Peanuts 3D movie

This would have happened years ago if Shulz were alive and somebody had offered him enough money to do it. He was all about the dolla dolla billz.

They are going to have to sell this one to adults as Peanuts haven’t been popular with kids since I was in school in the 1970s. It’s more of a cultural touchstone to Baby Boomers and adults born shortly afterward than it would be to younger ones.

Even the comic strip had long lost its luster even before Schulz’s death. It was getting to the point where it was more like Hi & Lois or Beetle Bailey (e.g. something that you enjoyed once but found to be rather tired after a while) so creating an animated now smacks more of greed than artistic integrity.

Maybe, I’m wrong about it, but more kids today know that Snoopy sells insurance on commercials than anything else.

I don’t think Schulz would have “done it” himself, any more than he “did” most of the TV specials. He certainly would have had nothing to do with “It’s Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown” or “Happy New Year, Charlie Brown” as they broke one of his “commandments” - “The Little Red-Haired Girl will never be drawn or given a name.”

This probably would have been right out.

Bill Melendez had a role in those two specials and he was the only guy that Schulz trusted enough to handle the TV specials.

BTW, archived audio of Melendez doing Snoopy and Woodstock’s “voices” will be used in the new film.

PS: I highly recommend the biography on Schulz that came out a few years ago. It’s a fantastic and fascinating read. He rarely said no to anybody that wanted to license Peanuts for one thing or another. MetLife was the first, and it’s interesting that they’re still going strong with the characters today.

I’d argue that it’s the PARENTS who now expect it to look a certain way. Adults are still awed at the novelty of 3D animation and think 3D animation = “kid’s feature film” vs. traditional animation = “why would I pay to see that in a theatre”.
Kids I think don’t care either way since they’ve grown up with both.

Er. What?

You seem to have made several leaps, in reverse, and not at all in relation to what I was saying.

I was trying to say, in as few words as possible, that these days young audiences expect animated movies to look CG, so that even if the Studios wanted to make a new 2D film it would be imprudent. The evidence being, past attempts to keep 2D alive have failed at the Box Office.

Though a lot of TV animation is still in 2D, so it’s not an entirely lost art, and may never be, so that’s something.

Incidentally, Toy Story was a huge monumental risk, and the studios were far from confident of its success. It paid off because it had a fantastic story and characters, and competent people at the helm. It could so easily have failed.

Sorry—my snark was just on GL saying that CG was “inescapable,” and “has to be done” because kids go into movies expecting them to “look a certain way.” My point merely being that CG movies themselves looked different from everything else, and might not have been “prudently” expected to succeed, not too long ago.

CGI was a “huge risk” and multiple attempts to revive 2D films have failed? True. But it took John Lasseter over a decade to get a CG feature in theaters, too.

Could the script be using some stuff from the current Peanuts strips by Boom?

It wasn’t?

It sure seemed to me like a depressing look at childhood from an adult. I never met a kid who acted at all any of those characters. Kids are pretty much upbeat. Depression comes later.

Can you tell I hated Peanuts as a kid? I think it’s part of the reason that that type of jazz is creepy to me.

Peanuts was never meant to be a realistic view of childhood. When the strip was at its peak during the 60s, a lot its humor came from the fact the characters were like pint-sized versions of people in a Woody Allen movie.

Yep. In fact, the strip has been credited with popularizing the term “depressed.”

I know I said it upthread, but I seriously seriously cannot recommend the biography of Schulz enough. One cool thing the author did is show how real events in Schulz’s life inspired various strips by including them within the page of whatever the topic is. Very interesting stuff.

I loved Peanuts as a kid. I used to check the collections of strips out of the library. And no, I wasn’t “pretty much upbeat.” I could certainly relate to the “AAUGH!” and the “RATS!” and the “My stomach hurts.”

But they’re not necessarily supposed to be realistic children any more than Snoopy’s supposed to be a realistic dog.

Amen to that! I was quoting Peanuts by the time I was eight!

I gotta agree with all this. I predict a lot of parents taking their kids because of their fond memories not because the kids gotta see it.

Personally, never found it funny as a kid. As I got older and “got” more of it, it didn’t make it funnier/better - just more depressing.

I expect this is what’s happening for Mr Peabody and Sherman, which seems like a misguided and unnecessary remake/reboot/resuscitation to me (yet is making tons of money).