As I said I played devil’s advocate. Truth is Blazing Saddles (1974) resonated with my late stepfather who played it over and over back in the day. Sadly though the intent of Blazing Saddles that you thought I missed would be lost on contemporary critics and activists were it released now. It’s why Mel Brooks retired. His kind of picture no longer fit our culture. This is much of my regret. Certain creativity is no longer possible or is remade to fit it. I’m a realist. I accept some of this is necessary just not the extent or scope we’re currently seeing. One man’s opinion.
Beeper’s name was changed after the pilot. No episode ever reached air on KTMA where the short silver robot was Beeper instead of Servo. It was changed for the simple fact that a main character who could only communicate like R2-D2 in beeps and whistles would be too limiting for both the performer and the character, in a setting where there were only four characters interacting.
3 Likes
Thanks for the perspective. I haven’t viewed the KTMA episodes. I couldn’t say exactly how many episodes Beeper appeared in.
If you really cherished these characters then you’d be open to embracing their changes. Some characters grow out of catchphrases yet are still good characters. If you respected them you wouldn’t keep pestering them about things they want to move on from
2 Likes
No one ever saw an episode with Beeper. That name was only used in the pilot that never aired. From the first KTMA episode, the short silver robot was called Servo. That’s entirely different than changing the name of a character that was in 217 episodes and a motion picture.
It’s fine to change original Gypsy’s name to reflect the changing sensibilities as the show moves forward. But retconning to pretend the character was ALWAYS named GPC1 instead of Gypsy? Short of doing what one poster here said, and going back to redub all those episodes and redo all those credits (and rewrite a comic book that was published as recently as 2019) it’s just a gesture without substance.
3 Likes
“We can’t fix everything, so we should endeavor to fix nothing at all” is not a very good or effective critique, frankly.
11 Likes
It’s odd coming at it from a British perspective as we have Irish travellers and there have been many many programmes made about them all with gypsy in the title and many of them all refer to themselves as gypsies with some pride. My understanding is that it is like the N word in that some of them have reappropriated for themselves.
To me it’s like looking at how you would describe someone with mental health problems or on the spectrum in the 70’s and 80’s, just because everyone did it does not mean it was right then and it definitely is not right now.
2 Likes
This is where you go astray laying value judgements on your read as though it’s truth and not your opinion. I definitely have my thoughts and strong ones though I won’t go after another’s motives. I’ve openly stated this is my perspective and I express how I arrive there and leave it there not accuse others of insincerity or not caring.
“If you really cherished these characters then you’d be open to embracing their changes.”
So it’s transactional? To care I have to accept this without opinion. Why? To be a good citizen? How about the opposite? If I give a darn on the characters, it may be because I give a darn on the characters. You saying I have to choose is your choice not mine.
To differ on this debate has no reflection on my deference or lack thereof for the characters in fact it is owing to that reverence I hold principled opposition to acting as though there is zero reason to be worried. “Cherished” and “embracing” are loaded words and imply a take it or leave it attitude and life often moves beyond only two options.
I “cherish” and “embrace” the characters and my standing on the policy is a separate matter and not conditional to me being genuine as an actual fan of the program. This is a false equivalency and one I won’t bend on because my logic and my emotions aren’t always the same.
In due course, I plan on viewing Season 13 and probably loving it. My view on this scenario and my devotion to MST3K can coexist and aren’t in opposition with each other. Sorry on saying anything at all, you went after my motives hence this response.
“If you respected them you wouldn’t keep pestering them about things they want to move on from.”
Speaking of which, were you to skim my earlier comments you might have caught my wish to stop talking on this. You yourself drew me back into this by not respecting my contention as a difference of vantage and instead allude I don’t “cherish”, "embrac"e, or “respect” the characters or creators by not conforming with your perspective. I’m sorry “one can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.” I have sentiment towards MST and objections on the decision but I’m willing to move on if you permit me. Cheers!
1 Like
Cue Buzzer. “Sorry Hans. Wrong guess. Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really change?” My “critique” is must we fix everything and is there a need to do so? Fixing “nothing at all” (suddenly I think of Avalanche) isn’t what I’m saying nor implying. How about somewhere in the middle? Again chiming in to correct the record.
Note: The first line and change are humorous. Not to be taken seriously.
Just to play Devil’s advocate: the Devil doesn’t really need anyone advocating for him.
6 Likes
Nice play on words. The saying “devil’s advocate” exists outside the devil itself. It is a rhetorical technique not in bed with anything else.
1 Like
Yeah, I just recently took care of that over in the Halloween Songs thread. 
I think the concern some have is in the extension of the argument. It only takes a few seconds in the internet era to search around and find some group or individual who will claim offense (be it real or fancied) to any term that is applied to anyone or anything. So in a world where all names, all words, all communication, and all identification of any kind are “offensive” to someone … then at what point does communication become inherently impossible in the quest to not be offensive?
I think it is inherently problematic to put the goal to never offend anyone as the primary (or even secondary) objective of communication and content. This is especially true in entertainment … and more particularly in comedy. Given the reality that any term or label is going to offend someone, there is never going to be a form of communication that is not hurtful. Do we then stop communicating with anyone? Heaven forfend … for even the choice to not communicate is going to be offensive to some people. Catch-22.
Classic example … there are TONS of MST3K episodes where they make fun of white people. This has been a bad habit the show has had since it began and it continues even through to the most current season in some of the jokes and riffs. That’s offensive and even racist. Do we now write a letter campaign to ban all episodes that make fun of white people and forbid them from ever poking fun at that target for all time in the quest to not be offensive?
Common sense and logic dictate instead that the practical solution is to avoid INTENTIONAL offense rather than ACCIDENTAL offense. And if someone becomes accidentally offended then you acknowledge their offense but you do not censor or rescind the communication. That’s really all anyone can do.
3 Likes
As I pointed out above, the argument over GPC’s old name predates the creation of the show by over a decade, at the very least. So it didn’t magically morph into being with the invention of the internet.
As for jokes about White people: there’s a difference between humor which punches up and that which punches down.
There’s no “censorship” or “rescinding” happening here. The old episodes with the old name are still out there, for anyone to view and enjoy as they wish.
9 Likes
This position seems to illustrate the original dichotomy regarding the entirely subjective nature of the intention of offense-avoidance.
People make entirely arbitrary decisions about what sort of communication is (or isn’t) offensive and what they will give it a pass based on subjective morality, personal opinion, popular trends, or any of a thousand excuses. Being offensive is being offensive and if the goal is to not be offensive then there is no justification for it that is supported by logic.
Or - the alternative is that it is all right for communication to be somewhat offensive as long as offensive intent is not really the goal.
1 Like
It’s not arbitrary if it’s based on the opinions and history of the people the name pertains to.
The middle paragraph seems to be you having some kind of argument with yourself, so I’m gonna’ pass on that.
Also, sorry, but I can’t hear you any more over my continued laughter at the idea that “censorship” is somehow happening when the old name is literally in this thread’s title and no one’s touched it.
5 Likes
Why are people crying about the change if it is so trivial?
1 Like
So it is okay to be accidentally offensive, then continue to be offensive after your “accident” has been pointed out to you?
That doesn’t make any sense, particularly since people are not going after Joel for the original name after he changed it.
And seriously if you don’t like the change take it up with Joel.
4 Likes
“There’s a difference between humor which punches up and that which punches down.”
Okay. Now there’s qualifications on who you may offend and who you can’t? Who determines this? If irritating anyone is uncaring, why irritate at all given that aim? This is what I spoke to by referencing Blazing Saddles (1974). Pointing out potential hypocrisy of how a film deliberating aiming to shock is acceptable while a puppet name chosen on its syllables and sound is not.
I’m actually over the Gypsy matter and have been but every time people blatantly dismiss any worry as preposterous and are blind to this discrepancy and how it effected an innocent character on principle this compels me to ask why? If your intent is to avoid all hurt feelings why allow some and not others? It’s like loving one sports team and hating another. On that basis, altering a character based on preference or other people’s preference is what I struggle with since it’s so subjective.
I’m not buying the concept that targeting or pejoratively joking about any ethnic group is acceptable or unacceptable based on historical or contemporary societal domination.
‘Punching up’ or ‘punching down’ seems a bit simplistic when you factor in sarcasm and irony.
1 Like