Comments on: Charlie Brown shooting spree OR another Don’t sue me production

By: Kyle Verbeke

Kyle Verbeke — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:01:56 +0000

Wow, you’re all probably the most hard-@$$ed animation buffs I’ve ever encountered. First off, this was made before the “internet generation: you all seem to attribute it to. Second, you’re all looking past how well this is actually animated for a student film. And finally, why do so many of you have problems with him using the Peanuts? It’s a PARODY. This sort of thing is done all the time.

I’m beginning to think you’re all just mad to see Richard Simmons get bumped off at the end.

By: joel

joel — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 02:48:44 +0000

is nothing scared anymore?

By: Maaik

Maaik — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:38:16 +0000

I really hope this guy gets sued.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:38:02 +0000

I think the socialogical mindset of the 80′s generation chooses to display a …………..wow I almost analized this to death also.Its funny,well done and was made before the paranoia of this generation destroyed anything worth watching.Whats on TV is worst then anything you’d see in this parody but hey lets hop on the off the track band wagon and go after Bugs Bunny.Damn that Road Runner!Damn him to hell

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 31 May 2007 17:35:58 +0000

Thanks for the clip link Eddie, that is funny and clears it all up, except for the part it doesn’t. ;)

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 31 May 2007 17:01:00 +0000

The first thing I noticed about this clip was the quality of the animation. It’s great! The characters all have a greater range of motion in three dimentions than the original Peanuts specials do, in spite of it obviously being an unpolished rough pencil version. The story is also fairly pedestrian, but you should be able to tell by the style that it’s a product of it’s era (the 1980′s) and is looking more to “Taxi Driver” than Columbine. It’s just a snippet of irreverent satire that had no future other than (hopefully) making it onto the animation festival circuit. The animator and/or writer obviously has great affection for the subject matter.
And it’s just so well drawn! And hand drawn! In re: quality, this clip is better than %90 of the stuff on Adult Swim, and almost all of the nonsense online that calls itself “cartoons”. I’m all for democratization of the arts, but have you seen the poorly-plotted-out crap that’s out there? Stuff that makes this seem like “Fantasia”?

By: Alan Gardner

Alan Gardner — Thu, 31 May 2007 16:57:36 +0000

eddie, that was an excellent video (albeit REALLY long and sometimes irritatingly choppy), but it makes a really good point.

By: eddie

eddie — Thu, 31 May 2007 16:43:26 +0000

Now, I am definitely not a lawyer, however, after having watched this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo

Technically this kind of work would qualify as ‘fair use’, would it not?

By: Norm Feuti

Norm Feuti — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:37:53 +0000

The context of it being a student film changes a lot … it also explains why he spent so much time making such a poor story look good.

The writing isn’t important if it was just meant as a showcase for his animation skills. I also wouldn’t have found the coda obnoxious if I knew it was originally only intended to be viewed by a classroom of his peers.

It would seem my original judgment was premature on this. If I had been aware of the context, I would have judged it solely on the animation … which (despite it’s raw state) was very good.

By: Rich

Rich — Thu, 31 May 2007 06:29:09 +0000

Didn’t know it was done in 1986. It may still represent the internet mindset (it’s digital, it’s free) because it’s being YouTubed verses being shown in a classroom at school. I’m not sure what the rules are on satire, copyright, public and private use are, so it may be alright but I have my doubts. He’s not merchandizing it, but he is using copyrighted characters for more that private use (more than a one-time use satire).

If he caricatured the cartoon figures it would be more like a Mad Magazine satire, but he did not. I did love to read the movie satires in Mad – great artwork and writing in those!

Apparently the budding work of a comic genius I guess, since he went on to greater things. I guess that means he has the assets to be sued! :0