Interesting.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/03/16/carol-burnett-sues-over-family-guy-gag/
You'd think she'd be okay with the whole idea of parodies. I don't know. You'd just think she would.
It is more than that.
I don't see it.
I am not sure if itis the show that is suing or her. But you do raise a interesting point.
It's her. For six million.
Because they parodied her. Hmmm.
I say, bad move!
Well.. that is what TMZ is saying. More details to follow.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/10/05
But Family Guy parodies everything and everyone. It's what they do!
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
Never underestimate the power of Carol. She sued the National Enquirer once, won, and used the money to endow a journalism school scholarship.
oh...wish she would've laughed this one off.
(I kind of think it's hilarious...Carol Burnett cleaning up jizz...)
Oh, Carol...I worship and adore you. You are so talented in so many ways. But this just makes you look petty and very foolish. It was a joke!! Don't you remember what those are?? I am so dissapointed, Carol =(
I bow at the altar of Family Guy. that show is hilarious. I saw that episode (about 4 times) and it's not that big a deal. Plus that episode was a while ago.
Boo Carol!!
edit for sp
I think there is more to this lawsuit. She is a smart lady .
You can't sue over a parody as the courts have proven time and again and in songs, every other note must be different to be considered a parody and not copyright infringement. I remember that from a case involving a Snow White parody a few years ago.
I really think she's misguided on this one. Joan Crawford didn't sue her over the TORCH SONG parody which Joan hated btw...
Dame, I think you're right.
I wonder what could be bothering her so much. The show is generally good natured. And it certainly is an equal oppurtunity offender. No one escapes parody for Mcfarlane
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
I think Family Guy crosses a line, frequently violating The Bruce Vilanch Comedy Test, which is, basically, did anybody die? The recent, "This is just like Matthew Broderick that time, except nobody died" being the most glaring example that springs to mind.
That aside, Carol was wrong with her Enquirer suit as well (at least in this First Amendment absolutist's opinion) but that didn't stop the jury from awarding her.
The Enquirer suit was different--that was about the implication that Carol was an alcoholic, especially painful because of her mother. THIS is a joke, it does not reflect on Carol's personal character.
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
Since she's suing for six million, something tells me the lovable complainant sees things differently!
Maybe she objected to the fact that her character "Charwoman", the mention of her trademark ear tug and the use of a slightly altered version of her theme was used (after the original request was denied) with the context of a porn shop.
It seems more mercenary than anything. And I LOVE Carol.
no, it couldn't be that!
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/22/03
What do some people have against porn shops?
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/15/05
They keep running into their pastor?
that citrus smelling disinfectant.
Videos