My introduction to Peanuts was more than likely a worn Fawcett paperback; I seem to recall reading and rereading it until the pages fell apart. I wasn't aware that they were taken from newspaper daily strips until later. Peanuts (along with Calvin and Hobbes and a host of others) made perusing the daily and weekend comics a wonderful experience, discovering the latest shenanigans of such rich, funny, and sophisticated characters.
I remember fondly (and still try to watch annually) the Charlie Brown animated specials. My favorite was the Christmas cartoon; Charlie Brown's struggle to find meaning in the holiday amidst cynical commercialism resonated with me, as well as his dour outlook on life. His victory by the end always warms my heart, although it seems he had fewer of those in the newspaper comics.
I guess I felt a bit of an outsider like good ol' Charlie Brown. Unlike him, I've always tried to keep a positive outlook, but the weight of the world can be difficult to bear; reading about this charming fictional character (I was never really a big Snoopy or Woodstock fan) facing similar struggles was a source of comfort .
Recently I read an essay of how Shultz came up with Peanuts, dealt with success, and produced his daily comic strip; it was enlightening, and once again I found similarities with my own approach to the creative process. It's a shame that Charles isn't alive to produce any additional Peanuts, but the wealth of material that remains his legacy is amazing and highly inspiring.
Peanuts was an important part of my youth, simpler times which seem to be painter with richer colors by my memory. I'm grateful to have been introduced to the Peanuts gang, and hope to someday create a character or story that might speak to a young kid in today's world.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Monday, September 2, 2013
Star Trek musings
I recently heard about the online rating of Star Trek: Into Darkness as one of the worst Star Trek movies ever. Of course, there was a significant and vocal backlash, including that wonderful argument of how ST:ID made oodles of money, and therefore must be good. Box Office success is no indication of quality; unfortunately, it seems the movie going public will drop their hard earned cash on just about anything these days.
I've already reviewed the movie, but wasn't quite sure what to make of the online furor. Recently, I watched an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation which reminded me how amazing the franchise can be, and clarified for me why I disliked ST:ID. The episode in question is 'Yesterday's Enterprise', possibly one of the finest Trek episodes ever.
The story is simple; a fluke causes an Enterprise from a doomed battle in the past to jut ahead years into the future, altering the timeline. Ultimately, the crew of the time-displaced ship return to their past, setting everything right by sacrificing themselves valiantly.
THIS is what Star Trek is all about. Characters are well defined, and the viewer can identify why they make certain decisions or act a specific way; dialogue serves to move the plot forward, and is heart-felt and poignant. Paths are chosen with selfless and heroic motivations, with the good of the many more important than those of the few. Violence isn't glorified; as a matter of fact, scenes with violence stir up feelings of horror and dread.
Into Darkness isn't concerned with revealing dialogue, or characters that use their brains to solve conflict. It's more concerned with running, jumping, constant movement ensuring a tiny attention span might not wander. Characters toss aside annoying quips, while their motivations are mostly unknown; they act as they must in order to get the complicated plot from A to B.
Star Trek is a concept that embraces peace over war, wisdom and intelligence over brute might. Into Darkness is hated by ST fans because (IMO), it strays far from these concepts. For me, it's a generic sci-fi action thriller, but doesn't jibe with my version of Roddenberry's fine creation.
I've already reviewed the movie, but wasn't quite sure what to make of the online furor. Recently, I watched an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation which reminded me how amazing the franchise can be, and clarified for me why I disliked ST:ID. The episode in question is 'Yesterday's Enterprise', possibly one of the finest Trek episodes ever.
The story is simple; a fluke causes an Enterprise from a doomed battle in the past to jut ahead years into the future, altering the timeline. Ultimately, the crew of the time-displaced ship return to their past, setting everything right by sacrificing themselves valiantly.
THIS is what Star Trek is all about. Characters are well defined, and the viewer can identify why they make certain decisions or act a specific way; dialogue serves to move the plot forward, and is heart-felt and poignant. Paths are chosen with selfless and heroic motivations, with the good of the many more important than those of the few. Violence isn't glorified; as a matter of fact, scenes with violence stir up feelings of horror and dread.
Into Darkness isn't concerned with revealing dialogue, or characters that use their brains to solve conflict. It's more concerned with running, jumping, constant movement ensuring a tiny attention span might not wander. Characters toss aside annoying quips, while their motivations are mostly unknown; they act as they must in order to get the complicated plot from A to B.
Star Trek is a concept that embraces peace over war, wisdom and intelligence over brute might. Into Darkness is hated by ST fans because (IMO), it strays far from these concepts. For me, it's a generic sci-fi action thriller, but doesn't jibe with my version of Roddenberry's fine creation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)