Save Our Stan!

Talk about anything South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

ShaneHaughey
Posts: 11192
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36 pm

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby ShaneHaughey » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:16 am

The writers left.

Save Our Stan! The FB group is now up. Stan Society is the name!
That's how it's down here on the farm!
James--76
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:44 pm

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby James--76 » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:18 am

There`s only 10 members so far.
Kyle: Why? How could you do this? There are people starving in Alabama and you give Cartman a million dollars?

Cartman: Line? Lines! I HATE LINES!!!
ShaneHaughey
Posts: 11192
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36 pm

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby ShaneHaughey » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:21 am

It is open. Hopefully with advertisement, it will grow. I will be doing so tomorrow.
That's how it's down here on the farm!
Wii fit man
Posts: 11153
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby Wii fit man » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:23 am

Barack_Obama wrote:Why is your site dead? :(

That has nothing to do with the topic.

YOU CONTINUE TO DISAPPOINT ME. >:C
effses: Austin confirmed for turbo homosexual
Barack_Obama
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:50 pm

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby Barack_Obama » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:40 am

Wii fit man wrote:
Barack_Obama wrote:Why is your site dead? :(

That has nothing to do with the topic.

YOU CONTINUE TO DISAPPOINT ME. >:C

You best be joking.
I have been here since January 2005 with another name. I have seniority. (.__. )

Plants stuff their pollen everywhere, all those kids who get allergies because of pollen have plant sperm in their lungs. Flowers deep throat kids :I

- Unassumption
Wii fit man
Posts: 11153
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby Wii fit man » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:42 am

Barack_Obama wrote:
Wii fit man wrote:
Barack_Obama wrote:Why is your site dead? :(

That has nothing to do with the topic.

YOU CONTINUE TO DISAPPOINT ME. >:C

You best be joking.

No, I'm not. I use all caps and ">:C" when I'm serious.

Sh'yeah.

Yes, I'm joking, goshhhhh
effses: Austin confirmed for turbo homosexual
hannahjoo
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:13 am

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby hannahjoo » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:15 pm

I hardly think Stan is the biggest of our worries. Matt and Trey are geniuses, they know writing Stan out would be detrimental to the quality of the show.

I think the thing I'm most worried about is the inevitable end. "Getting Old" broke the fourth wall at the climax and basically told us that they didn't want to do South Park anymore. And while we can comfort ourselves with the fact that there's seven episodes left and there's a rumor that South Park is contracted to the 17th season, Matt and Trey don't enjoy it anymore.

So which do we love more? The Gods of Comedy or their product? I think we love the Gods more. So rather than trying to hold onto a dying, if wonderful, show, it's really time we let it go so Matt and Trey can be happy again.

I feel like Doctor Kavorkian. Christ.

I just wish they'd give us something definitive so we know for sure what's happening!
Pip Tweek
Posts: 5101
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:15 am

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby Pip Tweek » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:29 pm

This is not a troll - at all - but I do want to take 'to task' some basic principles with a rebuttal. Some of what I'm going to say has already been said, but since the first post really stands for what SOS is about, I'm going to add counterpoints line by line.

ShaneHaughey wrote:An official Stan Society thread dedicated to gathering support for the return of Stan Marsh to the fold of the show, as well as resolution in a positive manner regarding his mental state, predicated on the belief that this is not the first part of a two parter, nor a sign that the brilliant minds behind the show are finished.


So, the assumption is that the show is not over, and this is not a 2-parter which will see Stan return to his former self/role. So the Stan we saw in 1507 is the one we're left with IF nothing is done to stop it. Got that so far.

Stan Marsh has for the entire length of the show been the moral and rational compass upon which the series has pivoted.


I take issue with this - observe the episodes where Stan
1. Was cruel to Pip
2. Was cruel to Butters
3. Abandoned Kyle to get pummeled in SP is Gay

He has been a voice of reason for a great deal of the show, but his character has shown faults in the above episodes, and in All About Mormons where his judgments and rudeness is called out. Also, in Lice Capades, Stan was no better in his behavior than the other kids. Don't forget Raisins where his personality would have remain unchanged if he hadn't encountered Butters crying. And how often has Stan basically ignored Cartman and Kyle's spats, not defending his best friend against the biggest assh*le in the series?

I assert that while Stan is often rational, his morality
is relative at best, and his character has much potential for turning negative.

ShaneHaughey wrote:His emotions were wide and his ability to develop and further plots in a manner most unlike the others has allowed the show to become unique- never truly cynical and yet with an edge, almost wholly dependent initially on the raw childlike emotion of the characters. And it was Stan who set this pace and has ever set the character of the show.


Kenny dying set the stage for ALL of season six. Though he wasn't present in his normal sense, the entire season came about as it did because of Kenny. The Butters Show and Kenny Dies are two more episodes we can attribute to Kenny - Butters needed a solid introduction to kick off season six.

Scott Tenorman must die. Don't tell me Eric didn't send shockwaves through the series with that ep more than Stan ever has. Two more references in Season five were made by Cartman "I'll make you eat your parents." Cartman was the most central figure of season five.


ShaneHaughey wrote:On June 8th however, Stan Marsh's mindset as well as relation to the cast was changed in such a manner that not only was his character tarnished and damaged tremendously, but the positive fabric of the show torn asunder.

We recognize the artistic drive to take chances that perhaps has pushed forward this development, and we also recognize that there is a chance that years of work and mental strain have produced this. And, as always, we respect the artistic integrity of the creators and staff and we are more than overjoyed that they can finally rest after years of work on various projects.

But we, the fans, the diehards and the newcomers alike, believe that with Stan seemingly written out of the show and his character trampled upon, the show has lost something which can never be recovered. It has lost the everyman with ample room for staggeringly deep development; it has lost its moral compass; it has lost its sense of adventure; it has lost its logical core; it has lost room for development; it has lost one of its most important characters; it has lost a character type that has been the staple of successful comedy; it has lost a character so ripe for development that he could fill entire seasons by himself; it has lost Stan Marsh and he can never be replaced.


There are inherent contradictions in your arguments.
1. "it has lost a character so ripe for development that he could fill entire seasons by himself"

2. "his character trampled upon, the show has lost something which can never be recovered"

You either are in support of character development, which is what 1507 appears to be doing, or you are not in support of character development. Make up my mind.

I assert that Stan's turn to cynicism is quite a plausible turn in his development - which does not equal a permanent change in temperament. The core of what makes Stan a good character has not been tarnished by this, as I am almost positive you will see.

ShaneHaughey wrote:We here believe that Stan Marsh, through any comedic or dramatic means that work within the show, should be saved from the fate currently prescribed him.


You don't know the fate currently prescribed him: no one does. It is not inevitable that Stan remain what he became by the end of 1507. You can't make that conclusion on the basis of one episode. We know Stan is not an assh*le. We know he's a good kid. He is also very smart and will find a way to come to terms with his new perceptions on reality and see things in a more balanced way.

Therefore, I say this movement is unnecessary, unless you want absolutely no change, but that's not going to happen.
ShaneHaughey
Posts: 11192
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36 pm

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby ShaneHaughey » Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:56 am

Pip Tweek wrote:This is not a troll - at all - but I do want to take 'to task' some basic principles with a rebuttal. Some of what I'm going to say has already been said, but since the first post really stands for what SOS is about, I'm going to add counterpoints line by line.

ShaneHaughey wrote:An official Stan Society thread dedicated to gathering support for the return of Stan Marsh to the fold of the show, as well as resolution in a positive manner regarding his mental state, predicated on the belief that this is not the first part of a two parter, nor a sign that the brilliant minds behind the show are finished.


So, the assumption is that the show is not over, and this is not a 2-parter which will see Stan return to his former self/role. So the Stan we saw in 1507 is the one we're left with IF nothing is done to stop it. Got that so far.

Stan Marsh has for the entire length of the show been the moral and rational compass upon which the series has pivoted.


I take issue with this - observe the episodes where Stan
1. Was cruel to Pip
2. Was cruel to Butters
3. Abandoned Kyle to get pummeled in SP is Gay

He has been a voice of reason for a great deal of the show, but his character has shown faults in the above episodes, and in All About Mormons where his judgments and rudeness is called out. Also, in Lice Capades, Stan was no better in his behavior than the other kids. Don't forget Raisins where his personality would have remain unchanged if he hadn't encountered Butters crying. And how often has Stan basically ignored Cartman and Kyle's spats, not defending his best friend against the biggest assh*le in the series?

I assert that while Stan is often rational, his morality
is relative at best, and his character has much potential for turning negative.

ShaneHaughey wrote:His emotions were wide and his ability to develop and further plots in a manner most unlike the others has allowed the show to become unique- never truly cynical and yet with an edge, almost wholly dependent initially on the raw childlike emotion of the characters. And it was Stan who set this pace and has ever set the character of the show.


Kenny dying set the stage for ALL of season six. Though he wasn't present in his normal sense, the entire season came about as it did because of Kenny. The Butters Show and Kenny Dies are two more episodes we can attribute to Kenny - Butters needed a solid introduction to kick off season six.

Scott Tenorman must die. Don't tell me Eric didn't send shockwaves through the series with that ep more than Stan ever has. Two more references in Season five were made by Cartman "I'll make you eat your parents." Cartman was the most central figure of season five.


ShaneHaughey wrote:On June 8th however, Stan Marsh's mindset as well as relation to the cast was changed in such a manner that not only was his character tarnished and damaged tremendously, but the positive fabric of the show torn asunder.

We recognize the artistic drive to take chances that perhaps has pushed forward this development, and we also recognize that there is a chance that years of work and mental strain have produced this. And, as always, we respect the artistic integrity of the creators and staff and we are more than overjoyed that they can finally rest after years of work on various projects.

But we, the fans, the diehards and the newcomers alike, believe that with Stan seemingly written out of the show and his character trampled upon, the show has lost something which can never be recovered. It has lost the everyman with ample room for staggeringly deep development; it has lost its moral compass; it has lost its sense of adventure; it has lost its logical core; it has lost room for development; it has lost one of its most important characters; it has lost a character type that has been the staple of successful comedy; it has lost a character so ripe for development that he could fill entire seasons by himself; it has lost Stan Marsh and he can never be replaced.


There are inherent contradictions in your arguments.
1. "it has lost a character so ripe for development that he could fill entire seasons by himself"

2. "his character trampled upon, the show has lost something which can never be recovered"

You either are in support of character development, which is what 1507 appears to be doing, or you are not in support of character development. Make up my mind.

I assert that Stan's turn to cynicism is quite a plausible turn in his development - which does not equal a permanent change in temperament. The core of what makes Stan a good character has not been tarnished by this, as I am almost positive you will see.

ShaneHaughey wrote:We here believe that Stan Marsh, through any comedic or dramatic means that work within the show, should be saved from the fate currently prescribed him.


You don't know the fate currently prescribed him: no one does. It is not inevitable that Stan remain what he became by the end of 1507. You can't make that conclusion on the basis of one episode. We know Stan is not an assh*le. We know he's a good kid. He is also very smart and will find a way to come to terms with his new perceptions on reality and see things in a more balanced way.

Therefore, I say this movement is unnecessary, unless you want absolutely no change, but that's not going to happen.


You point out that he has been cruel to Pip and Butters and left Kyle to his fate. You also seem to not understand what I meant: As Stan was immoral at times, he went as the show's morals went, as he was the moral pivot of the show. IE; Pip was always the punching bag, Butters is constantly being screwed, and friendship can hang by a thread. Stan's morality ispon often the barometer upon which we judge future interactions with the stated character- if Stan, for example, had been completely buddy buddy with Butters in Two Men Naked in a Hot Tub, I would believe we would have seen a far kinder general perception of him.

You also do not understand what setting the pace and character means. It is a writing terminology indicating the characters who ground the show and form the set pieces with which the story is delivered. Jerry Seinfeld, Marge Simpson, Jim Halpert- on their own shows, they are the pace setters, not usually the home run hitters. Stan is part of this group.

You attempt to show a contradiction when you do nothing of the sort. The 'development' of #1507, if it is left without change, is a character killer that renders any future development almost impossible. It would be like if in the middle of The Simpsons you had Marge shoot someone and sent to prison for ten years. Yeah, that is a development, but not a good one if left on the line.

And as you said you understood at the start, the entire point of this thread is predicated on the belief that there is no two-parter and that Stan is currently not planned to have this used as a springboard for development. Every point and post made in the OP and afterwards is based on that initial belief. I did not think I would have had to repeat that, especially for you of all people, who I assumed would have been able to understand it right off the bat.

As to your last snippet, if you understood the basis of the OP- that this 'development' is a character killer if left alone and that this movement is predicated on the belief that it is left alone- then you would not say that it is unncessary. No South Park fan, if they grasped that, would say so. I believe you are very intelligent, so it is likely that you perhaps just misiniterpreted some things.

And by the way, I love character development. IF it is used as a springboard for character development for Stan, I love it. If it isn't however, it may be a show-killer. Tomorrow, another topic shall go up detailing just a few of the very simple ideas that could be used to develop off of #1507.
That's how it's down here on the farm!
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18777
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Re: Save Our Stan!

Postby Big-Will » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:44 am

Locked because Shane had to go and create another SOS thread.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version

Return to “General South Park Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests