.

>>78337569
Was this bit even in the movie?
I watched it the other night and don't remember any football or Lucy kicking.

>>78337677
I am pretty sure it was

>>78337677
Around the credits, I believe.

>>78337705
Yeah, it's a mid-credits scene. Just far enough into the credit roll that you think there's nothing and you walk out of the theater and then they roll bonus footage.

The extra scene at the conclusion of the credits is much shorter.

>>78337569
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=244lEnO2-OI

>>78337569

The movie was alot like TFA. Nothing shockingly new to upset the sensibilities of old fans, largely a rehash of recurring story elements.

If you like Peanuts, you'll like this movie. If you never were a fan, there is nothing new here to win you over.

>>78337759
>three credits scenes

the absolute madmen

>>78337797
>If you never were a fan, there is nothing new here to win you over.
I don't know if that's true, I was never really a fan of Peanuts and I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I thought it was a Solid 8.

Guys, would you rather prefer 3D or 2D animation? Would a well done 2D animation have been that expensive?

>>78337992
I like the style here

>>78337569
hold on, i wanna see where this goes

>>78337992
I'd call this movie 2.5D sort of like Street Fighter IV

Do you have a trailer on MEGA?

>>78337797

There's been a few new Peanuts fans because of this movie, to my suprise.

File: Screen Shot 2015-12-21 at 2.55.03 PM.png (2MB, 2688x856px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2688x856px

The aesthetics of this film freak me out.

When Shultz first drew Charlie Brown, he used a squiggle on his brow as shorthand to denote a child with short, fair hair.

As the character design evolved, said squiggle became iconic and singular: Charlie Brown was suddenly a weird-ass bald kid with a single forelock.

Bluesky for some reason decided to literalize this in the adaption to CGI, and we are now left with a thoroughly bizarre, chemo-patient potato boy with a thick, sinewy root jutting out of his forehead

>>78337992
The hand-drawn bits in the movie looked fantastic.

>>78342384
Yeah, they did the best they could converting the designs to 3D but there's just no way for some of the designs' features to make any sense outside of a drawing.

>>78337759
>>78337815

What? I only saw the football one. What were the other two?

>>78343942
One right at the very start of the credits with Snoopy's family, then at the very end, with the red baron model plane finally running out of battery.

>>78342384
>we are now left with a thoroughly bizarre, chemo-patient potato boy with a thick, sinewy root jutting out of his forehead
Everyone already thought this anyway so it's not like it's a big deal

>>78342384
It's simply due to how Charlie is simplified. If they were to go the "his hair is just a really light blonde" concept, it would be very difficult for him to have a sillouette that immediately in your mind says "That's Charlie brown".
It never took me out of the movie either, so I don't mind it.

>>78342384
When I got a book of Peanuts and saw the old designs, I got legitimately pissed because the original art style was so much better than the cute squiggles I grew up with.

>>78337992
3D all the way.

>>78346288
Get over it..

>>78346529
>assuming I am still hung up on a thing I mentioned once bothered me an unspecified period of time ago

Actually that's a safe assumption around 4chan, carry on

>>78342384
You sound like you've never seen a toy of Charlie Brown prior to them working on the Peanuts movie.

File: 1447028982316.png (253KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 640x480px

>>78342384
i never realized that
>mfw can't look at chuck the same