So, I already knew that plans for new Smurf movies were in the works, of course. That’s not a surprise. Though I suppose I may still be recovering from the news, a teeny bit. What I didn’t know was that—along with a resurgence of popularity and plans for their movie debut—the Smurfs will finally be getting some girls.

That’s right. For 50 years, Smurfette has been the only… well… smurfette in town. (How exactly did that… oh, nevermind.) But not any more!

Envisaged as secondary characters for a single cartoon album, the blue gnomes widely known as the Smurfs will celebrate their 50th anniversary this year with a movie deal and an invasion of new female characters.

[…]

“There have been dramatic changes in socio-cultural values in the past 20 to 25 years,” Hendrik Coysman, head of Smurf rights holder IMPS told a news conference on Monday. “One of these is girl empowerment.”

“So, there will be a greater female presence in the Smurf village and this will, of course, be a basis for new stories and this will probably turn upside down certain traditional situations within the village.”

I find this fascinating, actually. I mean, why now? After 50 years? Isn’t that part of what makes them… smurfy? How are they going to explain this sudden influx of womenfolk? Or will they just pretend that all those women had been there all along?

So many questions, and yet, so little real interest. I mean, these are smurfs were talking about. And this is the most thought I’ve given them since I was young enough to still be scared of Gargamel. Which is a little scary.

I just love the stuff they come up with over at RetroCrush, because—even though it makes me feel old, to read over there and laugh my butt off at the memories—I just mind being old less when I’m laughing about it. And there’s some very funny stuff over there.

So yesterday when I saw the RetroCrush Box of Glory Inaugural Inductees title, I was eager to read on, even though I wasn’t sure what I would find. But it turns out to just be a great compilation of greatest childhood toys (phew!) along with some hilarious commentary.

At first glance I thought the list contained all of the usual suspects—the Etch-a-Sketch, the Slinky, cap guns, Barbies, Legos, the Magic 8 Ball… it’s a long list, and most of the entries caused me to nod along in agreement. Some of them reminded me of things I hadn’t thought of in years; for example, I used to own the cloth Holly Hobby doll they show. (I wonder what happened to her.)

The list’s author, Robert Berry, claims at the end that you can write in with anything he’s missed, though it’s not clear whether he’ll add them to the list. And this, of course, got me thinking about what I, personally, would’ve added that I didn’t see there. (Several of the toys he did list either predate my childhood or I was just raised in a bubble. That milking cow looked like something I would’ve begged for as a kid, so I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen it before.)

Berry’s list tops over 60 entries; nevertheless, I submit that he overlooked the following:

• Barbie Fashion Head. These come in about a million varieties, nowadays, and I’ve even seen one with hands (which, frankly, frighten me) so that you can do their nails. But back in my day, there was but one Barbie Fashion Head. You could do her hair and make-up. And then when you got a little older, you and your brother could give her a mohawk.
• Jacks. Dude. You include jump ropes and the lemon twist but leave out jacks? Clearly you were never a girl at summer camp on a rainy day. Which I suppose is a good thing, seeing as how you’re a guy. Still. Jacks! They’re a classic.
• Sea monkeys. No room in the box of glory for brine shrimp? C’mon. Every kid I know had a coming-of-age moment when they realized that those little buggers did not, in fact, wear little pink crowns the way the ad in the back of the comic books always depicted them. It’s a sad right of passage, that.
• Walkie-talkies. I have a set of two-way radios that my kids sometimes play with, but they get bored with them easily… possibly because they work. The set that I grew up with sometimes worked, and sometimes just made a lot of static. That was part of the challenge. It made our Secret Agent games more exciting.
• Topps baseball cards. I didn’t even like baseball, and I collected these along with everyone else. Because that’s just what you did.
• Merlin. Yeah, I know he’s got Simon on there. Merlin was different, and equally (or more) popular. I always wanted a Merlin. I never got one, and had to keep using the one my best friend (who got everything she ever wanted) had. I’m still bitter.

What would go into your toy box of glory?

I had to go back and look to see how long ago I’d first read about Where the Wild Things Are being made into a movie. It turned out that it was last February, and my feelings haven’t changed since then: I feel a deep sense of trepidation about the whole project. Sometimes a movie ruins a great book, and I worry about that, here.

So today when I saw that Lauren Ambrose has been cast as a voice talent for the project, I did not find myself feeling warm and fuzzy. Ambrose is a great actress; that’s not the issue. It’s that apparently the Wild Things will be talking. I’m already twitching. Though, people are apparently thinking really hard about this stuff:

Ambrose is replacing the previously cast Michelle Williams. According to a production source, the filmmakers enjoyed working with Williams, but her voice didn’t match their original vision of how the Wild Thing should sound.

You know how a Wild Thing should sound? I’m just guessing, here, but given a broad array of possibilities, I don’t think of Michelle Williams or Lauren Ambrose. Or, in fact, any perky young actress. Go figure. I could be picturing it wrong, I guess, but again, it all just seems a little weird to me.

So after reading about that and getting worked up all over again (”My preeeeeshus! You mustn’t wreck my preshus!”), I was delighted to run across this piece in Slate about the evolution of illustration in children’s literature:

Books were for schooling or for teaching religious and moral lessons—with properly serious illustrations chaperoning the text.

This somber mode continued through the Civil War. And then it went poof, dispelled by artists who became children’s illustrators by happenstance.

The piece is accompanied by a slideshow which is not to be missed. Where the Wild Things Are figures prominently in the history, of course, but so do Gellett Burgess’ turn-of-the-century Goops, who are an old family favorite of ours. (The article compares the Goops to the South Park gang, which made me laugh out loud.) Whether the movie meets expectations or not, there’s no question that Sendak’s Wild Things are an important piece of history. (But, uh, if the movie folks are reading? Here’s a special message from me to you: Please don’t screw it up.)

Thanksgiving has come and gone, and hopefully you got some good shopping in (and don’t forget that you can still get some great deals today only at Ty’s), and now it’s the season for holiday movies on television.

That’s right; it’s time for Charlie Brown’s pitiful Christmas tree; it’s time for everyone to warn Ralphie that he’ll shoot his eye out; it’s time to carve the roast beast; it’s time to watch the Heat Miser and the Cold Miser duke it out. It’s time to watch the movies that herald the magic of the holidays and remind us of the traditions of our childhoods.

Shrek the Halls is coming up this Wednesday night, a new contender for “classic” status. I’ve written about it before, and since then I’ve actually seen it. (ABC was kind enough to send me a screener copy.) We sat down and watched it as a family this past weekend and it was… fine. Not great, no, but okay. Much of the problem lay, I felt, with it only being half an hour long; there really wasn’t time to do any sort of plot development. But if you’re a Shrek fan (we are) it may be worth catching. Will it become a “classic?” I sort of doubt it.

The Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik was less charitable in his assessment:

And, so, the entire 22 minutes (running time without commercials) is more or less a primer in how to celebrate Christmas as a family: Decorate the house, get a tree, hang the stockings — with Daddy reading ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas to the three baby ogres.

But just as the reading starts, Donkey, Puss in Boots, Gingerbread Man and a cast of dozens crash the intimate gathering. Now, after Shrek explodes in anger, he has to learn another lesson about the meaning of family — mainly from Donkey and Fiona.

While the story line speaks to loneliness and celebrates community belonging, the episode ultimately feels as flat and superficial as a mass-produced holiday greeting card. There is nothing nearly as daring or deep as the exploration of existential angst in the landmark Charlie Brown special.

The rest of his piece is an interesting exploration of why the various “true” classics like Charlie Brown have endured, and is worth the read. I’m not sure I ever thought about the role of existential angst in the appeal of the Peanuts gang, but he has a point.

If you want to do your own compare-and-contrast, stay tuned to ABC this week: Tuesday night at 8:00 pm will bring A Charlie Brown Christmas, while Wednesday night at 8:00 pm will debut Shrek the Halls, followed by How the Grinch Stole Christmas at 8:30 pm. No matter which specials appeal to you, do take the time to sit down and watch them with your children. That’s the part they’ll remember, not whether or not the cartoon itself was really any good. At least, that’s what I always remember. And what I tell my kids they’d better remember. Heh.

This story is generating a ton of buzz online, and I can barely even wrap my brain around it, but I’ll try to do it justice.

The main story is here:

Don’t choke on your bubble gum when you hear what former Walt Disney CEO Michael Eisner has in mind for Topps, the 69-year-old trading card and candy company just bought for $385 million by a consortium he led.

He wants Topps to create a movie, TV, Internet and publishing franchise around Bazooka Joe, the eye-patch-wearing kid introduced in 1953 on the waxy comics that wrap Topps’ Bazooka bubble gum.

“Bazooka Joe could be the next big hero,” Eisner, 65, says. “I’m not saying it’s going to be Raiders of the Lost Ark,” which he oversaw as CEO of Paramount Pictures. “But that would be the goal. Bazooka Joe is my new Mickey Mouse.”

That bears repeating, I think. “Bazooka Joe is my new Mickey Mouse.” Because… seriously?

The article goes on, of course (boy, does it ever), to take you in the WayBack Machine and remember those Topps trading cards and that horrible gum that would nearly break your jaw. Do you know what I remember most about Bazooka gum? Eagerly tearing into the wrapper to get to the comic strip, only to read it once, twice, maybe even three times before confessing to the nearest adult, “I don’t get it. Why is this funny?”

Ah, memories.

There’s a fabulous reaction over at Mayerson on Animation, much more astute and interesting than some crusty old mom admitting that she was bested by chewing gum comics:

I love this because it perfectly crystallizes the different viewpoints of business people and creative people. I would have to think long and hard to come up with a cartoon character who has less personality than Bazooka Joe. Except for the name (reminiscent of a war weapon) and the eye patch, what could anyone possibly say about the character? Creatively, he’s practically a blank slate.

From a business perspective, though, Bazooka Joe has name recognition. Everybody has sampled that awful bubble gum and read those mediocre comic strips. When business people sit down to make deals, that name recognition makes Joe a better financial bet than an original property that nobody’s ever heard of. The fact that Joe is a cipher is besides the point.

Really interesting stuff, whether you believe Bazooka Joe has star potential or not. Personally, I am just highly amused by the graphic of good ol’ Joe wearing the mouse ears.

[Hat tip: Cartoon Brew]

Despite growing up with a serious love of Super Friends, I have to confess that Green Lantern was never one of my favorites. I never really understood him, I don’t think. I mean, what sort of superhero weakness is it where your Kryptonite is a color? Superheroes can’t just be walking around all “I possess the most powerful ring in the universe, but, uh, by the way, the color yellow totally trumps that. Crap. Could you go change your shirt?”

I tell you this by way of explanation; perhaps I have undervalued Green Lantern lo these many years.

Maybe you just love Green Lantern. Maybe he’s your favorite, because you don’t like yellow. Or because you know something super-special-cool about him that I don’t. (That wouldn’t be too hard.) But whether you love him or not, you can soon be seeing a lot more of him; Green Lantern is going live-action:

Green Lantern is finally ready to light up the silver screen in a big way.

DC Comics’ ring-powered superhero will be prominently featured in two upcoming live-action features from Warner Bros., as a member of the crime-fighting Justice League of America and in his own solo effort.

Well, you know, good for him. Everyone should have their time to shine, even if they do get all woozy around the color yellow.

“To me, this was on the last great comic book movie that hasn’t been made,” the newly minted ring master [director Greg Berlanti] told the Hollywood Reporter. “It was a comic book with a real mythology that you would see in a lot of the space operas and the sci-fi books. The best part about it, anybody can be become one of the Green Lanterns because anyone can end up with that ring.”

I always found it confusing that any ol’ person who got the ring would become the new Green Lantern, but then, I also didn’t get why Wonder Woman’s invisible jet was a useful thing to have, given that you could still see her sitting there in it. It’s possible that some of the nuances of comic book lore are lost on me.

The film, which focuses on how Jordan first came into contact with the ring and became a member of the Green Lantern Corps, is being positioned as the possible launch pad for a franchise.

Well of course it is. You know Hollywood—why make just one movie when you could easily make four? (As a side note, I find it fascinating that there can be talk of a franchise before the first movie is even out of the gate. Do you suppose they ever guess wrong on this stuff? I mean, isn’t there at least the possibility that the movie will tank, that someone will figure out that hey, there’s a reason why Green Lantern has not been as in-demand as some of these other superheroes?

No offense, Green Lantern. I’m sure you’re a swell guy. Er, bunch of guys. Um, I think I’m going to wear yellow today, just in case I’ve offended anyone who might happen to have some ultimate power….

As iconic as the “Peanuts” comic strip was in the cartooning world for so many years (indeed, as it continues to be), there’s a lot of dissension over what sort of man Charles Schulz, the strip’s creator, was.

Some have pointed out that his own challenges in life were what enabled him to write so poignantly about life inequities even in what was (supposedly) a forum for children, but that the man behind the ink was dark and difficult. Others have argued that his ability to work through such issues in his art left him a perfectly delightful man in person.

This debate is hardly new, but it’s been cropping up in the news again lately and I thought it was worth looking at. Personally, I find it fascinating that people are so interested in diving into Schulz’s life.

Over at Cartoon Brew Amid does an excellent round-up of reaction to the David Michaelis biography. On the one hand, Bill Watterson (creator of Calvin and Hobbes and himself a cartooning legend and something of an iconoclast) gives Michaelis’ biography, Schulz and Peanuts a glowing review. On the other hand, members of Schulz’ own family have been very vocal in their assertions that the book is not the accurate portrayal it makes itself out to be.

Charles Schulz’s son Monte left a comment at Cartoon Brew which said (among other things):

Honestly, the quote I’ve really wanted to give the press, after reading both the early of the manuscript and the final book, is this: “The book is stupid, and David Michaelis is an idiot.” That said, I had a six year on-going conversation with him about this book, and like David quite a lot. But I was shocked to see the book that emerged, because it veered so drastically away from what he told us he intended to write. Which is why we’ve been so militant in our response. Incidentally, the material David edited out of the book is even more outrageous. The fact is, after reading the book, I decided I’d learned more about David Michaelis than I did about my dad. I found that interesting.

The follow-on comments are interesting, as well, and one commenter is kind enough to point out that later this month there will be an American Masters documentary on Charles Schulz’s life on PBS which may be worth viewing.

In “Good Ol’ Charles Schulz,” AMERICAN MASTERS presents an unexpected portrait of the man behind the most popular comic strip in history. The feature-length documentary premieres Monday, October 29, 2007, 9:00-10:30 p.m. ET on PBS.

No word yet on whether the Schulz family has a problem with the upcoming documentary. Or, indeed, why people are so intent on getting the “real” story of a man whose work should arguably be left to speak for itself.

[image credit: Encyclopædia Britannica Concise]

I’m so excited.

There are a few iconic shows from my youth where I look back and sigh with nostalgia and say “Now that was a show!” One of them was Land of the Lost. I dreamt myself as Holly, struggling to survive in a prehistoric wilderness, riding around on on a baby dinosaur (Junior?) and hanging out with my friend Cha-ka. At five or six or however old I was when Land of the Lost was my idea of television perfection, I was unbothered by lousy special effects or rubbery Sleestaks. The tell-tale asthmatic wheeze of a Sleestak was enough to guarantee me a nightmare that night, but I kept going back for more.

And so—although I typically sneer at the whole “let’s turn an old TV show into a movie” thing—I am thrilled to find out that Land of the Lost is being made into a movie… even if it is being turned into a comedy:

Universal is pushing the button on “Land of the Lost” for a March start.

Decision to greenlight the Will Ferrell project surprised observers, who are aware that U had a rough ride with its $160 million comedy “Evan Almighty.” Studio sources suggest the budget of “Land of the Lost,” described as an event comedy, was recalibrated from $125 million to $100 million in order to earn its start date.

Brad Silberling will helm the bigscreen adaptation of Sid & Marty Krofft’s children’s skein of the same name. Jimmy Miller is producing along with the Kroffts; Julie Wixson-Darmody and Daniel Lupi exec produce.

I can see how “event comedy” would make sense, I guess. But… what’s this? No Will and Holly?

Adaptation by Chris Henchy and Dennis McNicholas revolves around a disgraced paleontologist, his assistant and a macho tour guide who find themselves in a strange world inhabited by dinosaurs, monkey people and reptilian Sleestaks.

Hmmmm. The purist in me says no, but the Will Ferrell fan in me says yes. Mixing Sleestaks and macho sounds like comedy gold, frankly. I’ll have to wait for the buzz once the project nears completion to find out if it’s worth seeing in the theater, of course, but I can nearly guarantee I’ll rent this one at the very least.

When I was a child (yes, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and we walked uphill four miles in the snow—barefoot!—both ways just to get to school and we liked it), my brother and I owned a modest collection of records.

There was the 45 that played They’re Coming to Take Me Away on the A side and played the entire song backwards on the B side; there was the soundtrack to Grease, and there was an Alvin and the Chipmunks record.

I don’t remember which one it was. Does it matter? They were all the same; some songs interspersed with high-pitched squealing and pleading (”Dave! DAAAAAVE!”) and then the only normal voice (Dave’s) getting progressively more agitated (”Simon! Theodore! AAAAAALVIIIIIIN!”) over something or other.

Yes, as a young girl I loved me some Chipmunks. Perhaps that was the start of my infatuation with imaginary bands.

Nowadays, of course, the Chipmunks make my ears rings and my eye twitch. Still, I was pleased to see that the trio managed to make it onto the Ten Best Bands That Never Existed list over at Earvolution.

True, several other favorites of mine made the list as well; most notably, The Blues Brothers at number 4 and Spinal Tap at number 2, but I can’t really argue for those being of interest to those interested in animation and other kids’ shows. (Though my children do understand that when something is really good, you say that “this one goes up to eleven.”) But for regular readers here the item of note is this: three of the ten bands mentioned fall squarely into the animation/kids camp.

First we have the Chipmunks, of course, sliding in at number 9. The article notes that they’ve now been around for nearly fifty years (!) and are still going strong.

In addition, props go out to Billy and the Boingers (fans of Berke Breathed’s Bloom County strip will recognize that one immediately) along with a bit of backstory on the band. That one really brought back memories.

And capturing the number 1 spot is Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem—the band from The Muppet Show. Their influence is masterfully summed up:

Over the course of their career, they played with luminaries like Elton John, Paul Simon, Dizzy Gillespie and Diana Ross and lent a weird aura to performances by Phyllis Diller, Sylvester Stallone and Tony Randall. Directly inspired from the classic rock music and personae of the late Sixties and early Seventies, Mayhem was the world of rock ‘n’ roll condensed and simplified for pre-teens. Think Jim Henson didn’t have an ear for rock ‘n’ roll? Check out 1979’s Can You Picture That? Given The Muppet Show’s target demographic, The Electric Mayhem indelibly imprinted the colorful world of rock and roll upon millions of young minds, easily making them the most influential rock band that never really existed.

Good stuff. Go read the whole thing, and if it makes you hanker for more imaginary goodness, Pop Candy not only highlighted the above-referenced article, it recommends FakeBands.com for more fun.

(Consider my hat tipped; that was quite the stroll down memory lane!)

Remember when I pointed out that both Ty’s Toy Box VP George Stolpe and DC Comics’ Dan Didio are fans of ReBoot? I guess the legions of fans rallying for the return of the series have finally been heard and heeded; it looks like ReBoot is slated to return in a trilogy of feature-length films:

Originally produced in 1994, the series was created by MainFrame Entertainment, which was acquired by and renamed Rainmaker in 2006. “ReBoot” aired for several seasons on ABC, YTV and Cartoon Network.

“The idea is to relaunch the brand in a new way,” said Rainmaker Animation executive vp Paul Gertz, who will oversee the project.

Launch it in a new way? He’s not kidding. Yesterday marked the unveiling of the brand new Zeroes 2 Heroes site, which contains—among other things—what is currently a placeholder for what will become a giant ReBoot focus group. This is audience involvement of the highest order; fans will have the opportunity to shape development based upon their feedback and even on their own submitted work.

Rainmaker is the sort of production company fans dream about, really.

” ‘ReBoot’s’ legions of fans have been incredibly loyal and continue to keep the property alive on dozens of fan sites,” Gertz said. “We’re very enthusiastic about how we’re reconceiving this classic series by creating an innovative way for those fans — who were kids when the series started — to use new technology to help guide us.”

Zeros 2 Heroes president Matt Toner sees the Internet as a democratizing medium. “It takes away gatekeepers,” he said. “We want to connect the fans with the producers … and let them determine what the next hits will be. When it comes to long-standing genre entertainment properties, the fans are the real experts.”

You can check out the beta version of the Zeroes 2 Heroes site right now, and possible future ReBoot material will be available starting on Thursday, July 26th (to coincide with the opening of San Diego Comic-Con International).

Though I didn’t watch ReBoot the first time around, I think their approach on this is going to prove to be groundbreaking. I can’t wait to see what comes next from these guys.

[Hat tip: Animated News]