MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
You mean BORED? Snoopy is the most boring character, as he's not grounded in reality, so 'anything goes', and that's boring in the long run.
The Snoopy-sections could've been cut out without losing anything, especially of substance. He doesn't go trick-or-treating, he doesn't really help the party, he just does his 'war-schtick' for WAY, way too long, and the stupid crying crap is one part of it.
The whole point of the section, I suppose, is to show how easily people are manipulated and their emotions swayed by simple things like music, and corporations and moviemakers brutally exploit this fact, and the unwashed masses stupidly fall for it every time. Movie tells you to cry, and you cry. Movie tells you to laugh, you laugh. Movie tells you to feel angry, you feel angry. It's so manipulative, and yet people don't know how to resist these simple manipulation tactics.
I think it's supposed to be 'funny' at the same time, as no one would react so deeply and drastically to a simple music change, unless they're some kind of an emotional idiot or women, but it just doesn't work, as it drags on for too long, and the songs are boring war propaganda crap anyway.
Your POST depresses me, as it reminds me what kind of people live on this crappy planet, and how people never see the big picture, and let even a cartoon manipulate themselves emotionally, groan.
It also depresses me, because I thought you were going to talk about the ACTUAL depression that is expressed in Charlie Brown. Schultz was depressed, and you can tell, but you are just happily talking about trivial joke instead of the real issues.
There IS real depression in the world, you know, but you rather give your emotions to a joke about emotional manipulation that's not SUPPOSED to make you feel emotions other than mild amusement and perhaps anger at how people are constantly manipulated.
You have earned yourself a golfclap.
This might be a reference to when Lucy is asked to smile, and instead, she frowns, no matter how hard she tries. It's a funny implication that Lucy is such a violent, angry, hateful bully-Karen that she can never be happy, she can never smile and she brings destructive energy wherever she goes.
This pumpkin thing would definitely match all these implications perfectly - not only can she not smile, but she can't even DRAW (or cut) a smile!
Obviously we see her smile many times in the strip and cartoons, but it's still pretty funny.
There is a lot to unpack here.
1) It's not a sincere pumpkin, it's a sincere PATCH. "Pumpkin patch" refers to the whole field of pumpkins, not just one pumpkin. Therefore, there's no 'sincere pumpkin', there's just a 'sincere patch'.
2) The whole point is that it's subject to interpretation, so no patch can EVER be 'sincere enough'. Also, who says it's about looks? It could be about feel, atmosphere, pumpkin-leaf-ratio, pumpkin-to-pumpkin-relation, the quality of the soil (whether artificial fertilizers have been used, for example, or whether it exists on an old, ceremonial indian burial ground)
3) It's a METAPHOR for religious people ALWAYS coming up with excuses and rationalizations so they don't have to abandon a comforting blind belief or lie, but can cling to it ever more powerfully. Linus simply invented a rationalization so he can keep his irrational belief regardless of facts, or what happens in the real world.
That the 'Great Pumpkin' never appears, thus, can never be caused by the fact that he doesn't exist, but can always be explained away by simply his patch not having been sincere enough. Compare this to 'not having strong enough a faith' or something, so THAT is why the miracle didn't happen.
It's all a metaphor, you are taking it too literally - it's igenious, too, just like the trumpet stuff, but people cling to the trees and do not see the forest.
So we get posts like yours and that other poster asking about whether the adults ever "speak clearly", clearly missing the point about the trumpeting. Talk about WOOSH-posts..
"..they can make up the time."
You can't manufacture time. What are you talking about? Haven't you seen Seinfeld's stand-up skit about the airline pilots that lie about being able to 'make up time' - they don't really create more time, they just fly faster.
Maybe it's because they chose the 'TRICKS' portion, and gave him ammunition to DO those tricks. In other words, they wanted and chose for their windows to be stoned just so they wouldn't have to give TREATS to someone as disgusting as Charlie Brown.
They secretly knew Charlie is also a wimp and would never dare actually throw a rock at their window(s), so it was a safe bet.
They were just following the rules of 'Tricks or Treats' - everyone else got treats, but the wishy-washy wimp got 'tricks'. It's like "Here's a rock, kid - I dare ya!"
I am not United States of American, the - but if a santa can give kids coal as the alternative to presents, why can't kids get rocks as the alternative to candy as well? Seems consistent to me.
(I just realized, 'coal' is used even as the plural, right? So you wouldn't say 'coals', or am I mistaken?)
Parents don't exist in the strip or the cartoons. That is, besides 'vague beings somewhere out there that sound like trumpets'.
I always figured they left the kids to their own devices - after all, this was the safe 1960s and their parents might be hippies - and went to some adult Halloween party, trusting that the other parents would take care of the kids that have a party at their house, and so on. You know how these social gatherings and events go in the sixties.
They couldn't have predicted how insane Linus was or that he mixed up Christmas, Santa and Halloween to create the Great Pumpkin myth. They couldn't have known Linus would just shiver late into the night alone in the pumpkin patch, when he could've gone to a fun party with all the other kids.
Plus, it was common to make your older siblings responsible for the younger ones and look after them. What kind of a family would it be if this couldn't be done? It teaches the kids responsibility and makes them more compassionate and better people, so I'd argue they were the OPPOSITE of negligent, they were making both Linus and Lucy stronger and better people.
If you are still confused, watch 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off', where Ferris basically transforms a weakling like Cameron into a tough Viking-type Iron-willed Man.
Snoopy is anything Schultz wanted it to be at any given moment, almost literally. He can turn into a snake, vulture or coyote instantly. He also angrily fights Linus for his property and steals it, has 'boxing matches' with Lucy, does various acts of sabotage and so on.
I would say Snoopy is a psycho monster from some black lagoon and should never landed where Charlie Brown lives, his life is depressing enough without this omnipotent bully.
3) You can't use a question mark at the end of a statement. "Just wondering" is NOT a question, it's BARELY a statement. Surely you can write a whole sentence instead of just mashing two words together. "I was just wondering." shouldn't be too difficult to write.
HOWEVER!
Even this would be REDUNDANT, since you are already ASKING a question, we KNOW you are 'wondering'. You wouldn't be asking a question if you are not 'wondering', now would you?
"If not, then why" is really bad english, while also lacking in structure. "If the adults always speak this way, is there a reason for it?", "If they don't speak more clearly, why not?" would be closer to an actual question in the english language.
You can't let your thumbs and autocorrect write your posts for you, you have to use your brain and command the english language. I am so disappointed in people - not because they CAN'T do this, but because they are so mentally lazy, they can't be bothered. I am sure you could write a full, grammatically-correct english sentence, if you tried.
It's just so much easier to quickly punch a flat rectancle with your thumbs and let the software do the rest and then go watch some brain-numbing show while shoving beer and pizza into your various orifices, isn't it?
To answer your question - actually, I think I already answered it - the adults are not to be seen, so their audio is also trumpetized. We are not meant to know what they say, because our focus is the kids. It would be irrelevant and distracting, so the trumpet-gimmick is sublime.
First of all, the adults ALWAYS speak clearly, otherwise, the kids wouldn't be understand them. Their voices are masked and muffled by the usage of a 'trumpet' to fade out the 'adult world' from what we are supposed to focus on, to make them not only distant outsiders, but also show that what they say, what words they use, is pretty much irrelevant.
The only important part about the adults are what they make the kids experience, so the adult-kid-relationship is the only reason why adults are sometimes in these cartoons. They do not really exist in the strip to the readers, but they do exist for the kids.
The only way to make this happen in a cartoon is to make clear the adults exist, but then fade them out as much as possible while still retaining their influence on the kids. The adults are not supposed to exist for US, they are only supposed to exist for the KIDS, so their world can feel more normal to use, and so they can get consequences for their actions and such.
So they ALWAYS speak clearly, but WE are not meant to hear what they say, only _THAT_ they say something - in other words, we are allowed to hear _THAT_ they speak, not WHAT they speak.
In my opinion, the trumpet-gimmick is brilliant.
Then onto your WAY too short post for a discussion forum. Your post should never be shorter than your topic - if this is the case, please delete your post until you can actually make it worthwhile for the reader.
You are making so many mistakes in such a short post, I am almost speechless.
Let's try to fix it anyway.
1) Good effort for trying to at least capitalize something. However, you are not supposed to capitalize EVERY word's first letter! Learn what you are supposed to capitalize before writing your next post, please.
2) You used the word 'than' instead of the word 'then'. Now, which do you think is correct, and why? Hint: 'than' is a comparative, you COMPARE things with it.
What about someone getting a quarter do you find unbelievable, and why? Please elaborate, this IS a discussion board, after all.
Zorro III is an Amiga expansion slot, if I remember correctly. Otherwise, your name is not very imaginative or original, it's one step up from 'Joker' (how many unimaginative people took that word after the movie came out and thought themselves to be geniuses..?)
Use punctuation, and write your acronyms correctly, please. It's "could have gotten", not "could have got".
I bet you are one of those people that say "I was bit" instead of "I was bitten".
Also, 'ect'?? What the heck is 'ect'?! Do you possibly mean 'ETC.'?
To add, it's "AN impressive amount", not "A impressive amount". Have you ever learned this language called 'english'? I hear it's pretty good to know when writing posts in english discussion boards and forums.
I recommend you learn it.
First of all, you don't need to use the word 'literally', it's completely redundant. Does anyone ever 'figuratively memorize the entire something'?
Secondly, PLEASE learn punctuation, capitalization and grammar! I don't even want to try to correct your whole post.
Kurt, NO, it's not great, and same goes for you also, please learn the english language before insulting the discussion board by vomiting your illegitimate, wrongful three-word miracles here.
Also, there is no "the great pumpkin". It's "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown".
It's hard for me to believe you can memorize ANYTHING, if you can't even memorize the actual name of this cartoon - heck, even I was able to do that much..
They don't.
It's a comic strip, there is no 'gang', there are only individuals, and they do not live, as they are fictional characters.
If you really want, you can say 'they live in people's hearts', but that sounds about as stupid as your question, no offence.
Why did who have what in Spanish and when was this, and why can't you use punctuation?
You end questions with a question mark, you need to put something before the word 'weird', or your sentence makes no sense and is weird, indeed.
What the heck are you even asking anyway?
Why are you not capitalizing your own name?
Do people still watch 'programming', when so many better options have existed for decades..? (Even six years ago)
It's either "Linus' rant" or "Linus ranting", not "Linus' ranting".
No, no one that understands anything about Linus did, because the WHOLE POINT of the great pumpkin is that:
1) Linus didn't understand Christmas, so he mixed it up with Halloween, because he was just a dumb kid and couldn't tell that not every holiday has some jolly guy bringing presents to kids, so he remembered the whole 'Santa myth' and applied that memory to his understanding of Halloween, and thus Great Pumpkin was born out of a MISUNDERSTANDING.
Now that he's older and wiser, and COULD tell the difference, he's too deep into his own dogma, and still believes the myth the same way other kids still believe the 'Santa myth'. He's too entrenched into his own creation to ever let it go anymore.
2) It's a jab at religious zealots and similar nutcases that can passionately foam at the mouth while preaching complete nonsense, but being so passionate about it, will never realize just how wrong they are or what psychosis they live in.
ACTUAL 'the Great Pumpkin' appearing would ruin and destroy these jokes so completely, there would be no point in the whole thing.
Also, it would be unfunny by comparison to Linus' stubborn unwillingness to face the facts and continuing to preach what Charlie knows to be horseshÃt, but has to listen to anyway..
It's no wonder someone who is DEPRESSED might not have a normal hair growth, regardless of nutrition.
Everyone's nutrition in USA is pretty bad anyway, the food quality there is not very good, and their food habits are horrible; CEREAL for breakfast (Charlie has been shown to eat this) and then some cruelty or animal torture products for dinner and supper (as it was called back then).
No wonder the hair is falling out.. it's not just nutrition, but these kids definitely do not get good nutrition. Chances are, Schroeder doesn't, either, but he has a PASSION that keeps him active and healthy anyway (and he has quite an extreme exercize routine, as once shown).
So, in a way, Schroeder is the only one with some kind of "purpose" in life that he can cultivate daily. Linus is just trying to cope his horrible situation with the psycho sister, Charlie is trying to cope with his depression, but anything he tries just makes it worse, because he fails at everything - even his beloved baseball (which there's WAY too much of in the strips, by the way)..
Schroeder has the healthiest inner life, so his outer form reflects that.
It's hard to judge hair in a comic strip (cartoon is a bit more revealing due to colors and animation), Charlie -could- theoretically have lots of very smooth or very well-combed flat hair that he keeps very short.
I know it's probably not the case, but why are you linking nutrition and hair? Have you never seen malnourished people with hair?
Hair can fall out or not grow much for VARIETY of reasons, why would you jump straight to nutrition?
Linus is obviously the type that has very thin and sparse hair anyway, but I would attribute his hairstyle to having to live with the most stressful, misandristic, unfair, VIOLENT monster ever - Lucy is a living embodiment of KAREN in her youth!
If you watch the strips, Lucy is also quite violent, and it's pretty shocking, when you think about it - an older sibling beating up and yelling at a younger, helpless sibling. Genders reversed, Schultz would've been murdered decades ago.
What I am getting at, living with Lucy would cause a _LOT_ of stress, even to an adult, but especially a bullied, beaten-up younger brother that's not even allowed to defend himself or fight back because 'men are not allowed to hit women' (or boys girls), but otherwise, it's perfectly fine for some EQUALITY-based reason, I am sure.
When you remove a tiger's teeth, and then laugh at the tiger for taking a beating from a human, don't be surprised if the tiger loses some hair due to stress. Men are stronger, so they can't hit women, who are weaker, so now the men are actually weaker, because they are not allowed to use their strength, but STILL they are laughed at when women beats them up (kinda easy to beat up someone who is not allowed to fight back..)
It's a real catch-22 Linus has to live with, anyone would lose hair over that.
Charlie is DEPRESSED, perhaps the most depressed kid in the whole fictional world of fictional characters. Depression can do all kinds of things, like block hormones or alter normal functioning of the body.
I think Snoopy sells, because people don't really 'binge-read' these strips by the decade, so they don't get just how boring and shallow the whole Snoopy thing is and becomes very quickly - but more powerfully, because he's supposedly "cute".
Stick any 'cute cartoon char' onto a coffee mug or a T-shirt, and the stupid, unwashed masses will want it and buy it, because they recognize it and it's 'cute'. Even if it's not really all that cute.
I think most people know Snoopy from the merch more than the actual strip. Maybe some would be surprised to see he actually appears in cartoons and comic strips.
Hands up, who here is ACTUALLY entertained by Snoopy's 'Red Baron antics', enough to want to read 20 pages more of JUST THAT right now? HANDS UP! Didn't think so.
But nope, we can't have too much of that, because Snoopy has to have a wacky adventure with the stupid bird, whose name is an obsolete reference to a 'magical festival' no one remembers anymore, or he has to perform some stupid animal imitation or 'dance' crap and MAYBE fight with Lucy or the neighbours' cat, or some other useless nonsense that only makes the audience groan.
Snoopy is a HORRIBLE invention, and I hope it was never created. If you read the Peanuts strip skipping all the Snoopy-stuff, you can realize how good it really is when that monster is not around.
I mean, really, WHAT is it anyway? A dog that plays baseball? Give me a break!
Make him into a normal dog or remove him, why would we want to watch him killing some german baron for 5 minutes in a row, it is NOT entertaining!
Snoopy is NOT relatable or interesting, Snoopy is not grounded in reality, and once you start realizing how empty and shallow this 'anything goes' container really is, you start wishing for the old days when he was just a small side character that didn't really appear that much, and even when he did, he was more a 'normal dog' that's fun to watch get startled by things and whatnot.
Snoopy is completely unrealistic, surreal, and as such, unrelatable and boring God-character that was not needed, the cartoon and the strip would've been BRILLIANT without him. He only brings things down with the depressing war crap that goes nowhere and the unrealistic 'wackiness' that contrasts so much with the grounded grittiness of Charlie's depression and realistic school and unrequited love life.
First of all..
_W_H_A_T_!?
Snoopy is the most useless and crazy character ever. If I could, I would remove him from ALL EXISTENCE COMPLETELY so the comic strip could be at least read without wanting to shoot and explode something slightly dog-shaped.
Snoopy became too surreal, too weird, sort of 'human without being completely human' character that ruined the whole strip and a lot of the cartoons as well. Snoopy doesn't require a well-crafted, well thought-out joke or a great storyline that makes us appreciate all the characters and their unique personalities - you can dump ANYTHING into "Snoopy" and it will fly, because Snoopy becomes just a container for 'any weird, wild stuff' Schultz wanted to put in.
(I write it as Schultz, get over it)
Snoopy was OK when he was still a 'normal dog with weaknesses'. Then he became some kind of Overpowered, if not Superpowered Alter Ego for Schultz's laziest jokes, cultural references and lowest-common-denominator-pleasing stuff that's mostly not even funny, because it's never grounded, so 'anything goes', so nothing means anything anymore.
I still liked Snoopy when he fell from his dog roof and said something like he's always going to be a .. well, I forgot, but something about always living on the lower portion of the house.
Then he suddenly became expert at sleeping at an impossible place at the sharp edge of the roof of the doghouse. No dog could ever do that, heck, no HUMAN could even do that without being some kind of adept, fakir or some kind of spiritual master of energies or being outside of a physical body.
If you notice, Snoopy strips increase and increase until they are majority of the comic, and this always lets me down. I want to just always skip to the more 'normal stuff', because there are great jokes and charming personalities there, interesting conflicts, a glimpse into the world of 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s kids and american family life and Charlie's depression and all that.