Forbidden Puppet Love

Brian Doherty | October 5, 2004

The much-anticipated (by me, at least) Trey Parker/Matt Stone patriotic puppet war opus Team America: World Police is threatened with a contract-breaking NC-17 rating...over simulated sex between puppets. (All the characters in the movie are puppets.)

As the UK Guardian reports:

The makers of Team America: World Police have reportedly gone to great lengths, modifying the offending scene nine times for submission to the Motion Picture Association of America, the US film classification authority. They are keen to secure an R rating, which would allow under-18s to see the film when accompanied by an adult.

The makers, directors Matt Stone and Trey Parker and producer Scott Rudin, are contesting the MPAA classification, saying that the film doesn't show anything that's not been seen before in other R-rated movies. And besides, Rudin told the Hollywood Reporter, "our characters are made of wood and have no genitalia. If the puppets did to each other what we show them doing, all they'd get is splinters."

UPDATE: Now with link to the Guardian story, above.

Comments

|10.5.04 @ 1:49PM|#

I was looking forward to seeing this movie, and now I'm looking forward to watching the DVD too.

Have you guys seen the trailers? I'm already laughing...it's gotta be great!

|10.5.04 @ 1:54PM|#

You're not the only one Brian, I've been looking forward to it as well. If it's half as good as South Park (the movie or tv show) it'll be worth seeing.

Highway|10.5.04 @ 1:54PM|#

So is it revenge for their skewering of movie ratings in South Park, for saying that 'all the violence you want is fine, just don't show the oldest activity in human history'? Or just showing how true that aphorism is?

|10.5.04 @ 1:55PM|#

when you say "the oldest activity in human history" you mean violence, right?

Highway|10.5.04 @ 1:59PM|#

Nah, I was thinking violence is second, but we're arguing chicken and egg at that point... :)

|10.5.04 @ 2:19PM|#

Then your referring to farting?

|10.5.04 @ 2:29PM|#

so puppet fucking and water bongs are out. but slaughtering thousands and conquering millions to remake islam in our image is in.

i want to move to a more civilized country.

|10.5.04 @ 2:50PM|#

"so puppet fucking and water bongs are out. but slaughtering thousands and conquering millions to remake islam in our image is in.

i want to move to a more civilized country."

Yeah, we want to "remake Islam in our image". I think I've made this point before, but you seem to compound the evidence for it. You're an idiot, Gaius. I'll help you pack.

Back to the initial post, why can't they just release the watered down version in the theatres and then the REAL version on DVD?

|10.5.04 @ 2:57PM|#

Andy at 2:50pm - "Back to the initial post, why can't they just release the watered down version in the theatres and then the REAL version on DVD?"

They could ... but they shouldn't have to. That's the entire point.

raymond|10.5.04 @ 3:22PM|#

I think I've made this point before, but you seem to compound the evidence for it. You're an idiot, Gaius. I'll help you pack.

Oh cool! We're back to "America, Love it or leave it."

|10.5.04 @ 3:59PM|#

Here's a link to a story about the controversy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/la-fi-puppet5oct05,1,4286324.story?coll=chi-news-hed

tom|10.5.04 @ 4:08PM|#

If the puppets are made of wood, just let em get up enough friction to obscure the scene with smoke.

End of problem.

|10.5.04 @ 4:46PM|#

"Wood." Heh heh heh heh.

|10.5.04 @ 5:05PM|#

Oh cool! We're back to "America, Love it or leave it."

Actually, in this case we appear to be back to, "If you're sufficiently annoying, I won't be too upset if you leave the continent."

|10.5.04 @ 5:23PM|#

Splinters, used in the context stated, explains enough to me that I will sleep peacefully again tonight. I just hate keeping one eye open.

|10.5.04 @ 7:38PM|#

Obviously, puppet sex has to be seen on the big screen to be properly appreciated.

I suppose you could always rent Let My Puppets Come.

Kevin

|10.5.04 @ 9:03PM|#

i want to move to a more civilized country.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

|10.5.04 @ 9:24PM|#

i want to move to a more civilized country.

Who's stopping you?

Seriously - in many countries, you would have to beg permission to leave. In the US, you don't.

So where would you move, Gaius? Since we American barbarians are insufficiently washed and nuanced for you.

Remember, you don't get any morality points for moving to a place that is free-riding on American intelligence and military activities. Kinda cuts down the choices, don't it?

|10.5.04 @ 10:02PM|#

I'm sure Gaius was talking about an imaginary place that would be thus. And even if not, is it not ok to engage in a commentary that asks the question, "why isn't America even better than it is now"? Is there not plenty about America that leaves a sour taste in one's mouth, especially those of us with libertarian outlooks?

I love how upity people get. Instead of jumping down his throat, why not ask what country might qualify or what things he would like to see differently? That would create an interesting dialogue, which would be much more appealing than snarky comments.

|10.5.04 @ 10:22PM|#

Except for the fact that "i want to move to a more civilized country." is in itself a snarky comment. Fight snark with snark, I always say.

|10.5.04 @ 10:32PM|#

is it not ok to engage in a commentary that asks the question, "why isn't America even better than it is now"? Is there not plenty about America that leaves a sour taste in one's mouth, especially those of us with libertarian outlooks?

Allow me to answer both questions at once by making the observation that the country would be a lot more hospitable to libertarians if left-wing know-nothings like Gaius fucked off to Sweden and left America to the rest of us. My only request is that they take the religious fundamentalists with them when they go.

|10.5.04 @ 10:41PM|#

this is sincerely good fun to read, if you're me. :)

snarkism surely does draw out the zealots and unthinkers quickly. i have to admit to being completely unsurprised and underwhelmed at who exactly considers themselves uberpatriotic enough to tell me to leave in a hurry if i'm the least bit unhappy.

I love how upity people get

90% of the reason i said it, lowdog. glad someone else enjoyed it too!

left-wing know-nothings

lol! dan, you've (again, unsurprisingly) misunderestimated my politics in your haste to put me on the side of the fence opposite you.

Brian|10.5.04 @ 11:17PM|#

Folks, we need to get back to what is truly important here--puppets fucking on the big screen.

raymond|10.6.04 @ 1:10AM|#

The United States is a highly civilized, moral nation.

Why, every American you execute there is always modestly dressed.

Not like the barbarian Iraqi, for example, who will drop his drawers at the sight of electrodes or a mere leash.

But I digress.

I wonder what rating a cinematographic depiction of abu Ghraib would get if the principals were portrayed using (anatomically correct) puppets.

But I digress.

I hope Trey and Matt have deleted the scenes where Lady Penelope (or whatever she's called in their film) dresses up in a Catholic-girls'-school uniform. Otherwise, they'll be done for pedophilia.


(NB _ There are 8 American executions "scheduled for a 22-day span beginning Tuesday, Oct. 5". All to be tastefully done.)

(NB2 - There is not, to my knowledge, any scene with Catholic girls in the movie. I made that up.)

(NB3 - The United States graciously, generously, and altruistically provides military intelligence - which is always absolutely correct - and military aid - which is always benevolent - to so many countries that is will be difficult for you to find a place to live, Gaius. So, places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are out.

(Remember, you don't get any morality points for moving to a place that is free-riding on American intelligence and military activities. Kinda cuts down the choices, don't it?

(Iraq, too.)

(NB4 - There are 8 American executions "scheduled for a 22-day span beginning Tuesday, Oct. 5". Shame on you.)

|10.6.04 @ 1:28AM|#

You wouldn't happen to know whether any of those eight executees were convicted of anything, would you?

raymond|10.6.04 @ 1:50AM|#

You wouldn't happen to know whether any of those eight executees were convicted of anything, would you?

Oh, I forgot.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all really nice men, women, and children whom the government judges worthy and all embryos, fetuses, and zygotes are created equal, that they are endowed by the State with certain alienable rights, that among these are life (up to a point), liberty (up to a point) and the purchase of semiautomatic weapons. That to bestow these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from selected bits of the Bible and opinion polls...

|10.6.04 @ 3:00AM|#

The United States is a highly civilized, moral nation. Why, every American you execute there is always modestly dressed.

The notion that capital punishment is uncivilized is obviously ridiculous. You could argue that the death penalty is immoral, or wrong, or (as I believe) simply a bad idea, but the notion that it runs counter to civilization flies in the face of the simple fact that every major civilization that has ever existed has used capital punishment as part of its legal system. Or are you one of those people who uses the word "uncivilized" to mean "bad and icky" without thinking about what you're really saying?

that they are endowed by the State with certain alienable rights, that among these are life (up to a point), liberty (up to a point)

The obvious problem with your mindless invocation of the Declaration of Independence is this: if you think the right to life precludes the execution of convicted criminals, then obviously the right to liberty must preclude the imprisonment of convicted criminals -- but of course, that's a moot point, since the right to the pursuit of happiness must mean that it's wrong to make ANYTHING illegal in the first place.

In case you're still confused by all those complicated thoughts, let me simplify it for you: Thomas Jefferson supported the death penalty, as did John Locke (the guy the "life, liberty, etc" line was cribbed from). So did George Washington and Ben Franklin. So did Mill, Montesquieu, Kant, Hobbes, and Rosseau.

So if you want to try arguing that the founders of the United States, or the philosophers who shaped their beliefs, ever intended for capital punishment to be banned here -- well, go right ahead. We could use a good laugh.

|10.6.04 @ 3:51AM|#

For the record, I have reluctantly come to believe that the government should not apply the death penalty, for the practical reason that gov't is too incompetent in this field as in many others, and therefore is likely to put the wrong guy to death too often.

In principle, however, I am not opposed to capital punishment for certain crimes. Undercertain circumstances, this is a just and effective punishment and deterrent. (The recidivism rate among corpses is very low.) I am in favor of an armed would-be victim executing a would-be criminal on the spot in many cases, for example.

I looked at Monsieur Raymond's Web site. He is in fact opposed to not just capital punishment, but also incarceration in prison. (He would favor banishment of some hardcore cases "to an island somewhere" if it were possible.) I think he has some valid things to say about the unjust manner in which the State tries to apply justice. However, I believe he has a flawed view of positive rights -- what people are "entitled" to -- especially as I view his page on the rights of children.

Unfortunately, I am under the impression he is more interested in ripping the Great Satan USA a new one than in discussing these ideas coherently.

Also, as Brian mentioned, he has led us seriously astray from the more important topic at hand, which is: Pucking fuppets.

(Now I'm going to bed. And tomorrow, work.)

|10.6.04 @ 4:56AM|#

Pücking Füppets is just about the perfect name for a band.

Kevin

raymond|10.6.04 @ 6:39AM|#

Thank you for taking the time to look at my site.

I believe he has a flawed view of positive rights -- what people are "entitled" to -- especially as I view his page on the rights of children.

The Declaration is basically the Universal Declaration expressed in terms of children. I believe the US voted in favour of it in 1959. Insofar as the Convention is concerned:

The Convention reflects this global consensus and, in a very short period of time, it has become the most widely accepted human rights treaty ever. It has been ratified by 192 countries; only two countries have not ratified: The United States and Somalia, which have signalled their intention to ratify by formally signing the Convention.

The former is a list of goals, the latter a list of obligations. The Amnesty "Meditation" is a... meditation. I do understand that no organisation can insure love for a child.


Unfortunately, I am under the impression he is more interested in ripping the Great Satan USA a new one than in discussing these ideas coherently.

Since you did look at it, you must at least grant that I've tried to discuss these ideas coherently.

I love the principles on which the US was founded. I will confess, though, that since Bush (who, as governor, presided over numerous executions) became president and began his foolish, dangerous, self-defeating war, I have developed an overwhelming disdain for your agents. I am revolted by the hypocrisy and acts of the US government.

civilized

2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable

Since I do not believe that torture or the use of rape to control prison populations or the indiscriminate killing of civilians or the ritual killing of defenseless human beings is a sign of moral advancement, of humane, ethical, or reasonable behaviour, I do not feel the word "civilized" can be used to describe certain countries.

As in previous years, the vast majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2003, 84 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, the USA and Viet Nam. (Amnesty Report, 2003)

What company to be in.

as Brian mentioned, he has led us seriously astray from the more important topic at hand, which is: Pucking fuppets

Sorry, Matt and Trey and Matt (Groening)... I will buy your DVDs and watch your tv shows. For you are the Überlibertarians.

|10.6.04 @ 9:51AM|#

obviously

raymond, am i the only one who consistently giggles at dan's first line because every speculative matter of opinion is "obvious"?

|10.6.04 @ 1:34PM|#

'am i the only one who consistently giggles at dan's first line because every speculative matter of opinion is "obvious"?'

You should read some of your own posts.

Maybe most. We're obviously heading into fascism, we're obviously doomed by the debt bubble....

|10.6.04 @ 1:56PM|#

lol -- touche -- i should moderate my points with "probably" and "based on pertinent historical example".

|10.6.04 @ 6:13PM|#

I would say that if you really boil it down, Dan, under the criteria given, we all have some room for improvement.

My non-libertarian friends are always telling me how impossible a true libertarian society is given the greed and other human failings, and I agree to a point. I really think there must be a shift in the attitude of a vast majority of people, both here in the US and elsewhere. It starts with taking responsibility for your own actions. If everyone lived with that as their basic, core attitude, we'd all be better off.

(All, of course, imo. Sorry for ranting a bit there.) :)

|10.7.04 @ 10:42PM|#

"I have reluctantly come to believe that the government should not apply the death penalty, for the practical reason that gov't is too incompetent in this field as in many others, and therefore is likely to put the wrong guy to death too often."

Me too Stevo.