"Peanuts" movie in development for November 2015 release

[MikaelaMuppet]

Sounds like a credit song.

I agree.

 

[Pig'sSaysAdios]

Ugh. That annoying robot voice.

Boy, OMG, I can't believe this movie is rated G! I thought you couldn't rate movies G anymore because nobody will see them?

It probably dosen't matter because it's a Charlie Brown movie,so people are gonna go see it regardless of the rating.

 

[Drtooth]

Hey. Like I said, this thing's probably going to blow up in Japan. Their title of the movie isn't kidding. They love Snoopy. So much so that, as someone on Tough Pigs stated, even his brothers get little boutique stores. His brothers. You can't even find so much as a Spike toy over here.

But I agree. The whole G/PG thing ticks me off. It's marketing and stupidity. I get the whole "dark elements will scare 2 year olds which shouldn't go to the movies anyway" angle, but jeez... at least throw in a couple D words and H words in there. Then again, wasn't Pixar's latest film a G and that was the film that brought them out of their rut?

Sounds like a credit song.

I certainly hope it is. I just get the feeling this was the thing that Fox demanded of the movie, considering that the Schulz estate probably struck down any other instance of kiddy movie-ness. I swear I read some interview Paul Feig gave that both him and the estate fought Fox on. Especially celebrity voice actors, which wouldn't exactly work considering they were going for the hiring kids to voice kids standard of Peanuts cartoons. Other than one little wrinkle, which will probably just be a credits song anyway, I'm sure the film is more Peanuts than every other movie for kids made by non-Pixar companies.

The more I see the trailers, the more I'm glad they went with the weird hybrid version of CGI 2.5 D style. That way, Snoopy keeps his Homestar "both eyes on the same side of his head" look that doesn't translate to full 3-D. Ever seen a Snoopy toy? Of course you have. But have you really looked at one?

They all have that weird closed slit eye look. And there's a reason for that. When they don't, they look odd...

Okay, I can't find this in front view, but take my word for it, it looks awkward. He looks crosseyed. If you wonder why he never has those "6" shaped eyes in toy for before, looking at it head on makes sense. Good thing we dodged that and perma-closed eyes Snoops in the movie.

 

[Drtooth]

OH! And by the way, the aforementioned series of French shorts are slated to appear on Boomerang to coincide with the movie

 

[D'Snowth]

Isn't it a tad disrespectful to Schulz to credit this movie as being, "From the creators of ICE AGE and RIO"? Then again, Blue Sky doesn't seem to be as instantly recognizable as a studio as, say, Pixar or DreamWorks, but still, it almost seems like when THE MUPPETS (2011) and MMW were "Based on the characters and properties owned by the Walt Disney Company," rather than Jim Henson.

 

[DARTH MUPPET]

I am a little disheartened that there is so much modern music in this, I thought they were staying true to the original cartoons?

 

[Drtooth]

Isn't it a tad disrespectful to Schulz to credit this movie as being, "From the creators of ICE AGE and RIO"? Then again, Blue Sky doesn't seem to be as instantly recognizable as a studio as, say, Pixar or DreamWorks, but still, it almost seems like when THE MUPPETS (2011) and MMW were "Based on the characters and properties owned by the Walt Disney Company," rather than Jim Henson.

I'm more insulted that they thought Rio was their prestegue picture. Sure, it was well researched, but maybe I didn't see it in theaters, but rather the Disney Channel when I wasn't in a good mood, but I felt that film was incredibly overrated. As in not that good. I actually liked Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs better, and even then I find that movie just a stroke up from "meh" (which is still a LOT more than I gave the film credit for). I see what they're doing, basically that whole thing about trying to give the film's studio identity for the public to latch onto. But I agree completely. Peanuts should speak for themselves. After all, they're essentially the only TV specials they run anymore.

I am a little disheartened that there is so much modern music in this, I thought they were staying true to the original cartoons?

I'm not going to sweat it if that's the case for the film. It's probably the only eyerolly thing in there, but the music in trailers doesn't usually sync up with music from the movie. Though the trailers I'm seeing use "Teenage Wasteland" a lot, and Schulz probably barely introduced Peppermint Patty and Marcie when that one was written. I'm withholding judgement on that until I see the movie in theaters, but if modern music is the one thing the studio forced on them that they actually relented to, I'd say it's a little disappointing, but it could be far, far worse. And rumor has it, the studio wanted to force some pretty dumb things into this film that Paul Feig (and possibly the Schulz estate) flat out refused.

 

[D'Snowth]

In the most recent trailer for the movie says the Peanuts have never been on the big screen before.

So A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN, SNOOPY COME HOME, RACE FOR YOUR LIFE CHARLIE BROWN, and BON VOYAGE CHARLIE BROWN (AND DON'T COME BACK) don't exist?

On that note, Ross Bagdasarian Jr. recently commented on an article that accused him and Janice Karman of neglecting to give Ross Sr. any credit or recognition in recent Chipmunk projects, noting that the 2007 movie was their "first feature," and people asked him if THE CHIPMUNK ADVENTURE from 1987 doesn't count as their first feature.

Oh yeah, and everybody (and Immean everybody) pretends that KSY, VMX, and MWOZ don't exist: even THE MUPPETS (2011) and MMW pretend they don't exist.

 

[Drtooth]

In the most recent trailer for the movie says the Peanuts have never been on the big screen before.

So A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN, SNOOPY COME HOME, RACE FOR YOUR LIFE CHARLIE BROWN, and BON VOYAGE CHARLIE BROWN (AND DON'T COME BACK) don't exist?

That stuck in my craw. I mean, it's certainly their first film in a while, their first major studio backed movie with a higher budget, and their first CGI outing. But not first movie ever. I don't know why they chose to market it that way. Only little kids who have parents that didn't buy the DVD's of these films wouldn't know about them. Or apparently whoever did the marketing for this.

Then again, I watched a Cinemassacre video where they were discussing Halloween specials and James was under the impression "It's the Great Pumpkin" predated "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

 

[D'Snowth]

I know I've said this before, but one of the things I love about the old Peanuts movies is that Charles Schulz never tried to outdo himself: so many animated series, whenever they get a feature, they always try to outdo the series in terms of animation, layout, scenery, ink and painting, as if they're trying to Disnefy - and I'm sure, if they've had budget constraints with the series, they probably want to take advantage of having more money to improve everything for the feature, but the Peanuts movies all had the exactly same level of quality that the specials and other cartoons had, and in a sense, they retain the charm that made the specials so endearing; and given the style and look of the Peanuts in general, I'm not exactly sure if trying to make the movies look something like Disney would have made would have worked for them . . . it'd be like if Rocky and Bullwinkle had decent animation, it'd lose part of its charm that made it so unique.