I have loads of trouble believing that Charles "Sparky" Schultz signed off on this let ALONE wrote it! For those of us who grew up on Peanuts characters, both the specials and the comic strip, this bears very little resemblance other than the characters look relatively the same. You need look not further than some of the quotations posted on the quotations page for this show.
Lucy Van Pelt (to Schroeder): You know why I don't want you to get me anything for Christmas? Because I know you hate me.
Lucy Van Pelt (to Linus): You have to give me a Christmas present. It says so in the Bible.
In one scene, Sally steals a tree out of another kids yard. When he confronts her and they have words, she calls him "ugly". Then she later returns the tree, dismissing her theft as a "misunderstanding".
Please do not "misunderstand" ME here. I realise this is not 1965 any longer. And no, people don't like their icons being messed with. I get that. But the original Christmas special is a classic because it addresses issues we all contend with during the holidays, from commercialism, to greed, to loneliness and disaffection, to matters of spirituality. And it does so in a way that both children and adults can understand. When someone is mean to Charlie Brown, you feel the despair he feels. There are no actual arguments, and other than the term "blockhead" (which I have never heard anyone use even in real life), no one says anything mean. Words like "hate" are never used. No one ever "steals" ANYTHING. And it certainly never perverts the Biblical message.
Children (and most adults) parrot what they see on TV. Are these the values that we wish to be teaching our children? That it's okay to steal and then call people names? That, if you don't hate me then you should be buying me something to prove that you don't hate me? I know our values as a society have gone askew, but is THIS the they way we wish to teach our children to behave? Do we not have nearly enough negative images for those who are very impressionable to sink their teeth into? To this I can only say, "OH GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!"
Lucy Van Pelt (to Schroeder): You know why I don't want you to get me anything for Christmas? Because I know you hate me.
Lucy Van Pelt (to Linus): You have to give me a Christmas present. It says so in the Bible.
In one scene, Sally steals a tree out of another kids yard. When he confronts her and they have words, she calls him "ugly". Then she later returns the tree, dismissing her theft as a "misunderstanding".
Please do not "misunderstand" ME here. I realise this is not 1965 any longer. And no, people don't like their icons being messed with. I get that. But the original Christmas special is a classic because it addresses issues we all contend with during the holidays, from commercialism, to greed, to loneliness and disaffection, to matters of spirituality. And it does so in a way that both children and adults can understand. When someone is mean to Charlie Brown, you feel the despair he feels. There are no actual arguments, and other than the term "blockhead" (which I have never heard anyone use even in real life), no one says anything mean. Words like "hate" are never used. No one ever "steals" ANYTHING. And it certainly never perverts the Biblical message.
Children (and most adults) parrot what they see on TV. Are these the values that we wish to be teaching our children? That it's okay to steal and then call people names? That, if you don't hate me then you should be buying me something to prove that you don't hate me? I know our values as a society have gone askew, but is THIS the they way we wish to teach our children to behave? Do we not have nearly enough negative images for those who are very impressionable to sink their teeth into? To this I can only say, "OH GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!"