense spewed at us left and right about global warming and saving the environment. God bless it.

In "Terrance and Phillip Behind the Blow" it's Earth Day and the crazy Earth Day leaders are psychopaths, blaming everything on the Republicans and murdering people for the sake of their cause. As Stan says, "Environmental activists don't use logic or reason." This episode, along with "Manbearpig" in which Al Gore is a raving lunatic trying to prove the existence and danger of a make-believe creature that's half man, half bear, and half pig (and which we see in Imaginationland), as well as others that refuse to tolerate the nonsense of bullshit environmentalist' claims, is awesome for its willingness to stand up to the monolith that is the environmental movement. Few people will publicly stand up to the ridicule that is associated with not believing in what everyone tells them is true (like standing up to bunk religious claims when everyone around you is a believer), but Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Michael Crichton are among them.

So when you watch South Park tonight, remember that it's about more than Terrance and Phillip's problems with blow.

Do you believe in global warming? What's your reason why? Do you think I'm a raving lunatic? What do you think about this episode of South Park? Where else does South Park knock global warming?

A lot of times d-bags like to tell you they are hard-nosed realists and unsentimental skeptics who coolly assess the facts and don't let their emotions cloud their judgement. If you believe this, d-bags will surely laugh at you, and let's face it, you deserve it. The soul of d-baggery is making someone else play by rules that the d-bag doesn't have to follow. For the sake of enlightening and instructing non-d-bags in the ways of d-baggery, Chunque will explain heroes to the world. The difference between a d-bag hero and a traditional hero is all in the dress code. That is, a normal person doesn't require his sentimental crap to come dressed in a uniform.

For a d-bag a hero is anyone who has the power to wreck someone else's life but decides not to out of sheer benevolence. Alcoholic fathers, mustachioed cops on the take, anyone who saves a kitty from a tree, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are all heroes by this definition. Let's make this a no-brainer: if you are man enough to use sophisticated legal arguments to defraud the powerless and waste precious resources -- just because you can -- but are sensitive enough to get choked up over a Mel Gibson movie like The Patriot, you are probably a d-bag hero.

The dark lord of d-baggery says that conservation is a "personal virtue". Let's unpack that for the non-d-bags who might read this blog. By "personal" he means domestic, feminine, and weak. An "impersonal" virtue, on the other hand, is the kind that heroes have: masculine, skeptical, rational, wasteful, outwardly directed, careless of others' needs or safety, committed to a larger cause -- the big picture -- which the d-bag has impersonally decided was in everyone else's best interests.

Sadly, it is difficult for every aspiring d-bag to be a hero by practicing impersonal virtues. (This is particularly true for d-bag intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens, Penn Jillette, and Trey Parker.) That is why there are more opportunities to be a d-bag hero at your local Hummer dealership than there are on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just got back from the grocery store, where I was lucky enough to hear "Have a Nice Day" while in the bread aisle. I'd never heard the song before, but it was instantly recognizable as a Bon Jovi song. Who else could sing it with so much seriousness and urgency.

Hearing Bon Jovi sing this song with so much passion just reminds me of Trey Parker, the only other person I've ever known of (besides me) who took such great delight in imitating singers who sing so hard with such great seriousness.

His song "Montage" from South Park and Team America is a great illustration...

Have a nice day.

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1659044121/ -- trailer for "hamlet 2"

In short, what I enjoy are their Buddhist sentiments and the ability to question absolutely everything that they're told must be the answer. Indeed, there's no acceptance of the notion that "just because" is an answer to anything significant or important either.

The Zen of South Park, I think, very much captures the essence of Trey and Matt's thoughts in this interview, and though I started writing the book before I saw the clip, it certainly reassured me that I was interpreting their show the right way. I hope you enjoy the video. If you know of other clips like this please send them to me. What did you think of the clip? Anything you objected to that they said? Anything you really liked?

South Park tonight, though it has almost nothing to do with religion, is absolutely hilarious. It's the one that begins with Randy Marsh on The Wheel of Fortune trying to figure out what N_GGERS is. The clue is, People Who Annoy Me.

So, today's topic is about using other people's work in your own (fanfiction). Is it okay to use other people's characters in your own work? What if you never make money off of them and it's all online? How far should intellectual property rights go? Can we really control - or should we even try to - what's on the internet?

As many of you know J.K. Rowling has recently tried to stop certain people online from using her characters in their own stories. The question is, why. I'm not talking about her reasons in particular, but why I imagine it could be important for someone to restrict the use of her characters. In the first place, it's her intellectual property. She created it and as such has the right to use it as she pleases. Okay, fine - that seems reasonable. Unreasonable, though, is the idea that once she created those characters, she had control over them. Harry Potter and the world around him is an idea and those ideas are in the public forum. The movement of ideas can't be stopped and neither can our imaginations (watch episodes 1110, 1111, and 1112 of South Park about Imaginationland if you don't believe me). If you write a poem, you don't have the right to tell me how to interpret and understand it. Once it's out, it's out. And in a certain sense, the same goes for fictional characters.

We ask questions like, what would Harry Potter do in this or that situation and then we imagine how it would go and even argue with our friends about what Harry would do based on our understanding of his character. This is pretty natural and the basis for a lot of high school literature classes. Is that a violation of intellectual property? So we take it a step further. We go online and we write up this imagined scenario with a character that the public is already familiar with. Is that wrong? Well, it's certainly trickier. Discussion in class or with friends is one thing but suddenly I've put pen to paper (though it could have been an essay for a teacher that I posted online?) or fingers to keys and I might have a lawsuit on my hands.

In fifth grade my class read The Phantom Tollbooth, an absolutely wonderful book (go to www.thezenofsouhtpark.com/Merchandise to purchase it now). We were asked to write an additional chapter to this book as an assignment and then we read our chapters aloud to the class. I wrote chapter 15 and a 1/2. How clever of me. What if I'd posted it online? What if we all had? Adorable, it certainly would have been, but couldn't the author have found it problematic that we were using his characters and potentially, shall we say, defaming them? This, I think, could be the issue. If I wrote a graphic and detailed novel about Hermione Granger and Ronald Weasely making the hottest, kinkiest, nastiest and raunchiest sexy time imaginable (sometimes what I see in my head does not need to make it to paper) I would probably be defaming Rowling's intellectual property by corrupting readers' images of these characters (or showing them that Ron was more creative and interesting than we thought). I could see how an author might oppose me doing this. So if sex is a problem, what about Ron playing videogames all day? Is that defaming his character? What about Ron smoking crack? Who knows what Rowling could have a problem with us writing about and this, as I see it, is the issue.

As I've already said, I don't imagine this scenario as one where people are trying to make money off of her intellectual property (save some Google AdSense ads, perhaps), but they are potentially messing up her creation and therefore causing her to lose money. Arguably, though, it's free advertising for her since all of the collectibles and books and ideas in people's heads all go back to padding her pockets. Since we can't really know the net effects considering all of the other variables regarding the continued success of Harry Potter, maybe it's best to leave well enough alone - especially when we remember that at best, shutting down a site doesn't mean the content won't appear elsewhere and that all advertising is good advertising so by harping on the doings of one or two people, Rowling is only publicizing their actions since she is the public figure and not them.

But this issue is a lot closer to my heart - and my own work - than the above would let on. I am writing, as many of you know, about South Park. That is someone else's intellectual property (I'd like to say Trey Parker and Matt Stone but I'm going to go more with Comedy Central and Viacom) and I am using it. More than that, I'm using it to make money. Sure, it's free publicity for everyone involved and I seriously doubt that anyone will watch South Park less after reading my book - probably more (at least I'd like to think so). After all, I'm agreeing with the show and fleshing out its ideas and supporting its methods. But maybe that's the problem. By claiming that South Park is saying this and that I could actually be defaming the creators or their show in some way - that is, if they disagree. But the thing is, I've got it pretty spot on (I would argue that, wouldn't I) and even if they don't agree with my assessment, it all goes back to the poem issue I brought up in the beginning.

If you're a poet and write a poem, I can interpret it however I want. Sure, it has a context and the way you feel about it and why you wrote it but it's freaking poetry - if it doesn't have multiple layers of meaning (and some the poet herself doesn't see), it's probably crappy poetry in the first place. And the same goes for a show like South Park. It's a brilliant social commentary with multiple layers of meaning saying dozens of things at once. Like many writers, Parker and Stone probably only see some of the wider implications embedded in their work once they're done with it and reread it. That happens to me all the time when I edit. I didn't even know how deeply my thoughts were enmeshed in the work until I read back and saw what I was really getting at. With South Park I have just taken even more steps back than even they perhaps (and my friend who edits my own work, Kush - next week's guest blogger - sees the big picture I'm creating better than I do sometimes) and looked at their entire compendium to really extract all of what is being said about religion.

And now I'm going to try to sell my collection of thoughts about the matter and make money of off their intellectual property. But hell, for them it's free advertising and hopefully understanding that other people really do get, care about, and appreciate what they're saying (pending I got any of it right).

I like to look at this as though it were academia. Academics take other people's work all the time, whether art, historical sources, literature, or whatever, and write all about it and it's meaning. It's how we understand the period, the culture, the history, the authors and so much more. And no one gets sued for it (mostly) because we are allowed to write about what other people say and do. Journalists do it every day. It would be one thing if I just reprinted someone's poems or published my own South Park DVDs but I'm not concerned with the images and the original product - just the ideas that are conveyed. I may quote the words said by Cartman in writing but I'm not showing him saying them. Of course, I'm not making fanfiction because I haven't had Cartman say new things or created my own South Park episodes (though those are all over the internet). I have just taken what Cartman and Stan and Mr. Garrison and others really did say and explained why it's meaningful and what larger implications it has and the lessons it can teach us.

So, this is clearly a complicated issue and people have a right to feel the way they do about protecting their intellectual property. Fortunately, I haven't run into any problems yet and with other South Park books out there, I don't expect to (until I put clips in a chapter by chapter format on my website), but J.K. Rowling has created her own issues by being upset with the use of her intellectual property. But how far should she go and is there a point to going there? I really can't say, but I do know one thing - fanfiction is an internet based grassroots approach to utilizing ideas and with the globalizing world coming at us faster every day, there is no stopping that even if you tear down one website that talks about Hermione and Ron gettin' busy behind the rows of mandrakes.

Do you agree? Disagree? How? Why? After leaving your comments here, make sure to check out Chandler's thoughts at chandlermariecraig.wordpress.com.

Why does this happen? Well, let me just let the non-writers who stop by in on a little secret: Writing is...SO. MUCH. WORK. All right, that's overexaggerating a little bit. But usually, it's not what you would call "fun." In my limited experience, the only people I've met who "enjoy" writing are those drafting personal essays, because, well, they're writing about themselves. (Can you even begin to grasp the irony of a blogger making such a statement?)

For the rest of us, there's hours of planning and character background and "off the page" scenes and yadda-yadda. After that? It all sucks. Or, at least we think it does. It's like that typical sitcom one night stand: The first night you have an idea, it's the sexiest thing in the world. You love it. You wonder where it's been your whole life. You take it home. Hop in the sack with it. It's the greatest night of your life.

Then you wake up the next morning and wonder what the hell you were thinking.

That's writing. It's constantly second-guessing or wondering if you could have done better. I've written a few times now that you should enjoy your writing and make it entertaining for you. That's really me talking about the best case scenario. Those few moments when you have "fun" are the goal, but it takes a lot of digging to get there. But you have to wonder if it has to be like that. This is supposed to be some type of art, isn't it? You have to be personal, don't you?

There's probably a middle-ground somewhere. So I present to you a few wise words from Trey Parker, co-creator of South Park, on a more spontaneous approach to writing (from this interview with The A.V. Club):

AVC: Why do you create the show on such a tight, grueling schedule?

TREY PARKER: Actually, it's been interesting, because we've tried many times, and last year was the last time we really tried—we came in over the summer and said, "Let's just do some stuff. There's no deadline, there's nothing." And we wrote and directed and created some of the worst crap we've ever made in our entire careers. I always like, in the interviews too, I like to fancy myself more of a musician than anything else, but it really is—for me, writing an episode of South Park, it's like sitting down and writing a song. When you sit down and write a song, you kind of have the idea for the song, and you sit there at the piano and you kinda just write it. And then of course later there's some dinking around with it and changing some stuff. But there's this thing that happens when the song first comes out, that sort of magic when it first comes out of the ether, and you can't even really explain where it comes from. That happens so much with music, and people understand that with music. But I really think that a lot of movie and TV should be the same way.

So much of what you see now in Hollywood is written and directed by committee, and you can see it. Things are so workshopped and so run around the room, and so overthought. And finally, once you have a draft and then a draft of the draft, then they go in there and they work on every single little joke, and "Is there a gag here? Is there something here?" You would never do that with a song. You would never sit around for a month and talk about what a song should sound like, and what the chorus is going to be. To me, every episode is like a song, and every season is like an album. There's that part of the day when you first get the idea and you say, "This could be really funny." And you sit down and you write it. There's just something that happens there that doesn't happen when you really give it a lot of time beforehand. And that's basically my long-winded answer of saying I'm a procrastinator. [Laughs.]

I really love this here analogy. All that procrastinating I wrote about in the first few paragraphs comes about from overthinking to the point of writer's paralysis. And there's no need.

I used to want to be a musician. And, I don't mean to brag, but holy god I was prolific. There were nights I'd stay up till five in the morning in my secluded third floor room writing song after song after song. Now, screenwriting certainly takes longer than writing a song, but if I were to actually analyze the time I spend working on my scripts, more than half of it would be wasted on "Ugh, I don't know what to do here. This isn't good. Should I keep this?" and not writing. Instead, I could have just written what I felt to be right at the time, and went back later. It's just a draft, it's a just a draft.

Now, this isn't me telling you it's OK to be lazy. There's a difference between half-assing and simply writing because something at that particular moment affected you. Using the former technique, you wind up with underdeveloped characters in underdeveloped plots. The latter technique contains sincerity. It's not trying to be anything, it just is. And this is what makes great writing.

So give it a try. Like any writing technique, it will probably work for you sometimes and be your downfall on other days. Plus it should be noted that Trey Parker and his buddy/South Park partner have been working on this show for about ten years now. So it's probably second nature at this point. But it's worth it to try and explore new approaches to your craft. And it's good for your brain.

That's it for now. Stand-up will be up this weekend.

Oh, and I'm a college graduate. Smell ya later, Emerson.

The conversation started because of recent South Park episodes such as "Over Logging" and "Canada On Strike"  which both have story lines that are centered around the Internet.  In the episode "Canada On Strike" Trey Parker and Matt Stone make various commentaries on viral video and sites like YouTube, as well as the recent writers strike.

In LA Times article Trey Parker is quoted as saying "The Internet and YouTube changes the way you think about your characters interacting with the world."

Parker and Stone are a significant voice in the media these days. South Park is proof that they are on the forefront of technology and media. Because of the quick productions schedules and fast turnover South Park is able to have some of the sharpest and most topical commentary of any other show on broadcast television. Unlike other animated shows such as Family Guy and the Simpsons, South Park is able to make direct criticism of recent events either shortly after they happened or while they are still going on, where as other shows must make broader less direct statements because by the time they are broadcasts things have already happened and time has passed.

Check out the whole article here.

Well I still expect somebody make parody of harry potter as a boy who similiar to Kenny of South Park…

Below is a website where you can watch every episode of South Park episode for free including last weeks episode: "Canada on Strike".

This political, social, pop culture, Peabody awarding winning satirical cartoon continues to get better and better. This last episode is probably one of the funniest I've seen (the week before left me in tears I was laughing so hard), and this season is one of the sharpest (last season was pretty amazing as well). Unlike Family Guy, which is quickly running out of gas, and The Simpson's, which has lost the genius while remaining funny enough, I see no end to Trey Parker and Matt Stone's brilliance.

Before looking at this website you may feel the need to watch the clip titles "Whats, What in My Butt", three minutes of the one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I caution you to watch the entire episode. In fact check out every episode of South Park for free at southparkstudios.com. I'm currently making my way through the first season.

As far as I'm concerned, this website and hulu.com are the futures of mass media entertainment, and Parker and Stone (as they normally are) remain at the forefront.

p.s. If you haven't been keeping up with that other brilliant cartoon satire, download Frisky Dingo at i-tunes. $1.99 an episode, ten minute episodes. 2 Seasons. This, and South Park are probably two of the best things on the tele. And American Dad is completely underrated (superior to it's brother Family Guy).

Cast & Credits

Directed by Trey Parker. Written by Trey Parker & Matt Stone & Pam Brady. MPAA: Rated R for graphic crude and sexual humor, violent images and strong language - all involving puppets. Runtime: 98 min.

Once again Trey and Matt come up with a fantastic idea to deal with current events! This week on South Park, Canada decides to go on strike because they aren't receiving enough money. Simple enough, I suppose. Well, the boys end up creating an Internet sensation with Butters dancing in various costumes just to make some money to give to Canada so their favorite TV show can come back on the air. I know that in the beginning of the season I criticized the guys for not commenting on the writer's strike. Well, I must say it was worth the wait because this episode did it total justice. I feel like they represented the feel of the strike from both sides of the argument. I am so happy that the writers are back because this week's episode was fantastic!

http://southparkstudios.com --- click on the link to view this week's episode.

Todos os episódios foram liberados grátis na internet!

Trey Parker e Matt Stone tomaram essa decisão, alegando que estão cansados de baixarem o programa deles ilegalmente o tempo todo, então queriam dar uma alternativa legal. Ótimo pra gente, não?

Bem, mas estão em inglês, é claro. E sem legendas. Mas se você já tem alguma noção de inglês, mesmo que não fale fluentemente, vale a pena ver, até porque ajuda a desenvolver o seu vocabulário e pronúncia. :)

Pois então, aqui está o link... www.southparkstudios.com

---

Assim que eu tiver tempo (só Deus sabe quando...), vou pegar uns pra assistir. É ótimo, apesar de não muito educativo. Huhauhaua.

Achei a novidade no Jovem Nerd.

Post relacionado:

• Assista Lost online grátis

- postado por Isabela

Après Deezer qui permet d'écouter légalement de la musique sur Internet (pas d'en télécharger, il faut pas déconner !), c'est au tour de la video et plus précisement de South Park de devenir légal et gratuit!
Le site http://www.southparkstudios.com/ offre donc la possibilité de visionner toutes les épisodes de toutes les saisons de South Park en streaming et légalement (c'est le plus important en quelque sorte)

Le tout est payé par la publicité abondante sur le site mais pas envahissante.

Partant du principe que la série était de toute façon téléchargée massivement sur le web, les auteurs, Trey Parker et Matt Stone, ont donc voulu en faciliter l'accès, afin qu'un maximum de personne puisse voir les aventures de Cartman, Kyle, Stan et Kenny.

Les deux auteurs ont toujours favorisé la diffusion de leur oeuvre et ont toujours affirmé être pour le téléchargement des épisodes de South Park.
De plus, la publicité, rémunérant le site, offre un revenu supplémentaire alors inexistant avec les plateformes de téléchargement illégales. On espère que le concept contaminera les autres séries et pourquoi pas les films !

Pour les non-anglophones, un site français (http://www.southpark-tv.com/) propose le même service mais n'est pas officiel et donc pas légal, mais semble jouir d'une certaine tolérance de la part des ayant-droits hexagonaux.

Sie ist echt gut:

1. Die Bewohner von SP werden durch Katzenpisse high, so wie Kenny, der beim Trippen in eine andere Comic-Welt kommt , "Tittania" (hab ich mir gerade ausgedacht), mit dieser Frau, als Tochter des dortigen Königs-

2. Cartman wird zu Schindler, das wird echt witzig, hab die ganze Zeit gelacht...Erst Hitler, jetzt Schindler...

3. Eliot Spitzer

4. "Heavy Metal (Takin' a Ride)" , das Lied als Theme

As in, there are none. Or barely any nipples, anyway. Which is a total CROCK! It's an R-rated cartoon with that sexy poster, and all it has is some bare ass and side boob? Dicks!

...I think. It's been so long since I fast-forwarded through Heavy Metal looking for tits that, until last night's South Park, I'd forgotten that I once fast-forwarded through Heavy Metal looking for tits. It was amazing, watching the episode and realizing that Matt and Trey (or anybody else, for that matter) watched that movie exactly like I did: "Is this it? Is this where we get to see the cartoon nipples? No? What about now?" And ultimately acknowledging, as Stan's Dad said, "You never really get a good look at her naked boobs, anyway" -- which, in the South Park ep, sums up the theme that drugs' promised pleasures aren't real. That's right, Heavy Metal was used as an anti-drug metaphor. Wild, eh?

So yeah, if you have fond/frustrated memories of Heavy Metal, you've got to check out the ep. And you can do it for free at the official South Park site because as of this week it's got high-quality free streaming of every episode ever! It's fabulous! If you get wildly addicted like I have, you'll want to check out all the fannish eps: Make Love Not Warcraft, Raisins, The Fellowship of the Ring etc, Good Times With Weapons, Go God Go, Free Hat. Simpsons Did It. The Snuke. Actually you can have quite a long conversation about which South Park eps count as fan-related; it's more than you'd think.

Oh and yeah, somebody put up clips of the best -- make that "best" -- parts of Heavy Metal on YouTube. Just search for Heavy Metal Movie.