South park V.S. The simpsons

"Now, to start off with, the gentleman who writes the Simpsons, Matt Groening, is from Portland, OR. Everyone knows that Oregonians are intellectually and comically superior to the citizens of the other 49 states. I am trying to think of something witty to follow this up with, but I can't think of anything. " "I contend that that is a matter of opinion," I somehow see these two statements canceling each other out. "While many of their jokes are extremely funny, it is not particularly uncommon for them to use a joke that looks like it could be promising but then falls flat. " This, unfortunately, is something that happends in all comedy shows. However I would have to dis agree with the follow up statement that it happens more in south park then the simpsons. Now not including the fact that most of what happens in the simpons can be accurately predicted, the jokes and punch lines are quick paced, and (as mentioned before) very speedy. When south park uses the tactic of using 'the pause' to let the jokes sink in, the audience gets to look at the picture the director is trying to paint for them. This meaning, rather than quickly jumping from one subject topic to another as in the simpsons, the show allows the viewers to notice more the objective and purpose of the show. Now, in south park their is a clear objective in each episode, that is attempted to keep viewers attention. While the shows is still a comedy and focuses alot on making vulgar and funny remarks, it's initial goal is to provide a moral explaining the goal or learned objective from each show, which is usually followed up by a speech from stan or kyle. This way the audience is able to understand more the purpose and reasoning of each individual event or goal. This however, does not happen in the simpsons, which makes some of the jokes harder to understadnd, or in alot of opinions, not funny. "The Simpsons use a more tried and true style of comedy. " While their was a time when the simpsons had it's indiviuality of comedy, that time has long since passed. The selected audience know what to expect from each show now, and while it may still come off as funny, its nothing new. This can lead the show into being more of "something to just watch" rather than something they are specifically being entertained from. Albeit, in south park you can pretty much expect something new and exciting each time with different plots and events. "My point is, many people happen to like stupid comedies that are "pretty lame. " " I'm afraid my point here was mis-understood. Movies such as monty python, and airplane, became famous for being what some people would call "stupid". However the most prominent point I am trying to get across her is that the simpsons dont experiment with new things. I too am a tremendous fan of monty python. In this we can expect monty python to do different comical skits with a large variety of oppertunity at hand. The simpson on the other hand have no large iminent goals, and generally focus on the same plot for each episodes, which may lead some of the jokes to seem "dumb". Now not to take away from the simpsons, because again, the simpsons individualized this comedy style and created in a sort of way. In the last 20+ years the simpsons have been a great hit because of this new style. However, at that, it can now be classifed as an old style, and no longer attracts as many people to it as it once did. "Not only is South Park completely inappropriate for anyone under the age of 40, children would probably not even find it funny. I know children who like The Simpsons, and I know adults who like The Simpsons. " Now the argument relating to age of viewrs is a good one, and one I meant to bring up in my first argument. First off let's take a look at the concept of each channel the shows are aired on. The simpsons, a family friendly network. South park, a network designed to provide comedy for individuals over the age of 14. That being said, Comedy central isn't on any basic cable programming, and is only on paid programming. It's intended audience is for those over an age deemed appropriate to watch it. Now that being said, issues have aroused in the past about the simpsons being on a family friendly network. While the simpsons don't compare in vulgarity to south park, the level of vulgarity has been seen to be dis-dainful of fox's reputation. I'm sure we all have heard over the dispute that arose from the simpsons a few years back. Lets take a look at some of these examples. . http://www.reuters.com... . http://www.tv.com... Now the issue lies more on the fact that fox was originally a family friendly broadcasting network. The simpsons had also opened the door for family guy. Now as these are both great T. V. shows, I think most would agree that they should be placed on a channel more appropriate for their width, (aka comedy central). "South Park is offensive- The Simpsons is not prone to that problem" This however is highly untrue. People have looked at homers carelessness as a father and barts example to kids as a negative for over a decade. This has caused great relevant uproar in the parents of certain children watching and recieving messages from an network intended for family T. V. This has also opened the door for fox to lose its family value by allowing other shows on the program. "As you mentioned, South Park makes fun of real world issues more than The Simpsons. While this might well be the case, it does not necessarily make it more funny. " This however implies that it is for a mature audience willing to look at the faults of society, which for a vast majority of people, is highly amusing. "South Park has lampooned liberals far more often than it lampoons conservatives. " I find this statement faulty. Upon research, any one person would find that south park has always been open to critisizing each side fairly to evenly distribute fairness in the way the policital Idealogies are demonstrated. While the producers of south park may be more conservative, they have always taken great care to make sure each side would be made fun of evenly. "Clearly, if the audience didn't like the Simpsons anymore, FOX would cancel the show" The argument wasn't that the simpson is funny, just that they are losing its taste by being generally the same over the years. This being said, they have never been ever changing or spontaneous to spice up the show, which generally leads it to be not as comical. "Lastly, South Park has a lot of characters with no obvious main character. While you could (correctly) say that it is the same way with The Simpsons, the show obviously centers on the Simpson family (duh). This makes for much more cohesive programming. South Park often is not cohesive for this reason, and can become confusing at times. The Simpsons eliminates that problem by having a main family. " The simpsons success surrounded it unorthodox and unique way of displaying characterization. Southp ark has done so with a different level of showing human nature, where as the simpons display their own characters emotions for the show. South park is seen to be more "wittier" in this specific areas, while they display celebrities and display the "behind the scenes" version of them. This giving them potent reasoning as to things that humans do when, angry, happy, sad, etc. They do this through comical showcasing to better get the imagery across. With the simpsons we learn nothing new from the characters, and only see how they change and effect them selves, giving it no real world value. This is something important to look when adressing the maturity of the show, and its intended audience.