Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

'It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown' Won't Air On Broadcast TV This Year (people.com) 126

Posted by BeauHD from the first-time-in-decades dept.
"It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" will no longer air on broadcast TV this year, but it can be streamed on Apple+. This marks the first time since 1965 that the Peanuts special won't air on TV. People.com reports: Instead of airing on broadcast television, the Peanuts animated classics will be streaming on AppleTV+ as part of an expanded partnership with WildBrain, Peanuts Worldwide and Lee Mendelson Film Productions, according to a press release. It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown, A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving and A Charlie Brown Christmas will be offered on the streaming platform for free for certain dates this fall and winter.

Great Pumpkin will be available for free on the streamer from October 30 to November 1, the Thanksgiving special from November 25 to 27, and the Christmas special from December 11 to 13. But it's not just the iconic holiday specials that are moving to AppleTV+. Original Peanuts programming surrounding Mother's Day, Earth Day, New Year's Eve and back-to-school season will also be produced by WildBrain to air on AppleTV+. Included in the programming will be The Snoopy Show and season 2 of Snoopy in Space.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown' Won't Air On Broadcast TV This Year More

'It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown' Won't Air On Broadcast TV This Year

Comments Filter:

  • Was just looking this up (Score:3)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @06:46PM (#60629682)

    Without exaggeration, no more than five seconds before this story was posted I was on YouTube looking up the infamous, "I got a rock [youtube.com]" segment in an effort to make a joke about the lander collecting rocks from the asteroid tomorrow.

    I didn't like what I saw so came here and there it is, a story about what I was just looking up. Unbelievable.

    • I didn't like what I saw so came here and there it is, a story about what I was just looking up. Unbelievable.

      Slashdot telemetry at work. Just this morning I mentioned Edge to a coworker within earshot of my computer with the browser open on Slashdot, and now there's an Edge story on the front page.

      Coincidence? There's no such thing!

  • Commercialization wins (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jabberw0k ( 62554 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @06:48PM (#60629688) Homepage Journal
    Commercialism wins: childrens' parents now have to pay to watch the Peanuts specials. No Christmas for Charlie Brown. What would Charles Schulz say?

    • He may not have been surprised about having to pay to watch, since he lived well in to the cable TV era, but, IIRC, Schultz did not want any more Peanuts content created. Maybe Apple et al are getting around his will by not creating "comics" for the Mother's Day etc. "new content".

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by A_Cowardly_Anon ( 6434952 )
      "Great Pumpkin will be available for free on the streamer" They have to jump through hoops and either own an AppleTV supported device or a computer (tv.apple.com) but they always had to own a TV and with COVID most need to own a computer. I don't like Apple but I don't see how they have to pay to watch.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        You forgot the part where you now need an Apple TV+ account to watch the Peanuts. Ok, this is just an assumption on my part but I doubt they will have a free open link to these Peanut shows without needing Apple TV+ account (they may offer free account but you will probably still need an account). Previously all you needed was a TV and an antenna (or cable/satellite/fibre if there was no over the air broadcasts in your area).

    • What would Charles Schulz say?

      Fuck Schuz; Peanuts was the most depressing, uninteresting and uninspiring pile of shit to ever get syndicated.

      • I don't know, out of the comics which jumped to animated features, Garfield is right there too.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Falos ( 2905315 )

          I read lots of it when I was younger. It's crap. The number of cruise control strips are insane - the ones where Davis takes the basic personalities (admittedly more novel in nature 40 years ago) and puts them on autopilot. Button 1: Jon is a boring loser. Button 2: Garfield is a lazy glutton. Slam either one and a strip pops out. He did it so much that I think he lost track of duplicates. There was a few too many "Jon something zany for a panel! ...lol it flopped." or sock drawer organizings.

          I don't have e

        • As a kid, I actually enjoyed the animated Garfield & Friends show, including the farm segments. Though I'm certain it's one of those things best left to my memories rather than trying to rewatch it today.

          On the other hand, I always though the Peanuts animated cartoons to be inane and boring, and even as a kid they seemed to aimed more at adults who thought it to be cutesy than targeted towards us kids. In other words, the same target market Family Circus was aiming for.

          • The Garfield cartoon is legitimately funnier than the comic because of how well it portrays Garfield's cynical and snarky nature.

      • I guess you got rocks when you used to Trick or Treat? Or you have rocks in your skull???
      • I don't understand how your miserable opinion is getting modded as informative. All it says is you are a miserable jackass who has bad taste.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        I'm sure the Shuz: Peanuts content was crap. I honestly can't say as I have never seen it.
        The Schulz Peanuts show on the other hand I have always found enjoyable.

        8^)

      • Schulz also thinks girls hitting boys is funny, but the reverse is not. No Schulz you fucking cuck, neither is funny. That's called child abuse, even if it's between children.

    • Re:Commercialization wins (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @08:35PM (#60629920)

      Maybe we're better off. The past few years they have already been editing it for time. You know because god forbid we don't get 26 minutes of commercial time in a 60 minute slot.

      • I haven't owned a television for three years.
      • This is a good point. TV has improved with the viewer-as-customer model that streaming mostly goes by, compared to the advertiser-as-customer model that we've been suffering with for so long.

      • Maybe we're better off. The past few years they have already been editing it for time. You know because god forbid we don't get 26 minutes of commercial time in a 60 minute slot.

        My guess is that the actual audience at this point is those of us who watched it as children and still tune in now and then to reminisce.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        I'm curious to see if they will add back in all the deleted Coke segments of the original Charlie Brown Christmas. 8^)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by segin ( 883667 )
      They've always had to pay; TVs and electricity were never free.

      • They've always had to pay; TVs and electricity were never free.

        Ever hear of a department store, Junior???

        You have no understanding of how many free screens the past had, all tuned to Charlie Brown.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      This last decade we have seen a big push to monetize nostalgia and childhood memories.

      There are lots of re-releases of old video games as paid downloads on modern consoles, or "mini" versions of classic machines. There are endless re-makes of classic franchises but Disney is really taking it to another level with its back catalogue.

      People got complacent and figured that old stuff would be available on TV or on their 40 year old games console forever. Companies saw that and exploited it.

      • These people need to learn about emulators. I have every NES, GB, GBC, SNES, Mega Drive, and Master System game ever released on my 3DS's SD card.

      • Charles Schulz reportedly earned over $1 billion (with a 'b') from Peanuts over the years. Peanuts has always been commercialized despite the non-commercializing message of some of its material. That this latest move is an attempt to continue to make money off this product should be no surprise.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by leonbev ( 111395 )

      I watched it with my daughter on Apple TV+, and... she thought that it was boring. It doesn't really hold up to modern standards.

  • ...and the creppy streaming services that still uses geofences while the gaming industry does not. They are a product of the past.

  • bought the dvd years ago, ripped it and put it on my own dlna server. never trust that the classics will always be available in the classic delivery formats.

    • Yes. Too few see the vultures circling above their very childhoods.

    • bought the dvd years ago, ripped it and put it on my own [media] server.

      Me, too!

    • Ditto this. Ownership beats rental any time. I am glad, however, that Apple is producing new Peanuts content as my kids are quite fond of it. Same for Fraggle Rock actually. I'd be hard pressed to watch just about anything else on AppleTV, however (I did enjoy Mythic Quest and Ted Lasso).

    • Linus shot first!

  • Charlie Brown is social distancing (Score:4, Funny)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @07:05PM (#60629730)

    Bummer!

  • Should be Public Domain.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @07:31PM (#60629794)
    It's 53 years old and should be in the public domain by now. Sonny Bono and Disney can go fuck themselves and this perpetual copyright bullshit needs to be retroactively removed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      You know, the saddest thing about the fiasco that resulted in century-long copyright terms is that Disney could have just gotten entirely adequate protection for their IP just with plain old trademark law, and not have had to bother with copyright extensions at all.

      • For merch, yes, but they didn't want thier 'classics' coming up for distribution as agreed to by society in exchange for their 'temporary' monopoly.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )
          Except if you look at the rationales that were used for imposing the extensions in the first place, they would have been actually been met with trademark law. What you're describing was certainly icing on the cake for Disney, but was never an argument that anyone had ever seriously tried to use as the justification in trying to get the law passed which enabled extensions because it would have been laughed at and rejected immediately.

      • Disney could have just gotten entirely adequate protection for their IP just with plain old trademark law, and not have had to bother with copyright extensions at all.

        In Kellogg v. Nabisco, 305 U.S. 111 (1938) [wikipedia.org], the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a trademark cannot be used to extend the effective term of an expired patent. The Court extended this principle to copyright in Dastar v. Fox, 539 U.S. 23 (2003) [wikipedia.org].

        (At this point, it looks like Disney won't even be able to get its parks back open to full capacity by the time U.S. copyright in Mickey Mouse is set to expire in January 2024.)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )
          The point in that case wouldn't be used to extend the copyright, but to prevent unauthorized use of their trademarked characters, despite specific works passing into public domain. This would effectively prevent people from using Disney's trademarked characters in either derivative works or even original creations, as well as preventing the rebranding of their characters under different names as the imagery of the character can also be trademarked, much like a company logo.

          But it would not prevent passag

          • The point in that case wouldn't be used to extend the copyright, but to prevent unauthorized use of their trademarked characters, despite specific works passing into public domain.

            Thus effectively extending the copyright, which was blocked by the SCOTUS in Kellogg v. Nabisco and Dastar v. Fox.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mark-t ( 151149 )

              It doesn't effectively extend the copyright at all. Copying a once-copyrighted work after the copyright has expired, whether or not it contains any trademarked characters, does not constitute unauthorized use of the trademarks within that work.

              To suggest that such trademarks would somehow prohibit copying of works which had passed into public domain would be to claim that their own work was using their trademarks without authorization in the first place.

              Which is, of course, absurd.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by tepples ( 727027 )

                Copying a once-copyrighted work after the copyright has expired, whether or not it contains any trademarked characters, does not constitute unauthorized use of the trademarks within that work.

                Nor does preparing derivative works in such a way that the use of the characters does not mislead viewers as to the work's origin.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mark-t ( 151149 )

                  It might... nominative use of trademarks has some requirements which can sometimes be difficult for things that are publicly performed or widely published to achieve. Derivative works with different and original characters which might, for example, refer to events from the original story would be entirely safe, however. The work can become public domain, but that does not mean that the characters are.

                  Copies of the original work, however, would not constitute trademark infringement even if the copies

              • You don't understand English, do you? If one can't create copies of the work without also violating the trademark, then one is effectively extending the copyright via trademark. Go look at the decisions I have mentioned for explanation. I have just demonstrated that you are wrong and don't understand English and thus are a dumbass.

        • You entirely missed the point. He was talking about toys, lunchboxes, action figures and shit like that.

    • Mick Jagger's great-great-grandchildren will be whining about their rights or whatever when the Rolling Stones' stuff gets close to going out of copyright too. Poor babies.

  • ... for those of us who refuse to touch anything Apple, much less give them a penny. (Former fanboy speaking, too)

  • "Good grief." (Score:5, Funny)

    by balaam's ass ( 678743 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @07:57PM (#60629846) Journal

    C'mon, can't believe nobody made that comment yet! ;-)

  • Good Grief! - Avoid Apple (Score:3)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @08:04PM (#60629868) Homepage
    Sigh.

  • It was an anachronism anyway (Score:5, Insightful)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @08:29PM (#60629910) Journal

    Nail in the coffin. That stuff already looked dated. It got established as a tradition during the era when most of the country could count TV channels on one hand. Kids have cycled through so many things now I've lost track. Without the shared experience of almost all the kids watching the *same thing* on the *same night* because it was the *only thing on*, Peanuts specials lose a lot of their significance. Most of these things killed Peanuts specials without them actually making it PPV.

    I suspect young parents have already given up on Peanuts specials for the most part. Their kids will be like, "meh". That's it.

    Frankly, they were never all that great to begin with, and I grew up in that era. The characters are mopey, and the social commentary went over my head as a kid. It. was. the. only. thing. on.

    That's why we watched it.

    • I liked Pigpen

    • It was a tradition the adults (Boomers and Greatest Generation) inculcated into their children (Gen X), who inculcated it into their children. Like the cranberry sauce cylinder from the can for Thanksgiving. Today we do much more sophisticated sauces, cranberry sauce from scratch. But we always have the cylinder and everyone has some.

      Lasted, what, 54 years? A long time nowadays I suppose.

      • Like the cranberry sauce cylinder from the can for Thanksgiving. Today we do much more sophisticated sauces, cranberry sauce from scratch. But we always have the cylinder and everyone has some.

        Hey, what have you got against the jelly cylinder? I prefer it. I've always liked jellies over jams. To the point I have two jars of homemade raspberry jelly in the pantry right now. Jellies are smooth and jams and sauces have lumps. Bleh.

        • Those "lumps" are called "fruit."

          They're that shape on the plant, too.

          And the ones in the can... did you ever wonder where they come from? Like, why do you think people who make it at home, can't impart whatever characteristics they prefer in a sauce? Did the one in the can get pooped out by a magic unicorn?

        • I own a magical tool called a "strainer" that removes lumps from jam. You can even pour homemade jelly into a can to set if you must have the little rings cast into it. Combine 12 oz. cranberries, 1 cup sugar, 1 cup water in a saucepan and bring to a boil for 10 minutes. Dump into a blender and blend thoroughly, pour through a strainer and refrigerate overnight.

        • I like a good orange marmalade.

      • No, if you have canned cranberry sauce it means you didn't have sauce from scratch. Not sure why you want credit for it anyway.

      • ILike the cranberry sauce cylinder from the can for Thanksgiving. Today we do much more sophisticated sauces, cranberry sauce from scratch.

        Maybe it's a regional thing, but I've never had cranberry sauce from a can; it's always been from scratch. I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic with 'sophisticated' since it's dead simple to make.

    • experience of almost all the kids watching the *same thing* on the *same night* because it was the *only thing on*

      More to the point, it was the only television in the house.

      When they have a single television, people in a family make compromises, take turns deciding, this is always the kids hour, etc.

      "Viewing traditions" are dead. Thats for sure.

      • Everybody always wanted to watch Charlie Brown, though, so it was never a problem with the schedule.

    • You might be surprised. I never cared for Peanuts as a kid (my boomer mom loved them), but my kids freaking love the cartoons. All of them. And the 2015 Peanuts movie which is just about the blandest and most anodyne thing ever.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Time to ditch the whole of Christmas too.

      A forced holiday at a bad time of year (for the northern hemisphere), at least 3 months of shops clearing out stuff you actually need to make way for xmas tat, and the same fucking Christmas Hits CD playing everywhere.

      It's so bad I prefer to leave the West just to get away from it, but this year I'm trapped here.

      • It's the perfect time of year, it breaks up the winter.

        Let me guess, you prefer Ramadan.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I prefer a short New Year event, that's all. Christmas is of course fine for Christians but it's turned into a monster.

          At least 1/4 of your life is Christmas now. This shit starts in October, some stuff in September.

      • ...the same fucking Christmas Hits CD playing everywhere.

        I was in a store a few years ago that had Christmas at Ground Zero on their playlist.

    • It. was. the. only. thing. on.

      That's why we watched it.

      Most of the things we used to watch sucked. I watched Gilligans Island and Beverly Hillbillies after school. Because they were the only things on.

      • We had Tom and Jerry cartoons after school when I was in jr. high. I must have been the perfect age for that, because I busted my gut laughing every afternoon. So. A while ago I pulled up some Tom and Jerry cartoons for old time's sake. Nothing. It's weird how your whole psychology changes as you grow.

  • Jesus Christ (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 )
    So you need a fucking AppleTV to watch it?

  • It's Corporate Greed, Charlie Brown (Score:4)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @10:44PM (#60630148)
    Thanks, 2020.
  • Linus:

    Sure, Charlie Brown. I can tell you what Christmas is all about.

    Lights please.

    And there were in the same country shepherds abiding the field, keeping their watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the lord came upon them, and they were sorely afraid. And the angel said unto them

    "For behold I bring you tidings of great joy, which will be to all people. For unto you is born in the city of David, a savior, which is Christ the lord. And they shall bring a sign unto you. You shall

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

      And there were in the same country rent seekers abiding in their offices, keeping their watch over their passive investments. And, lo, the agent of the content owner came upon them, and they were greatly excited. And the agent said unto them:

      "For behold, I bring you the license to great nostalgia, which will be to all people. For unto you is given the exclusive streaming rights to holiday classics, which is the life's work of Schulz. And they shall bring advertisements unto you. You shall find your sub

  • What a complete utter bunch of horseshit

  • ... on VHS tapes picked up at a garage sale.

  • Peanuts is like many classic cartoons: They eventually become autopilot boredom with familiar characters.
    For all of them, when they first came out, they were witty and smart. Find some old collections of these from then and you'll be surprised at how interesting they are.
    Watterson of Calvin and Hobbes realized this and cut and ran before it happened to him.
    Gary Larson of the Far Side originally did something similar.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close