Ban Charlie Brown

[Deco-Doll-1928]

This is a tad bit off topic, but kind of related. I was watching this cartoon today with my family and I couldn't believe how horrible it was. Are kids really enjoying this stuff?

When I was a kid, I always used to hear that the cartoons my generation watched were too violent. Maybe some of them were, but you don't let the TV dictate to you on what is right and wrong. That's the parent's job. What a scary world we would be living in if it was up to the media to dictate to our children on morals (considering what's popular on TV nowadays).

With that said, I've had this conversation with my friends and family many times on the quality of (or the lack thereof) today's cartoons. There was a time where you could get "lost" in the story. You could laugh because it was funny and not because everybody else was doing so (or the god awful laugh track that always drove me crazy).

I've never had a problem with the Peanuts comic strips. They were well written and explored the human condition (and it wasn't always pretty). It's impossible to not find a character in that strip to relate to. Plus, knowing how much the strip meant to it's creator Charles Schulz makes them that much more meaningful. His comic strips were very much autobiographical.

In the defense of the "bullying" in the Peanuts movies or comic strips that was originally mentioned, researchers found several instances of bullying in today's programing for children. As much as our society had evolved, so has the language of our children. Kids I'm sure are using much more hurtful words than stupid or blockhead. Besides, it's not the bullying that's the problem. It's in how it is being presented. Understand what is the message that is being given to the audience. I'm not saying that I don't have a problem with it (I am a firm believer that bullying has no place in our schools), you have to judge something in it's proper context.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Perhaps it may sound odd to some...but the 'Peanuts' music was always depressing to me. So much so..that every time I here it..I'm more than ready to change the channell.....
HD

 

[AmateisGal]

Perhaps it may sound odd to some...but the 'Peanuts' music was always depressing to me. So much so..that every time I here it..I'm more than ready to change the channell.....
HD

I actually have the Peanuts Christmas album and can't wait to break it out in about a month.

 

[bulldog1935]

Perhaps it may sound odd to some...but the 'Peanuts' music was always depressing to me. So much so..that every time I here it..I'm more than ready to change the channell.....
HD

must have been a reaction to Schroeder.
I find the Peanuts music jazzy and upbeat

 

[LizzieMaine]

Charles Schulz himself didn't care for jazz, and admitted to having ambivalent feelings about the Guiraldi scores for the TV shows -- but you can't argue with success.

Looking back at those early specials, it's astounding that something of that level of quality and sophistication was presented as simple, routine entertainment for kids. "The Great Pumpkin" contains one of the most evocative bits of animation ever done -- Snoopy's WW1 fantasy, when his plane is shot down and he's creeping across the French countryside -- and "Christmas" is a merciless attack on the Boys From Marketing and their packaging of the holidays. You could never do either of those projects today for reasons that have nothing to do with any perceived "bullying" in the scripts.

 

[sheeplady]

Charles Schulz himself didn't care for jazz, and admitted to having ambivalent feelings about the Guiraldi scores for the TV shows -- but you can't argue with success.

Looking back at those early specials, it's astounding that something of that level of quality and sophistication was presented as simple, routine entertainment for kids. "The Great Pumpkin" contains one of the most evocative bits of animation ever done -- Snoopy's WW1 fantasy, when his plane is shot down and he's creeping across the French countryside -- and "Christmas" is a merciless attack on the Boys From Marketing and their packaging of the holidays. You could never do either of those projects today for reasons that have nothing to do with any perceived "bullying" in the scripts.

It's interesting that you mentioned that sequence from the WWI fighter pilot Snoopy- my husband and I were talking about that last night and it brought up a good discussion of war and WWI in particular.

I find it really interesting that today's cartoons are either inappropriate for children or boring for adults. It's rare that you find one that is designed for a family to watch together and doesn't aim too low for the kiddies but not too high so that it's only appropriate for adults. I think that if you have to explain something to your kids in the video (like the WWI sequence) that makes it middle of the road- the kid learns something and the parent is entertained too.

 

[Mr_D.]

As Halloween nears, many families will gather around the old television set for the annual viewing of “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.” But, one dad says it’s time to retire the classic cartoon because of its taunting messages and unkind words.

“The show is riddled with the kids calling each other stupid, dumb, and blockheads. There is continous teasing and bullying. Charlie Brown is supposed to be the hero, instead he is kicked and demeaned at every turn, even by the adults giving out candy,” Buzz Bishop, otherwise known as DadCamp, wrote at Babble.com recently.:eusa_doh:


http://moms.today.com/_news/2012/10...rect)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=154776248

All I have to say to people like that is, No one is making you watch it. Don't ruin it for others. If you don't like Charlie Brown, then go back to watching your (in put show name here).


Sorry I have not watched TV in 2 years so I am not sure what's on any more. I get my news from online and watch a few shows that stream, like Big Bang and Chicago Fire.

 

[Effingham]

The guy would have apoplexy if he ever saw "Weapon Brown."

Which, by the way, I absolutely LOVE.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The guy would have apoplexy if he ever saw "Weapon Brown."

Which, by the way, I absolutely LOVE.

Calvin & Hobbs anyone?

 

[tonyb]

I always sort of assumed they'd grown up and gotten married. Where I grew up the one way you always showed another kid you liked them was to razz them in every way possible.

As a grade-schooler, I knew a boy had a crush on a girl if he tried to push her off her bike. Go figure, but I always took it as a sure sign.

As to the Calvin peeing on a Ford (or Chevy or Dodge) logo ... In this decidedly blue-collar neighborhood in which I have resided for the past three years, those decals are a common sight. This district is just full of guys who wish the world to know that their Dodge, Ford or Chevy pickup is superior to your Dodge, Ford or Chevy pickup.

And it also has a visible contingent of overtly hostile juvenile males -- adolescent and pre-adolescent. I'm willing to bet that those kids are routinely subjected to neglect and/or outright abuse at home.

 

[Red Diabla]

I think that's the reason why the original Looney Tunes series isn't show much on television anymore...it was too violent. I remember when they took it off the Saturday morning line up and that was the excuses being thrown around even then. Instead, they replaced it with a washed out and "updated" version that is supposed to be like a sitcom. I found it more offensive than the original.

Warner Bros. isn't known as the most far-thinking studio out there. They look at quarterly reports, not long-term standings. Not just in cartoons, but in everything. So instead of just showing the classic stuff that stands remarkably well on its own AND rakes in cash, they try to rehash and remake it, which is impossible when the studio insists on having a say in the creative process to the point where any creativity is totally and completely sucked out of it. The latest incarnation of Bugs and Daffy where they're living together in a sitcom situation?! The idiocy of that is so mind-bogglingly bad, I'm surprised even the most cold of studio executives would have greenlit that piece of trash. Yet, not only did Warners greenlight it, they spent and obscene amount of money on something that the audience doesn't care about.

Back to Peanuts, it's weird having Schultz's heirs try to resuscitate the animated shows. Mainly because they are not their father. They slavishly adhere to the comic strips to the point where one asks why bother when we can just watch the old shows? Especially since Schultz and Bill Melendez, the producer of the early Peanuts specials had a volatile relationship where the back and forth can't be copied by people who are not them. Not that it's the point of the original post, but I thought I'd throw that out there anyway!

RD

 

[ButteMT61]

Dunno, WB just released ARGO, and it's not exactly Twilight
And if you haven't seen it, do. It's a great film.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Back to Peanuts, it's weird having Schultz's heirs try to resuscitate the animated shows. Mainly because they are not their father. They slavishly adhere to the comic strips to the point where one asks why bother when we can just watch the old shows? Especially since Schultz and Bill Melendez, the producer of the early Peanuts specials had a volatile relationship where the back and forth can't be copied by people who are not them. Not that it's the point of the original post, but I thought I'd throw that out there anyway!
RD

This is the inevitable result of what happens when a unique, personal work is turned into a "property," to be managed and exploited by the Boys From Marketing. Schulz himself was never any stranger to merchandising and such, having taken better advantage of it than any other creator short of Disney, but when it came to the comic strip itself it remained his, and his alone: he didn't turn it over to ghosts or assistants so he could spend all his time on the golf course or sailing his yacht while the money rolled in. The one thing his heirs have insisted upon that I fully agree with is that nobody was ever to take over the comic strip after Schulz's death -- if it continued to appear in papers, it had to be as reruns.

That said, continuing to produce new specials without the participation of the original creators is the creative equivalent of high fructose corn syrup. They might capture the form of the originals, but they can never capture the essence.

 

[Deco-Doll-1928]

I was looking up who currently owns the rights to the Peanuts characters (I believe it's still Iconix Brand Group -- http://www.mediabistro.com/unbeige/good-grief-rights-to-peanuts-characters-are-changing-hands_b8105) and found this article called "10 Things You Didn’t Know About ‘It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown’". In the cartoon, the kids go trick or treating and poor Charlie got rocks in his trick or treating bag. After watching this, some kids felt so bad for him that they mailed some candy to CBS in Charlie Brown's name. Awwwww.......

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Being that Disney owns Marvel, The Muppets and Star Wars, I suppose it won't be long before this becomes a reality...

 

[1961MJS]

V. C. that''s sick and disgusting, putting Mickey Mouse ears on a poor doggie like Snoopy. You have a sick mind.

Reminds me of me.

Laer

 

[scottyrocks]

Being that Disney owns Marvel, The Muppets and Star Wars, I suppose it won't be long before this becomes a reality...

This is a very old panel. The style in which the characters were drawn evolved from this into what most of us know as Peanuts.