3 ms·

Yes the considerable risk of producing a wildly popular television show on Comedy Central. So brave and risky.

jariel 6y ago
? The 'risk' is to their own creations - they have been threatened with cancellation time and time again, probably more so than any show in history. Do you wonder why people on talk shows, on the news in interviews, never say anything bad about anyone, never have an opinion, never critique - unless it's political? - because they risk being ignored, losing out on the next deal, upsetting a director/producer/exec/casting agent on the creative side, or advertisers (very powerful) on the business side. Count how many people will mock Tom Cruise, Scientology, China, Hollywood - or more poignantly almost corporate brand etc. - none really - it's to expensive to one's career. How often has SNL mocked Google, Apple, Tesla, Ford or any major corporations (or their products) in an edgy, satirical way? Never. It doesn't happen because it's censored for obvious business reasons. How many SNL or other comedy skits have you seen over all the massive rape allegations concerning Hollywood figures? Nobody is going to touch that because they're all in the 'same industry' - it's socially toxic. There are zero shows on Television today which aggressively take risks for the sake of 'comedy' - it's almost sad that it's getting kind of old and there's nobody to hand the torch too. Parker and Stone have carved out for themselves an amazing 'safe bubble' years ago - they basically took a stand and said 'we will say anything' and didn't care which bridges they burned. Weirdly it became 'accepted' for them to court controversy within the walls of their show. Sacha Cohen does some really outrageous stuff, but it's politically very safe. South Park as a vehicle is stale, it was 10 years ago, but that it's legit satire, and one of the only sources of it, is why it's still around.

? The 'risk' is to their own creations - they have been threatened with cancellation time and time again, probably more so than any show in history. Do you wonder why people on talk shows, on the news in interviews, never say anything bad about anyone, never have an opinion, never critique - unless it's political? - because they risk being ignored, losing out on the next deal, upsetting a director/producer/exec/casting agent on the creative side, or advertisers (very powerful) on the business side. Count how many people will mock Tom Cruise, Scientology, China, Hollywood - or more poignantly almost corporate brand etc. - none really - it's to expensive to one's career. How often has SNL mocked Google, Apple, Tesla, Ford or any major corporations (or their products) in an edgy, satirical way? Never. It doesn't happen because it's censored for obvious business reasons. How many SNL or other comedy skits have you seen over all the massive rape allegations concerning Hollywood figures? Nobody is going to touch that because they're all in the 'same industry' - it's socially toxic. There are zero shows on Television today which aggressively take risks for the sake of 'comedy' - it's almost sad that it's getting kind of old and there's nobody to hand the torch too. Parker and Stone have carved out for themselves an amazing 'safe bubble' years ago - they basically took a stand and said 'we will say anything' and didn't care which bridges they burned. Weirdly it became 'accepted' for them to court controversy within the walls of their show. Sacha Cohen does some really outrageous stuff, but it's politically very safe. South Park as a vehicle is stale, it was 10 years ago, but that it's legit satire, and one of the only sources of it, is why it's still around.