Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers

Lonely Island's whole stock and trade is snarky satire. Whatever you give them, they're going to make it into a snarky satire.

It's not a matter of "give it to these guys and see what they come up with," because you know what they're going to come up with, based on everything else they've done. That was in fact my biggest issue with this movie, that it's not really about Chip and Dale and the Rescue Rangers, it's about Lonely Island doing their usual thing after being given the Rescue Rangers to play with. You could literally plug any other franchise into it and it'd work for what they came up with. You could substitute freakin' Rainbow Brite if you wanted to. The only reason they don't use a bigger, better known franchise is because most of those are still being exploited in some way, or were when this film's production started (imagine it with Voltron, or Transformers, or Thundercats, or He-Man, or Ninja Turtles)—well, that, and Disney was footing the bill, so they had to use a Disney property.

Edited by Robbery on May 29th 2022 at 5:11:55 AM

Eh, not really. Looney Tunes: Back in Action isn't as ambitious as Roger Rabbit, but at least it tries to be a good movie. It's not a ninety-minute shitpost. It doesn't have any major plot holes (if Peter Pan grew up, why is Cubby the Lost Boy still a child?) or cameos from cartoons full of racism, transphobia and/or close-ups of children's genitals. It's not an artless orgy of IP flexing with a cynical Space Whale Aesop. And, c'mon, there's nothing in Rescue Rangers that's half as funny or clever as the Louvre scene in Back in Action. Give Joe Dante his due.

The closest thing to Rescue Rangers is Space Jam: A New Legacy, imho. And that's only slightly more awful.

As for a "real" Roger Rabbit sequel, I think it absolutely can (and should!) be done. Like I said, it's my favorite fictional universe and I've always wanted more. The Toon Platoon had a fantastic script and could've been an Even Better Sequel if Steven Spielberg didn't get cold feet. As long as Disney doesn't get any bright ideas like casting Josh fucking Gad as Eddie, the potential will always be there.

Chris Pratt as Eddie Valiant.

Edited by GlitterCat on May 29th 2022 at 7:02:17 AM

Who's the guy who plays the muggle in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them?, the guy Queenie is in love with? He could convincingly play Eddie Valiant.

And it's still not a Roger Rabbit sequel(I wouldn't even bother to call it a Spiritual Successor, honestly). It's its own thing, just in a similar genre. While the actual designs don't mesh well... that's pretty clearly intended, as they aren't really meant to in context of the movie's overall design.

But yeah, it being a shitpost makes a lot of sense. Just a fun movie and that's it. I'm glad to see Ugly Sonic reused, though. I honestly did overall like the design(just needed a few improvements).

I'll have to watch it soon, but so far, it just sounds like fun nonsense to me after reading this topic and seeing bits and pieces via previews or a scene or two.

Dan Fogler. He would honestly be perfect.

I disagree. If anything, this movie puts so much effort into trying to be a lampshade hanging on the entire filmmaking industry that after watching it I expected it to alienate its target audience, as it seemed geared towards more hardcore fans who know all the things its exploring.

Given the generally positive reviewing and reception, it seems I was wrong about that. But of all the things right and wrong about this film, the one thing I definitely wouldn't use as a criticism is that there was no effort put into what it was trying to do. It's pretty clear that there was, to the contrary, more effort than it really needed to have.

I dunno. If the only difference is just the specific eras the films are using as the font of their story, it doesn't feel like enough of a distinction to outweigh all the other thematic and writing similarities between the two films. To me, it seems pretty obvious that this film wanted to do the same kind of thing as Roger Rabbit, but in its own direction.

Edited by KnownUnknown on May 30th 2022 at 1:46:45 AM

Wait, really? I kinda thought he did those books for the money. Or maybe I just assumed that?

But then what was all that commotion with Disney losing the copyright to Roger Rabbit earlier this year all about?

Didn't Spielberg get cold feet because he just got out of Schindler's List by then? And Nazis aren't exactly a laughing matter for him? Or am I mistaken about that too?

Yeah, I can see it. Or if not Eddie himself, then at least his descendant if they want to go 21st century.

I don't want a 21st-century Roger Rabbit. The period setting is an important part of the appeal, and I don't want the movie to turn into an ad for whatever's popular at the time. One thing they could do is set it in the 1960s, with a story about the death of theatrical cartoons and the onset of TV. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with Toons, basically. (There's actually a comic with a similar premise, but I've never read it and don't necessarily want an adaptation.)

That's exactly why Spielberg got cold feet. I wish he hadn't, though; it was a cracking good script. And in the end, the Nazi villain dies when Blackie Cat crosses his path and a piano falls on his head. Comedy gold!

Edited by ThriceCharming on May 30th 2022 at 8:29:07 AM

Director Akiva Schaffer's comment that Monty, Gadget, and Zipper weren't in the movie more because they felt shoehorned into the plot should linger with us long after we forget everything else about this joyless stinker. "We felt that The Rescue Rangers were being shoehorned into the Rescue Rangers movie" is an attitude that neatly encapsulates the problems with the worst reboots/reimaginings out there.

That's why I'm wondering why they even made this a Rescue Rangers movie if they wanted to go this meta direction. They could've used literally any characters for this story, which is why I think it should've used original characters like Roger Rabbit or Wreck-it Ralph did.

Original characters require considerably more effort ,its easier to work with pre existing character they already own

As far as I see it, it is a misconception/mistake to think of it as a "Rescue Rangers" movie.

This is a "Chip and Dale" movie. One where they become the "Rescue Rangers" for real and not just on stage.

This is a movie about this entire world, using Chip and Dale as the ones we follow through it to explore.

And in that regard, the title is very accurate.

It is "Chip and Dale" acting as the "Rescue Rangers" in the world itself.

The real main character, is the world itself.

Not just these two chipmunks.

Edited by TitanJump on May 31st 2022 at 5:25:12 PM

Please. If the execs didn't want people to be upset that the movie piggybacked off the Rescue Rangers name recognition while being practically In Name Only, they could have not made a movie that does that in the first place, but we live in a world where they did.

That is some of the best (Which is to say worst) corporate doubletalk I've seen in a while.

Also, this film seems to think Chip n Dale were invented for Rescue Rangers and doesn't seem to realize they were created back in the forties.

The leak where Pluto was the villain would have been better, cause at least then it would have felt like a chip and dale movie.

I disagree, mostly because Pluto is a significantly harder sell - even in an Animated Actors reimagining - as a bad guy than Peter is.

Also, it probably comes down to the same reason they chose not to have the in-universe actor playing Fat Cat be the villain. It’s low hanging fruit, and undercuts the Animated Actors angle entirely.

I agree, the Pluto idea was a million times better. Not only does it tie the story to the golden age of animation, actually acknowledging Chip and Dale's decades-long career prior to 1983, it provides a funny answer to the infamous Pluto/Goofy question. And sells the Animated Actors shtick even better by introducing a major dose of Nice Character, Mean Actor.

Also, more Roger Rabbit character cameos with the Toon Patrol weasels. I was really looking forward to seeing them.

But of course, Pluto is much more marketable than Peter Pan, so Disney can't have him playing the villain. They have cuddly plush toys to sell.

Blech.

Edited by ThriceCharming on May 31st 2022 at 1:59:21 PM

They could have made him Bluto, Pluto's stunt double.

Of all the Duos from the Disney Afternoon, Timon and Pumbaa would've worled the best for this movie, since their cartoon was already pretty zany. It also would've made more sense for them to have been kids in the 80s since Chip and Dale existed since the 1940s (although having the toons be kids and age creates more problems for long running franchises)

OMG, it'd be so hilarious to imagine the original 2D Timon and the CGI Pumbaa from the 2019 remake running around together. (Though that would raise the question as to why Timon didn't get the CGI upgrade too, unless they cast an acting double in the remake.)

Edited by MrMediaGuy2 on Jun 1st 2022 at 10:00:24 AM

Though Timon & Puumbaa already had a madcap buddy adventure film in which they lampooned the media and company they starred in.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Jun 1st 2022 at 11:54:25 AM

Funnily enough, given the boost in popularity they got, but apparently Ugly Sonic wasn't actually in the original version. It was originally planned to be Jar Jar Binks.

https://comicbook.com/movies/amp/news/chip-n-dale-rescue-rangers-reveals-ugly-sonic-replaced-another-controversial-character/

Edited by jakobitis on Jun 5th 2022 at 10:10:40 AM

I honestly would've preferred that, mostly because Jar Jar has been well-known as a hated character for two decades, whereas Ugly Sonic just felt like an attempt to cash in on a three year-old meme, so that probably would've made the film feel slightly more timeless.