NYTimes Article

Instead of focusing on the pictures of Matt Stone and Trey Parker in yesterday's article, why not get to the meat of it? They have a raw deal at ComCentral - but, that is their fault. Chalk it up to inexperience, I'm sure they will be able to renegotiate. Also - what about the South Park Christmas ornament, video game and paperback deals? Isn't that good news for the fans?

You should read the 10/20/97 "Broadcast and Cable" article (complete text posted in another thread on this newsgroup) -

..." a frazzled Parker acknowledged that 'financially, we'd probably be better off almost anywhere' But creative freedom, and a tolerance for edgy and crude humor, is paramount and Comedy [Central] looked like the best home for them"

...

"Parker and Stone are salaried, and are essentially employees of the network [Comedy Central], although they do own 'a chunk of the merchandising.'"

In article ,

Well,

I read it from there. Still, I don't get to see those dorks.

                         Kit Lo
                         
                         What's the deal with the cutouts
                         of Stan and Cartman?

On 11 Nov 1997 15:38:08 GMT, [email] (JazzCorr) offered this unto Shub-Internet:

Christmas ornament, kick-ass. Video game, possibly. But a paperback? THat'd be even worse than a comic book. You wouldn't even get to see the characters. That and I want to read something with a little more substance, like the Divine Comedy. Or Faust.

Check out www.nytimes.com. It's free, and you can look through the whole paper. No pictures from the South Park article, though.