Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer - Roman Numeral Problem?

[DevdogAZ]

I was just watching the original classic Rudolph and noticed in the title shot that the copyright date says MCLXIV. I had no idea they made shows like this in 1164.



If you still have it on your TiVo, check it out. I'm surprised that 40+ years later, they haven't corrected the mistake.

[Mars Rocket]

The story is older than time...

[Langree]

Funny, nobody noticed the dropped M.

I wonder if it's that way on all the prints and DVD's etc..

[trainman]

Originally Posted by DevdogAZ

If you still have it on your TiVo, check it out. I'm surprised that 40+ years later, they haven't corrected the mistake.

Maybe they did fix it at one point, but then they un-fixed it for the restored version.

There are quite a few animation mistakes in "A Charlie Brown Christmas," most notably a varying number of branches on the little tree Charlie Brown picks out, but they've never fixed those.

[zaknafein]

Why fix it? That's ostensibly the way it was originally produced.

It's quirky. Maybe they just did it to mess with people's minds.

[gchance]

Originally Posted by trainman

Maybe they did fix it at one point, but then they un-fixed it for the restored version.

There are quite a few animation mistakes in "A Charlie Brown Christmas," most notably a varying number of branches on the little tree Charlie Brown picks out, but they've never fixed those.

Don't get started with Charlie Brown Christmas. They only had about 5 minutes to produce it so there's more mistakes than Star Wars. The difference is the producers don't have a Charlie Brown Christmas: Special Edition. :P

Greg

[windracer]

Originally Posted by gchance

The difference is the producers don't have a Charlie Brown Christmas: Special Edition. :P

They sorta do ... I don't watch that extra half-hour they tacked on a few years ago.

[anom]

Originally Posted by windracer

They sorta do ... I don't watch that extra half-hour they tacked on a few years ago.

I think that's just a seperate Charlie Brown Christmas show entirely, that they added on so you wouldn't feel so stupid for buying an entire DVD for one 25 minute special (like I did).

I agree that the bonus show is lame.

[doom1701]

Originally Posted by zaknafein

Why fix it? That's ostensibly the way it was originally produced.

It's quirky. Maybe they just did it to mess with people's minds.

I'll add to this that it's not just something that could be "fixed"--especially if the mistake was not noticed during filming. We're so used to this idea that you can CGI out little mistakes like this. Apparently it was shot in Japan, probably on film, in the 1960's. Reshooting would have been expensive, and the technology to just "fix" the image didn't exist at the time.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by anom

I think that's just a seperate Charlie Brown Christmas show entirely, that they added on so you wouldn't feel so stupid for buying an entire DVD for one 25 minute special (like I did).

I agree that the bonus show is lame.

There are actually two different things.

The "separate special" is It's Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown; I assume it was made to have a Peanuts Christmas special with the newer characters (for example, Peppermint Patty, Marcie, and Woodstock). The one joke I remember from the show is Sally saying something about "Hark! The Harold Angel Sings," and then some boy named Harold Angel shows up at the end.

However, ABC shows something else after their airings of A Charlie Brown Christmas; I haven't seen it in years, but from what I remember about it, it's pretty much just a series of 3-5 minute "stories" taken almost word for word from the comic strips. (Then again, there's nothing new about that; a bit of It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown came from the strips.)

(Speaking of the specials, do the existing versions of Charlie Brown's All-Stars still have the part where they can't join the "real" league because they have girls on the team, despite the fact that Little League Baseball was forced to get rid of this restriction 30 years ago?)

-- Don

[trainman]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

However, ABC shows something else after their airings of A Charlie Brown Christmas; I haven't seen it in years, but from what I remember about it, it's pretty much just a series of 3-5 minute "stories" taken almost word for word from the comic strips. (Then again, there's nothing new about that; a bit of It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown came from the strips.)

I remember that because I closed-captioned it.

It's called "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tales," and it's about 17 minutes long -- its entire raison d'etre is so ABC can air "A Charlie Brown Christmas" unedited, because the whole block together comes out to an hour with commercials. (If not for "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tales," they'd either have to let "A Charlie Brown Christmas" run over the half-hour mark, edit about 3 minutes out of it, or cut down on the amount of commercials.)

Some of the content of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" comes from the strips, too, although it's a bit more "organic" than "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tales" and the other recently produced specials. Those are all taken verbatim from strips because the Schulz family won't let anyone else write for the "Peanuts" characters (not that the animated show producers are really willing to, anyway).

[Idearat]

Raging Rudolph spoiled me for the old fashioned one.

[newsposter]

wait, there are continuity errors in charlie brown?

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by trainman

Some of the content of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" comes from the strips, too, although it's a bit more "organic" than "Charlie Brown's Christmas Tales" and the other recently produced specials. Those are all taken verbatim from strips because the Schulz family won't let anyone else write for the "Peanuts" characters (not that the animated show producers are really willing to, anyway).

You're right about the strips and A Charlie Brown Christmas - Sally's "tens and twenties" letter to Santa comes to mind.

Even when Schulz was alive, I don't think he had anything to do with the TV specials (except maybe for the earliest ones) - he made it quite clear that he would have never allowed "the little red-haired girl" to appear or have a name if he had any control over It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown (or Happy New Year, Charlie Brown, where she appears again).

-- Don

[cheerdude]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058536/goofs - Rudolph goofs

[trainman]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

Even when Schulz was alive, I don't think he had anything to do with the TV specials (except maybe for the earliest ones) - he made it quite clear that he would have never allowed "the little red-haired girl" to appear or have a name if he had any control over It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown (or Happy New Year, Charlie Brown, where she appears again).

Personally, I'm hoping he had absolutely no input on "You're in the Superbowl, Charlie Brown," the most execrable of the specials (the misspelled title is only the beginning).

His name's on all of the specials as the writer, but I don't know how much he actually wrote, versus how much Bill Melendez et al. had. Maybe the animated appearance of the LRHG is explained in that recently published biography of him that I'm hoping to get for Christmas.

[5thcrewman]

The extra 'M' is silent!

[getreal]

Originally Posted by 5thcrewman

The extra 'M' is silent!

More like the second "M" is invisible.

[biker]

You probably could ask this guy. http://www.tvparty.com/xmasrudolph.html