South Park: An Old Wound Revisited

I like South Park. Well, sometimes. Sort of. It has been capable of making good jokes here and there. I won't deny that it has its moments where it can shine. I have various qualms with the show, but my concern on this blog is primarily with storytelling, and South Park, whatever it's faults may be, usually has a pretty solid storytelling style. So my only real complaint is a very old one, but one that I'd say probably still effects the show to some degree. That's right. Cartmen's dad.

I know. I know. This is old. It's been done to death. But in the end, the issue was never really resolved. One of Cartman's parents is still, to this day, unknown. And that's fine, or would be fine. If such as big deal had never been made.

For those who don't remember, or weren't there, the first season of South Park ended with Cartman trying to figure out who his father was. We didn't learn, and the episode ended on a cliffhanger promising to answer the question next time. As an April Fool's joke, the returning episode began as it should, and then was "interrupted" by a special presentation of Terrance and Philip, and the rest of the show was theirs. People's reactions were pretty overblown, and Comedy Central was flooded with angry e-mails and even, apparently, phone messages. It's pretty ridiculous that people would get this angry over a cartoon. Similarly, people have praised Matt Parker and Trey Stone for being willing to do their own thing rather then simply bowing to audience demand. And while taking a stance regardless of what your audience might think can be commendable, it isn't always a good thing. And in the end, you have to respect your audience, because if you don't, you are a douchebag.

Let me repeat that. If you don't respect your audience, you. Are. A douche. Bag.

No matter how cool, indy, or anything else along those lines you think you might be for disrespecting your audience, in reality you are nothing but a douchebag. And the reason is not because going out on a limb shows some sort of daring-do, some sort of willingness to go places that might not be comfortable to some people. The reason you do it is because, when you raise these sorts of questions and then leave them unanswered, your audience loses the ability to care when other questions are raised. If your audience feels that can't trust you, then they will fail to have their interest perked when other major events occur. What if the Simpsons had never resolved who shot Mr. Burns? Even long-time fans would be annoyed and have trouble coming back to the show after that. It's nice that they wanted to have a little fun and mess with peoples head, but the novelty of the joke is completely lost in reruns and on DVD collections because people who weren't there at the time won't even understand the point. And the fact that they simply dodge around the point rather then ever resolving the issue just makes it all that much more annoying.

I feel silly beating this dead horse. South Park has managed to do things right enough times to warrant a degree of forgiveness, and bringing up this old issue by now is unnecessary. But the point goes for more than just this one show. You can't disrespect your audience.

Sex sells!

At least, that's how the adage goes. But despite the credibility of such sayings, they aren't always true. In fact, frequently they present a half truth, or merely a believable statement. Whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had to watch someone slowly being eaten alive from the inside out by their own cancer. Whoever said you starve a fever and feed a cold was a fucking idiot. I guess in the end, though, if people want to believe something enough, often they will whatever it's inaccuracies. I think more likely than not, that is exactly the case here. At least, with television producers.

The Fox network is perhaps historically the most guilty of pushing the supposed sexual themes in their TV shows during advertisements, though this may have moved on to the CW. This is maybe unfortunate, because as bad as Fox may be it's shows tend to maintain a production quality level that the CW has never, will never, and will never try, to reach. But it's maybe not unfortunate because really, what are we losing? Growing up, I remember Fox splashing the overt sexuality of "Melrose Place" across the screen time and time again, apparently hoping to pull in horny teenage boys to watch a show depicting dramatic events for rich white people living near Hollywood. Yeah, wah-wah, it must really suck to be rich white people in Hollywood. Pfft.

Whatever my complaints, Fox may have seen a degree of success. Every episode or so the sexy advertisements probably did manage to pull in a new crowd. The crowd would then watch a terrible show for an episode, waiting to see something that could only be pretty minor (it is, after all, basic cable), then after only disappointment give up and move on. It may have been a successful antic for a time, but before long you run out of gullible idiots who haven't already fallen for your trick and don't already know better. In the end, who even remembers that Melrose Place was a show? Apparently the CW, who have apparently remade it. So let me ask this question instead: who cares? Probably no one. And that's exactly the problem.

While titilation may appealing initially and enough satisfaction for a time, eventually people are going to move on to porn or, you know, actual physical contact with another person. Candy may soothe your sweet tooth for a time, but eventually you're going to want some real food. Eventually, titilation is not going to be enough. And when that happens, when you remove the "sexiness" and sex is your main selling point, then you aren't left with a whole lot. What you're left with is some bad drama that even network execs, who probably aren't even watching the show, realize isn't good enough to keep anyone's attention. You really need to focus on making the show good before you even bother throwing out "sexy" ads. Because if a show is good enough, it doesn't need any cheap lures to bring in the audience, and cheap lures aren't ever going to be enough to save a show. Just look at movies. Cheap horror films tend to have tons of naked women and sex, but you don't see movie-goers flocking to those films. If it's good enough, it can stand on it's own. And if it can't stand on it's own, maybe consider not having it on the air at all. It would probably cost less to find a good idea then it would to throw money at a sinking ship.

I guess it may be wrong to question the saying "sex sells" with this example. Whether sex sells or not, the cheap promise of some hinting at sex doesn't. And that's all you're really gonna get from basic cable.