Halvin and Cobbes
March 7, 2011 4:39 AM Subscribe
Joker and Lex. Lara and Mxy. Ozy and Buba. Peter and Mary Jane. Carmine and Selma. (Part 2.) Hobbes and Hobbes. Calvin and Holly. Calvin and Hobbes.
these are not at all what I was half hoping/half dreading they would be
posted by nathancaswell at 4:49 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by nathancaswell at 4:49 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sources? Imgur links, while clean, leave the author(s) woefully uncredited.
posted by LSK at 4:50 AM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by LSK at 4:50 AM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]
Ack, I linked the wrong ones from imgur. Here are the full-size ones (just take the "l" off the end of the URL): Joker and Lex. Lara and Mxy. Carmine and Selma. Hobbes and Hobbes. Calvin and Holly
posted by Evilspork at 4:52 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by Evilspork at 4:52 AM on March 7, 2011
And I looked for sources and linked them where I could.
posted by Evilspork at 4:52 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by Evilspork at 4:52 AM on March 7, 2011
...wait, what am I not getting? Why's that one called "Carmine and Selma"?
posted by The Bridge on the River Kai Ryssdal at 4:58 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by The Bridge on the River Kai Ryssdal at 4:58 AM on March 7, 2011
The part 2 goes to a spam signup page of some sort. And what, exactly, is the context of this? Aside from a C&H link dump?
posted by Old'n'Busted at 5:00 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by Old'n'Busted at 5:00 AM on March 7, 2011
Not seeing any sources.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:16 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:16 AM on March 7, 2011
Any? Three of my links go to the original Deviantart pages, and the first original Carmine one was deleted as was explained in the second one. (screencap 1 and 2). A couple I tracked down only went back to Reddit or random "look what I found" blog pages. If you have sources for any of the others, kindly link them here.
posted by Evilspork at 5:40 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by Evilspork at 5:40 AM on March 7, 2011
You really shouldn't let your children play with Lobo.
posted by tylermoody at 5:42 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by tylermoody at 5:42 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
Warning: Hobbes and Hobbes is a childhood killer if I ever seen one.
posted by Taft at 5:58 AM on March 7, 2011 [14 favorites]
posted by Taft at 5:58 AM on March 7, 2011 [14 favorites]
I'll never look at Hobbes the same way again.
posted by Wanderlust88 at 6:06 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by Wanderlust88 at 6:06 AM on March 7, 2011
Mod note: changed images to go to larger pix, carry on
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:12 AM on March 7, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:12 AM on March 7, 2011 [2 favorites]
I would have appreciated a heads-up about the Hobbes & Hobbes comic before seeing my childhood turned into what is basically furry porn.
posted by Captain Cardanthian! at 6:24 AM on March 7, 2011 [7 favorites]
posted by Captain Cardanthian! at 6:24 AM on March 7, 2011 [7 favorites]
I love these. It probably says bad things about my taste that I like fanart/fic and reinterpretations so much.
Lex and Joker is from Superman/Batman #75. Lara and Mxy is from Adventures of Superman #638.
posted by Memo at 6:26 AM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]
Lex and Joker is from Superman/Batman #75. Lara and Mxy is from Adventures of Superman #638.
posted by Memo at 6:26 AM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]
I would have appreciated a heads-up about the Hobbes & Hobbes comic before seeing my childhood turned into what is basically furry porn.
Seconded.
That being said, I quite enjoyed the Lara & Mxy one. That was a good homage to the style and spirit of C&H without being a direct reference to any specific comic. The Lex & Joker one was also pretty good.
Though: not enough wagons, not enough snowmen.
posted by Maaik at 6:30 AM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]
Seconded.
That being said, I quite enjoyed the Lara & Mxy one. That was a good homage to the style and spirit of C&H without being a direct reference to any specific comic. The Lex & Joker one was also pretty good.
Though: not enough wagons, not enough snowmen.
posted by Maaik at 6:30 AM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]
I LIKED the Hobbes & Hobbes. GrrrrOOOWWWWLLLLL.
posted by SPUTNIK at 6:40 AM on March 7, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by SPUTNIK at 6:40 AM on March 7, 2011 [5 favorites]
what the fuck was up with the Hobbes & Hobbes?
The Peter & Mary Jane was awesome, though.
posted by Anonymous at 6:44 AM on March 7, 2011
The Peter & Mary Jane was awesome, though.
posted by Anonymous at 6:44 AM on March 7, 2011
Wow, the Peter and Mary Jane one is dead-on.
Do you mean dead-on to Spider-Man? Because it is.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:44 AM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]
Do you mean dead-on to Spider-Man? Because it is.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:44 AM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the Peter and Mary Jane one was the best of the lot!
I took my cue from the other commenters and did not read Hobbes & Hobbes. I liked the Lex vs the Joker, too, though there were some extraneous panels he obviously just needed to fill with dialogue to make it work. And the last Calvin one made me smile, too.
posted by misha at 7:17 AM on March 7, 2011
I took my cue from the other commenters and did not read Hobbes & Hobbes. I liked the Lex vs the Joker, too, though there were some extraneous panels he obviously just needed to fill with dialogue to make it work. And the last Calvin one made me smile, too.
posted by misha at 7:17 AM on March 7, 2011
[changed images to go to larger pix, carry on]
"Part 2" is still a link to a signup page.
posted by DU at 7:17 AM on March 7, 2011
"Part 2" is still a link to a signup page.
posted by DU at 7:17 AM on March 7, 2011
Copyright and Infringement.
Parody is covered by protected by copyright law.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 AM on March 7, 2011 [7 favorites]
Parody is covered by protected by copyright law.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 AM on March 7, 2011 [7 favorites]
"Part 2" is still a link to a signup page.
The OP can send me a link to a non-signup version of that image, I have no idea what goes there.
posted by jessamyn at 7:22 AM on March 7, 2011
The OP can send me a link to a non-signup version of that image, I have no idea what goes there.
posted by jessamyn at 7:22 AM on March 7, 2011
How to get shitpiled on Metafilter:
1. Find something Mefites almost universally love. (This is the hardest part.)
2. String together a series of links lampooning it.
3. Screw up the links to those cartoons.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:26 AM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]
1. Find something Mefites almost universally love. (This is the hardest part.)
2. String together a series of links lampooning it.
3. Screw up the links to those cartoons.
posted by IAmBroom at 7:26 AM on March 7, 2011 [4 favorites]
S/he hasn't been 'shitpiled' at all, though, IAmBroom? The worst thing in the thread is people justifiably complaining about the really questionable inclusion of the Hobbes porn parody.
posted by flatluigi at 7:28 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by flatluigi at 7:28 AM on March 7, 2011
i count more copyright infringement complaints than porn complaints.
some kind of a warning about hobbes & hobbes would have been nice, but it was dead on re. the character. squicky a little, but still very much at the 'oh come on you're an adult you can deal with this' level for me. no furry genitalia, for example.
posted by lodurr at 7:40 AM on March 7, 2011
some kind of a warning about hobbes & hobbes would have been nice, but it was dead on re. the character. squicky a little, but still very much at the 'oh come on you're an adult you can deal with this' level for me. no furry genitalia, for example.
posted by lodurr at 7:40 AM on March 7, 2011
Calvin and Susie...10 years later (Don't worry, completely safe for work and mind)
posted by ymgve at 8:00 AM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by ymgve at 8:00 AM on March 7, 2011 [3 favorites]
Copyright and Infringement.
Parody is covered by protected by copyright law.
But.. but... but what about everyone's legal degrees!? When will they get to practice law if not on the internet!?!?
Apparently I forgot to add the tags. Apologies.
posted by Fizz at 8:07 AM on March 7, 2011
Parody is covered by protected by copyright law.
But.. but... but what about everyone's legal degrees!? When will they get to practice law if not on the internet!?!?
Apparently I forgot to add the
posted by Fizz at 8:07 AM on March 7, 2011
BTW the Peter & Mary Jane strip is a direct reference/redrawing of this C&H strip.
posted by shakespeherian at 8:08 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by shakespeherian at 8:08 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you are logged in at deviantart that "part 2" link leads to a repeat of the first Carmine and Selma, but aged to about 70 (not at all NSFW).
The backstory: dude draws Calvin and Susie as older and making out, this gets flagged as "child porn", since they are child characters reimagined in a sexual situation. Artist responds with elderly version of the characters, as if to say "I dare you to call this depiction of senior citizens kiddy porn".
posted by idiopath at 8:14 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
The backstory: dude draws Calvin and Susie as older and making out, this gets flagged as "child porn", since they are child characters reimagined in a sexual situation. Artist responds with elderly version of the characters, as if to say "I dare you to call this depiction of senior citizens kiddy porn".
posted by idiopath at 8:14 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
Parody is protected by copyright law.
That's a tricky area. What's being parodied here? Some of these are pretty straightforward parodies of Calvin & Hobbes. But others are really more parodies of, for example, The Joker and Lex Luthor via the Calvin & Hobbes style and tropes. The former is pretty strongly protected, the latter less so.
"The parody must target the original, and not just its general style, the genre of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole (although if it targets the original, it may target those features as well). … '[A] humorous or satiric work deserves protection under the fair-use doctrine only if the copied work is at least partly the target of the work in question.' This prerequisite confines fair use protection to works whose very subject is the original composition and so necessitates some borrowing from it." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 597 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
I'm not saying any of these are unprotected by fair use, but some of them definitely skirt closer to the edge than others. Although one does begin to question the sanity of the law when Hobbes & Hobbes (blech) is more clearly protected than Joker & Lex.
posted by jedicus at 8:18 AM on March 7, 2011
That's a tricky area. What's being parodied here? Some of these are pretty straightforward parodies of Calvin & Hobbes. But others are really more parodies of, for example, The Joker and Lex Luthor via the Calvin & Hobbes style and tropes. The former is pretty strongly protected, the latter less so.
"The parody must target the original, and not just its general style, the genre of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole (although if it targets the original, it may target those features as well). … '[A] humorous or satiric work deserves protection under the fair-use doctrine only if the copied work is at least partly the target of the work in question.' This prerequisite confines fair use protection to works whose very subject is the original composition and so necessitates some borrowing from it." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 597 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
I'm not saying any of these are unprotected by fair use, but some of them definitely skirt closer to the edge than others. Although one does begin to question the sanity of the law when Hobbes & Hobbes (blech) is more clearly protected than Joker & Lex.
posted by jedicus at 8:18 AM on March 7, 2011
But others are really more parodies of, for example, The Joker and Lex Luthor via the Calvin & Hobbes style and tropes.
Except, as Memo pointed out, the strips that use DC characters were published by DC Comics. There's not exactly an infringement issue going on when you're using characters you already own.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2011
Except, as Memo pointed out, the strips that use DC characters were published by DC Comics. There's not exactly an infringement issue going on when you're using characters you already own.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:21 AM on March 7, 2011
i read most of the up-thread copyright complaints as being about lack of artist attribution, not whether or not the parody is protected.
posted by lodurr at 8:23 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by lodurr at 8:23 AM on March 7, 2011
Except, as Memo pointed out, the strips that use DC characters were published by DC Comics. There's not exactly an infringement issue going on when you're using characters you already own.
So in that case there's no issue that Joker & Lex is a fair parody of those DC characters, and if it had been done by a third party it would still have been protected from a claim by DC. But whether DC authorized the use of its characters or not, Joker & Lex is not really a parody of Calvin & Hobbes, and so Watterson (or whoever owns the characters) might have a claim.
Yes, one could argue that it also parodies Calvin & Hobbes, but I think we can agree that the primary targets of the parody are the DC characters, not Calvin & Hobbes. It would be easy to make a reasonable argument that the artist simply appropriated the Calvin & Hobbes style and tropes but didn't actually parody the strip.
Now, one could also argue that the fair use doctrine needs to be expanded to include things like mash-ups, but I don't think that's happened yet.
posted by jedicus at 8:30 AM on March 7, 2011
So in that case there's no issue that Joker & Lex is a fair parody of those DC characters, and if it had been done by a third party it would still have been protected from a claim by DC. But whether DC authorized the use of its characters or not, Joker & Lex is not really a parody of Calvin & Hobbes, and so Watterson (or whoever owns the characters) might have a claim.
Yes, one could argue that it also parodies Calvin & Hobbes, but I think we can agree that the primary targets of the parody are the DC characters, not Calvin & Hobbes. It would be easy to make a reasonable argument that the artist simply appropriated the Calvin & Hobbes style and tropes but didn't actually parody the strip.
Now, one could also argue that the fair use doctrine needs to be expanded to include things like mash-ups, but I don't think that's happened yet.
posted by jedicus at 8:30 AM on March 7, 2011
"I'm selling our marriage to the Devil!"
Only a true Spider-Man fan can understand how hilariously cathartic that is. Thank you Evilspork. The Joker & Lex one is also beautiful.
posted by straight at 8:33 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
Only a true Spider-Man fan can understand how hilariously cathartic that is. Thank you Evilspork. The Joker & Lex one is also beautiful.
posted by straight at 8:33 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
It would be easy to make a reasonable argument that the artist simply appropriated the Calvin & Hobbes style and tropes but didn't actually parody the strip.
In which case it's called a pastiche, and (unless you're actually committing fraud, of course) there's never been a law against creating art in the style of another artist.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:34 AM on March 7, 2011
In which case it's called a pastiche, and (unless you're actually committing fraud, of course) there's never been a law against creating art in the style of another artist.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:34 AM on March 7, 2011
I think we can agree that the primary targets of the parody are the DC characters, not Calvin & Hobbes.
Yes, but it is also parodying the theme of C&H, i.e. Calvin coming up with some crazy scheme, and Hobbes simplifying or mocking it, or Calvin and Susie having arguments over how they want to play grown-ups.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:36 AM on March 7, 2011
Yes, but it is also parodying the theme of C&H, i.e. Calvin coming up with some crazy scheme, and Hobbes simplifying or mocking it, or Calvin and Susie having arguments over how they want to play grown-ups.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:36 AM on March 7, 2011
That last panel of Lara & Mxy is pure gold, with Lobo braiding Wonder Woman's hair.
posted by KingEdRa at 8:47 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by KingEdRa at 8:47 AM on March 7, 2011
You think you remember some much better C&H parodies/pastches/mashups? You do. It even included the exact same ultimate "Calvin and Hobbes" link. And "Lex and Joker" in the comments.
To replace some broken links in the original, here are "A Star Wars/Calvin & Hobbes mashup t-shirt", "James Hance did it first" and "Calvin and Jobs" (rescued from Gawkerformat)
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:19 AM on March 7, 2011
To replace some broken links in the original, here are "A Star Wars/Calvin & Hobbes mashup t-shirt", "James Hance did it first" and "Calvin and Jobs" (rescued from Gawkerformat)
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:19 AM on March 7, 2011
In which case it's called a pastiche, and (unless you're actually committing fraud, of course) there's never been a law against creating art in the style of another artist.
For better or worse, pastiche is not part of the established legal analysis in the US. Merely copying another artist's style likely doesn't rise to the level of copyright infringement, but these strips adopt a lot more than the style alone. Some of them could conceivably meet the substantial similarity test.
Again, I'm not condemning these works or saying that the C&H copyright holders have an ironclad claim. I only wanted to explain that "parody" has a fairly specific meaning and that not all of these strips would be treated the same way from a legal point of view.
posted by jedicus at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2011
For better or worse, pastiche is not part of the established legal analysis in the US. Merely copying another artist's style likely doesn't rise to the level of copyright infringement, but these strips adopt a lot more than the style alone. Some of them could conceivably meet the substantial similarity test.
Again, I'm not condemning these works or saying that the C&H copyright holders have an ironclad claim. I only wanted to explain that "parody" has a fairly specific meaning and that not all of these strips would be treated the same way from a legal point of view.
posted by jedicus at 9:51 AM on March 7, 2011
And people complain that Hollywood recycles and doesn't have any original ideas...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 11:24 AM on March 7, 2011
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 11:24 AM on March 7, 2011
We can argue about the legal issues. Or we can enjoy the cute mash-ups.
Wasn't the 'Joker and Lex' part of a story that also included a great Little Nemo parody?
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 1:24 PM on March 7, 2011
Wasn't the 'Joker and Lex' part of a story that also included a great Little Nemo parody?
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 1:24 PM on March 7, 2011
Here is a source for Joker and Lex (no pun intended). It originally appeared in Superman/Batman 75 along with a few other short vignettes at the end of the issue, as credited on The Source's page.
posted by davextreme at 2:25 PM on March 7, 2011
posted by davextreme at 2:25 PM on March 7, 2011
You know, these are all cute and clever and whatever, and they had since 1995 to come up with a clever parody or references to the strip.. but none of these are even close to Watterson's level. It just makes me miss his work all the more.
posted by charlie don't surf at 5:16 PM on March 7, 2011
posted by charlie don't surf at 5:16 PM on March 7, 2011
You included that creepy Hobbes slash but missed probably the best C&H fan art ever? For shame.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:37 AM on March 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 4:37 AM on March 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
« Older The World of R. Buckminster Fuller | Where the wild things are Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by luftmensch at 4:44 AM on March 7, 2011 [1 favorite]