peanutsposter_main peanutsposter_main
Feature Film

‘The Peanuts Movie’ Posters—And Why The Characters Look So Hyper-Detailed In Them

The Peanuts Movie

Fox has released a series of nine eleven character posters for Blue Sky Studios’s The Peanuts Movie. The Steve Martino-directed film will be released by Fox on November 6, 2015.

Although the characters’ features look ridiculously hyper-detailed in these images, they haven’t appeared nearly as abrasive in the finished animation. One artist who worked on the project, Blue Sky artist Francesco Giroldini, helpfully explained why on Cartoon Brew’s Facebook group: “If it looks like the hair has been painted in photoshop, it’s because I painted it. In photoshop. lol…These characters aren’t meant to be seen at 6K. A lot of painting was necessary to break up edges that look nice and graphical at 2k but too simple at 6k.”

Click on any of the images to enlarge.

The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie The Peanuts Movie
  • chris bennett

    This movie looks set to be a rare example of a worthy, well-made reboot. Cant wait to see it!

  • Jamie Iles

    Since the original comic strips dealt with themes like depression and failure and more often than not didn’t rely on happy endings, it worries me a little that they’re going to introduce Peanuts to new audiences with a warped view of how the original characters and stories functioned, and instead potentially ruin what was an insightful comic strip. Of course i might be wrong about all this, but i thought i’d voice my concerns.

    • Iker

      Based on some statements from fellow artists working in the movies (cannot find them; I believe I read them here in CB) I reckon they are not ‘rebooting’ the franchise for new audiences but being very faithful to the original strips. Could be Jeff Gabor the one talking about how commited the team was to the printed strips?

  • starss

    They look hyper detailed because….. it’s a CGI Hollywood movie? Not sure what the deal is.

  • brownbox

    I’m liking these posters. Nice to see big name studios playing around with what’s possible with the medium.

  • Tony

    This is nothing new. We’ve all seen posters for 2D films where the characters look more detailed than they do on screen. Whether they look better that way is personal preference.

  • Jessie

    i’m more concerned why Marie’s font is different from the rest.

  • Matt

    They look so wrong. Uncanny valley here we come.

    • You don’t seem to have a very good understanding of what that actually means. The uncanny valley is not a blanket term to be thrown around at CGI characters that you don’t find visually appealing. It has a specific application, and I fail to see in the SLIGHTEST how it could apply to these characters.

    • SPARTALIS

      I’m curious, what makes them wrong in your eyes? Also, they’re so overtly stylized, how do you see them as approaching the Uncanny Valley?

  • GregB

    These images look terrific. The people on this site need to start supporting the animation community and industry as a whole, and stop trying to poo-poo everything you see or hear about. Stop being so bitter.

  • AllenIII

    I’m hoping for a story that features an Amber Alert surrounding the abduction of one of the unsupervised characters playing in the neighborhood, and maybe an existential crisis sub-plot surrounding Charlie coming to grips with what Climate Change means for his future. Pigpen could wind up the hero of the story due to his lack of showers and water conservation in the drought.

  • SPARTALIS

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with these images and absolutely everything right. The visual charm of the original strip is intact, while bringing a vibrancy that takes it to an enjoyably cinematic. I might’ve once been a little anti-texture, but I’d say my favorites are Snoopy and Woodstock – their fur and plumage is far subtler than it could’ve been, and actually enhances the visual excitement.
    PigPen is the only character that looks a little odd, but only because plumes of dirt look completely different in ink as they do in pixels. This is an understandable visual difference though.
    As GregB said, almost anyone who chastises and badmouths these posters seems to be missing the point and needlessly finding fault where none exists.

  • FloydLaw

    overall I think they’re great. Love them. People are going to be standing in line and looking at these posters, it gives them something to look at. Snoopy’s face hair could use a little more finesse. His body looks like fur, his face a motion blurred noise filter on photoshop.

    • enochrox

      -Someone who is horrible at Photoshop.

  • L_Ron_Hoover

    I am absolutely not a fan of CG adaptations but at least the artists are doing what they can to save The Peanuts from being further destroyed by soulless, mindless, talentless, clueless executives from ruining yet another classic piece of art. I can’t wait until the day when studios run by artists takes over the industry standard and these rich bastards find something else to gamble with.

  • enochrox

    They look nice. I like them(The Pigpen one? Great!). Like a few earlier posters have already expressed; Im way more concerned about the story and if the overall “feel” of the original Peanuts gang will be present in this reboot/revisiting.

  • David

    Snoopy’s hairs are to realistic. It looks like a real dog with little black lines for eyes on it. Though I’m not sure what part of a real dog looks lIke a fuzzy shoe

  • David

    And the big bird feathers on Woodstock look stuck on and are not doing anything to blend the head into the graphic feathers . Weird decision. But at least he is not a real bird. I’m excited to see how this movie turns out. Modern peanuts stuff usually does not have the charm of the early work and strip . It usually ends up really slow and boring.

  • Oddly enough, the cheesy catch phrases are what bugs me the most about these photos. Thankfully, that kind of thing pretty much never accurately represents the film :)

    • Maus Haus

      Same here. For me it’s Linus that really sets a cringey tone, sounds like he has no personality with a generic catchphrase like that. I think a film’s marketing accurately speaks for it self, in this case they’ve re-styled the comic strip for a movie aimed at children born in mid 2000’s. What I fear about animation is that films like this are dead set on burying our past standards of quality, in order to appeal to a new contemporary audience without the same ideals. The watering down of integrity can be seen especially in how a film decides to represent itself.

  • Nik Leuthold

    The hair on Charlie Browns in Charles Schultz drawings is merely a line to express that Charlie Brown has hair, but it looks like a condensed bunch of pubes poking out of his forehead. Whoever designed this hyper realistic Charlie Brown has gone a bit too literal with that feature, it’s a bit disturbing.

  • JodyMorgan

    Wait, Violet is going to have a significant role? That’s unexpected. I assume Patty, who was often seen with her, doesn’t have a poster in order to avoid potential confusion with Peppermint Patty; now I’m wondering if she’ll be left out of the movie for similar reasons.

    Anyway, so far I’m OK with how the movie looks; not blown away, but relieved they’re keeping some of the charm of the original pen and ink drawings (more than I would have expected possible, really). Like Tres Swygert, right now I’m more curious (worried? maybe) about the writing, and whether it captures the peculiar blend of nostalgia, melancholy, and hopefulness of the best stories about Charlie Brown.

  • demoncat_4

    interesting look though pig pen looks like he is totaly naked. and wonder since we saw one for violet if a frieda one is there too in all her curly hair. plus also missing sally.