@dang can we change the title on this one, it’s clickbait mixed with an ai generated ramble.
It's very long, and seems to be stuffed with a copy of wikipedia, I ain't reading all that. What's that clause? Like Lucas had with Star Wars, they kept the monetization rights for some (at the time) dumb looking stuff, and they struck gold with it?
Looks to be (1269 words into the article according to wc):
> [Parker and Stone]’s lawyer, Kevin Morris, insisted that any South Park revenue not derived specifically from broadcast on the cable channel would go into the pot for calculating the men’s share of back-end profits.
Though that might be a precursor to enabling this (400 words later):
> With negotiating leverage, Parker and Stone agreed to a 4-year $75 million deal and, separately, a 50/50 cut of advertising revenue for any digital property…in perpetuity.
They would get profit sharing for any income that didn’t come from airing on Comedy Central. This was in 1997 before online streaming was really a thing
South park is one of my favourite shows. I think that matt and trey aren't the usual billionaires but it would still be cool if they actually donate some of that money since they feel like the guys who don't need a billion dollars and feel humble imo.
The article quoted that they take $10m salaries each and the business invests in more production (eg movies, Book of Mormon musical etc).
So whether they donate or not personally, their billionaire status is based on owning their company (ie that is their total worth, not liquid assets).
I think it’s pretty cool that they bought Casa Bonita.
One of the downsides of people knowing you have money is everyone on earth will judge you for what you do with it. I say let them enjoy it. If you must pressure someone to donate, pressure one of the "usual billionaires" who's funding their torment nexus with it.
There is no human alive who can ethically enjoy a billion dollars. Give them each a hundred million and say, you've hit your cap, everything else goes towards the public good.
A hundred million dollars buys you a life of comfort and luxury. Anyone with a billion has too much influence, imo.
The South Park owners don't have a billion dollars in liquid wealth each. They have ownership of south park, which is worth billions.
If you make them cut their assets down to $100 million each then they don't own South Park. And someone else gets to tell them what to write. Or they retire.
Sure you can. I have no problem with billionaires as long as they are enjoying their money without hurting people in the process. Having the money doesn’t mean you actively abuse your influence.
But once you have that kind of fuck off money and insist on abusing your power, or kowtowing to other people to get more power, and other BS, then you are an evil asshole. There’s a good reason why Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk etc rub people the wrong way. It’s not their wealth.
One hundred million dollars? My yacht cost more than that...
I can live a life of comfort and luxury with $10k. Can you please donate everything above $10k of your networth right now?
What the fuck kind of writing is that? Ge to the damned point.
TLDR:
“A cut of revenue not derived specifically from broadcast on the cable channel” went from “meaningless” to “huge significance” to “boner-inducing” arguably the greatest clause ever in TV contract history…at a minimum, it’s one of the most improbable all things considered.
As much I loved this show growing up, an interesting thing about South Park is that they essentially defined the alt right (in the sense of a disenfranchised young man, often lashing out at marginalized groups and political correctness etc). Am I wrong or did there use to be an article called “South Park conservative” that basically described what eventually became “alt-right”?
Edit: found it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican
A comedy show is a comedy show. People define themselves on their own. If I get inspired by some purposefully shitty animated pixels and become a disgusting person, that's on me. If I get inspired by some shooting game and cause harm to others, that's on me as well (or my parents, depending on the age!). If I spend too much time on HN and think AI is all slop and lose my job because I missed out, that's on me too! (...or start writing my own comedy on HN, knowing the consequences! :) )
If something in the water makes a million people into disgusting mass shooters, we should look into it
You aren’t wrong that there is/was a group of people that consider themselves South Park Conservative but the creators reject the notion that South Park is specifically liberal or conservative, because their intent is to parody any people they can. The creators dislike political correctness but they also dislike the forceful nature of conservatives applying their beliefs on other people. Read the South Park wikipedia page, it explains it pretty well.
Insinuating that South Park conservatives evolved into the alt-right is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Trey and Matt didn’t invent disliking political correctness.
[delayed]
I concur with this take. Like many facets of culture, some people/groups will project what they want onto a given cultural entity (South Park, in this case), but that doesn’t mean one should assume they speak for it.
For example, the “men’s rights activists” group appropriated the idea of “the red pill” from The Matrix. They certainly differ wildly in worldview from the Wachowski siblings.
They had an episode mocking Al Gore about climate change and then did an episode years later where they basically admitted they were wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig
More to the point, you haven’t heard about their current season’s Trump episode?
The alt right aren’t exactly deep thinkers. It’s just like the police glorifying the Punisher.
https://www.newsweek.com/punisher-police-blue-lives-matter-s...
Or MAGA conservatives playing “Born in the USA” without listening to the lyrics.
South Park mocks everyone.
https://www.salon.com/2017/09/15/why-south-park-is-better-ar...
The “alt-right” have always been part of America or have you never heard of Jim Crow and segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”?