Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers

In other words, very similar to the reactions Ralph Breaks the Internet and Sausage Party got when they were first released.

I will say one thing,it can't be worse then the space jam movie which was somehow 2 hours long

What I'm trying to figure out is what was up with that 4chan post...namely the fact that it was half-true instead of all-true or all-false. They were right about the human character Ellie, the toon upgrading machine, the villain getting turned into an abomination, etc. But everything else ended up being different. Also, there were two details that ended up being partially correct, even though there was no way to know about them at the time, namely the villain being named Mean Dean (that's what they called him in the subtitles of the second trailer, before it turned out his name was Sweet Pete in the final film), and Chip getting his ear replaced with a black dog ear (which was a very subtle detail in the first trailer that 99% of people watching missed, though it turned out to be a Snoopy ear in the final film instead of Pluto's ear).

Did this user see an early cut of the film that was different from the final cut? (Even though the time between test screenings and release was too short to completely rework it that drastically.) Did they just make it up, and if so, how come they kept some real details while leaving out the false ones?

They likely just saw an early draft of the script.

"Sweet Pete" must've been a pretty late change, since the second trailer still called him "Mean Dean".

On another note, someone pointed out how Ugly Sonic looks a lot like Ken Penders and now I can't unsee it. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not.

Edited by lbssb on May 21st 2022 at 6:10:13 AM

How much of what they claimed accurately wasn’t in the trailers? Seems like most of what they claimed could be found in them, if briefly.

Pretty sure it was posted before the second trailer revealed Ellie and "Mean Dean", unless the user somehow had a leak of the second trailer.

Saw it. It's fine, tasteless Bobby Driscoll allusion aside. I definitely would've preferred it if they'd given the rest of the Rescue Rangers crew a little more screen time instead of having Ugly Sonic save the day, but whatever.

The Gadget/Zipper vitriol from the fandom reveals so many young fans' secret crush on the Wrench Wench mouse.

:)

My wife: Secret?

Here's another oddity I noticed: before the film released, there were conflicting sources on this wiki's trivia page saying that either Corey Burton would reprise his role as Zipper, or Dennis Haysbert would voice him instead. I asked on the fact checking thread which was true, and was told to remove both because they were speculative.

However, they both ended up being true, which makes me wonder how that troper knew Haysbert would voice Zipper.

Sorry for the double-post, but here's another oddity I realized.

Apparently that clip in the beginning of them using Circling Birdies to distract Fat Cat was NOT an actual episode of the series, but a fake episode made specifically for the movie...and yet it looks spot-on like an actual episode despite being animated in the 2020s. Which studio provided that animation, and why couldn't they use that for the 2D characters instead of cel-shaded CGI?

Ease of labor or something perhaps?

As a longtime Rescue Rangers fan, my reaction ended up being "yeah no."

My reaction basically can be summarized as, "A reboot of Rescue Rangers, sounds awesome! Like the Duck Tales one!"

Movie: "Aren't reboots stupid! A Rescue Rangers one would be ridiculous!"

I just finished watching the film and I'd give it an 8.5/10. The Reference Overdosed nature of the film could be a turn off for some people and some of the jokes don't land, but I would say it's a lot better than I expected.

I'm confident it won't age very well, since a lot of the references like Ugly Sonic and the Seth Rogen characters are specific meta in-jokes that require you to be familiar with what's being referenced in order to make sense. How many future audiences do you think will be confused by these references years from now?

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is still a popular movie nearly four decades later because it doesn't rely on specific meta in-jokes like that in order to make sense. Let's imagine a hypothetical version of Roger Rabbit that's set in the eighties when it was released instead of the forties. Imagine if it had a scene where Fievel is mocking Basil and telling him that Don Bluth is beating Disney, or Kaa is hypocritically mocking Winnie the Pooh for his odd-sounding voice, or that kind of thing. Sure, it'd be funny to an animation nerd like you or me, but it would be confusing to your average mainstream movie viewer who takes films at face value and doesn't think about the meta stuff too much.

...I don't honestly know if I want to watch this. I already know the best thing to come of it was the Rescue Rangers marathon and I'm reasonably certain I'll just spend the whole movie wishing I was watching a reboot of that a la DuckTales.

I really resonated with the last ten seconds or so of the movie.

It wasn't bad. It wasn't great, probably not even good, but it was funny enough to carry me through the movie.

That was better than I expected. That's also ages away from the quality of recent Disney animated movies. It leans too much on the jokes and not enough on the plot. And it's not The Emperor's New Groove, aka funny enough to make the plot totally irrelevant.

Okay, I know that it's something perilous to try and talk objectively about humor which is by essence extremely different for everyone, but I get the feeling this movie was a bit too all over the place when it comes to types of humor. You had a ton of pop-culture references, some slapstick, some meta, and a lot of Andy Samberg punchlines. None of these are inherently more or less funny than others, but when you mash all together it's likely you will enjoy some types more than others, and it might feel disjointed.

As an example, I did not see much of the original TV Show (maybe a couple episodes when I was 7 or something), so all the jokes referencing it fell flat for me. And I did not have all the animation references.

It was entertaining, but one of the movies referenced in here (Wreck-it Ralph, unless I'm mistaken it's actually referenced twice) is a hundred times better than that one with a broadly similar theme. Also, obviously, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is infinitely superior.

I think I'd rather have it been more adventure-themed, kind of like the Jumanji reboots. And it should have featured the original cast, not just Chip and Dale. Because while I really do like him, that was just Andy Samberg in a chipmunk suit (and an ugly one too, Chip looked way better - I know that it was a reference to new animation styles but you shouldn't commit to a joke if it just makes your movie look like ass).

Edit: Another thing I really don't understand is them going for "original characters" for three villains. It would have been much better if Bob, Jimmy and Putty were actual existing characters.

The worst offender is Jimmy the bear. A white bear, from the early 2000s, who would have an incredible excuse to end up a henchman because his movie failed? That's basically Iorek Byrnison.

Edited by Bexlerfu on May 22nd 2022 at 7:48:28 PM

Just saw it. Quite enjoyable. Once it hit me that it was a sent-up to Roger Rabbit, I eased into it far more readily than I was expecting.

It’s interesting how much more animation knowledge this film expects the audience to understand than Roger, though. It endeavors to be more of a time capsule to how the industry functions, which makes it also fairly engaging on an animation enthusiast level as well.

I was surprised at how endearing Chip and Dale’s characterizations were compared to other contemporary films that did the same idea. I was expecting - at best - something like Sonic 1’s characterizations, but ended up with something like Sonic 2’s silly and parodic but heartfelt characterizations.

And yes, we do want Darkwing.

Does the film take place in the same universe as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, or is Who Framed Roger Rabbit a film in-universe? In the latter case, the Roger Rabbit appearing in this film is an animated actor who played an animated actor in his own film...

Edited by Snicka on May 23rd 2022 at 5:10:07 PM

DIP exists in this movie.

So either it is a really effective prop, or the real thing that was shown in the Rabbit one...

I think it's safe to assume this is the actual future of the Roger Rabbit world.

It’s either the future of Roger’s world or a world intended to be be a similar as possible.

The big difference is that rather than being drawn (at least for the most part), toons appear to be born and grow up like normal people.

Also, while Dip exists here the villain doesn’t use it to try and kill the heroes, opting for an eraser instead, implying that there’s more than one way to kill a toon here.

The heavily researched, undisputed, factual timeline on how we got here:

I still think that an actual Rescue Rangers reboot would be good, no matter what the movie says. Duck Tales's original series was a classic and the reboot was really popular.