6 ms·
King of the Hill is a terrible show. It looks like a 12 year apology for making office space. Where-ever office space attacks and mocks the traditional power st
by hristov 14y ago
King of the Hill is a terrible show. It looks like a 12 year apology for making office space. Where-ever office space attacks and mocks the traditional power structure, king of the hill carefully reinforces it. King of the Hill is not a little too dry it is a lot too stupid.
In fact if I were prone to more paranoia, I would suggest that some Hollywood honcho sat Mike down in some dark office and explained to him that he has done a terrible thing by making office space, and he has to suffer, and only if he suffers willingly and eagerly for more than ten years by continuously making this awful trash called King of the Hill, only then he will be back in the good graces of the powers that be. But of course that is just my imagination. I am sure nobody actually had to explain this to Mike Judge. He likely figured it out on his own.
- 67726e 14y agoBecause it couldn't have been satirizing that traditional power structure.
- freshhawk 14y agoIt could have but it didn't. On balance is was very much pro traditional power structure and the ability to find happiness within it.
- tossacct 14y agoDid the people in the show seem happy to you? Did it seem like Bobby, Peggy, Hank, or Dale were satisfied human beings? Boomhauer is the only person that really seemed to accept their role in life without regrets, and that's only because I could never understand what he was saying. Note: I didn't watch the show religiously. We can agree that there were specific times when the characters were happy but I think we can also agree that there were times of deep sadness. Mostly the happiness was portrayed as being very superficial, and the sadness was generally existential and deep. In the episodes that I saw, this deep sadness was due to how the "traditional power structure" tried to mold them. It's a pity that they didn't break out of their molds, but as a show I think the zeitgeist was their deep dissatisfaction with their lives, punctuated with small insignificant victories. Think about Beavis and Butthead. Do I think that it glamorized(to some extent) acting like a jackass? Yep. Did it make me want to act or be like either character? Nope. Do I think it "convinced" any normal humans into acting like jackasses any more than the evening news does? Nope.
- freshhawk 14y agoOk, I definitely think that viewing King of the Hill as an examination of existential pain from social convention is interesting. I need to think about that. Definitely brings some scenes to mind that I liked as well.
- tossacct 14y agoNote: This is only tangentially related to our thread. The word "agency" is often used to describe the ability of a human to act as an agent, or the ability of a system to act as an agent. Philosophers like Marx often focus on systems as agents, other philosophers (I am not well read) and sociologists commonly focus on individuals as agents. Debating agency is very fun, and can be done at all times in all places, since literally everything is an "agent" :) . How much free will does a given agent possess; how are an agent's choices constrained by the systems in which it exists and the tools it has available? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28sociology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28sociology%29 Also there is an academic philosophy thread here that you might be interested in: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891502 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4891502
- freshhawk 14y agoThanks for the pointer, that is an interesting discussion. > Debating agency is very fun, and can be done at all times in all places Yes it is and yes it can! I can't count the number of times I've had to backtrack and explain the concept of agency when having discussions where I brought it up.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- knowaveragejoe 14y agoThat's an awfully blanket statement which indicates to me you judge the show entirely by the cover, and have seen at most a few episodes. You probably saw a redneck family and immediately assumed the show centers entirely around the popular stereotypes and tropes of that subset of society. While it's certainly not lacking in the aforementioned, the show explores a far wider range of subject matter than you'd probably care to give it credit for. While any show running for so long has hit-and-miss episodes, overall the the show is very well rounded - it explores controversial subjects with care and grace, while remaining funny and heartwarming. And yes, the humor can be quite dry. It's not for kids with short attention spans and who need constant gag after gag, i.e. Family Guy. In most episodes it's difficult to discern whether the moralistic views are real "American values" or a parody of them. It's much more about episode-long deep satire than one-off jokes.
- freshhawk 14y agoWell I have seen most of the episodes of King of the Hill and pretty much agree with that assessment. It's not about the setting or the characters or even the jokes (which are both more dry and generally less funny than other projects, and I love dry humour). It's about the complete reversal of the counter-culture commentary that made Office Space and Idiocracy popular. If you choose a boring hack writer setting (teacher wife, blue collar father, stupid son, etc, etc) for your show then you better make that choice the focus of your commentary, like the Simpsons did. The setting was chosen in order to comment on it. If King of the Hill was doing that then the commentary appeared to be "Isn't this nice. See how wonderful life can be when you don't question your place? Learning won't make you happy, conformity will. Good hard work and ignorance can be fulfilling". I don't think anyone is wrong for liking it, but you certainly can't complain that fans of Judge's other work dislike that level of support for an anti-intellectual outlook.
- knowaveragejoe 14y ago> It's about the complete reversal of the counter-culture commentary that made Office Space and Idiocracy popular... If King of the Hill was doing that then the commentary appeared to be "Isn't this nice. See how wonderful life can be when you don't question your place? Learning won't make you happy, conformity will. Good hard work and ignorance can be fulfilling". But it's really not. Another reply put it better than I could as far as the reversal of commentary: > if you really think KOTH "carefully reinforces the traditional power structure", your irony sensors are so irreparably broken that you should have all of modern culture explained to you via a translator.
- tptacek 14y agoKOTH is one of the best animated comedy series of the last 30 years, with a writing staff that included the co-writer of Idiocracy (and Tropic Thunder, which was also excellent), Wyatt Cenac, and writers from Mr. Show, Kids in the Hall, The Late Show, Parks And Rec, and the Simpsons (and during their good years). The voice talent is probably the best assembled ever for any animated show, including The Simpsons, anchored by Stephen Root, also one of the best character actors of the last 40 years. I don't think Mike Judge has much to apologize for; also, if you really think KOTH "carefully reinforces the traditional power structure", your irony sensors are so irreparably broken that you should have all of modern culture explained to you via a translator.
- polyfractal 14y agoWait wait...surely Adventure Time, Frisky Dingo or The Venture Brothers are of equal excellence. I'm not sure if I'm being serious or not. I do love those shows though.