Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers

It could be, if the ability to produce good writing existed within the Disney corporation. The odds of that happening are basically "act of God".

But shit, I would have loved an actual reboot of the show—hence the movie making fun of my stupid ass or something?

I said that up above because Rescue Rangers as a semi-serious animal hero cartoon was the bomb.

I don't think this movie has a negative opinion of a Rescue Rangers reboot. In fact it doesn't really have an opinion on reboots other than "they exist". It definitely doesn't mock people for wanting one.

Chip is against a reboot because he doesn't want anything to do with Dale, but even then he says at the end that he's open to doing it.

For me it was a clear example of the half-assed self-deprecating humor Disney has become a specialist of. "Look, we know that it's greedy of us to make reboots of old licenses to keep the rights and get money, haha...yeah we'll keep doing it."

Reminds me of Chief Bogo's speech where he lampshades all the Disney Princess tropes and ends with "let it go" - and I say that as somebody who thinks Zootopia was one of the best movies of the decade.

Seconded.

If anything, the movie’s stance on reboots comes off as “reboots should happen, but only if everyone involved is invested in a positive way.”

Of all the many things in Hollywood the movie mocks, reboots themselves aren’t really one of them. Tbh, the film is harsher on spin-offs than it is on reboots themselves.

Edited by KnownUnknown on May 24th 2022 at 9:02:07 AM

That's fair Reboots aren't necessarily bad always, is a case-by-case basis, they even admit they can be good sometimes.

YourMovieSucks.org did a review of the movie that matches my opinion of it better than any other review I've seen.

The Chip n Dale review is at 6:10.

Edited by MrMediaGuy2 on May 25th 2022 at 1:57:38 AM

I don’t know, I can’t really hate this movie. I had fun with it, even if it obviously wasn’t that good in certain aspects.

So I found an interview where the director reveals the villain was originally going to be Charlie Brown instead of Peter Pan.

Considering what happened to HIS original voice actor, that probably would've been just as distasteful.

I still remember Batman and the Incredible Hulk talking about that on that one video from I'm a Marvel and I'm a DC.

Hulk: Reboots learn from mistakes.
Batman: Such as?
Hulk: Hulk poodle.
Batman: Bat nipples.
Hulk: Too dark and depressing.
Batman: Not dark and depressing enough.
Hulk: Not enough like old TV show.
Batman: Too much like the old TV show.
Hulk: Too slow, not enough action, Hulk not have decent villain fight.
Batman: This:
Mr. Freeze: Let's kick some ice!

I'm going to go against the grain and I suspect the writers weren't actually parodying Bobby Driscoll but it was just a horrifying coincidence.

Because it turns out a LOT of voice actors and child actors have horrible ends.

They should have stuck with Pluto.

I still doubt that Disney would have actually allowed that.

> I'm going to go against the grain and I suspect the writers weren't actually parodying Bobby Driscoll but it was just a horrifying coincidence.

I think they were but they assumed people wouldn't give a damn.

I second that. Unless you specifically go for a real-life reference with your animated or video game character, they should be treated as separate entities.

Especially since voice actors tend to be even more prolific than live ones. I absolutely do not wish that in any way, but imagine something dramatic happened to Nolan North or Jennifer Hale - we're talking hundreds of virtual characters you suddenly have to be super careful about because of something that would be entirely unrelated to their design.

Plus for better or worse, only a very tiny minority of people are aware of and or/care about the identity of voice actors. Not in this place obviously, but in the rest of the world.

Also, there are fewer and fewer "one character = one voice actor" situations now since most new shows tend to be multilingual at release. That makes it even easier to separate them.

Edited by Bexlerfu on May 26th 2022 at 1:38:33 PM

Have any of the filmmakers acknowledged the Peter Pan controversy? I really hope at least one of them realizes what poor taste their portrayal was.

This seems like the most insane thing that could ever happen to Disney characters, just looking at this film.

I mean, the ONLY thing that could top this is if, I don't know, there was a Slasher Movie with Winnie The Pooh.

Right?

One huge problem this movie has is that the CG characters like Dale, Ugly Sonic and the German snake (?) don't look like Toons, they just look like fake live-action things. You can't tell me that CG characters in other media, like Jar Jar Binks and the big octopus monster from Multiverse of Madness, are supposed to be Toons. Taking this universe out of its original period setting was a terrible idea. The fact that the few actual 2D Toons are rendered so poorly (some of them aren't even shaded, so they look Photoshopped into the frame) doesn't help.

I hope to God that an actual sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit comes along soon enough, so I can forget about Chip n' Dale.

Okay, as someone who thinks Roger Rabbit is a fantastic movie, and far better than Chip and Dale, I don’t think the movies were meant to be compared, per se. Roger Rabbit focuses specifically on the relation between humans and toons, and that’s just not a theme explored here, not even with the human character. I think what this is trying to be is a shitpost movie that doesn’t take any aspect of its story seriously at all, and in that category, it does decently, if unremarkably.

Edited by TalesofUnder on May 28th 2022 at 4:26:27 PM

Yeah, when you get guys like The Lonely Island to do your live-action/animated movie, I would not think the main goal was to outdo the likes of Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, and Richard Williams in terms of shaking what's possible with animation and cinema in general.

And speaking of a Roger Rabbit sequel...is that even possible at this point? Richard Williams and Bob Hoskins passed on some time ago, Spielberg is probably very close to retiring (I think?), and Zemeckis is still probably trying to bring motion capture back. So a hypothetical sequel would have to be done by uber hot shot fans who actually know how important Who Framed Roger Rabbit was in general to give it the respect it requires while also not being afraid to do something fresh with it.

Worse, I think there's some kind of effort by the author (or his family?) of Who Censored Roger Roger Rabbit (yeah kids, that 80s movie about cartoons and humans was based on a book!) to net the copyright of Roger Rabbit out from Disney, so even if there was a RR sequel or reboot from a different studio, it probably won't have the same punch or emotion as WFRR did.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on May 29th 2022 at 11:14:50 AM

I dunno. The original author has written two sequels that are set in the universe of the movie rather than his own novel, because he actually liked the movie's take better than his own.

Oh, Rescue Rangers is definitely endeavoring to be a Spiritual Sequel to Roger Rabbit, engaging the industry in much the same way and utilizing its premise to lampoon much of the same real life oddities of animation.

That said, the mentality of "X film is a great film, ergo Y other film trying to do something similar must be awful - because only one thing can be good at a time" is a really destructive way of looking at film that should go away.

We're not saying you can't make another Roger Rabbit-style film. As a big fan of that film, I would love to see a modern-day equivalent to it with all the heart and soul.

The problem with this film is that it wants to be Roger Rabbit, but has only a small fraction of the effort put into it.

Does it *really* want to be Roger Rabbit, though? Roger Rabbit is a loving homage and tribute to animation while mixing it with film noir. It's Chinatown meets Disney.

Rescue Rangers is a satire of modern trends in Hollywood. It's not an homage to an older era. The only thing it has in common with Roger Rabbit is the medium blending, the plethora of characters from various franchises and companies, and the film noir aspects. That's it.

Rescue Rangers is more like that Looney Tunes movie with Brendan Frasier, if anything. Not everything with animation and live action is Roger Rabbit.

Nowhere near as bad Loony toons unleashed,that film is genuinely bad