>Nickelodeon buys the rights since 2019

>Hasn't done any shit with him besides slapping their logo on merchandise and wasn't involved in the 2024 film

>>148985960 (OP)
Who the fuck wants to own garfield?

>>148985960 (OP)
The 2024 film was in production for a long ass time and pre-dated the Nick acquisition

>>148985975
Really? How long exactly

>>148985968

It's still popular with wine aunts and boomers at Facebook

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q90a__bjL60
He was in NASB

>>148985960 (OP)
Nick bought a lot of old titles around then.

I think they are close to losing Smurfs and Chipmunks at this point though.

>>148985960 (OP)
the only good thing to come out of them buying garfield is all the high resolution comics getting leaked since they just dumped them in viacom's archives

>>148986007
and ONE autistic youtuber

>>148985968
Yeah who would want to own a character that's worth over billion in merch, no clue

>>148985960 (OP)
I'd really love to talk about this because what the ever loving fuck are they doing. They've had the ip for almost 10 years now and haven't done ANYTHING. Their social media presence is absolute shit with their ironic meme humor. I WILL say that the merch has looked okay because it's been the most on model work that's ever been produced.
>>148986255
I hope that anon comes back and leaks more things from the Garfield vault because that was a glorious day. I pity anyone who missed out on those threads.

>>148986348
this

heathcliff wished his sold as much cat merch as garfield

>>148985960 (OP)
I've been thinking about this for a while. What's going to happen to the comic strip when Jim Davis dies? I know Nickelodeon owns even the comic strip now but Jim and a few of his artists are still working on it. Will they keep working on it? Or will Nick do a hostile takeover on the strip and make their in-house artists work on it? Or will they throw it in rerun hell like Peanuts?

>>148986387
they shared everything they could in zip files, should still be in the archives somewhere

>>148986201

Nobody wants to buy The Chipmunks

I know someone who might

>>148986639
He was the only good part of those movies and apparently he wasnt even in the last one

>>148985968
Jon Arbuckle clearly

>>148985960 (OP)
The leftist CreepyPasta GoreField fad ruined the character for most.

https://youtu.be/QaXxAY1z6zw

>>148985975
more like red-edited acquisition

>>148985960 (OP)
Oh, they've done more than that. They entirely fucked up Garfield's website.
garfield.com used to have a complete collection of Garfield and US Acres strips, as well as a competent search engine for finding any specific strips. But now it's all gone and the domain just redirects to Nick's website.

>>148987192
>leftist
You are a retard

>>148986201
>>148986497
Wasn't there some lawsuit by the Chipmunks family over mismanaging the brand?

>>148989231
What? NOOO!
I'll admit I haven't been on since I was a kid, but I have fond memories of that site. I loved their searchable comic database, as well as the tons of online games they had.
Anyone else remember Scary Scavenger Hunt?

>>148989231
Not only that but
>Told Kennywood they were going to increase the cost of having their Garfield dark ride open
>When they refused to renew Viacom forced them to take down everything from the dark ride
>Also forced them to destroy everything and show video and photo proof so nothing could be sold off

>>148987037
Does he? I suppose Jon is more annoyed by Garfield than truly upset if he keeps him around, but Garfield is the cause of most of his (not self-inflicted) problems

>>148986991
>apparently he wasnt even in the last one
David Cross fucking hated Chipmunks 3, like genuinely hated working on it and only did it because he contractually had to, so yeah he wasn't returning for Chipmunks 4

>>148986639
His very appearance makes me laugh without fail

>>148985968
Honestly this. Garfield is a shit brand for aging people. Not as old as Snoopy but definitively getting old. The problem with Garfield is that the character is counter culture. Garfield's creator wanted to go against standard notions. He chose a at because he felt there were too man dogs (guess he never saw Fritz the Cat or Tom and Jerry). He knew main characters are usually good people so he made Garfield a shitty mean abusive parasite. That's the foundation of Garfield to be the opposite of regular normal standards.

It worked in the short term but I would argue that ultimately it didn't for the long term. Garfield is not a likable character he's a bastard. And being a bastard is why people don't care about him anymore. Even his recent movie is not that successful. Didn't fail but it performed worse than those live action Alvin and the Chipmunk movies.

The only good franchise Nickelodeon bought was Ninja Turtles and they are in the middle of ruining that with that shit head Seth Rogen.

>>148986201
Chipmunks are not owned by Nick. They are owned by the estate of its creator. And I think the same to Smurfs. Speaking of which I hope the next Smurfs movie fails.

>>148985960 (OP)
Did anyone even watch the last Garfield movie?

Is the franchise officially dead?

>>148986639
Madre de Dios...

I demand more garfield

>>148987192
What the fuck does that mean

>>148991026
Garfield has only been living through memes for the past two decades.

Do you think this was deliberate or some ESL interns fault?

>>148992097
holyshit

>>148992061
The full strip is even funnier

Nick truly mismanaged Garfield, they even took down the absolutely wonderful website.

>>148985960 (OP)
Ugh, I will never get used to the modern minimalistic Nick logo...

>>148994791
gross