Some of the Peanuts designs and iconic images simply don't work in three dimensions.
A chub from the Grant Corporation
What Raven Wilder and Robbery said. Again, I point you to the Viewmaster reels
. Creeeepy!
Responsible adult
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Holy nostalgia! I had an old Viewmaster as a kid, and that real was among them! Maybe it's just nostalgia filter talking, but... I kinda like those 3D designs. So that's not a grounds I'll dismiss this movie on... yet.
Just awesome like that
Never seen that before, but looking at it now, I think it looks adorable (though I think they made Chuck's head a bit too egg-shaped—it's supposed to be more spherical than that). If they animated it like that, I don't think I'd actually mind too much.
If not like that, they could always take a page from the book of Pixar or the Zelda games that use Toon Link and just make it look stylized as hell so we don't need to worry about stuff looking realistic.
edited 12th Oct '12 1:08:36 PM by 0dd1
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.
Come on, guys. Garfield, The Smurfs, and Alvin & The Chipmunks all looked f**king amazing in CGI. Just imagine how great Peanuts will look in the same medium! 
You're kidding.
Why? You actually didn't like how they looked?
Uuh... No. Like, not at all (except maybe the Smurfs).
I thought everybody agreed the Alvin movies were awful?
edited 13th Oct '12 7:07:07 AM by WackyPancake
"I like girls, but now, it's about justice."
Only those with their nostalgia goggles on too tight were pissed.
I'm completely nostalgia goggles-free, but look at that stuff!
◊
Not to mention the infamous "raisins"...
edited 13th Oct '12 7:25:52 AM by WackyPancake
"I like girls, but now, it's about justice."
Brokenshell44
"It pisses on the wishes of a dead man whose child obviously loves money more than his or his fathers self respect....but atleast it will look nice! 
"- Everyone involved in this piece of shit.
A chub from the Grant Corporation
As someone who always thought that the Chipmunks were crass commercial crap based on crude tape-manipulation technology, the CGI abominations make the original show look like Shakespeare in comparison.
Raisins. [shudder]
Confirmed Bachelors: the dramedy hit of 1883!
NOT THE BEES
You want an objective reason why it wouldn't be a good idea to do CGI Peanuts?
The proportions aren't very compatible with a 3D object,
◊ even for Pixar/Dreamworks stylization. If you wanted it to not look immensely creepy, you'd have to change the character's face enough to barely be recognizable.
edited 13th Oct '12 2:17:13 PM by Pykrete
The only reason to do Peanuts in CGI is that US audiences don't show up much for traditional 2d animation any more. Peanuts doesn't call for the kinds of textures or deep detail or FX or complicated shots that CGI lends itself to. Translating the Peanuts characters into 3D figures would, I feel, be a gigantic mistake as it would completely change their visual signature.
The Smurfs worked fine in 3D, but I think they went overboard texturizing their skin. Alvin and the Chipmunks were completely redesigned for their films, but as they hadn't had much of a presence in 10-15 years, that's not so horrible. Garfield is kind of another example of how hard it is to make a 2D-cartoon into a 3D image and retain the charm of the original. The real flaw in these films (and yeah, I know they made money) is in their respective scripts, especially The Smurfs. I hope the Shultz family will keep a close eye on production, or else someone's likely to try to sneak some fart jokes and under-the-radar stuff into things. If it's going to be a Peanuts film, let it be a Peanuts film.
NOT THE BEES
Yeah, the redesign of the chipmunks worked well enough aesthetically. It was still a fucking terrible movie, but for all the other reasons.
Charlie Brown probably wouldn't be so lucky. His defining physical features are a huge head with no definition, facial parts in the wrong place, and an almost bald head that would look ridiculous on an adolescent child in 3D. It works for stylized hand-drawn, but once you throw in shading effects that just looks really creepy. If you tried to redesign him to not look creepy though, the shirt is pretty much all that's left. At least the chipmunks had the advantage of being unusual species with notable proportional differences between them in addition to their costumes. In Peanuts, pretty much everyone you ever see other than Snoopy and the birds have the same proportions.
edited 13th Oct '12 4:04:41 PM by Pykrete
I imagine they'd give Charlie Brown very fair blond hair in a close brush cut, which was a popular hairstlye for little boys in the '50's; it does tend to make the very fair-haired look like they've had their heads shaved.
Brokenshell44
You guys honestly think they are going to put actual effort in this? It's being endorsed by someone who went against his fathers dying wish for a check. That's borderline Complete Monster territory. Quality control is the last thing he's worried about.
Just awesome like that
I think you have a bit too broad of an idea for what "Complete Monster" means.
Maybe if they animated it in a similar style to Pa Rappa The Rapper?
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.
Again, all Charles Shultz indicated was that no one else should write or draw a Peanuts comic strip. He had no problem with the satellite merchandise — greeting cards, calendars, apparel, musical theatre productions, or animated programs, which would include films — continuing after his death. He wanted the property to keep making money for his family.
edited 13th Oct '12 5:35:13 PM by Robbery
Brokenshell44
that maybe a bit far, but he is certainly a heartless sellout.
edited 13th Oct '12 6:35:30 PM by Brokenshell44
Given that Shultz himself okayed several Peanuts movies, I don't see how his kids greenlighting one makes them sellouts. For one thing, I can see that, given strip is in reruns where it runs at all, they'd want a way to keep the characters in front of the audience.
Have the Dtv specials not sell well?!?!
Given that Shultz himself okayed several Peanuts movies, I don't see how his kids greenlighting one makes them sellouts. For one thing, I can see that, given strip is in reruns where it runs at all, they'd want a way to keep the characters in front of the audience.
It depends on what style they chose to visualize them.