Comment by ethagknight | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethagknight | Hacker News Reader

One quick Meta edit- this is a loss for Amazon, which has a connected interest to WaPo. Let’s be clear about that first. No mention of that tie in the article, which is pathetic.

My kids watched the Charlie Brown Halloween special ad free and at their schedule’s whim (aka 2x in a row). Don’t shed a tear for Charlie, he’s fine, this offering is way better. Now If I could only get my wife to let me cancel directv once and for all...

I get that the copyright laws should be tweaked and Charlie should be totally free, but I’m guessing that the copyright law has also enabled Disney to spend quite a bit of money on the new Charlie Brown space series, which my kids also have loved.

At the end of the day, I didn’t pay any more money to see Charlie Brown Halloween, I saw it ad free, very high quality picture (you can actually see the shadows from the way the cartoon was assembled I think?), I didn’t have to worry if this was some troll version where Charlie pulls out a chainsaw and slices Lucy up, (looking at you, YouTube). I mean, do I need to go on?

> this is a loss for Amazon

How is this a loss for Amazon? Did Amazon previously stream it for free? It seems mostly a loss for broadcast tv.

Because AppleTV is a direct competitor to Amazon Prime Video...

Maybe "loss" isn't the right word, but there's definitely a conflict that should have been disclosed.

In all likelihood, Amazon was also bidding on the rights to the show. This article reads to me like a cheap shot from Amazon because Apple won a licensing bid. Maybe "loss" is the wrong word, but there are certainly more complicated intentions behind the article. Why was it written? Does WaPo really care about Charlie Brown, and does its new location in broadcast media really make a difference in the theme of "Democracy Dies in Darkness?" If Amazon picked up sole rights to Charlie Brown, would this article have been written? Or did Amazon pass on Charlie Brown because they felt it should appear on broadcast TV, where it "belongs", where its always been?

In reality, Charlie Brown Halloween is just on a different channel now, paid via different mechanism, but WaPo is saying it "won't air", as if its getting locked in the vault.

> Does WaPo really care about Charlie Brown

WaPo? I doubt it. Specific people at WaPo? Almost certainly.

> does its new location in broadcast media really make a difference in the theme of "Democracy Dies in Darkness?"

I’d love to hear you explain what you think this question means.

> its new location in broadcast media

AppleTV (and streaming more generally) is not broadcast media.

> (you can actually see the shadows from the way the cartoon was assembled I think?)

If you look closely you can sometimes see the brand of drafting paper they used as backing for the animation cells.

This is the Beethoven sequence from A Boy Named Charlie Brown. Start at around 2:10 and pay close attention to the details.

https://youtu.be/6CK5AJzXdD8

>new Charlie Brown space series, which my kids also have loved.

I mean, couldn't a quality series be created without previously popular IP? Is the only reason your kids watched it is because of their parents appeal to nostalgia? Is anyone else sick of endless sequels?

Not only that, if you create a new series you get a new copyright on it. You get all the money from the new series. The difference is that then there isn't only one company who can make it.

When you have a culture and that culture has lots of traditions and memories associated with the holidays, and they're a key vehicle for nostalgia, you don't just swap it all out for the latest shiny new movie. Furthermore, we are talking about the Peanuts characters. They had a multi-decade run syndicated across all the national funny pages, long before any of them were ever animated. Do we even have the sort of media environment any more where it's possible to make this sort of cultural investment, and reach out and touch everyone? If not, this may be a harbinger of our culture's continued fragmentation in the days to come.

See the German and Nordic new Years eve tradition of watching Dinner for One a B&W British Comedy sketch from the late 1950's

Im confused by this response. Whats wrong with enjoying the nostalgia, the simple jazz trio music vibe, the simple illustration style, all applied to a very modern theme? Sure it isn't the only path to kids programming, but the resulting product is fun. Its ok if you don't like it.

I guess my point is that why aren't we making new things? Is the appeal to nostalgia such a money maker that it's stifling new creative endeavors? Could there have been a fun product that is a futuristic space spaghetti western that isn't Star Wars branded? Is being an appeal to nostalgia a requirement for a fun product?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com