Can't believe South Park didn't make your elite list of shows that you review. Man am I sick of this site... you should change the name to crappytvsquad.com

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." - Mel Brooks

I would have thought that if it was going to get anyone in trouble, it wouldn't have gotten past the SP lawyers - have a listen to the Penn Jillette/Matt/Trey radio show here: http://tinyurl.com/herroprease

I sometimes enjoy South Park but found this episode to be really offensive. The guy on here who says we should learn not to be offended by anything is an idiot (and if he's offended by that, he's a hypocrite). Being offended is just as valuable as laughter. Being offended, or angry, or upset, is all part of what makes us human. To deny ourselves such feelings would make us machines. The important thing is for us to be able to draw a distinction between what is proper and improper when being offended and how we act upon those feelings. If South Park were to make an episode that was pro-racism or pro-slavery, I don't think anyone would accept that. I believe that making jokes can really hurt other people, and even though I sometimes enjoy South Park, I am always offended when they criticize real people. I was offended by their criticism of Christopher Reeve and I felt the same way about Speilburg and Lucas. I think it's ridiculous to argue that Speilburg and Lucas didn't try their hardest to make a good movie. Anyone who thinks they made it just for money doesn't have a clue. If anything, Lucas and Speilburg are probably two of the ONLY directors in Hollywood who don't need the money. Every other new director out there living out of a one bedroom apartment will tell you how fast you'll sell your soul to get a buck. Whether or not INDY IV was good or bad is a whole other story. But it never ceases to amaze me how people tend to make movies so personally and take the producer/director to task. It's as if they believe Lucas and Spielburg could have made a fantastic movie but chose not to. I also think that nostalgia gets in the way (again) and ruins people's perception of things. We all saw the INDY and SW movies when we were kids, and the newer movies just don't have the same magic we remember. I don't think there is anything Lucas or Speilburg could have done anything different to make the detractors happy. What the South Park creators did was show their level of hypocrisy. They always criticize others for the crap they churn out and for how much of a "high brow" opinion they have as celebrities, while failing to see how much they have become part of the same kind of establishment and are doing the exact same thing. Although I was offended by this episode and did not find it the least bit funny, I believe Matt and Trey did what they believed was funny; and even though I was offended by their use of rape for humor and their unfair criticism of Lucas and Spielburg, I believe they have the right to do so, and we have the right, as we probably should, to ignore them.

The act of rape isn't funny.
The absurdity of rape can be.

The absurdity of anything can be.
Like death. Steve Irwin dying? Not funny. Crocodile Hunter dying by sting ray? Hysterical.

Why? Absurdity.

sorry that last one got cut off. but i didnt like the temple of doom because that seemed soo un realistic as for the others. (1 and 3) i loved them because they are all history based and actually have a story behind is. a huge story. as for aliens..no..they deff raped the hell outta that movie and it sucked..thats what they are trying to say.dig deeper into the meaning poeple.

omg poeple. u arnt getting it at all...when they say they are raping indiana jones they dont literally mean rape..they just show that to symbolize that they ruined the movie. and whats diff from the other ones is the ART and the Grail..its all religious and those things are said to actually happen in the bible. those things are actually being looked for by thousands of people all over the world. t4

Brad, you hit and missed the point of the episode - the "controversy" is so transparently false. One of Viacom's companies is releasing Indy 4 on DVD this week, so Viacom had another of its companies do an episode that the first Viacom could call offensive so a handful of news outlets, like this one, could write stories about this new product for which awareness is to be raised. (and it ain't like they're going to get free publicity from any fans, since no true indy fans liked this piece of less-offensive-than-rape filth)

Remember the last time this happened, when news outlets had stories about a 'leaked' offensive moment from Michael Richards the week that Seinfeld season whatever was released?

Or is it an amazing coincidence that seemingly non-newsworthy incidents of 'offense' happen the week that the dvd in question gets released? Yet somehow the same sort of offensiveness - like the rape episode of Sarah Silverman, which was somehow about someone suing someone over an alleged rape (on the same station that 'unexpectedly' got complaints about the rape allegations, the next day. yep. must be a coincidence)
gets a pass.

Bruce, Indy 4 was horribly worse than the others, but South Park is only a half hour long, so they had to sum it up with the aliens complaint. But Raiders was a perfect movie. Doom, which I thought was the weakest, was full of awesome scenes. Not so with the new one.

I think they really should just give up on TV shows like South Park not doing stuff like this. I mean, come on. It's comedy, people.
=]
Peace.Love.K8.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone not only make the world laugh, but use real problems to do it. I mean with a big twist on things but its all funny, and jokes(key word JOKES)

Nothing is off limits from comedy. Not rape. Not murder. Not cannibalism. Not Nazis or the Holocost. Not kidnapped little children. Not 9-11. Not pedophiles. Not sex slavery. Not racism. Not bigotry. Not religion. Not muhammad. Nothing. Trey Parker and Matt Stone alone have proven all of these things can be funny (can be funny, not "are" funny, so don't twist around what I'm saying here). Nothing is so "serious" that it's immune from comedy.

Moreover, being "offended" is a worthless emotion - what does it possibly accomplish? I see being offended as a sign of mental fragility and weakness. I've learned to never be offended at anything, and I suggest others try to do the same. You have no right not to be offended, so what's the point? And you're flat wrong - there are many funny things about violent acts against another person, especially when they're cartoon characters, but even when they're not. There are many things that evidence the fact that this world is in a sad state of affairs, comedy is never one of them.


Harish: it seems nobody expected there to be aliens in an IJ movie, so that would seem to me to imply that at the very least the idea is not unoriginal (stupid maybe, nobody would expect magic beans, a beanstalk, and a giant either). Lame and disappointing? Maybe, but no moreso than killer bible ghosts or magic healing water. What IS lame is having someone survive a nuclear explosion by hiding in a "lead-lined" refrigerator, which gets blow 200 feet high and several football feilds down the street with them inside, only to pop out unscathed. Among other things. I'm just saying the alien plot was not all that different from the plots of the other films. Hell, I'd say aliens having visited earth (not ones with magic magnetic crystal skulls) is more plausible in the real world than any of the other plots of the other 3 IJ movies.

I think it's been so long since a new Indy movie that people have forgotten how implausible, lame, and disappointing the underlying plots really are. It's the characters that are endearing.