CGI Peanuts film to be released in 2015

[Robo-Floatzel]

Source

Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (ICON) announced today that Peanuts Worldwide, a joint venture with Charles M. Schulz Creative Associates, will release a Peanuts feature film worldwide in 2015. The film is based on creator, Charles Schulz's, iconic comic strip. Snoopy, Charlie Brown and the rest of the gang are among the most recognized characters in the world.

The as yet untitled animated event will be released on November 25, 2015. 2015 will mark the 65th anniversary of the debut of the "Peanuts" comic strip and the 50th anniversary of the landmark television special, "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

The Peanuts screenplay has been written and will be produced by Craig Schulz, son of Charles Schulz along with his own son, Bryan Schulz and Cornelius Uliano. Twentieth Century Fox and Blue Sky Studios have been chosen by the Schulz family to distribute, produce and animate the new Peanuts movie. Steve Martino will direct; previously, he brought to the big screen (with Jimmy Hayward) Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! Martino also directed (with Michael Thurmeier) Fox's recent box-office smash Ice Age: Continental Drift.

Charles Schulz drew the most popular and influential comic strip of all time, which was read everyday by 355 million people in 75 countries. In addition to the famous strip, Peanuts holiday television specials such as "It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown" have won Emmy's and continue to be among the highest rated prime time TV specials.

"This is a momentous step for the Peanuts brand. The beloved characters, Snoopy, Charlie Brown and the whole gang resonate with multiple generations all over the world," commented Neil Cole, CEO, Iconix Brand Group. "This film will give us a new medium in which to engage consumers globally and showcase the power of the Peanuts brand, " added Cole.

Craig Schulz, President, Charles M. Schulz Creative Associates, commented, "We have been working on this project for years. We finally felt the time was right and the technology is where we need it to be to create this film. I am thrilled we will be partnering with Blue Sky/Fox to create a Peanuts movie that is true to the strip and will continue the legacy in honor of my father."

Vanessa Morrison, President, Twentieth Century Fox Animation, commented, "We are thrilled to partner with the Schulz family and Iconix and honored to bring the Peanuts characters to the big screen. This all started with our love and respect for the work of Charles Schulz. We thank the Schulz family and Iconix for letting Fox and Blue Sky bring his vision to new generations of film goers."

They're making a CGI Peanuts movie, what do you think, Do you think this will work or not? I personally think it's a strange move, but it's nice to see the Peanuts full time again.

 

[proserpina]

As much as I think this will either be awesome or terrible, I can't help but be optimistic for it. It'll be awesome to see it again.

 

[Robo-Floatzel]

As much as I think this will either be awesome or terrible, I can't help but be optimistic for it. It'll be awesome to see it again.

True, though I personally hope it ends up more like the recent Muppets film rather than like The Smurfs did. On the upside, they're at least keeping it animated rather than what most people feared, which was using live action children and a "realistic" looking CG animated beagle (much like Scooby Doo was in the live action Scooby Doo films), on the downside is that it's in CGI, which I honestly think doesn't work for the Peanuts at all, considering how well they worked out in 2D animation, not to mention that I honestly think CGI is overrated, no offense, but anymore, there need to be more 2D animated films.

 

[Karamazov]

I really missed seeing Charlie Brown on the gang, so I'm pretty happy about this. I just hope the transition to CGi isn't too jarring, since the simplistic designs of the characters might not come off too well.

 

[proserpina]

True, though I personally hope it ends up more like the recent Muppets film rather than like The Smurfs did. On the upside, they're at least keeping it animated rather than what most people feared, which was using live action children and a "realistic" looking CG animated beagle (much like Scooby Doo was in the live action Scooby Doo films), on the downside is that it's in CGI, which I honestly think doesn't work for the Peanuts at all, considering how well they worked out in 2D animation, not to mention that I honestly think CGI is overrated, no offense, but anymore, there need to be more 2D animated films.

Precisely. They could've made worse decisions about it, but I honestly think some things are best left in 2D because they really do just have that simple, memorable charm that way. Peanuts is one of them.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

I thought CGI was mostly hated for replacing puppets/animatronics and stop motion in live action movies? I still fear about this film being panned by critics and the geek culture, because they're the majority and don't give a darn about the audience loving it for some reason other than not growing up with the original comic strips and show. Just look at the Smurfs, it's getting a sequel despite the geek culture and critics panning it, because the audience loved it.

 

[Achrom25tic]

Ooooooh man, this is gonna suck...

Spoiler

 

[Like_Fahrenheit]

personally i'd like this to be 2D, just like Winnie the Pooh in 2011. not every theatrical animation needs to be CGI, and i agree with Robo-Floatzel that the Peanuts work very well in 2D.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

personally i'd like this to be 2D, just like Winnie the Pooh in 2011. not every theatrical animation needs to be CGI, and i agree with Robo-Floatzel that the Peanuts work very well in 2D.

But didn't it flopped at the box office, which movie companies will only agree on whether or not the movie was a success, because of Harry Potter thus clarifying to Disney that 2D animated movies really is dead?

 

[Like_Fahrenheit]

personally i'd like this to be 2D, just like Winnie the Pooh in 2011. not every theatrical animation needs to be CGI, and i agree with Robo-Floatzel that the Peanuts work very well in 2D.

But didn't it flopped at the box office, which movie companies will only agree on whether or not the movie was a success, because of Harry Potter thus clarifying to Disney that 2D animated movies really is dead?

(i don't think any animated movie would've done well against the final HP film, so one can't really say 2D is dead based on that weekend.) with Pooh it made sense to be 2D because the characters are from a storybook. the pages in the book are flat and therefore so would the pictures. With Alvin and the Chipmunks, the Smurfs, and Garfield they take place in the real world, with real people, so those animated characters were right to be CGI. With Charlie Brown, i don't see how CGI will be right for those characters, especially for a feature film in which the audience is wider. nevertheless, CGI movies make more money so i understand why this film will be animated that way.

 

[Dragonfyre]

I honestly don't want it to be CGI. Peanuts always had a distinctive art style and I don't think it would carry over well. Still, it's nice to see Peanuts getting a bit more attention.

 

[Robo-Floatzel]

I thought CGI was mostly hated for replacing puppets/animatronics and stop motion in live action movies? I still fear about this film being panned by critics and the geek culture, because they're the majority and don't give a darn about the audience loving it for some reason other than not growing up with the original comic strips and show. Just look at the Smurfs, it's getting a sequel despite the geek culture and critics panning it, because the audience loved it.

Because it makes money, simple as that, though I honestly think CGI is overrated.

personally i'd like this to be 2D, just like Winnie the Pooh in 2011. not every theatrical animation needs to be CGI, and i agree with Robo-Floatzel that the Peanuts work very well in 2D.

But didn't it flopped at the box office, which movie companies will only agree on whether or not the movie was a success, because of Harry Potter thus clarifying to Disney that 2D animated movies really is dead?

(i don't think any animated movie would've done well against the final HP film, so one can't really say 2D is dead based on that weekend.) with Pooh it made sense to be 2D because the characters are from a storybook. the pages in the book are flat and therefore so would the pictures. With Alvin and the Chipmunks, the Smurfs, and Garfield they take place in the real world, with real people, so those animated characters were right to be CGI. With Charlie Brown, i don't see how CGI will be right for those characters, especially for a feature film in which the audience is wider. nevertheless, CGI movies make more money so i understand why this film will be animated that way.

True, those worked despite the 3D ones angering fans of classic animation, I've heard rumors that they're making a Ren and Stimpy live action/CGI movie. In general, I personally think CGI is overrated anymore, and that there needs to be more 2D animated features, I know there are good and bad CGI films, but there's nothing but them anymore.

 

[John Understands]

Nope.

This is gonna suck...

 

[Pyradox]

While I don't at all agree with the decision to use CGI, I'll probably go see it anyway. It might actually be pretty good.

 

[The Togekiss]

Trying to imagine peanuts characters in CGI....
not working.
I'm curious to see how this turns out.

 

[garrison-san]

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of CGI animation (when it works, as with the majority of Pixar films, it works beautifully, but in lesser hands it's so easy for it to come out looking ugly, artificial and unengaging), and I dislike how it's essentially replaced 2D animation as the medium's standard...but the fact is, 2D animation just isn't a box office draw right now. So, while I'm not exactly reeling with enthusiasm at the prospect of a CGI Peanuts film, I can't say that I'm surprised either. I'm willing to withhold my judgement until I see some actual footage from the thing.

PS: Ice Age: Continental Drift was dreadful, so that directorial credit isn't exactly a confidence boost.

 

[Dorothy]

personally i'd like this to be 2D, just like Winnie the Pooh in 2011. not every theatrical animation needs to be CGI, and i agree with Robo-Floatzel that the Peanuts work very well in 2D.

But didn't it flopped at the box office, which movie companies will only agree on whether or not the movie was a success, because of Harry Potter thus clarifying to Disney that 2D animated movies really is dead?

Winnie the Pooh didn't flop. It was a financial success that would've done better if it hadn't been released opposite an inevitable juggernaut like the last Harry Potter movie, and in no way indicates that traditional animation is dead.

IMO, the style of Peanuts would really only work with traditional animation, but we'll see how this film turns out.

 

[garrison-san]

Keep in mind that, in its opening weekend, Winnie the Pooh was also beaten by Cars 2, which was in its fourth week of release. Overall, the film made a modest amount of money at the box office, and arguably would've made more if the release had been better scheduled, but its overall box earnings didn't even begin to compare to those made by Pixar's offering that year. Even if Pooh did okay on its own terms, it's not going to convince the majors that there's a massive market out there for a traditionally-animated Peanuts film.

2D animation is definitely not "dead" - it continues to survive in the output of a number of independent and overseas film-makers (though you'd probably have to attend film festivals and art house cinemas to actually see any of them) - but in Hollywood at least, 3D animation has replaced it as the standard, and the winds show no sign of shifting any time soon. I really wish that wasn't the case, but other than Disney, no other major studio has any interest in 2D, and what Disney have put out over the past few years hasn't exactly satisfied them in financial terms (except maybe their re-release of The Lion King in 3D, which did better than expected, but which wasn't replicated with their 3D release of Beauty and the Beast). That Tangled did so much better than The Princess and the Frog at the box office - regardless of why you believe that to be the case - didn't exactly help fight 2D's corner.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

That Tangled did so much better than The Princess and the Frog at the box office - regardless of why you believe that to be the case - didn't exactly help fight 2D's corner.

Wasn't it because The Princess and the Frog was released at the same month as James Cameron's Avatar? A better movie schedule could've at least save 2D animation.

 

[zakisrage]

At least they can't make it into an adaptation like The Smurfs or Yogi Bear, since the characters are already human and Charlie Brown is already the unlucky leading man.