Ok then, I’m confused. How come we hear about things like Disney sending cease and desist letters to daycares that have paintings of Mickey Mouse on their walls? If you can use trademarked characters in art, then am I able to draw art of Disney characters doing whatever and sell prints?
I do not like it. I’d be totally in to it if B&E were gay but they’re not. I’d have no problem with B&E being gay, but they’re not. People say B&E are gay in a mocking way. I do not like that the New Yorker used this “joke” gay couple to promote an important day in gay rights.
What would we say if it was a picture of Tom Cruise and a dude snuggling on the couch? How about Richard Gere and a gerbil?
That’s just dumb journalism.
Disney has more numerous, meaner, and more anally constricted lawyers in the mailroom than there are in all of PBS, and every other media entity in Western Civilization knows that…
That said, however, there is such a thing as a Parody Defense. But that requires it to be a parody – not bootleg Disney prints sold AS Disney prints.
And if there were a news story about some aging billionaire being ripped off by his relatives, you could draw an editorial cartoon with Uncle Scrooge and Huey, Louie and Dewey in the corresponding roles with no trouble whatever. If there were some sex scandal in the Disney executive suite we could draw an editorial cartoon with Minnie catching Mickey in flagrante delicto to allude to it. A lot of people do post prodigious amounts of fanart of the Disney Princesses, much of it with them doing things the Company would very much not want associated with them (no jumping the line, Dopey!).
I cannot display a bootleg painting of Mickey, Donald, or the Disneyfied versions of the various fairytale characters as decoration at a dayschool because Disney actually wants to** sell** me **their **authorized character paraphernalia for those uses they want it to be used for.
+1. I don’t like it. I also glad DOMA was struck down and heartily support SSM but dragging SS into this is irresponsible. Worse, imho this decision is a BFD and they should have put someone or something meaningful on the cover. B&E aren’t gay. By trying to force them to be it will turn even more people against the movement. I get the joke but this isn’t a restroom wall it’s the cover of a national magazine.
*The New Yorker *is known for its controversial covers (remember this one from 2008?). This one is mild in comparison. And obviously they have a staff of lawyers that have to OK everything in each issue.
The thing is, that cover perfectly captures how very many of us GLBTs feel about the Supreme Court decisions. I can’t imagine anything more eloquent. And another thing: The illustration doesn’t just show Bert and Ernie, but also the Supreme Court. It’s not just two guys making out, it’s their reaction to what they see on the TV. It’s perfect.
Well, if this “controversy” has proven one thing to me, it’s that even an awful lot of liberals are incredibly anal.
I thought it was adorable and heart-warming. I was shocked when non-right-wing-nuts started criticizing it. I still am. Geez, people…it’s a New Yorker cover, not a dissertation on the sexual orientation of puppets. Lighten up. There’s a LOT of overthinking going on here…
No, you’re not. It’s a satire vs. parody thing. You have to make fun of the original for it to be parody. They are getting away with it because they are deliberately avoiding making it clearly Burt and Ernie. Comic books have done this for years. There’s even a TVTropes page for it.
As for my opinion? Number 3 was the closest. I’m not all that upset about it or anything, but I think it was tacky to appropriate these characters to the cause. And I’m pro-SSM, so that’s not the issue. Now Sesame Street is going to have to deny it because people will assume they approved, even though they clearly didn’t.
And it’s not a joke, since there’s absolutely nothing there to indicate that it’s supposed to be funny. There’s no exaggeration, no words, nothing. Two people cuddling on a couch is not inherently funny. Just because it can be interpreted as a joke doesn’t make it one. People seem to forget the corollary to Poe’s Law: people will always assume it isn’t a joke. And based on past New Yorker covers, I don’t think The New Yorker is that stupid. They were going for heartwarming, not funny.
And, no, the fact that so many of you don’t think about how it may bother Sesame Street is not compelling at all. If you only found it heartwarming, it’s because you shut off your brain and didn’t think of the implications. That doesn’t somehow make you superior to those of us who didn’t.
And I do also think it is cute. But I still think The New Yorker shouldn’t drag other people into it, even though the magazine is okay with that controversy.
Always consider the sources.
Blahblah blahblah blah. I have no responsibility to give a damn about CTW’s feelings about the whole shebang. And I don’t. Sue me.
ETA: And I don’t really appreciate the attempts to persuade me to replace that heartwarming feeling with some sort of vague give-a-damn about copyrights and trademarks. Don’t care. shrug
Or Kirk and Spock. Or Sam and Frodo.
I thought the cover was mildly cute, but I think just about any other “bro-mance” couple would have been funnier (considering how neuter Bert and Ernie are).
I thought Marcie had a crush on Charlie Brown.
Yes, I find it extremely heartwarming . . . and I did not shut off my brain, and I’m totally aware of the implications. That doesn’t make me either superior or inferior.
The thing is . . . showing them watching the Supreme Court on TV narrows the meaning down to this one issue. If they were just sitting there by themselves, it would be cute but meaningless. But the focus is on the Supreme Court, not on them. They really could have used any random male couple or female couple, and the meaning would be the same . . . but without the warm and fuzzy connotation. But as is, it celebrates those of us in same-sex relationships, and also celebrates the Supreme Court. Win-win.
Obviously, if Charlie Brown plays his cards right- three-way!!!
From my British perspective, I can’t even believe this is a topic for debate or disapproval. It would be met with a mere chuckle here.
I thought it was cute and gently humorous. I also think having gay couples in children’s TV shows is entirely appropriate - children need to learn that they are part of normal society. Trouble is a lot of homophobes can’t see a gay couple without thinking about what they do with their penises. Which is about the level of a 12 year old.
Ah. You all may be correct. And wasn’t there a Paris episode where she and a French boy had a romance right underneath Patty’s nose, and Patty was oblivious because she thought the boy liked her? Yeah, I remember that.
I can’t remember why I thought Marcie liked Patty now. My mistake.
Just out of curiosity, what if it was Noddy and Big Ears?
He was her beard.
Well of course one can only speculate, but my best shot would be:
A rash of awful Noddy and Big Ears jokes
A piece in the Guardian re. the place of anachronistic authors such as Blyton and Ransome in modern children’s literature
A piece in the Daily Mail re. the appropriation of icons of childhood for (what it deems to be) inappropriate issues. See also “political correctness gone made”. Followed by some sputtering and monocle-dropping in the readers’ comments section.
General eye-rolling amongst the populace.
Everyone moving along to other issues in about 37.5 minutes.
You could probably better judge the issue based on the reactions to the suggestion that Tinky-Winky out of the Teletubbies is gay. Generally this was met with amusement over here, but a certain amount of serious opprobrium by the religious right (see Jerry Falwell) in the US.
Like these guys?
Anyway, I voted “They should respect Sesame Workshop…” for two reasons - one, is that there’s a large difference between adopting B&E as a gay icon and (erroneously) insisting they are gay. It comes from that whole view already expressed that it’s kind of dumb to not have a space for platonic best friends in society, to sexualize everything (see: Sam&Frodo, Kirk&Spock etc)
second; I’d have preferred it if they’d used the excellent opportunity to use an actual gay couple to comment on what I’m sure is going to go down as a historic SC decision rather than retell a tired joke.
You know, like Statler and Waldorf 
Maybe we’re all wrong, and the cover actually depicts Bert & Ernie enjoying the VRA being repealed.