South Park: Joining the Panderverse

Comic concepts
One sixth kit
Advertise with us
Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
They definitely went hard on Kathleen and also the super toxic small segment of the fanbase who send hate mail (in the show Cartman was the one sending all of it) but they went surprisingly light on Bob Iger. I expected them go harder on him but maybe they will save that for later. Disney definitely will not like this special, it really states bluntly what they are doing and why they keep failing.

Also loved how alt universe Butters is still grounded.


The overall message of people not knowing how to do anything and AI replacing all but manual labour jobs is on point.


Overall a funny episode that hit more than it missed with its commentary but I do wish South Park would go back to some non political episodes with less reliance on current events as the current formula does date the show somewhat.
 
I thought it was a rather "limp" offering. Not very scathing at all.

I wanted it to be meaner and have some bite to it. Just saying "hey we noticed this" isn't very funny. I wanted more vicious mockery, cause the last 15 years of Hollywood sludge deserves it.

Compare this episode to what they said/did with Lucas, Spielberg, and Indy. That was brutal. This was...nothing.
 
I don't think they made fun of Kathleen Kennedy, so much as they used her to make fun of the people who rail against 'woke' all the time. I mean, Cartman was the one who was upset about it, and Cartman is usually 'the bad guy' in the gang, so whatever he's doing is usually wrong. If you find yourself identifying with Cartman, you're probably doing it wrong.

The scene with Randy being upset that he's become useless because of AI, then finds out it's all Kathleen Kennedy's fault and then he says "Of course!" .. comes off as absolutely hilarious considering how absurd it is.

And the "Kathleen Kennedy" that's causing all the problems is basically Cartman in drag, so if you came away from watching that thinking that they were making fun of her, then you really missed the point.

That was 45 minutes of making fun of the people that post in this forum, this sub-forum specifically, so I suspect it wouldn't get a lot of positive reaction
here.
 
Social commentary is woke anyway. I'm surprised people on here watch South Park :monkey1
 
SwedishHeat said:
I don't think they made fun of Kathleen Kennedy, so much as they used her to make fun of the people who rail against 'woke' all the time. I mean, Cartman was the one who was upset about it, and Cartman is usually 'the bad guy' in the gang, so whatever he's doing is usually wrong. If you find yourself identifying with Cartman, you're probably doing it wrong.

The scene with Randy being upset that he's become useless because of AI, then finds out it's all Kathleen Kennedy's fault and then he says "Of course!" .. comes off as absolutely hilarious considering how absurd it is.

And the "Kathleen Kennedy" that's causing all the problems is basically Cartman in drag, so if you came away from watching that thinking that they were making fun of her, then you really missed the point.

That was 45 minutes of making fun of the people that post in this forum, this sub-forum specifically, so I suspect it wouldn't get a lot of positive reaction
here.
Click to expand...
Actually, the voice of reason (Stan and Kyle) were definitely against the replacing of characters and endless pandering. The episode was very balanced, it pointed out disneys constant pandering while also at the same time mocking the Cartmans of the world (who are are a tiny minority of actual bigots, hence why all the hate mail Kathy received in the ep was from him, making the point that it is a tiny insignificant but loud minority who do that not representative of the fandom) while also mocking how much Kathy had ruined the franchises with the endless reactionary pandering rather than making actual good content. Kathy and Cartman shake hands and come to an understanding because they are 2 sides of the same coin (hence why the other Kathy is a Cartman variant, the implication being that the South Park reality sort of has 2 Cartman variants, Eric and Kathy, a ying and a yang).
The episode is not pro Disney and it isn't pro toxic Kathy hate bigotry, it is anti both and is appealing to the sensible folk between (which is I think the majority of people) who both recognise that entertainment is being ruined with pandering and "wokeness" while also recognising it isn't all Kathy's fault (after all, she is only in charge of Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Willow, which while all seeing diminishing returns or outright failing are only 3 franchises of many Disney own) but the entire studio system with their lack of creativity and reliance on pandering as a substitute for good writing (as evidenced at the end with Iger not wanting to correct their course but just continue Pandering).
 
Otomofan said:
I thought it was a rather "limp" offering. Not very scathing at all.

I wanted it to be meaner and have some bite to it. Just saying "hey we noticed this" isn't very funny. I wanted more vicious mockery, cause the last 15 years of Hollywood sludge deserves it.

Compare this episode to what they said/did with Lucas, Spielberg, and Indy. That was brutal. This was...nothing.
Click to expand...
it was definitely more subtle for sure, but it was still funny and well, now everyone including the tuned out folk are talking about Hollywood pandering. Disney will not be happy about it
 
As always i had ended up confused in the end of the show because of South Park's mixed messages in the episode, but aftarwards when i got it more clear in my head. All they said was (real) Kathleen Kennedy is blameless and if you don't like what Disney and Kathleen do, you are a Cartman and Cartmans ruin everything. Which was in short South Park was pandering to Disney. lol
 
Last edited:
That’s the genius of South Park. I saw it as them blaming Kathleen Kennedy for not knowing what to do with her brand and instead of coming up with new ideas she looked to a pander stone until she became consumed with hubris
 
To my utter shock I find myself agreeing with the Critical Drinker's take on the Panderverse episode - namely that it mocks both sides of this ludicrous "culture war" equally and represents the normal persons viewpoint which is sick of both the corporate panderers/their apologists making lazy and mildly insulting choices and the anti-woke haters screaming bloody murder over even the slightest hint of inclusivity in Western media - both of whom seem to be spend their time making hating movies their entire personality and trying to drag the rest of us into their insane ********.

Which is strange because Critical Drinker is EXACTLY the sort of people he describes/denounces in his video... but there we go.

He also rightly points out how both sides of this culture war crap see what they want to see and both erroneously claim that South Park supported their position.
 
I disagree about the drinker. I think he is more balanced in general than folk realise. The movies he thinks are pushing "the message" he goes in depth on why. He also points out the positives in them too. I am not sure why he gets lumped in with super reactionary hater types. He also highlights movies he thinks are good. His take on South Park is not out of the ordinary for him at all.

I haven't agreed with every take of the drinkers but I think he is usually on point 90-95% of the time.

Other prominent youtubers though such as the cringey helmeted one definitely are the super obnoxious types you speak of for sure.
 
jaztermareal said:
I disagree about the drinker. I think he is more balanced in general than folk realise. The movies he thinks are pushing "the message" he goes in depth on why. He also points out the positives in them too. I am not sure why he gets lumped in with super reactionary hater types.
Click to expand...

He (Drinker) unfortunately does associate with them in group chats so it kinda brings him down even though he's clearly an intelligent fellow and capable of nuanced takes.

I'm still watching his solo stuff but the group chats often give off the very toxicity that makes the other side go ''and this is why......''
 
a-dev said:
He (Drinker) unfortunately does associate with them in group chats so it kinda brings him down even though he's clearly an intelligent fellow and capable of nuanced takes.

I'm still watching his solo stuff but the group chats often give off the very toxicity that makes the other side go ''and this is why......''
Click to expand...
I don't watch any of the group chat stuff (hate unscripted live stream ramble stuff, mostly waste of time) but I don't think guilt by association is something correct to use even if some of the folk in those streams might be the bigoted sort. I think folk can chat with whomever they wish and not be tarnished with the guilt by association brush unless they specifically endorse some horrible takes/viewpoints. I don't assume US president is a communist due to him sitting down and talking with China president, people can sit and converse even in a friendly manner while holding differing viewpoints. Kinda like this forum. Some members might be extreme in one direction but it doesn't mean the rest of us or you are just because we can all chat in a friendly manner together, otherwise I could say every person here who disliked Ghostbusters 2016 is somehow a misogynist because one member here who dislikes it def is one.
 
jaztermareal said:
I don't watch any of the group chat stuff (hate unscripted live stream ramble stuff, mostly waste of time) but I don't think guilt by association is something correct to use even if some of the folk in those streams might be the bigoted sort. I think folk can chat with whomever they wish and not be tarnished with the guilt by association brush unless they specifically endorse some horrible takes/viewpoints. I don't assume US president is a communist due to him sitting down and talking with China president, people can sit and converse even in a friendly manner while holding differing viewpoints. Kinda like this forum. Some members might be extreme in one direction but it doesn't mean the rest of us or you are just because we can all chat in a friendly manner together, otherwise I could say every person here who disliked Ghostbusters 2016 is somehow a misogynist because one member here who dislikes it def is one.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying - but as someone who does watch his group chat things [I like to hear from "both sides" of a topic] that is usually when he delves into some pretty toxic stuff and becomes every bit the super hater reactionary type.
He tends to be a bit more thoughtful/intelligent in his own videos, even if you can still see his biases.
The group stuff is typical echo-chamber **** where they egg each other on to be as toxic as possible.
 

Similar threads

1977_StarWars
Hi, new member from Pennsylvania, USA - MTFBWY
Replies
1
Views
99
Remembermyname
Remembermyname
Actionfigrd
Hello people
Replies
4
Views
398
goatchumby
goatchumby
Nin-Nin Game
The Nin-Nin Team has joined the party!
Replies
0
Views
554
Nin-Nin Game
Nin-Nin Game
Shoo
Queen Studios: Iron Man Mark 7 1/3
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Royce12
Royce12
K
Jazzinc Jedi Starfighter... Would Hot toys....?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
JazzInc
JazzInc

Latest posts

Back
Top