Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Saw it. Didn't like it at all, and don't believe it is much like "The Book of Mormon Musical" (despite having been penned by one of the same authors).Parker has a long rap sheet when it comes to Mormons. None of it is pretty. I have a hard time believing he has had some sort of epiphany and now respects them. His whole career is built on mocking, debasing, and passing judgement on others. Why should we believe him now when he says it's all in fun and we are really good folks who have simply managed to make the best out of an idiotic lie? That's just a new and improved form of mockery, a tad more sophisticated than the puerility of Orgazmo. Call me stupid, but I'm not convinced. Bernard Edited June 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Edited by Bernard Edited June 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Parker has a long rap sheet when it comes to Mormons. None of it is pretty. I have a hard time believing he has had some sort of epiphany and now respects them. His whole career is built on mocking, debasing, and passing judgement on others. Why should we believe him now when he says it's all in fun and we are really good folks who have simply managed to make the best out of an idiotic lie? That's just a new and improved form of mockery, a tad more sophisticated than the puerility of Orgazmo. Call me stupid, but I'm not convinced. BernardGo ahead and touch that hot stove, it won't burn you.
Daniel2 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Folks... where is this impression coming from that ANYONE has advocated exposing one's self to "The Book of Mormon Musical" or "Orgazmo"...?!Huge strawman.... No one's advocated that position, and I've consistantly said that devout Latter-day Saints would and should understandably avoid both.Daniel2
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Folks... where is this impression coming from that ANYONE has advocated exposing one's self to "The Book of Mormon Musical" or "Orgazmo"...?!Huge strawman.... No one's advocated that position, and I've consistantly said that devout Latter-day Saints would and should understandably avoid both.Daniel2Well, this seems to put your deep concern for our sensibilities into context...shut up unless you've seen it all:HOWEVER... as I've said, I think it's foolish to then presume you can know exactly what the ultimate experience or "take away" is, from the play. It's foolish to think you can definitively know and proclaim just exactly what the point is, or what others were thinking or feeling when they left the theatre--because you choose not to be there (which most certainly IS your choice!). You have tasted the drier outer edge of the chocolate cake, without the moist, gooey center. And that left a bad taste in your mouth--and THAT'S OK. You shouldn't eat more.Moist, gooey center Bernard Edited June 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui
cinepro Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Orgazmo...do you have to see it in order to criticize it?BernardIf you haven't seen it, then what are you basing your criticism on?Like I said before, if you haven't seen something, then you can explain why you have chosen not to see it, or you can discuss the opinions of others who have seen it. But you can't really "criticize" it properly if you haven't seen it.Sadly, I've seen it and so I feel entirely qualified to say that it's terrible. And they are way, way off when it comes to anything having to do with missionaries and most Church stuff. For example, the entire premise of the movie (an innocent missionary becomes a stunt actor in porn movies in order to pay for his Temple wedding) is obviously off the mark since Temple weddings are free. And the missionaries don't stay with their companions at all (if I remember correctly, they live in different apartments). But they try to maintain the "innocence" of the missionary by having him not actually do the deed in the porn movies. They bring in a stunt double. They only want the missionary because he has excellent martial arts skills.At the very least, comparing Orgazmo to the The Book of Mormon musical shows that someone sat down with them and explained how the missionary program actually works (except for the missionaries getting their assignments after they finish the MTC).
Jeff K. Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Of course he will say once again that you are putting words in his mouth or creating intent where none was meant.
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 And as I've repeatedly said, I am not offended by the subject matter. (I actually LOL'd at the Book of Mormon being 'Bible fan fiction.') I just don't want there to be any confusion: The play is a mockery of Mormonism, Mormons, missionaries, and don't try and convince me otherwise. Perhaps you agree with that, perhaps you don't.Pre-production interviewhttp://www.hitfix.com/blogs/immaculate-noise/posts/preview-trey-parker-and-matt-stone-have-no-worries-with-mormon-musicalMatt Stone, Trey Parker and Bobby Lopez are all trying to take a stab at their personal fascinations with Mormonism, the center of their forthcoming Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon.”“They’re just so **** nice,” Parker says admiringly of Mormons. “They’re like, ‘You made that “Orgasmo” movie? I didn’t like that, but I appreciate that you did it.’ It’s like, Wow, I wanna feel like you dude...”“It absolutely rekindles your faith to see the miracle that all these people believe in is ****,” Lopez says, laughing.“It’s hard to find that fault line with them. If you go, ‘Look, I don’t respect what you believe…’ but there’s no fault line…”Park holds his hand to his shaking head. “They’re just so **** nice.”I love Parker's mock sincerity..."They're just so **** nice." That's like saying "Some of my best friends are n******" while defending a lifetime of racism.Bernard
cinepro Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) I love Parker's mock sincerity..."They're just so **** nice." That's like saying "Some of my best friends are n******" while defending a lifetime of racism.BernardWhy do you think it's "mock sincerity"? Do you think he secretly feels Mormons aren't "nice"?As for whether they think LDS supernatural claims are "lies" or not, I'm at peace with people looking at Mormonsim the way I look at Scientology."What's better than telling people a stupid story and having them believe you? Having them pay you for it!" - Head Scientologist on South Park Edited June 21, 2011 by cinepro
Jeff K. Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Two sides of the same coin. It may be sincere, but people can be sincere and racist or bigoted or prejudicial at the same time. I have heard old southerners state admiringly, "Them little n***** boys is such a hard workers. Have to admire those boys in the field". I am sure they were entirely sincere in their admiration. But Parker is like those old southern boys. Same tone, same sincerity, same disdain. I bet after seeing the BYU dancers he thinks we have rhythm too.Of course he doesn't think Africans are that smart. Edited June 21, 2011 by Jeff K.
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 If you haven't seen it, then what are you basing your criticism on? Sadly, I was curious what it would have to do with Mormon missionaries, and after just a few minutes, I turned it off. That was enough to base my criticism on.Extended plot descriptions are readily available on the internet. That is enough to base a criticism on.Like I said before, if you haven't seen something, then you can explain why you have chosen not to see it, or you can discuss the opinions of others who have seen it. But you can't really "criticize" it properly if you haven't seen it.So, I'll continue to criticize it "improperly." And they are way, way off when it comes to anything having to do with missionaries and most Church stuff. For example, the entire premise of the movie (an innocent missionary becomes a stunt actor in porn movies in order to pay for his Temple wedding) is obviously off the mark since Temple weddings are free. I would have stopped after "becomes a stunt actor in porn movies" to say it was way, way off. And the missionaries don't stay with their companions at all (if I remember correctly, they live in different apartments). But they try to maintain the "innocence" of the missionary by having him not actually do the deed in the porn movies. They bring in a stunt double. They only want the missionary because he has excellent martial arts skills.How thoughtful of them.At the very least, comparing Orgazmo to the The Book of Mormon musical shows that someone sat down with them and explained how the missionary program actually works (except for the missionaries getting their assignments after they finish the MTC).After five or six more movies, they'll get it all together.Well, cinepro, I have heard that one can find anything and everything on the Internet. Now I can say that is true. An LDS apologetic for Orgazmo. Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Why do you think it's "mock sincerity"? Do you think he secretly feels Mormons aren't "nice"? When a whole career is based on sarcasm, mockery, degradation, and puerile humor, how does one knowwhen he is being sincere? I'm banking that he's still playing the game. Do have some other information thatwe don't know?As for whether they think LDS supernatural claims are "lies" or not, I'm at peace with people looking at Mormonsim the way I look at Scientology."What's better than telling people a stupid story and having them believe you? Having them pay you for it!" - Head Scientologist on South ParkAnd I'm sure he would applaud the happy coincidence that getting well paid for telling people stupid stories is exactly how Parker makes his living. The black-hole cesspool of American pop culture at its finest.Bernard Edited June 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Daniel2 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Well, this seems to put your deep concern for our sensibilities into context...shut up unless you've seen it all:BernardNope. I've never said "shut up unless you've seen it all."I said:I agree that you certainly don't need to fully experience or see something in order to know it may not be congruent with your taste or views. You don't have to "eat the whole thing" to know that you won't like it...However, even though you can experience enough to know you'd prefer to avoid something, I submit it's foolish to then attempt to make any definitive statements about it. For example, if one trys a chocolate lava cake, and only nibbles on the outside of the cake itself, one might presume, "Wow... that's really chocolatey, but also really dry!" If you don't like chocolate, or eating chocolate is against your principles, you know enough not to eat the whole cake and leave it alone. But if chocolate is OK in your book, but you really prefer moist chocolate, but then decide to immediately abandon eating the cake because of it's dryness, you'd miss out on the liquid chocolate in the center of the cake, which is meant to enhance the outer shell of the chocolate lava cake, itself.Of course, that's an oversimplification. And by golly, I continue to maintain that most Latter-day Saints would be highly offended by much of what goes on in this play, and would be wise to avoid seeing it or listening to the soundtrack. I support their choice to limit their exposure to media that would offend their sensitibilities, and this one is certainly, understandably one such example of media that would do so.HOWEVER... as I've said, I think it's foolish to then presume you can know exactly what the ultimate experience or "take away" is, from the play. It's foolish to think you can definitively know and proclaim just exactly what the point is, or what others were thinking or feeling when they left the theatre--because you choose not to be there (which most certainly IS your choice!). You have tasted the drier outer edge of the chocolate cake, without the moist, gooey center. And that left a bad taste in your mouth--and THAT'S OK. You shouldn't eat more. This idea that I'm telling anyone to "see it or shut up" simply has NEVER been even related in any way to my point.Ironically, my analogy of the cake is a continuation of an analogy I was taught in the MTC and used as a missionary with investigators, to explain to them that they could simply read 3 Nephi 11, pray about it, and 'know' that the entire "Book of Mormon" was 'good,' rather than having to 'read the whole thing'--a concept that I find inadequately oversimplistic, today. Feel free to avoid "The Book of Mormon Musical." Feel free to offer your condemnation of it for the obvious ways it offends your sensibilities and dissuade others from seeing it for those same reasons. Just don't pretend to definitely know exactly what the entire point of the play is, given your ignorance of fully experiencing the play for yourselves.Daniel2 Edited June 21, 2011 by Daniel2
Jeff K. Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Feel free to avoid "The Book of Mormon Musical." Feel free to offer your condemnation of it for the obvious ways it offends your sensibilities and dissuade others from seeing it for those same reasons. Just don't pretend to definitely know exactly what the entire point of the play is, given your ignorance of experiencing the fully play for yourselves.Apparently bigotry should not offend our senses.
Daniel2 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Not surprisingly, Jeff has yet again read his own private spin into something I did not say and do not believe.Rather, I certainly recognize that everyone is entitled to be offended by whatever their conscience is offended by.Daniel2 Edited June 21, 2011 by Daniel2
cinepro Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) When a whole career is based on sarcasm, mockery, degradation, and puerile humor, how does one knowwhen he is being sincere? I'm banking that he's still playing the game. Do have some other information thatwe don't know?And I'm sure he would applaud the irony that getting well paid for telling people stupid stories is exactly how Parker makes his living. The black-hole cesspool ofAmerican pop culture at its finest.BernardI suspect a lot of these perceptions are influenced by how much exposure people have had to South Park (not that I blame anyone for not watching it). If you've watched the show with any regularity, it's not too hard to see the difference between the Parker/Stone humor towards Catholics, Muslims and Scientologists compared to Mormons. There can be a huge difference in how they treat people that they "like", and those they hold in disdain.For example, on the surface the episodes "Trapped in the Closet" (wherein Scientology is covered) and "All About the Mormons" appear to be similar. But if you actually watch them, you'll see that the Scientology episode concludes with the idea that "Scientology is just a big fat global scam", and the Scientologists get bitter and threaten to sue them. The Scientologists are shown to be deceptive, greedy and litigious. The end.In the "All About the Mormons" episode, the non-Mormons come to conclusion that the Joseph Smith story isn't true, but the final word is had by the Mormon boy who argues that even if it isn't true, it's given him a great life and a great family, and "I still choose to believe in it", and then chastises the non-Mormon kids for being so "high and mighty" and not being able to look past his religion and just be his friend. The Mormons are shown to be self-assured, tolerant, happy and forgiving (and, in the words of one character, "cool").Granted, it's not very Mormon-like to acknowledge the possibility that Joseph Smith may have "made it all up", but the treatment of the two groups is very different. And it's not based on the origin stories of the religions, but how the followers of the religions live their lives and interact with the world. Edited June 21, 2011 by cinepro 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Nope. I've never said "shut up unless you've seen it all." Not in those words, no.This idea that I'm telling anyone to "see it or shut up" simply has NEVER been even related in any way to my point.Unfortunately, that is exactly the way you have come across. Ironically, my analogy of the cake is a continuation of an analogy I was taught in the MTC and used as a missionary with investigators, to explain to them that they could simply read 3 Nephi, pray about it, and 'know' that the entire "Book of Mormon" was 'good,' rather than having to 'read the whole thing'--a concept that I find inadequately oversimplistic, today. Using your method then, one must be addicted to know the evils of addiction, drive under the influence and kill a family to know the evils of DUI, jump off a cliffto fully understand gravity, drink tainted water to understand the full effects of Montezuma's Revenge, and play Russian Roulette to appreciate ballistics. Feel free to avoid "The Book of Mormon Musical." Feel free to offer your condemnation of it for the obvious ways it offends your sensibilities and dissuade others from seeing it for those same reasons. Just don't pretend to definitely know exactly what the entire point of the play is, given your ignorance of fully experiencing the play for yourselves.In other words, see it or shut up.To quote myself,Parker has a long rap sheet when it comes to Mormons. None of it is pretty. I have a hard time believing he has had some sort of epiphany and now respects them. His whole career is built on mocking, debasing, and passing judgement on others. Why should we believe him now when he says it's all in fun and we are really good folks who have simply managed to make the best out of an idiotic lie? That's just a new and improved form of mockery, a tad more sophisticated than the puerility of Orgazmo. Call me stupid, but I'm not convinced. BernardPS...Moist, gooey center Edited June 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Apparently bigotry should not offend our senses. But Jeff, you cannot know it is bigoted unless you experience the whole of it,immerse yourself in its moist gooey center...until then you are just passingfoolish uninformed judgement.Bernard Edited June 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Jaybear Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Not in those words, no.Unfortunately, that is exactly the way you have come across. You are going out of your way to take offense, where none was intended. I am speaking of Daniel, not the play.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Using your method then, one must be addicted to know the evils of addiction, drive under the influence and kill a family to know the evils of DUI, jump off a cliffto fully understand gravity, drink tainted water to understand the full effects of Montezuma's Revenge, and play Russian Roulette to appreciate ballistics. Well you cannot fully appreciate these things until you do them.I will say that Daniel has been indeed respectful. I disagree with his logic on the matter of "you should not critique the play until you fully see it".
Nathair/|\ Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Well you cannot fully appreciate these things until you do them.I will say that Daniel has been indeed respectful. I disagree with his logic on the matter of "you should not critique the play until you fully see it".I agree. I've always liked him and his posting style, even though I usually disagree with him.
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Well you cannot fully appreciate these things until you do them.I'll go ahead and criticize them, foolishly, of course. So how do Parker et al get on withcriticizing the multitude of organizations they have never been a part of, never beenin the moist gooey center thereof? And then have LDS and ex-LDS defend them?Bernard Edited June 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui 3
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I agree. I've always liked him and his posting style, even though I usually disagree with him.Daniel is respectful in his support of disrespect for the LDS religion. I'm ok with that.Bernard 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) You are going out of your way to take offense, where none was intended. I am speaking of Daniel, not the play.I'm probably misunderstanding, but it seems Daniel is saying,taken as a whole, the play is not meant to be offensive to Mormons.At its moist gooey center, it is really an understanding and compassionatelove letter, in a quirky, elbow-in-the-ribs, wink-wink sort of way. If wecould go see it and get through the bumpy bits, we would see that itis in reality a tribute to Joseph Smith and all the rest of us **** nice Mormons.Having not seen the play, however, I cannot come to that conclusion.Bernard Edited June 21, 2011 by Bernard Gui
Jaybear Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I'm probably misunderstanding, but it seems Daniel is saying,taken as a whole, the play is not meant to be offensive to Mormons.I think its obvious that writer of the play intended to poke fun of some beliefs of some Mormons. I read Daniel as saying that not all Mormons will or should take offense, and that if they were to see the play, many Mormons might be surprised to find that they enjoyed the play. Most certainly he did not say that you should shut up, or even that you should not share your opinion, if you have not seen the play. If you haven't seen the play, are you really in the position to dispute the fact that some Mormons may find themselves having a good time?
Recommended Posts