Starting Again - For Better or For Worse

[wwfpooh]

But some things--like Peanuts & Garfield--are institutions, because they've branched out beyond the printed page and into other mediums as well. Thus, nixing them from the material from whence they've started would be like nixing family.

 

[Baby Gonzo]

I disagree. While the Peanuts cartoons are charming and I do love them, I don't think they necessarily had to branch out into animation to become "an institution". Just because a cartoon stays true to its original medium doesn't mean it won't be a success.

TV shows are all well and good (I adore the Peanuts specials, movies, and shows) but I really hope people don't view comics as simply a door to do other things like TV shows and movies. I'm not saying these things are bad, but comics are also powerful.

Sorry. I'm not trying to accuse or anything. I just really love comics, so much that I study Sequential Art and am making my own Web-comic.

And there is nothing wrong with marketing a product and making tv shows and movies if popularity allows. I just hate to see movies be untrue to the original medium.

 

[wwfpooh]

But sometimes, branching beyond the original medium could give the entire franchise on the whole success. Heck, the 1939 Oz film is halfway nothing like the book that inspired it (missing the mice and china people; changing the footwear from silver shoes to ruby slippers; merging The Witch of the North & Glinda, Witch of the South; retooling the Wicked Witch from a one-eyed hunchback to Elphaba's present state; etc.) and yet, the film is among the top-rated films of all time and it has brought interest in the entire Oz franchise.

 

[Baby Gonzo]

That's true, but sometimes I think it works better in some cases than others. A good example would be Peanuts. For the most part, the comics and the strips went together. They both had the same spirit, and both were Charles Schulz's vision. And he must have had a lot of love for his comic. Even as he grew older and his hand wasn't as steady as it used to be, he still drew his comic. He could have retired long before he did and lived comfortably, but he kept working on his comic and that, to me, is nothing short of an inspiration.

On the other hand, I look at Garfield and while I loved the old cartoons and the comic strips, the newer movies and things just haven't complemented the franchise as well. And the fact that there are many ghost artists for the strip makes it... well, less personal to me. It's not that having ghost writers and ghost artists isn't uncommon, especially in successful comics. It just feels very corporate.

Even with The Wizard of Oz, it is a little sad to know that the film is very little like the book.

 

[wwfpooh]

And he must have had a lot of love for his comic.

Actually, he hated it. He hated the name, he hated the characters ("Oh that Charlie Brown; How I hate him"), and he hated that its originally broodish tone was replaced with a happy-go-lucky attitude (for as he himself put it, "Anybody who thinks this is cute is crazy"). In fact, the only reason he continued doing it was because it was the only way he himself could find respect and recognition.

 

[Baby Gonzo]

I guess a better way to put it was that he must have loved, or at least somehow got some kind of enjoyment out of comics or the process. I would hate to imagine he went through his entire cartooning career with no joy for the medium.

 

[bazooka_beak]

^ I learned a LOT about Mr. Schulz when I read the book Schulz and Peanuts. I knew he was a shy man who was baffled by his success, but I had no idea about all those other problems :/

I disagree. While the Peanuts cartoons are charming and I do love them, I don't think they necessarily had to branch out into animation to become "an institution". Just because a cartoon stays true to its original medium doesn't mean it won't be a success.

TV shows are all well and good (I adore the Peanuts specials, movies, and shows) but I really hope people don't view comics as simply a door to do other things like TV shows and movies. I'm not saying these things are bad, but comics are also powerful.

I totally hear what you're saying. It great to have all those Peanuts specials and movies, but that's not to say I wouldn't have loved and adored the strip by itself. Heck, I also enjoy reading Foxtrot and Zits, and as far as I know they don't have any animated projects.

 

[Baby Gonzo]

And Calvin and Hobbes, as previously mentioned, is also a good example of this.

I find it pleasantly surprising to see a successful comic that hasn't been milked for all it's worth. Sometimes, mass merchandising and TV deals can really leave a product stripped of its sincerity. Not always. But sometimes this happens.

It is really weird and somewhat to look at failed/dead theme parks made from comics.

 

[bazooka_beak]

Nope, they are just dating.

I swear somebody told me or I read it somewhere that this happened. What a relief - who is Jon if not the dorky bachelor we all love? XD

 

[wwfpooh]

I swear somebody told me or I read it somewhere that this happened. What a relief - who is Jon if not the dorky bachelor we all love? XD

It probably came from the same person who thinks Nermal is a girl. As much as the feline sounds and even looks like a girl, Nermal is--by all defintions via the comic counterpart--a guy cat.