I love it. In my own personal context, it even got me a little choked up.
+1. Funny and well done…
I hadn’t seen it until now. When I did see it I guffawed. Bert and Ernie’s sexuality had not occurred to me before.
Yeah, this would have been a good poll option.
In hindsight, something along these lines seems almost obvious for a political cartoon. The New Yorker cover was well done, though.
Hey, that was funny.
Agree with ZenBeam that we could have used this as an option. Everyone who is sensible and has been paying any attention knows it’s a gag (and by now an old one). Though I can sympathize with the Workshop as they roll their eyes at all the third-party projection over the decades.
Besides, the cover couldn’t do Batman and Robin because people would be all over them on that whole “teenage ward” thing; nor K/S because they’re in the future so it’s history to them. So Bert and Ernie it is.
It would be clever if there was anything remotely clever about “Bert & Ernie are gay! LOLOLOLOL!!!”
There’s not. It’s an image, I’ll give you that much. It’s not clever, it’s about a 5th grade level of humor where you learn about homosexuals and start calling any two males standing near one another “queers” because “Hahaha! They’re guys close to each other!”
I’m glad DOMA was struck down and support SSM but the cover politicizes an organization that doesn’t need it and isn’t clever doing it, but tired.
Maybe next time a state legalizes pot, they can go the extra-clever mile and put Shaggy on the cover.
The clever part is using the old joke as a commentary on the ruling. It was done well. Maybe you just don’t get it.
Yeah, that must be it :rolleyes:
I dunno. I think it’s inappropriate in that it’s being published in a magazine with such a large readership. But the big question to me is whether or not Sesame Street Workshop ok’d this. And honestly, I don’t see how they ever would have. They’ve made it clear over and over again throughout the years that they are not gay and were never intended to be. They were actually a puppet version of the Odd Couple, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. I mean, I can’t imagine the New Yorker didn’t run this past their lawyers before using the image, but at the same time I can’t ever see SSW ok’ing it.
Well, you don’t see their faces, so is it really them? I’m sure New York has more than one household with a short orange guy and a tall yellow guy.
I always thought Bert and Ernie were a muppet version of Felix and Oscar.
My misgiving grows out of them being licensed characters from work still being produced. I’m pretty sure I’m not going to be able to articulate this well. I’d mind less if it were recognizable characters without a current show or strip or aisle full of toys in major retail outlets.
Those characters belong to the Sesame Street Workshop (whatever happened to the Children’s Television Workshop?) and they should have control over how they’re used. I assume AngelSoft is right, and Conde Nast lawyers have been all over this already. Just because something’s perfectly legal doesn’t make it nice.
The best part about that Sesame Street Glee sketch is Muppet Brad on the piano!
Large but mature, and I’d presume well-read. It’s awfully far from something kids would be reading.
Well I’m not concerned as to whether or not kids will see it. I just think it’s inappropriate to use characters from a children’s show to represent this. Especially since their creators have made it painfully clear they’re not gay. I guess part of my issue is that it comes off as underhanded and sneaky to me. Because I honestly can NOT see the Sesame Street Workshop ok’ing this and so the lawyers are using the ‘legal’ excuse that it’s not clearly their characters. Of course, I do admit none of this has been verified and it’s mostly my own interpretation. It just rubs me the wrong way.
I know I’m probably on the fringe, but I don’t think it would be a bad thing to have a gay couple on Sesame Street.
I thought it was strange because my first thought was ‘is this legal’? Did they get the license, clearance, releases or whatever it is you need to use a characters likeness in a work of art?
Or are they getting around it by not showing their faces?
However, I assume The New Yorker would know the legal stuff.
My second thought was that it is dumb.
I get it but I think it’s dumb.
+1 to everyone who has said that Sesame Street Workshop is unlikely to approve of this.
And just watch. Next thing, someone is going to do this with Peppermint Patty and Marcie. And then my head will explode. Peppermint Patty, who likes Chuck, who likes guys, who agonizes over not being feminine/attractive enough. :smack: Marcie, I can make less of a case for, but she did dance with Franklin once (ooh, interracial!). With PP, though, Schulz was trying to make a point that girls can be into “boy things” like sports, but still be girls. And honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me if he never knew any gay people, so who would she be based on?
(Just one tiny note of approval, though. Bert and Ernie, while not gay, are very New York. It’s at least more appropriate to see them on the cover of The New Yorker than on The Advocate.)
Why in the world would you think Schulz never knew any gay people?
I am pretty sure Marcie had a crush on Patty.
Why would you need to make a defense for her? She never says she has a crush on a female or acts romantically affectionate towards a female. Even with PP, she’s almost comically businesslike. That said, from Wiki…
The funny thing about the PP/Marcie joke is that it completely revolves around two girls being friends, playing sports/studying and preferring shorts & shirts over the dresses that Lucy, Sally, Violet, Frieda and the rest wear. The obvious implication being that if you’re not a fashionable girly-girl with appropriate girl hobbies and who spends half the strip mooning over Linus or Schroeder, you’re obviously a lez.
I think that way too, but I liked the cover a lot. I guess I consider it as like… non-canonical fan fiction. Ha.
You’re allowed to use characters likeness in a work of art without asking permission. Freedom of speech trumps trademark law (do you think Andy Warhol asked Campbell’s soup for permission to paint their trademarked logo?)
In this case, it’s not a trademark issue because there is no chance of consumer confusion with the original likeness (it also helps that they are not shown from the front). No one is going to look at the cover and think it has anything to do with the CTW and there’s no identification with Sesame Street. CTW would have a very hard time showing this diluted their trademark, and the trademark was not being used in competition with them.