Didn't Parker and Stone say a while back (wasn't it nearly a year ago?) that one of the kids would "move away" or be replaced?
Well, Kenny died in last week's episode, but it was a much more melodramatic death. Then, at the end of the Butters episode, we see only Stan, Kyle and Cartman. Did anybody take note that for a moment it was the four of them (Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Butters) standing in front of Butters' house?
I guess we'll have to wait until March whether Kenny is back. I can see the next episode opening with Stan, Kyle and Cartman standing at the bus stop without any mention of Kenny being absent, then Butters suddenly running up to them to announce something or such.
I think Stone and Parker are undecided for now whether Kenny should stay dead and be replaced. Since their team can crank out episodes within a relatively short turnaround, they could wait till the last minute.
The Butters episode could have been a "try-out" to see how the audience might respond to the idea of seeing Butters regularly.
What does everybody think? Should Kenny stay dead? And should Butters be the one to replace him?
I say, yes to both. Timmy might be a second choice but, like Kenny, his character is too one-note. Token wasn't developed as much as I would have liked in the episode that featured him. Pip, of course, is simply out of the question. The Butters character seems to have the most possibilities for exploration, compared to all the other secondary kids we've seen.
Ummm, got any references? I've seen this rumor pop up a few times, and it's never had any trace of legitimacy. South Park *is* those four boys. Dumping Kenny (or any other boy in the gang) in favor of one of the supporting characters would be like Han Solo selling the Millennium Falcom, Capt. Kirk selling the Enterprise, Groucho shaving his mustache, the Lone Ranger shooting Tonto and Silver, or PZB writing an episode of "Touched By An Angel".
South Park needs to keep Kenny. I was very disappointed in the Butters episode - by far the best part had nothing to do with Butters, but it was his Dad's speech at the end. I would rather see Kenny stay around. I think Butters place is best kept as is. Minimal appearances every now and then.
LooseChanj wrote in message news:QE9S7.92371$[email]...
As I recall, Trey and Matt did consider having someone move away from South Park, but whom it could be was never revealed. The most likely person to move was Kyle, as his family was rich enough to do it, but that never came to pass. Instead, Token, who doesn't live anywhere near the other boys, is now a resident of South Park. Another possibility was Wendy, as Matt and Trey had stopped making storylines concerning Stan and Wendy.
"Jeff Bishop" wrote in message news:yOKS7.42132$[email]...
My feeling about TMB is that it was never meant to be a regular series, and was just M&T flexing their contractual muscles to make a short run of *something* besides SP.
"Willie Westwood" wrote in message news:qXMS7.8561$[email]...
I doubt that. It's not as though they were flooding the airwaves (cablewaves?) with TMB reruns before 9/11. Also bear in mind that TMB wasn't originally supposed to be about Bush anyway. Trey and Matt made it clear in October 2000 that if we wanted a better show we should vote for Gore. [Not that "That's My Gore!" would have been any better, mind you.]
Wrong again, Jeff. Gore could have been a robot who they had to reprogram every week because he'd keep crashing. Look up an old copy ofHeavy Metal, the strip Rock Opera, where they had to keep programming a Reagan robot. And anyway, it's hard to make a show about a doofus when the real-life guy is an incredible dunce anyway. ;-) "My pan plays down an unprecedented amount of the national debt!" "Hey, George, that's some skillet you get there, but all I want is ham and eggs!"
This "dunce" is busily abrogating decades old treaties, funding faith-based groups, attacking Constitutional rights and, IMHO, has his sights set on Social Security. His goal is to reset the USA back to our pre-FDR status. Don't get me started about Enron:-)
Like ABM/MAD, a treaty that made some sense when we faced a non-suicidal opponent, but which makes zero sense today. Did you expect anyone to buy the implicit argument that just because a treaty has been around for more than one decade, it must be a good thing?
IOW, funding faith-based groups and non-faith-based groups on comparable terms.
The last administration routinely trampled the First, Second, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendment, and that didn't seem to bother you at all. Which "rights" do you think THIS administration is "attacking," and why?
It would be great if this administration did get rid of that longstanding Ponzi scheme, but you are giving it way too much credit.
Meaning what, exactly? The days when Presidents grudgingly abided by the Constitution rather than threatening to pack the court with their cronies unless they got the rulings they wanted? Or the days when citizens didn't get locked up in concentration camps on account of their ancestry? Sorry, Liam, but you can EITHER champion civil liberties, OR you can talk about what a great guy FDR was. You can't have it both ways.
OK, I won't. You'd only make an even bigger ass of yourself if you did, so better you should quit while you're behind.
Oh, Jeffie, you're so predictable. If Smirk started appointing drug dealers & child molesters to cabinet positions, you'd find some good in that, e.g., "at least they aren't Klintoonian liberals", or the like.
Note: not to be taken as evidence that Smirk has *not* already appointed drug dealers and child molesters to his cabinet. Void where prohibited. Not good in Iowa.
<<Oh, Jeffie, you're so predictable. If Smirk started appointing drug dealers & child molesters to cabinet positions, you'd find some good in that, e.g., "at least they aren't Klintoonian liberals", or the like. >>
Good point.
And your theory was tested, IMO, by George Will, who lost any shred of credibility he once had (in my mind, at least), when he came to the defense of the current administration last Spring over the increased levels of arsenic that were being advocated. He actually wrote a column about why it is a good thing to have arsenic in the water supply.
Of course, even Dubya realized how ludicrous that position was and he finally lowered the acceptible arsenic levels, hanging Will out to dry.
Idealogues are, ipso facto, irrational, which I believe makes arguing with them pointless.
I guess to you, Liam or D.G., any "point" that reaches the desired conclusion, however strained, is a good one. Take this point up again when "Smirk" starts appointing drug dealers, child molesters, etc. Hell, I'd settle for appointing known drug users who can't pass a security check, even though that would only make his policy equal to Clinton's, not worse.
Who has what, exactly, to do with me or anyone else?!
defense of
arsenic
If you must recycle that old canard, at least get your facts right. No one advocated increasing levels of arsenic, then or ever. The whole issue was whether or not it was appropriate to *decrease* the permissible amount beyond the point where it had been throughout Clinton's own tenure, with no apparent problems. I don't know anyone who died of arsenic poisoning from drinking tap water while Clinton was President. Do you? Or are you arguing that the old standard was OK so long as a Democrat was in power, but magically became toxic once a Republican took office?
I'd like to see the column in question. I hate to say it, but.... then again, maybe I don't mind saying it at all - your credibility is non-existent.
finally
arguing
You are in no position to lecture anyone about being an ideologue, or worse, a partisan. The same goes for Dubya's decision to eventually accept the lower standard, which has plenty to do with politics (who wants to be portrayed as "pro-arsenic?") and nothing to do with science (what evidence is that the old standard was unsafe, or that an increasingly restrictive standard was worth the cost?). Your own blathering effectively admits as much. If you honestly believe that the lower arsenic standard was needed, you ought to be fuming at Clinton for waiting until the end of his second term before pushing a new regulation that would not even take effect until after he had left office. Oops, silly me, I almost forgot that arsenic is only bad for you when Republicans are President. Gotta love that nice, harmless Democratic arsenic, not to be confused with the toxic Republican variety.
Loon on the Loose again... I'm actually going to laff when Smirko fucks up something REEL BAD and you Smirk-groupies fall flat on your faces. I love it how Clinton managed to traumatize LOONIES. 8-@~~~~~~~
What I love about the whole thing is how crafty Clinton was about it; like you said, waiting until the end of his term before lowering the permissable amount, thus spending a shitload of money that anyone who hasn't died from drinking arsenic-rich tap water would want NOT to spend; including the Republican party. It was a fucking landmine Clinton left for Bush. Both of 'em know there's no problem with the previous standards on arsenic levels, but it still looks really bad when Bush says he's "increasing the arsenic in tap water" or however the Democrats want to put it.
Remember the attack ad that depicted a cute little girl holding a glass of water and asking her parents if she could have more arsenic in it? That piece was reminiscent of the parody ad for Prop 10 in the Gnomes episide ("you don't hate children, do you?"). But just like Lyndon Johnson's mushroom cloud commercial, I can't see T&M parodying this one. With the original that far off the deep end, there's nowhere for the parodist to go.
Trying to be safe, since all I know about the projected show was what has been posted here. Sounded like a hilarious concept.
The "Rock Opera" strip had the protagonist, "Gollywog," first programming his girlfriend (who had been turned into a mannequin) with old TV commercials, then kidnapped to help program a Hitler clone (and all that clone wanted to do was redecorate the place with bolder colours), then program the new President -- one of the unsuccessful ones was as wannabe-Beatle "Rongo" -- who then finally ended up as "Ronulus" who named his horse Trigger to the Senate.
Nancy Reagan wrote the artist a letter accusing him of being a drug addict for that.
Exactly. Okay, but not great. And way too expensive for the ratings it got.
It's kind of dated now. Also, they might be able to sell it on video better if they didn't keep playing reruns that would undoubtedly get low ratings. That hasn't panned out for "Action!," however. I would totally buy a DVD set with all the Action! episodes. However, such doesn't exist afaik and FX only showed the reruns for a few weeks.
No, it's not. It had little to do with Bush per se, and less to do with any particular current events. More than anything, it was a bad sitcom about bad sitcoms. They haven't gone away, so if the show had been any good before 9/11, it would be just as good now.
It was about how supposedly stupid and bumbling W. was for the most part. That is dated. Even most Dems are bored with making fun of him in that way. And the question above isn't why the show isn't on any more, but specifically why the reruns are not.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:20:22 -0600, "Mark Carson" wrote:
In the 40 questions answered by Matt and Trey, on Southparkstudios.com, they said, and I quote:
"Kyle would be the one to move, because he's a Jew. We did consider it briefly just to shake things up, but the thought of only three boys kind of bummed us out. South Park is the four boys, so none of them are going to move away."
Maybe Kenny had already died at the end of the episode... they just
didn't show it.
TTFN,
Kevin