posted
Eh, it's keeping with the current trend of taking characters from the comics and revamping them to be as "edgy" as possible. Only in play form this time, instead of the official comics themselves.
"Gwen Stacy slept with the Green Goblin and had his kids!"
"The Justice League performs personality-altering mind-wipes on Batman!"
Why? What's even REMOTELY cool about aging the kids in Peanuts?
The whole POINT of the strip is that they were advanced beyond their years, but still essentially innocent; they faced angst, ennui, and the ironies of life, but did so with the fresh-faced enthusiasm of children.
Removing the "childhood" aspect of it -- turning them into adults who face angst, ennui, and irony -- removes what makes the strip special. And from the sounds of it, they went ahead and took every wrong road, made every bad thing imaginable happen. That's not just dramatic; that's downright mean-spirited.
I mean, sure, Schroeder was almost guaranteed to wind up an abused gay pianist, struggling to make a buck in jazz bars. And Lucy and Charlie Brown probably tried dating some time in high school, only to have it end badly. And I always figured that Linus would consider taking a clerical collar, myself, or else Buddhism; he was always the Lisa Simpson of that crowd. But these things are self-evident projections, OBVIOUS extrapolations; why is it considered imaginative to put them to paper?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I would only add that it's not clever to create sophomoric mutations of pop culture. It's sophomoric.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This disturbs me greatly. I just can't picture "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown!" with screwed up adults.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love the idea of taking something broad, and iconic, and beloved, and clean, and making it unclean, and making it exist in a world that's a little more realistic.
Nobody can stay in that kind of idyllic childhood fog forever. And yeah, even though Charlie Brown was a pretty unlucky kid, and had his share of pathos, it *was* idyllic, and it wasn't about truth.
This feels like a commentary on the state of the world, and a pretty extreme example of the fact that people grow up, innocence gets lost, things change.
There is a kind of purity in doing that. I realize this is the kind of thing that makes most people pound on their desks... 'Why spoil the magic of Charlie Brown??'
But I love it. Or, rather, I love the idea of it -- since I haven't seen the play and for all I know it could be trash.
posted
So why are _only_ the ugly, bad things that can happen "realistic"?
That's not realism, that's being "edgy". Relying on shock tactics to force a reaction.
It just doesn't sound very impressive. And this is coming from someone who felt the Peanuts characters peaked back in the late 60s and were fairly unfunny and irrelevevant since.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, TL, I think you misinterpreted our reaction. We're not saying "Oh, no! How could you?" so much as we're saying "Oh, really? Why bother?"
Honestly, anybody could have done this. It doesn't take all that much creativity to take someone else's product, screw it up in ways designed to get giggles out of people, and then turn it loose on the public.
Granted, as in the Alan Moore example, there are ways to do things like that creatively. Ways that enlighten us about the nature of the characters you're playing with. In this case, the ways they've altered the characters sounds like it reveals more about the writers than about the peanuts gang.
Tom's list of what happened to everyone was clever. Their list--again, the only word I can come up with is sophomoric.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I love the idea of taking something broad, and iconic, and beloved, and clean, and making it unclean, and making it exist in a world that's a little more realistic.
Why? I think this is worthwhile if there's additional depth to be discovered -- but making something "unclean" just for the sake of spoiling its cleanliness doesn't actually speak to the human condition in any way. And even worse: Peanuts was ALREADY unclean. People who don't understand this, IMO, don't understand the strip.
The world of Peanuts is a grim, rather terrible one; it's made bearable by innocence. Why do we need another depiction of a grim, terrible, and unbearable world -- especially when there are so many already out there?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
i mainly just want to see Eliza on stage...
i think it would be interesting to see it though. even though yeah...anyone could have thought of this..and it does seem to be trying to really go for the shock factor ...
I've been looking for a CHEAP reason to go to NYC...so this is it Posts: 82 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of all the things on the New York stage over the last few years, you pick this one to be your reason?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the world of Peanuts is all that grim....adn I do get where you are comming from, I just don't agree with it, Tom.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honestly, anybody could have done this. It doesn't take all that much creativity to take someone else's product, screw it up in ways designed to get giggles out of people, and then turn it loose on the public
That's not my interpretation of what this is.
Sue me, I like the idea. If you guys don't, that's perfectly cool. Plenty of room in this world for all kinds of different people to like all kinds of different things.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why are _only_ the ugly, bad things that can happen "realistic"?
If you wrote that to refute what I was saying, I'll just point out that I didn't say anything like that. If not, have on.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: If you wrote that to refute what I was saying, I'll just point out that I didn't say anything like that. If not, have on.
Well, judging by the description of the play given the _only_ changes that happen to the characters when they get older are ugly ones.
This was termed this "making it exist in a world that's a little more realistic".
I already posted my take on this. My take on this is that I like it, and I think it's a fun idea, and I like the concept of taking the iconic Peanuts characters doing a little extrapolation. I think it's meant to be a commentary on lost innocence, which feels relevant to me, but I'm not sure since I haven't seen the play.
I think that's the last time I'm going to repeat myself, here. Something about it just feels pointless.
quote:Well, judging by the description of the play given the _only_ changes that happen to the characters when they get older are ugly ones.
This was termed this "making it exist in a world that's a little more realistic".
I disagree.
You disagree? That's comical. Don't know if I even want to bother addressing that.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Puffy, first of all, I don't neccessarily agree that the _only_ changes that happen to the characters are ugly ones. Sex and drugs can be a lot of fun. Besides, neither of us has seen the play, so we can't make blanket assumptions like that. I'm not saying everything that happens in the play *isn't* hideous, because I haven't seen it. It might be. What I'm saying is, when I wrote "a world that's a little more realistic" it had nothing to do with any kind of ugliness.
That's your interpretation, not mine, and therefore that was not what I meant when I wrote that. And I think it's a little bit unreasonable to tell someone they said something they didn't say, and then when they say, 'hey that's not what I said' for your response to be 'I disagree.'
But if you want to make a personal judgement here, and take the stance that I, me, TL, Troy, the Troy-meister, consider only ugly and bad things to be "realistic" then be my guest.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, too, disagree that it is not more realistic to have only ugly things happen to people as they grow up. Was your own adolescence so awful?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I said it sounded more realistic, I was thinking more in terms of the sheen being off, you know? It sounds like the relationships between the characters are a little bit more complex, and weighted with the history of their lives.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with Tom that the Peanuts world was often terrible. To go with the obvious, Charlie Brown is almost constantly dealing with depression, and almost everything he tries winds up failing. If you thought the original Peanuts was clean, well you're right only that it lacked boobs, profanity, and booze (or drugs). But if by "clean" you mean "nice", then I don't think you paid enough attention.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you thought the original Peanuts was clean, well you're right only that it lacked boobs, profanity, and booze (or drugs). But if by "clean" you mean "nice", then I don't think you paid enough attention.
I do mean "clean" as in "nice" and I did pay attention. Charlie Brown is an unlucky kid, and at times he's an unhappy kid. But that doesn't mean Peanuts isn't "nice," or that it doesn't present a fairly idealistic and uncomplicated view of the world. I read Peanuts as being about, ultimately, the presence of friendship, love, and community in people's lives.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And that's okay. That's just my interpretation.
Is Peanuts really a devestating work of high depression and darkness?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not. No one said it was. All we're saying (at least that's what I'm saying, I don't speak for Tom) is that the "novelty" in this idea of aging the characters and giving them edginess is...well...redundant.
They already had adult problems. They already had ennui and angst. I haven't seen it and I won't be seeing it, not living anywhere near Broadway. But the concept to me seems more like tricking out the Peanuts concept rather than adding new meaning and worthiness to it. The changes detailed in that link are just spoilers and flashy rims.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't look at it that way, but unless I see the play I'll never know. It sounds like there's a little more to it than that, but maybe I'm just projecting. Who knows.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see where it sounds like there's more than that, though. I mean, the majority of the hook was, "We've done all this stuff to the Peanuts cast," and then, "Now Charlie Brown does what he did in the comic, but with new, edgier problems." I realize you don't see it that way, we'll just have to disagree.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
