South Park is an animated American TV series aimed at adult audiences and has used forms of cut-out animation since its early days up and still uses similar techniques today.
South Park started as an animated short called "The Spirit of Christmas" (also referred to as "Jesus vs Frosty"), created by university students Trey Parker (born 1969) and Matt Stone (born 1971) in 1992. It used physical cut-out animation with puppets made out of sugar paper. In 1995 Parker and Stone were asked to create a second Spirit of Christmas short which could be sent as a digital e-card. This is referred to as "Jesus vs Santa".
The two were commissioned to created six full-length episodes for Comedy Central in 1997. The creators originally intended to animate every episode using paper cut-out animation but found out it would be too labor intensive and thus only the first episode "Cartman Gets An Anal Probe" used this technique. The rest of the series was animated using the animation software Maya, which uses a digital cut-out animation technique where every part of the puppet is separate. Thanks to this technology, textures and shadows could be applied to give the animations the look of paper cut-outs.
In terms of movement and fluidity, Jesus vs Frosty is quite good. It's the puppets and artwork that let it down massively- something about the puppet's eyes being peach toned rather than white just makes it feel a lot more amateur and messy. The lest said about the subject matter the better- I am not a fan of the "let's take an innocent seeming thing and make it violent" mantra that seems to be all the rage today among (mostly) male media producers. At the time this was probably a ground breaking idea but I'm still not a fan of it.
Jesus vs Santa is better in terms of artistic style but still follows that violent and immature mantra. word pussy is used and this is negative. ugh. this was the 90s yes but 20 years on that word is still used in that way.
The first South Park episode is extremely well done. The facial movement (speech/mouth) sequences could have had a few more frames as when you focus in on them they aren't very fluid. But overall the animation is very well done and consistant which must have been hard to achieve for a 22-minute animation, it's hard to process that is cut out animation because it is so well done. However the humour is based mostly on swear words which isn't very...stimulating. It seems to be a cheap way of making humour- "add swear words and it'll be funny). I can appreciate South Park's use of cut out animation- I think it is very well done, but I'm not a fan of it's content or brand of humour.
South Park started as an animated short called "The Spirit of Christmas" (also referred to as "Jesus vs Frosty"), created by university students Trey Parker (born 1969) and Matt Stone (born 1971) in 1992. It used physical cut-out animation with puppets made out of sugar paper. In 1995 Parker and Stone were asked to create a second Spirit of Christmas short which could be sent as a digital e-card. This is referred to as "Jesus vs Santa".
The two were commissioned to created six full-length episodes for Comedy Central in 1997. The creators originally intended to animate every episode using paper cut-out animation but found out it would be too labor intensive and thus only the first episode "Cartman Gets An Anal Probe" used this technique. The rest of the series was animated using the animation software Maya, which uses a digital cut-out animation technique where every part of the puppet is separate. Thanks to this technology, textures and shadows could be applied to give the animations the look of paper cut-outs.
In terms of movement and fluidity, Jesus vs Frosty is quite good. It's the puppets and artwork that let it down massively- something about the puppet's eyes being peach toned rather than white just makes it feel a lot more amateur and messy. The lest said about the subject matter the better- I am not a fan of the "let's take an innocent seeming thing and make it violent" mantra that seems to be all the rage today among (mostly) male media producers. At the time this was probably a ground breaking idea but I'm still not a fan of it.
Jesus vs Santa is better in terms of artistic style but still follows that violent and immature mantra. word pussy is used and this is negative. ugh. this was the 90s yes but 20 years on that word is still used in that way.
The first South Park episode is extremely well done. The facial movement (speech/mouth) sequences could have had a few more frames as when you focus in on them they aren't very fluid. But overall the animation is very well done and consistant which must have been hard to achieve for a 22-minute animation, it's hard to process that is cut out animation because it is so well done. However the humour is based mostly on swear words which isn't very...stimulating. It seems to be a cheap way of making humour- "add swear words and it'll be funny). I can appreciate South Park's use of cut out animation- I think it is very well done, but I'm not a fan of it's content or brand of humour.
This was the episode that established the take-no-prisoners attitude to the gross out humor and obscene language. The episode is mainly about Kyle trying to get his brother Ike back from aliens. The plot is generally clear and makes sense, the characters are well-defined over all, and the episode is funny. The animation is rather rough and obviously unfinished. Some of the colors are wrong and don't look like they usually do and the actions that the characters exhibit are rough and slow. It's poorly animated, but it shouldn't stop a person from totally enjoying it. The humor is dated and doesn't have the same shock that it didn't when it came out and proves that the show has gotten far more foul and sickening since it's debut. Worth seeing just to see how it all started. -tonymurphylee, IMBD review
I highly disagree with the view that the animation looks unfinished- apart from the finer speech movements you can barely tell the episode was animated using paper. I don't think the character movements are slow as I went through the animation with a fine tooth comb and couldn't find any problems with the bodily movements. They could be correct about the colours used in the episode but to be totally fair, it is hard to find paper in varied colours that match the range of those you can create digitally.
When I saw this episode for the first time almost nine years ago, I knew I was hooked. This is the first episode. It is animated with construction paper instead of the computer program they usually use. Personally, I think that adds to the charm and the nostalgia of this one. There are some cute moments. The aliens and a lot of the gimmicky things Trey and Matt relied on in the first few seasons were introduced. Cartman is unleashed with a vengeance on the viewing public. Stan's girl troubles begin in a very South Park way. Kyle isn't given much to do in this episode, but overall it's a good introduction to the world of South Park. It is a very solid first episode. -kittyellie, IMBD review
I agree that the paper animation adds a certain something to the look of the animation but I disagree that this show has any charm. From an art/animation stand point, yes, South Park is quite something but the plot and characters? Nope.
South Park was created in a time where adult animation series were becoming popular in mainstream culture (shows like Family Guy, The Simpsons and Futurama were all first broadcast in the 1990s as well as South Park).
The episodes often reflect social and political issues that are happening at the time of the episode's broadcast. With that comes viewpoints displayed in the episodes which reflect the views of the writers and attempts at "satire", a lot of which can be far from satire.
In 2009 an episode entitled "The F Word" was aired which featured the main characters trying to change the meaning of the "f-word" to mean an annoying person who rides a motorbike as opposed to a derogatory slur targeted at gay people. Many take the meaning of this episode to be "a word only carries a stigma if society allows it to". People use this same argument when defending their use of the n-word, the r-word and other slurs. The problem with this is that these words carry a dirty and bloody history used in hate crimes to degrade, harm and demean. Changing the definition of a word doesn't make up for the negative meanings it has to society (someone claiming they used the r-word to refer to someone behaving foolishly doesn't make up for the fact that is a slur, "I didn't mean sl*t in the modern sense, I meant it in the old fashioned way meaning "unclean"", etc). If anything these sentiments aren't genuine, the person using the word just wants an excuse to get a way with using a bad word. Trey Parker, who is credited with writing the episode, may have been innocent in his intentions but it does not mean this episode doesn't contribute towards an attitude where "free speech" triumphs over the safety of oppressed groups. Five years on from that episode's broadcast these points I make about language still ring true. South Park's belief that throwing these words around will make them stop being offensive is utter rubbish. If they are trying to make a positive change then they are going about it in the wrong way but I can't help thinking that that isn't the case and they just wanted an excuse to say the f-word as much as possible in an episode which is dangerous and immature...and judging by the creators brand of humour the latter argument makes a lot more sense to me.
In 2005 an episode entitled "Mr Garrison's Fancy New V****a" was aired which compared people undergoing sex reassignment surgery to a white person wanting to be black or a man wanting to become a dolphin. This idea perpetrates ideas in society that harm trans individuals. Yes, this episode is 8 years old but attitudes towards trans people haven't changed in the writing- in a 2014 episode, "Handicar" a male character asks a character the viewer assumes to be female due to their appearance (long hair, visible eyelashes, a busty figure) if they would "like to see my [his] d**k?" to which they replies "sure, would you like to see mine?" before cutting to a shot of the outside of a public toilet where the male character can be heard screaming for his life, the implication being that he his being raped by the character assumed to be female . This is not the writing of a show that is trans-inclusive. The trope where a man flirts with a woman and then discovers the woman has a deep voice/attributes commonly seen as "male" is commonly used in media and makes trans women the butt of the joke and helps to contribute to a culture where trans women are seen as jokes rather than people. The way that trans people are perceived to be rapists/perverts/dangerous is another belief that is common in society and I don't think I need to explain why this is harmful. When a show perpetrates these ideas, the audience who do not have prior knowledge about an oppressed group will see it and absorb that idea which in turn contributes to a problematic society as they then go out and repeat the views they have absorbed through the media, in this case if the viewer has no knowledge of trans people then they will see that episode, see the negative behaviour portrayed as humour or satire (as that is what South Park is marketed as) and as that is all the knowledge they have of trans people they will then see trans women as rapists. This kind of humour is seen as edgy, groundbreaking satire when it is far from that- all it does is repeat writing tropes that have been around for years and helps to keep the public ignorant to serious issues. Surely media that perpetuates views like that is not satire- satire is meant to joke at the expense of those with power and privilege not marginislized groups. South Park merely brands itself as satire in order to get away with offensive "jokes". And because people don't question this "satire", South Park is seen as this beacon of shining left-wing glory (when it isn't) and thus it isn't seen as offensive and is accepted by society to be politically correct when it isn't. No show that uses slur words and uses harmful stereotypes in its writing is not left-wing, it is not a golden beacon of acceptance and diversity and it is not sending good messages to its viewers. Some artists are influenced by literature or history- Parker and Stone's seem to be influenced by their own ignorant world view.
Perhaps the reason South Park is argued to be satire by people is because they do not see how the humour in South Park is offensive. If people are uneducated on social issues then they won't see what is offensive about shows like South Park. Much like how in the past racism, sexism and homophobia in the media were brushed over when nowadays we look back and see it for what it really was. If we can look back on the media of the 70s and cringe at the use of blackface but audiences found it okay at the time, in 40 years we will be able to look at South Park as a society and find the homo/transphobia* in the humour and see it as offensive and harmful but right now we can't.
*I only say that because I have provided examples of those. If I had the time to look for examples of sexism, racism, ableism and other issues in the programme I would, but watching several days worth of material is too large a task. Although from the few South Park episodes I have caught snippets off, I saw the words "p*ssy", "b*tch" and "wh*re" being thrown around as if they were the word "the".
South Park was created in a time where adult animation series were becoming popular in mainstream culture (shows like Family Guy, The Simpsons and Futurama were all first broadcast in the 1990s as well as South Park).
The episodes often reflect social and political issues that are happening at the time of the episode's broadcast. With that comes viewpoints displayed in the episodes which reflect the views of the writers and attempts at "satire", a lot of which can be far from satire.
In 2009 an episode entitled "The F Word" was aired which featured the main characters trying to change the meaning of the "f-word" to mean an annoying person who rides a motorbike as opposed to a derogatory slur targeted at gay people. Many take the meaning of this episode to be "a word only carries a stigma if society allows it to". People use this same argument when defending their use of the n-word, the r-word and other slurs. The problem with this is that these words carry a dirty and bloody history used in hate crimes to degrade, harm and demean. Changing the definition of a word doesn't make up for the negative meanings it has to society (someone claiming they used the r-word to refer to someone behaving foolishly doesn't make up for the fact that is a slur, "I didn't mean sl*t in the modern sense, I meant it in the old fashioned way meaning "unclean"", etc). If anything these sentiments aren't genuine, the person using the word just wants an excuse to get a way with using a bad word. Trey Parker, who is credited with writing the episode, may have been innocent in his intentions but it does not mean this episode doesn't contribute towards an attitude where "free speech" triumphs over the safety of oppressed groups. Five years on from that episode's broadcast these points I make about language still ring true. South Park's belief that throwing these words around will make them stop being offensive is utter rubbish. If they are trying to make a positive change then they are going about it in the wrong way but I can't help thinking that that isn't the case and they just wanted an excuse to say the f-word as much as possible in an episode which is dangerous and immature...and judging by the creators brand of humour the latter argument makes a lot more sense to me.
In 2005 an episode entitled "Mr Garrison's Fancy New V****a" was aired which compared people undergoing sex reassignment surgery to a white person wanting to be black or a man wanting to become a dolphin. This idea perpetrates ideas in society that harm trans individuals. Yes, this episode is 8 years old but attitudes towards trans people haven't changed in the writing- in a 2014 episode, "Handicar" a male character asks a character the viewer assumes to be female due to their appearance (long hair, visible eyelashes, a busty figure) if they would "like to see my [his] d**k?" to which they replies "sure, would you like to see mine?" before cutting to a shot of the outside of a public toilet where the male character can be heard screaming for his life, the implication being that he his being raped by the character assumed to be female . This is not the writing of a show that is trans-inclusive. The trope where a man flirts with a woman and then discovers the woman has a deep voice/attributes commonly seen as "male" is commonly used in media and makes trans women the butt of the joke and helps to contribute to a culture where trans women are seen as jokes rather than people. The way that trans people are perceived to be rapists/perverts/dangerous is another belief that is common in society and I don't think I need to explain why this is harmful. When a show perpetrates these ideas, the audience who do not have prior knowledge about an oppressed group will see it and absorb that idea which in turn contributes to a problematic society as they then go out and repeat the views they have absorbed through the media, in this case if the viewer has no knowledge of trans people then they will see that episode, see the negative behaviour portrayed as humour or satire (as that is what South Park is marketed as) and as that is all the knowledge they have of trans people they will then see trans women as rapists. This kind of humour is seen as edgy, groundbreaking satire when it is far from that- all it does is repeat writing tropes that have been around for years and helps to keep the public ignorant to serious issues. Surely media that perpetuates views like that is not satire- satire is meant to joke at the expense of those with power and privilege not marginislized groups. South Park merely brands itself as satire in order to get away with offensive "jokes". And because people don't question this "satire", South Park is seen as this beacon of shining left-wing glory (when it isn't) and thus it isn't seen as offensive and is accepted by society to be politically correct when it isn't. No show that uses slur words and uses harmful stereotypes in its writing is not left-wing, it is not a golden beacon of acceptance and diversity and it is not sending good messages to its viewers. Some artists are influenced by literature or history- Parker and Stone's seem to be influenced by their own ignorant world view.
Perhaps the reason South Park is argued to be satire by people is because they do not see how the humour in South Park is offensive. If people are uneducated on social issues then they won't see what is offensive about shows like South Park. Much like how in the past racism, sexism and homophobia in the media were brushed over when nowadays we look back and see it for what it really was. If we can look back on the media of the 70s and cringe at the use of blackface but audiences found it okay at the time, in 40 years we will be able to look at South Park as a society and find the homo/transphobia* in the humour and see it as offensive and harmful but right now we can't.
*I only say that because I have provided examples of those. If I had the time to look for examples of sexism, racism, ableism and other issues in the programme I would, but watching several days worth of material is too large a task. Although from the few South Park episodes I have caught snippets off, I saw the words "p*ssy", "b*tch" and "wh*re" being thrown around as if they were the word "the".