Animation Source Forums

Have you ever wandered why Charlie looks a bit younger in the second movie than the first?Could the reason why he looks younger is because Annabell gave Charlie another chance at life on Earth instead of making him start a new life when he is old?Tell me how you think or feel about this because this has been on my mind for sometime now^

I think the reason why he lookes like that, is becuase he wanted to look young again once he got back to heaven

i think if there is heaven you would apeal to be younger to a stage in life you liked, and maybe Charlie was made younger like any of the other dogs. did you see any young or old dogs? no. all were young adulted so i guess thats just the casual age when you go to heaven, and when he went back to earth so did his age of being young. Thats my guess.. but if you want to be logical then the animators are similar so it aint 100% same

Well there are some old dogs in heaven in the movie but not on Earth.I just wanted to point that out

I think the most likely answer is they redesigned Charlie's face to look more like Charlie Sheen and less like Burt Reynolds, who is much older. It's not uncommon for an animator to try and make match ups in features for characters and voice actors so they can better match the mannerisms of the character to the actor. The overall change in animation studio and budget would also cause some change in the characters looks but I think simply they had to match Charlie with a younger voice actor so he looks younger.

What Misfit said.
That and it was'nt Bluth's team that worked on the 2nd film, so they drew him the way they wanted.
Also, as Misfit said again, it was in the budget to not go into full detail as well...

It's not just his looks, he acts alot younger too. (To appeal to a younger crowd, unfortunately.) He makes silly childish mistakes a normal adult (and experienced businessman, might I add) would not make (hence, actually believing a magic act performed by a child runaway in the 90's would actually be successful.) They make it so, hey, he never learned from his mistakes in the first movie.

As far as appearances go, here's some samples of concept art of Charlie taken from Balto's Animation Gallery.


http://balto.rubberslug.com/gallery/img ... 3453&Pass=


http://balto.rubberslug.com/gallery/img ... 3726&Pass=

As you can see, they kept his basic build. His legs are the same length (for the most part) and his face is shaped the same.

But what makes him look younger? Aside from making his fur color a brighter shade and less coarse, its simply the lack of lines on his face. Every artist knows that the more lines you put on a figure (in this case their face) the older they appear to be (many artists actually leave creases of the skin out on younger figures' faces in order to give them a younger appearance.)

For Charlie, alot of the lines on his nose and under his eyes are missing. Even the mole on his cheek is gone. If those lines were added back into Charlie's design, he'd look around the same age.

But as far as the movie's concerned, maybe being in Heaven put him back at a desired age for him, but if thats the case, in the first movie Charlie seemed pretty satisfied with his age there. And why wouldn't he be? He was still a fairly good-lookin' guy, still physically fit, had experience and all that.

Funny how they forgot the mole... shepards have that dot naturally...

Zenoah--yeah I know and I liked the older Charlie better myself

Yeah I prefer Charlie's design in the 1st film more. I guess I prefer the design more because I kinda grew up knowing that Charlie.

The one problem I have with the Charlie in the second movie is the two black spots on his cheeks. Taking them away doesn't make him look younger it just makes him look different. Besides that the color tone in the second is a little lighter so in a way he does look a little bit younger in the second movie.

This sounds new to me. I've never thought there was a reason behind the changes of his design, but it could be truth.

To pretty much copycat the others, I think that's because either it's a forced process or he wanted to look that way. People say that when you go to Heaven you pretty much return to former glory, the state you were in your most prime. However, what you have to remember in ADGTH, is that Charlie never actually made it to Heaven. He was sort of in the sign up stage, and they never got his pawprint or anything. Sure he actually got in at the end of the film, maybe it's a process that takes a certain amount of time.

To make it short, he didn't fully go to heaven, he got to heaven, he may have decided on an age where he was more in his prime, and it stuck.

To say they want to make him look like he was in his prime. The fact is that he died whe he was just about 2. In the heaven scene it showed he was born I believe, September 13th, 1937 (Don Bluth's b-day). So when he died in 1939 he would've been 1 or 2 years old. So he would've been in his prime. He never did live a full life. Just to reiderate what I said earlier I think they just made him look younger because they wanted to.

That makes a LOT more sense. But then its like we have this question... So he went to Heaven and came back to life, to learn a valuable lesson... only to go to heaven, come back to life, and learn it all over again? That's silly xD



The thing with different people making different sequels is, they're not /your/ characters (figuratively). Even Steven Spielberg kept Feivel and the rest of his family in character when he made Feivel Goes West, the sequel to An American Tale.

But as for his age... where does it say he died in 1939? Cuz he seemed waaaaay older than 2 when he died. He seemed more like 7. Two years isn't that old for a dog, and we've discussed what makes him look older in comparison to the "new" version of him.