Hi. So I just wanna ask if you've seen the most recent episode of the Owl House? I'm asking, because that show (which is a Disney show) just allowed an LGBTQ kiss between some main characters in the series. I won't give it away for the sake of spoilers, but just wondering if you were aware of that.
It kinda really bugs me how some people are saying this is the closest we’ll ever get to another Roger Rabbit movie. Like I get having animated characters living in the real world makes people automatically connected it to Roger Rabbit. But there was so much more to that movie than just animation mixed with live action and cameos.
I thought it was similar to Roger Rabbit not just because of the mystery and adult themes, but the problem was toon focused, similar to the DIP in the other film, which also shows up in the movie.
@@artloveranimation But DIP was an ACTUAL THREAT to toons. He wanted to WIPE IT OFF THE MAP. Here they're still ALIVE but just bootlegged that substantially lowers the stakes.
@@bismarku Why is it considered a crime that people enjoy something you don't? you don't find it humorous, that's more than okay, but why should you feel like the one who's on the right and look down at the people who don't think like you?
@@bismarku I get what you’re saying, but Ugly Sonic isn’t just mentioned. He has a whole new personality which fits the character a lot. If you only mention established media, it can be boring, but if you tell a story with that established media, then it can be really fun.
I feel like they could've easily used the character Oswald the lucky rabbit instead of Peter Pan. It might've actually fit better, the rights to his character were lost and he was replaced by Mickey Mouse. Despite Disney getting the rights back to the character, he's made very few appearances. Maybe have his motivation be he's resentful for being replacing with "the mouse".
But Peter Pan is much more recognisable as a character. What’s Oswald appeared in, in the last few decades? A couple of games where he’s playing second fiddle next to Mickey Mouse and… what else?
I get everybody's point about the voices, but honestly, I think there was a point where they had to make a choice: do they risk fan backlash, or do they risk the voices being obnoxious and grating to everyone else. I think they chose wisely
I first saw it as a ploy to get people to watch it, “hey two big names are playing Chip and Dale, you like these people. Maybe you’ll like the movie” But after the jab at Alvin and the Chipmunks I realised I did not want to hear squeaky Chip and Dale for however long the movie was. Been a few months since I watched it now and yeah, I still feel the same way about that
To be fair, the plots to a lot of these sorts of films are kinda basic. Even “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” wasn’t much of a mystery - I mean, it was pretty obvious that Doom was the main culprit.
I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie despite being put off by its initial premise (I still hope we get a LEGIT Rescue Rangers reboot sometime...) My only complaint is that I felt like the other Rangers were sidelined too much in the movie (barely being in it) and while Gadget is my favorite character I do understand SOME of the complaints about her and Zipper's relationship... although I find hilarious at how mad some people are getting. XD
Same here. What really made me like this movie more is that the writers were asking the question, "Do people want this?", and how that bled into the script. Remember this was originally supposed to be a straight forward live action cg hybrid movie like Alvin and the Chipmunks. That and the fact Disney was on board for basically 99% percent of everything they wrote despite the budget.
I personally liked it, one thing that was off-putting to me tho was the washed up Peter Pan villain thing. The voice actor for Pan, Bobby Driscoll had a very parallel experience with losing fame once he wasn’t young and cute and he had a hard life before he overdosed at 31. It felt really wrong in my gut knowing all that.
I think the parallels were unavoidable, given that a former child star was the idea they were going for. I mean, originally, they were going to use Charlie Brown for the role, but that would’ve only brought up parallels with his original voice actor’s rough life. It’s unavoidable in this internet age.
Honestly I thought that joke was kind of funny in a dark humor sort of way. That kind of thing happens with child stars all the time, it's nothing new or unique to that one actor. People love to get offended at everything.
I think you brought up a really good point that I'd been struggling to put into words. It feels like the fact of who made it kind of neuters a lot of the concepts the movie was trying to go for. You mentioned it sometimes before, but meta jokes seem like a go-to breed of humor lately to try and appeal to older audiences, but I feel like this movie and a lot of others recently fall into the trap of thinking that meta-humor is just pointing out things. It's a similar problem with reference humor. More often than not, the joke becomes 'this thing exists' without actually saying anything about it or making any kind of real joke. Especially regarding copyright, as you said, it's hard to make a joke about that when you're the ones doing it unrepentantly, and to me at least the bootleg aspect felt like it was trying to make you feel bad for a multi-billion media conglomerate that hoards IP's losing money. It feels like the movie is trying to bring up clever and insightful concepts but doesn't actually say or do anything beyond 'this is a thing that exists.' There's no real substance to it under the surface.
I completely agree with this review except the Sweet Pete part. Having him be the villain is a bit more interesting, although the final transformation could've had a little more cartoon callbacks. As for the Bobby Driscoll parallels, I think the writers were throwing shade at Disney for how they treated him before his tragic death. It's not uncommon for the writers of a Disney project to shade Disney. Les we forget that Owl House joke a few weeks ago...
If they wanted to throw shade they should of like... Not made him a complete irredeemable monster who gets defeated and locked up at the end? What kind of dig is that? It's like a Disney movie with evil sweatshop workers and saying that's a dig at Disney's merch being made with sweatshop labor.
It's not about Bobby Driscoll, guys! Have you seen interpretations in TV shows or movies make Peter Pan be the bad guy? I'm betting the writers decided to play it off as a joke in this movie. That whole thing you guys keep saying was probably not their intention.
@@revaslatts4301 it’s one thing to make Peter Pan the bad guy, it’s another to make the same Disney incarnation the bad guy and giving him the backstory of the VA
I like how the story literally hinges on Chip and Dale having been apart since Rescue Rangers ended when the two have appeared together in so many other things since then, including their own segment in one of the modern mickey shows and also all of the rescue rangers in ducktales '17
To be fair, this is a different universe where Toons exist and Batman fought ET. I don’t expect everything from our world happened also in their reality.
Eh, it’s a pretty low bar, and the the cel-shaded CG characters to fake 2D animation are off putting to me, when there are actual hand drawn 2D characters in the movie as well.
Yeah I wish they used 2D animation, the cell-shaded CGI looked fine in the scenes where they weren’t interacting with live action objects, but when they were it looked awkward and unnatural
What kinda drags the movie down is that Peter Pan is the villain and the controversial take on Peter Pan's original voice actor and yet, Disney knew what they did without a care. Aside from that, this movie is pretty alright.
The only thing that really bugs me is what they did to Bobby Discroll when introducing Peter Pan as the main villain. The fact that they made his backstory identical to the real life kid who played Peter Pan in the 1953 movie is tasteless. Disney threw Bobby Driscoll to the curb, and he ended up dying on the streets. And now, 50 years later, it's being used as a joke in a Disney movie. Apparently his actual worth meant nothing to them, but his story did. Real classy Disney.
It doesn’t ruin the movie for me, but yeah I have to agree that it didn’t really need to be a Chip n Dale movie. Heck I know this is kinda the joke they make at the end, but this could’ve easily been a Darkwing Duck movie.
"Just as long as you don't show two boys holding hands, or someone holding a tampon box". I nearly choked on my water laughing at this! Too true! What some groups get up in arms about, while giving passes to arguably more questionable things, will never cease to amaze and terrify me. :-/
definitely agree on the let the title characters be the stars, yes there is a human that is somewhat relevant, but is just one human and the one thing we know about her is she is from Albany and she is a cop because of the show, she is a side charcter, was it so hard to do that with other movies, make the humans side characters and not center half the plot around them, making it half romcom half animated movie
I was pretty amused when I found out that the cop lady was actually meant to appear in more scenes, but they were cut because test audiences hated them.
My biggest gripe with this movie is the craptacular writing. So much of it is bad observational humor and faux self affaisment jokes. The main actors phone-in all their lines, I'd much rather have Tress MacNeille and Corey Burton act them out, but they couldn't capitalize on their name draw. CGing Chip, Monty and Gadget was a travesty but completely understandable. They have to animate him for 24 frames a second and they don't have a live action protagonist to cut the work time, nor a crazy talented Richard Williams to helm the animation direction. 5/10, because I laughed at the JK Simmons joke, the Muppet joke and the Repunzel Barbie.
Eh, at the end of the day those things didn't really bother me while watching this. It was just looads of fun and that's all it was really trying to be.
I feel like there were a few people working on this movie who wanted to make the next Rodger rabbit and then every one else didn't get paid enough to care
This isn't really the movie's fault but I still CANNOT believe that we lost out on a Rescue Rangers / The Rescuers / Great Mouse Detective crossover reboot FOR THIS.
My main problem for a lot of these celebrity voice casted remake movies is simply the fact that often times they're put in roles of animated characters. Like the original VA who brought them to life is worthless and a replaceable cog that isn't worth their cash grab on star power even though many of these VA's make these characters. It's no different than celebrities being cast in singing rolls and being auto-tuned to the ends of the earth (Emma Watson from live action beauty and the beast) or can't act as they are so focused on hitting the notes (le mis reference here). Voice Actors and Musical Theater actors need to be respected and if a celb is cast the fact that many don't even try is an insult to the skill and work that many contribute to the original product. Also pay voice actors and those in every part of the animation industry the same as their live action counterparts T~T
I would honestly say I t’s the kind of film I wish Space Jam a new legacy was with how it leans more with the self aware tone and its commentary on the animation industry, and I say that as someone who enjoyed a new legacy.
One thing that was a little weird in this movie was how, according to Sweet Pete's backstory, Peter Pan: Return to Neverland never existed. And I think it would have worked to better flesh out his backstory if they had said it was a new kid named Peter, who looked similar enough to the original Peter Pan that they recast him.
My first reaction to Gadget/Zipper was: Wow. They found a way to shut EVERYONE up about Gadget. My second reaction: Don’t think about it. Don’t think about it. Don’t think about it.
the only thing i liked was ugly sonic, the thing i hated was Gadget getting with Zipper and having all those hybrid kids. it's not like Roger Rabbit and Jessica Rabbit and Human and Rabbit Toon It's like Velma getting with Scooby Doo...every type of wrong. good hearing her voice again, Tress MacNeille but not all the originals but not Jim Cummings as Monterey Jack, naaa not on board with that Also the ending felt cruel to the original voice artist of Peter Pan, Bobby Driscoll, dumped by Disney because of his acne, and died alone and abandoned. it's not meta, it's just felt disrespectful, unless one of the writers was highlighting how Disney screws over it's child stars, and was highlighting all of it. but i did like they touched on sharing the same name with a stripper group, that bit made me laugh
If the parallels with Driscoll were intentional, I didn’t seem like it was done out of malice. If anything, it just emphasizes the theme of the film, how former stars try to cope with rejection.
@Chasformer They only used Peter because they had legal access to the character. Originally, it was going to be Charlie Brown, but obtaining the rights would've been too much of a nightmare. But even if they did go with Charlie Brown, people still would've drawn the comparisons between the character and the tragic story behind his original actor. You just can't avoid scrutiny these days.
@@BE-fw1lr From what I've read, the parallels might've been unintentional. The idea of an immortal kid becoming an aging former star seemed to be the direction they were aiming for. I mean, that's one of the reasons why they were going to use Charlie Brown originally.
I wouldn’t be so hard on this movie if it didn’t feel so cynical. Just shove all these characters in a movie and slap “Rescue Rangers,” on the title because why not? Also that whole thing with Peter Pan genuinely makes me sick. I’m sure like you said it’s better overall. But all that just leaves too bad a taste in my mouth to just ignore.
@@rachaelk5567 No. I am actually referring to when Doug Walker made characters for Demo Reel based off of IRL actors with traumatic histories. To be clear: he was also tactless in his own way, but he at least made it clear that he was sympathetic to their trauma. Disney in the meantime I feel was pretty tasteless. At best, it was a toothless roast at dead executives whose heirs had final say on the script. At worst, its a crass attempt at mining history for comedy. ...In my opinion. I don't feel like arguing with any Disney stans who might be reading tonight and I do not want to die on a hill for Doug Walker -_-
@7:09 "You could have technically exchanged Chip 'n Dale for another nostalgic duo or even a completely fabricated IP." That's a long winded way of saying "This should have had Disney's Bonkers." No joke, I was thinking about Disney's Bonkers upon seeing the trailers for the Chip 'n Dale movie and seeing its "humans and cartoons living together" setting. Heck, even Sean "Smeghead" Moore said that Bonkers would have been a better fit for this movie in his vlog of the Chip 'n Dale movie. But like he also said, Chip and Dale have better name recognition.
When Who Framed Roger Rabbit first came out, the crossovers in that movie were a HUGE deal because it wasn't just Disney stuff, they got permission to use Daffy Duck and other toons and it was really ground breaking at the time. That's why so many people are comparing this to that, because alot of of characters in this aren't owned by Disney. So in that regard I can see why people would compare the two. Otherwise, yeah, it's comparing apples to oranges
It's odd to me that they went with Chip and Dale as a mock-live-action detective movie when Bonkers would have fit this premis so much better. He's a toon cop that routinely works with a detective to solve cases similar to this movie's premis. Bonkers is closer- personality wise, to Roger Rabbit which would feel more "realistic" with how the world works in this movie (Rescue Rangers was more grounded and serious whereas Bonkers relied more on the fact that it knew it was a cartoon). The Rescue Rangers- or Chip and Dale could have made a cameo in the movie anyway as an actual detective agency- making it more believable that they would have the drive to solve a mystery that would fall under the jurisdiction of the local police instead of actors with no law enforcement training getting in on a case they have no legal right to pursue. Bonkers would have fit a lot better for this type of premis.
To me, it felt like the lonely island guys held someone hostage and demand Disney to make this movie without much thought. Because, not only it stared Andy and was directed by Akiva Schaffer, a lot felt like be an idea like “won’t it be cool if mlp ponies show up” and didn’t expand upon the idea. That might be also why some the celebrities are in here cus they are friends with Mulaney, Seth Rogan, and Chris Parnell from SNL days
For those who claim Peter Pan’s story being similar to Bobby Discroll’s is just an accident by Disney I just wanna point out that the chances of that being true is next to none. They literally could’ve chosen any character to play the villain. Not only could it have been any Disney character, but literally any of the characters from all the film companies they bought for this movie. And why make him the villain?! Like that’s just messed up.. And even if it was an accident (Which it’s most likely not) the story is just still just way to similar and just gives you a bad vibes even if it wasn’t intentional.
Still think it was a coincidence. Making Peter Pan a villain after growing up honestly doesn't sound that unique, and they could easily have come up with that on their own. But i agree it was in bad taste and they should have taken Bobby Discroll's life and death into account before settling.
Nah, I think it’s fully an accident. The whole joke is Peter Pan, the eternal child, being made into a washed up former child star. Why the heck would Disney WILLINGLY INVITE CONTROVERSY by INTENTIONALLY doing this? Disney’s typically the first to crack down on this kind of stuff to preserve their family friendly image. Definitely agree that it’s still a WILDLY uncomfortable coincidence though.
With the treasure trove of the Bootleg joke, they could've easily referenced Video Brinquedo and Dingo Pictures in this. Also, I cracked way too loud seeing SORA'S HAIR among the amputated character parts on display.
I thought that was who they were poking fun at. I mean, the Dingo knock-off of Simba has a butt for a nose and the scene where Sweet Pete plans to mutilate Chip by giving him a dog nose for a butt seemed like an indirect reference to that.
Happy to hear the Bobs Burgers movie wasn't poop. That's one I'd make an effort to leave the house for. Also, and aside from _Ralph Breaks the Internet,_ I die a little inside when I see former non-Disney properties being used in a Disney movie. Especially Star Wars.
I really hope we dont get any other Disney afternoon movie in this approach. I think when the only challenge is how money a studio can spend and the studio has all the money in the world, no amount of cameos feel impressive. I’d be impressed by great story but that’s really not here. I wish the main villain was Mickey mouse himself and it was a talk about capitalism and nostalgia bating but then that’ll get too realistic for Disney
I enjoyed the movie’s story regardless. It wasn’t anything phenomenal, but still really enjoyable and the cameos made it even better for me. I wouldn’t mind another Disney movie in this approach as long as it does something unique.
Felt the movie was okay. Just okay. I thought having Peter Pan as the villain was a great idea, until I found out that Disney basically made a joke out of the terrible reality of what happened to the original Peter Pan actor, not happy with that. The one main human actor was more lifeless than some of the CG characters. The voice acting was okay, Mulaney and Samberg just felt a bit bland, although they did enough to not draw me out of the film all the time. Obviously this film relies on its references, the bootleg idea was decent though, as was main street with all the secretly shady characters. Reminded me a bit of Happy Time Murders (which I thought was never as bad as it got credit for). Disney poking fun at the concept of reboots though felt rather shallow as they're the ones always doing reboots to death, makes me wonder why Lumiere was a '2D' character. Also they do an Alvin and the Chipmunks joke, like Disney hasn't also swept up that property. Also I generally got this feeling that this film wouldn't be entertaining for kids at all, too much commentary and references that younger viewers won't really get. So I think the film should've gone a bit more adult and less safe to make it feel less for kids that it appeared.
I actually still need to actually watch at least a full season of Bob's Burgers before seeing the movie since I've been putting it off for so long but in the case of Chip & Dale, I absolutely despised it. You're right that it actually does the bare minimum to be better than The Smurfs or Tom & Jerry, despite the fact that it still does have them teaming with a bland human character before they actually team up with the rest of the Rescue Rangers. Yet still I was entirely miffed by the poor writing & destitute jokes in the face of a premise that actually had some promise. Like I was exhausted by the end of the first Ugly Sonic bit, I was bored & pretty much only driven by reference spotting by the time they first meet Peter Pan & by the time they reach Dale's Rescue Rangers shrine I wanted nothing more than to turn it off & just watch the actual series again. It felt like the movie equivalent of tapping one key on a piano for an hour plus & calling it a song. I mean the movie itself was angling for Roger Rabbit comparisons since his cameo was in the trailer & it billed itself as a toon mystery in Hollywood but nothing about the mystery or characters really compelled me at all. I think Peter Pan's appearance was indicative of the laziness that I felt the movie oozed. Beyond even just the gross implications regarding the actual Peter Pan VA's life, they made the character less interesting & broke the logic of the movie at the same time with him. Like Peter was conceptualized & drawn as an eternal child so why exactly did he grow up into Crime Thug Character Template F when even Black & White characters still have their original designs in the present day? And if you made the choice to use Peter Pan, why not just keep him as a sadistic villain with the childlike looks & charisma he has when that would have actually been something compelling rather than just putting a generic gangster model in green tights? The movie has a good grounding premise but it feels like it does absolutely nothing throughout to fulfill its promise beyond the bare minimum of pulling in different characters in different styles & pointing at them expecting you to be impressed without also writing something intriguing for them to actually contribute to the story & overall mystery. It feels like not only was Disney lazy in giving this film the actual budget to match it's scope & giving it just enough to justify putting it on Disney Plus only, the writers were simultaneously lazy in having a good idea but not actually following through and just coasting on reference humor & a threadbare mystery to carry them. It's the kind of movie that will feel dated by 2023 & already feels dated to me personally.
I believe the idea of this movie according to TV tropes, that it’s a parody of a lot of reboot movies in recent years. Just a matter of how well you think it executed the premise.
Disney 50 years later: “Hey Bobby, just wanted to let you know that we’re gonna be using the story of when we kicked you to the curb for getting old as the backstory for the villain in one of our new movies, who is also the most well known character you’ve ever played. Is that alright?” Bobby Discroll: **Literally lying in his grave** Disney: “Awesome! Thanks Bobby!”
Okay 1st of the 1st movie did focused on Sonic. The human characters were there to helped the main character to grow. So does the 2nd movie. Sure they have screentime, but they didn't stole the spotlight from the main cast. 2nd despite everything these human characters are important for the franchise and characters especially. After all you can't have Sonic without fighting against Robotnik/Eggman. Not the mention it did something that not even videogames done (especially the new ones) properly: show Sonic as person, not just dude with attitude, but also kid with emotions and hardship, someone who growing to be a hero we know and start to learn about him more. 3rd I think we all agree this is the one of best hybrid animated/live action we have and the best video-game adaptation that actually works.
While better it still gave too much screentime to the wedding subplot, and not the Sonic stuff we're here for. I'm hoping the third film gives us more Sonic characters and actually focuses on them ( we can keep G.U.N, Dr.Robotnik, and maybe Tom).
@@troyjardine5850 honestly I hardly call it a wedding subplot in second half of it (more like a rescue mission with angry-like-amy bridedzilla), but I understand that. I had no problem with that since it gives Maddie a character development I was hoping for (and Rachel surprisingly), but I do hope for more focus on main plot and main chaeacters, especially on Sonic and Shadow.🤩
One of the many things i liked most about the new Chip n' Dale film is the insane amount of character cameos that were made in the film, especially Roger Rabbit. i mean seeing all of these characters from Disney and non-Disney franchises interacting in this whole world was just cool to watch!
I think people might have took this movie a bit too seriously. The whole controversy with Driscoll's tragic life aside, this movie is ultimately meant to be a light-hearted family-friendly mainstream movie made by a giant megacorp
This movie is the embodiment of corporate greed and trying to be hip with the kids, it tries to be self aware as humor but it comes off as soulless as they aren't actually saying anything of meaning, it's just references and making fun of themselves. The movie was entertaining at least but I don't want to reward Disney for this type of movie. This isn't a love letter to animation like a lot are saying, it's just Disney flexing their IP boner and doing stuff like ugly sonic to be relevant and cool. This will be the movie forgotten to time and will age really poorly in the coming years. the best way to describe the whole movie is and I will have to quote Ugly Sonic from the movie here, 'You can't hurt my feelings if I'm in on the joke"
You summed up my thoughts, except I didn't even find it funny or entertaining. All of the humor to me didn't rise above the level of "RECOGNIZE THIS THING AND LAUGH!"
Roger Rabbit used classic characters like Betty Boop, Lena Hyena from the Lil'Abner comic strip, Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny. Characters people remember and grew up with and they KNOW they hold up. This movie uses... a meme.
It is compared to Rodgers rabbit because it has things not owned by one specific corporation, it is real people with animations, is a mystery plus it shows the underbelly of a generic happy world. Oh and yknow, it has Rodger rabbit in it.
Looks like the Rocky And Bullwinkle effect Is slowly showing some major Improvements unlike last year's Tom And Jerry Live Acton Movie did! Though It may not be good compared to Ducktales (2017)'s Darkwing Reboot Episode, this on the other hand still has heart and soul despite not to being mean spirited let alone doesn't do too much of Monty, Gadget, Zipper or even the classic vilians from the show (despite being actors themselves). As for Pewter Pan, not only they did him dirty but truly disrespected the original actor; Bobby Driscoll and felt truly disrespectful even If they still didn't know about this or not It was truly poor taste. What's next are they gonna do the exact same thing to Pinocchio, Arthur/Wart, or even Taran as well out of despite?! For the camoes; they truly broken the newest record compared to both Roger and Ralph's previous cameos (for now until Pibby steals the new cameo record) and gotta say there promising and even Ugly Sonic get newfound respect too and some are begging to see him for the 3rd Movie of Movie Sonic or what the original movie could've been like despite being a box office bomb originally but who knows at this point.
To be fair, the film didn’t make the parallel to Driscoll a joke or anything. It’s played pretty straight forward and it was a genuinely sad scene that contributes to the film’s theme of coping with rejection.
This is a movie where the initial premise and cameos limply carry the whole thing, execution be damned because the bar hasn't been raised since either Back in Action or Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
I dunno. I think “Back in Action” was on par with this film. It’s not perfect, but it’s still fun and enjoyable. Also, this may be a bit controversial, but I don’t think the cameos in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” really contributed much either. Sure, it made the world feel more inhabited, but the only real cameo who added any real value to the plot was Betty Boop - establishing that Eddie still had a soft spot for Toons despite his prejudice. The rest were just fluff, really,
@@geoffreyrichards6079 I think that was really the point: to populate the world. Its not only easier, but believable when the population is a bunch of pre-existing characters. Makes that world seem more "real" than if they had created hundreds of generic characters just for the background. Its because we relate to them that they really belong. And something all three movies got REALLY right (which both Space jams did NOT) was how to populate the world with toons in a believable way: They are spread out, living AMONG humans as equals. They have jobs, their own locations, they all have a life. In Both Space Jams they are just gathered in their own world, doing their own thing, so it doesn't really feel like they are part of our world and humans would interact with them but more like invaders. Roger Rabbit, Back in action and Chip n' Dale wouldn't really work with Generic toons or with toons confined to their world and not part of the real world. (I mean, sure they have Toon Town but thats more like a hub, a neightborhood, and also part of the movie's alegory to racism, segregation and gentrification).
The one thing that disappoints me is how little was done with the missing toons, like they talk about the rescue rangers dude for a bit then forget about him for 90 minutes
Much better than expected, but that's not difficult to achieve given the incredibly low bar other nostalgia projects have set. Still, makes me wish we were getting an actual Rescue Rangers reboot.
A lot of bootlegs do try to closely mimic the source material, often near perfectly, but there are a ton of examples of actual "bootleg" movies where things are changed just enough to sneak around copyright, while still obviously attempting to ride off the success of an established IP. They're more of a moral grey area since while it is basically copying and altering someone else's work, it is still a "unique" piece and can be legally(?) sold without knowledge of the original IP holders. Mockbusters are made (sometimes poorly on purpose) to poke fun at the original work, rather than trying to deceive. The line between the two is very thin and obscured though.
You missed the thing - thats not what bootleg means. Bootleg specifically means an illegal recording of something real but not officially released (like releasing cut songs from Frozen), then sold without the copyright holders approval. You're looking for the word counterfeit.
@@IsaacIsaacIsaacson You are correct, these days bootleg and counterfeit are interchangeable in english, especially casually. I mean, even the movie calls it bootlegging, and they have a drove of people who at any time could have piped up and said "uhm well actually it would be counterfeiting" and that may have happened, but "counterfeiters" doesn't sound as nice as "bootleggers". Again though, you are correct.
GMA Network here in the Philippines is a massive megacorp that became big here from making bootlegs of everything they can get their hands on. They are pirates that make mockbusters and bootlegs of everything, especially in their kids' shows and fantasy shows. Just to give an example, their show Tsuperhero blatantly steals sound effects from Dragon Ball. Their most recent kids' show Daig Kayo ng Lola Ko is just filled to the brim with copyright infringement, featuring bootleg versions of Spyro, Naruto, Riverdale, and many, many more, that wouldn't be out of place with the bootlegs Sweet Pete made.
I'd say South Park handled this better in the episode where they talked about how copyright infringement hurt multi-millionaire celebrities and how one of them might not be able to buy his own island.
Being that it’s a film that it’s a film that was a *huge* part of my life, when they said ‘he’s got Polar Express eyes’ I had to pause the film because it made me laugh so much.
Mayhap is because I'm older and the nostalgia goggles were extra pink but I enjoyed this movie a lot. Mulaney and Samberg were entertaining enough. Solid second after The bad guys on animated movies for 2022
I kinda thought the reason Gadget didn’t much scene time was because of her slight connection with Russia . For those that don’t know there is a small cult in Russia that actually worships get it as a goddess. Even talk about how their worship of her would one day bring her into the real world. I wish I was kidding about this.
next animated hybrid movie, someone should invite UA-camrs to have (and voice, or have a good impersonator if they can't be there) their Avatars in the background, and instead of being animated, they would just swap between their different expression templates like in their videos xD
Just a silhouette that changes depending on where she's facing, complete with circles and cap. Would be a cool stylistic choice of her literally being a silhouette and not just lurking in the shadows
Eh. I understand it’s flaws and the criticisms against it, but I did find myself enjoying it. My favourite part was probably when they were walking down that magic kingdom boulevard, with Dale describing all the shady things these cutesy toons do in secret.
I find it so funny that they turned cartoon physics… into the laws of physics. For example, the bird being annoyed when he has to go to work in the middle of the night after someone gets hit on the head. And Ugly Sonic is ugly.
I was kinda unimpressed. It is the best animation live action crossover I’ve seen for a while, but still not living up to the hype. My biggest gripe with it is that Chip’s VA just had no emotion to it whatsoever, I could hardly listen to him without getting mad. Celebrity VA’s just can’t make the cut most the time.
Yes, I'm a sucker for reference humor...sue me. I think you missed one very particular reason this film gets compared to Roger Rabbit; like the former film, this movie not only had IP crossovers, it had crossovers from other studios, which to my knowledge has not been done in this form (where it's brazen enough they had to ask for the rights and cite them in the credits) SINCE Roger Rabbit. I'll admit it had it's issues, but I still thought it was a fun movie.
So instead of a real Rescue Rangers reboot we get a Roger Rabbit spin off where Peter Pan is evil, Ugly Sonic is some how popular, and Gadget married Zipper. Great job Disney. 😑
Mine would be; 1 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 - Wreck-it Ralph 3 - Chip & Dale: Rescue Rangers / Looney Tunes: Back in Action 4 - Space Jam I haven’t seen “Ready Player One” or “Space Jam: A New Legacy” yet to determine for myself, but I feel I’d probably enjoy the latter more than the original (the 1st film was just obnoxious in a dated way).
I thought the movie was okay. It feels weird that this is going to be a lot of people's introduction to Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers considering both this and the original are on Disney+ 🤣
I thought this was a fun movie, I don't agree with people painting it as a big corporate greed behemoth. Maybe it's just because I know artists and animators whose dream job would be working on projects like this, but it's so extremely harsh to treat this movie so coldly. The amount of work animators and artists had to put into this was huge. Just imagining them needing to get (or recreate) the old 3D models for Seth Rogan's characters for a 2 second bit with them like that is super interesting. They didn't need to do that, nobody would have missed that scene, but someone did all that anyway. Knowing the kind of people who put in work on these projects makes it really hard for me to see this as some soulless endeavor, so much unique animation went into this, I bet it was a dream for some person who grew up watching Disney only to end up making this move. Solid 8.5/10 as far as animated movies like this go, I can't justify ranking it lower.
I think we all expected Gadget and Chip to hook up in this movie, but I don’t think anyone was prepared for Gadget and Zipper’s relationship and children. Like bruh that took me off-guard.
It may not be completely great, but I had a ton of fun watching the film with my family. Everyone knows that I’m a complete animation nut and this felt like a film that was created for people like me, with al, the different mediums being referenced and homaged. And the story was genuinely heartfelt. Sure, the CGI animation replicating the traditional look wasn’t perfect, but it was clearly better than it had any right to be. And at certain times, it looked pretty convincing. And while I do think we could’ve had Gadget and Zipper play a bit more significant role, Chip and Dale were still compelling enough characters to carry the film through. I didn’t even mind the human character they partnered with. If we get a sequel (which is likely), I can easily see these issues being fixed. And while there are a lot of cameos and references in the film that don’t play a significant part in the story, people forget that “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” had kinda the same issue with its ensemble of cameos. I mean, the only cameo with any real significance in the film is Betty Boop since she helps establish that Eddie still has a soft spot for Toons despite his prejudice. Everyone else is just there for people to point at and go “I recognize them”. But if people don’t mind it there, this shouldn’t be any more distracting. As for the elephant in the room, I can see why people are finding the comparisons between Sweet Pete and Bobby Driscoll uncomfortable. But to the film’s credit, it’s not treated as a joke; if anything, it’s actually one of the film’s more genuinely sad moments, and it plays a significant part in the story’s theme about celebrities being neglected. And while his backstory is similar, the key difference is that Peter isn’t Driscoll. What he does in the film isn’t meant to reflect the true individual, but what the animated character he played would’ve done. After all, his whole shtick is the boy who never grows up. That’s just my two cents, though.
Outside of the many references and cameos, redeeming Ugly Sonic, Will Arnett's performance as the villain, and the concept of having various forms of animation living in a live-action world, I was pretty ambivalent towards this film. It has the right ideas for a fun mystery film, including one for CDRR, but it didn't work as well as it should have. I didn't like how they made Peter Pan the villain (even if the comparisons to his original actor's life might be coincidental), the other Rangers didn't get as much screen time or involvement as they should've, a lot of the jokes felt like they were trying too hard, and the way they tried to combine all forms of animation into one world didn't gel as well as it should've. It's still a cool idea, but I feel they could've experimented more with the concept to mesh everything more effectively.
This was probably the most mid movie I've ever watched, not once while I was watching it did it impress me, and at the same time not once did I dislike it
I must admit that I absolutely adored the back-and-forth banter between Chip and Dale themselves in this film. Their dialogue absolutely snapped! Oddly enough though, much of the dialogue for all of the REST of the characters felt terribly under-written and trite.
Chip n Dale movie maybe has a lot of flaws, but it's the closest to being a _Who Framed Roger Rabbit?_ incarnate cameo wise which it's good. Since Sweet Pete's motivation is to make movie copycats to earn money, he should be replaced with the villain "Dingo Brinquedo", named after the two studios responsible for making infamous knock off movies.
Huh. Didn’t expect a…. Well not positive, but not super negative about it like a lot of people. So like, somewhat amusing and novel depending on how much corporate you can handle is what I get from that. I mean I probably won’t watch it Becuase honestly that one scene with Seth Green characters I assume just inches into only Disney can do this territory that gets to me but hey kinda amusing is better than I expected. Least being divisive makes it interesting. (And I just had the terrifying thought about what if they made Sora the child star instead of Pan. That actually could works and would be in less bad taste.)
I like they gave backstory to chip and dales friendship and how important it is to communicate how you're feeling to your friends. It also shows the downside of being actors. That more often than not, if you are reaching a certain age, or don't fit a certain image they don't want you. But I think the most important theme was not letting too much time go without talking your issues out with your friends and honest if a decision they made hurt you. Because in the long run it hurts every one.
I don't understand the "it pays respect to animation angle." It never goes any deeper than "hey look, here's that thing you know and love" before moving on. Honestly, I feel like it's more disrespectful to animation than respectful. Beyond the tragic situation of Bobby Driscoll, they make fun of mo-cap movies, which they themselves drove into the ground with "Mars Needs Moms" resulting in the loss of thousands of people's jobs. They tease actual 2d animation for Chip and Dale before switching to 3D, which clearly shows that they didn't think 2D animation was actually necessary for their 2D CHARACTERS in a world filled with other 2D ANIMATED CHARACTERS. They constantly make fun of the low-bar of modern animated movies without ever actually rising above that bar. The entire movie is just Disney saying "yeah we have the money and man power to make good things but we don't want to, fuck you"
I dunno. Isn’t that like saying Pixar films hate 2D animation because they hardly ever bothered with the medium? Sure, the 2D animation isn’t incredible and the CGI replicating the look isn’t great, but that’s likely just a budget constraint. And them poking fun at motion capture/realistic CGI is more of a lighthearted poke since the special effects team that helped make the film also worked on those sorts of films and even reused/recreated models for this - suggesting that they’re in on the joke.
I have a love hate relationship with this movie. On one hand I liked it and laughed at some parts, on the other hand I was also extremely disappointed with some of the decisions Disney made.
Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers is not a perfect film. It has its issues, namely a weak villain and some strange animation. However, this does not take away how cool this film is. The world that Disney have created is an interesting one that I'd like to see explored more in future projects. It's basically a modern Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Chip and Dale themselves are compelling characters, and their relationship is one of the highlights of the film. They have their own struggles, and things to work through before they trust each other again. They have their fight towards the end of the movie, as the cliche typically goes, but it is immediately side-lined for the plot to continue. Chip and Dale realize that the only way they can solve this case is to work together, so they have a fight, make up, and continue the plot. The rest of the cast is pretty good too, with highlights being Captain Putty ( J.K Simmons ) who has some of the coolest animation in the film, and Sweet Pete ( Will Arnett ), who has a compelling backstory, but suffers slightly from the movie's runtime. And that's the biggest problem with this film. It is way to short, only around ninety minutes. I wish that we got to see more of this world and these characters. Because of the runtime, the story happens so fast that you wish that there was more to it. Overall, Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers is a new cult classic.
Heck, in some ways, “Roger Rabbit” has some of the same flaws as this film. The culprit isn’t really a mystery, and some of the animation can look kinda rough (mostly for the background characters). But that doesn’t negate how great of a film it is.
I'm honestly surprised and a little disappointed to hear you say this felt like it was respecting animation as a medium. Just because it has REFERENCES to other animation styles, does not mean it RESPECTS those styles. More than anything that scene of them being scanned with all the different styles just felt like pandering to people like myself who love and adore and study animation. They go "oh see we have characters in traditional animation" all the while having Chip and Peter in DISGUSTING cel shaded animation. You'd think they would actually put EFFORT in having their LEADS look good. Cel shaded can look stunning. _Into the Spider-Verse, Peanuts 2014, Arcane_ are great examples of WELL DONE cel shaded 3D animation with a blend of traditional animation as well. No no no this wasn't a love letter to animation. It was hate mail to animation. I am so done with this notion "new tech means better animation" because a 30 second clip of Bugs and Mickey talking while free falling in a movie released in 1988 looks better than anything found in this. Not to mention there are incredible videos like Warrior Cat MAPS done by incredible artists, animation story time tubers like Jaiden Animations, Odd1sOut, and _Helluva Boss_ that are proof enough people do care and still consume animation that looks like it's done traditionally, just with newer tech. So WHY Disney has this idea that movies like _Lion King 2019_ IMPROVE on the original because of "newer technology" I have no idea. You can have all the tech in the world to create a story, but if you do not have TALENT then it means nothing.
Offset your carbon footprint on Wren: www.wren.co/start/cellspex The first 100 people who
Hi
e
who what
Carbon footprints are a scam to put the responsibility of actions we're forced into by corporations onto us
Hi. So I just wanna ask if you've seen the most recent episode of the Owl House? I'm asking, because that show (which is a Disney show) just allowed an LGBTQ kiss between some main characters in the series. I won't give it away for the sake of spoilers, but just wondering if you were aware of that.
It kinda really bugs me how some people are saying this is the closest we’ll ever get to another Roger Rabbit movie. Like I get having animated characters living in the real world makes people automatically connected it to Roger Rabbit. But there was so much more to that movie than just animation mixed with live action and cameos.
I agree, by that logic even "Looney tunes back in action" should be considered closure to a Roger Rabbit sequel. Isn't not that easy.
I thought it was similar to Roger Rabbit not just because of the mystery and adult themes, but the problem was toon focused, similar to the DIP in the other film, which also shows up in the movie.
@@artloveranimation But DIP was an ACTUAL THREAT to toons. He wanted to WIPE IT OFF THE MAP. Here they're still ALIVE but just bootlegged that substantially lowers the stakes.
@@ribottostudio Too be fair Bootlegging in the context of Chip n Dale is probably a fate worse than death.
@@SuperKidSonic ....true it is a pretty disgusting practice in animation especially
Say what you want about the movie but there’s one thing we can all agree on
Ugly Sonic made the comeback of the century
why is it considered humorous just to mention established media?
@@bismarku based
@@bismarku Why is it considered a crime that people enjoy something you don't? you don't find it humorous, that's more than okay, but why should you feel like the one who's on the right and look down at the people who don't think like you?
@@bismarku I get what you’re saying, but Ugly Sonic isn’t just mentioned. He has a whole new personality which fits the character a lot.
If you only mention established media, it can be boring, but if you tell a story with that established media, then it can be really fun.
@@akapple2698 he aslo has a very small basic character arc
I feel like they could've easily used the character Oswald the lucky rabbit instead of Peter Pan. It might've actually fit better, the rights to his character were lost and he was replaced by Mickey Mouse. Despite Disney getting the rights back to the character, he's made very few appearances. Maybe have his motivation be he's resentful for being replacing with "the mouse".
That would have been clever.
I also think the Peter Pan thing was uh…A little on the nose considering what happened with the original actor
But Peter Pan is much more recognisable as a character. What’s Oswald appeared in, in the last few decades?
A couple of games where he’s playing second fiddle next to Mickey Mouse and… what else?
That would be such an amazing movie, I love that idea
@@dubbingsync that’s the point
I get everybody's point about the voices, but honestly, I think there was a point where they had to make a choice: do they risk fan backlash, or do they risk the voices being obnoxious and grating to everyone else. I think they chose wisely
I first saw it as a ploy to get people to watch it, “hey two big names are playing Chip and Dale, you like these people. Maybe you’ll like the movie”
But after the jab at Alvin and the Chipmunks I realised I did not want to hear squeaky Chip and Dale for however long the movie was. Been a few months since I watched it now and yeah, I still feel the same way about that
The movies plot was meh in my opinion, but was absolutely hilarious so worth the watch.
To be fair, the plots to a lot of these sorts of films are kinda basic. Even “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” wasn’t much of a mystery - I mean, it was pretty obvious that Doom was the main culprit.
5:27 - 5:40 I assume you haven't seen the sequel yet. The non-Sonic characters were reduced to a subplot.
It was good but that one scene with the secret agent wedding thing was weirdly paced
@@locomotivetrainstation6053 ¿?
I thought that, too.
@@locomotivetrainstation6053 not really. It just went on longer than it should’ve.
@@stevenmark4407 so you agree?
I was actually surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie despite being put off by its initial premise (I still hope we get a LEGIT Rescue Rangers reboot sometime...)
My only complaint is that I felt like the other Rangers were sidelined too much in the movie (barely being in it) and while Gadget is my favorite character I do understand SOME of the complaints about her and Zipper's relationship... although I find hilarious at how mad some people are getting. XD
Same here. What really made me like this movie more is that the writers were asking the question, "Do people want this?", and how that bled into the script. Remember this was originally supposed to be a straight forward live action cg hybrid movie like Alvin and the Chipmunks. That and the fact Disney was on board for basically 99% percent of everything they wrote despite the budget.
They had a sort in DuckTales 2017.
I think it was a dig at the shippers of the series.
@@happypepper9326 I don't think a small (but awesome) cameo in an episode of a different series counts. (Was pretty neat though.)
@@emanuelrojas2 That makes a surprising amount of sense.
'Messing with our intellectual property is akin to human trafficking' is a quite a cynical, bold and manipulative message for a Disney movie.
I personally liked it, one thing that was off-putting to me tho was the washed up Peter Pan villain thing. The voice actor for Pan, Bobby Driscoll had a very parallel experience with losing fame once he wasn’t young and cute and he had a hard life before he overdosed at 31. It felt really wrong in my gut knowing all that.
It was all too common for former child actors in Hollywood unfortunetly
@@KaminoKatie Yeah but the fact that they chose THAT character while knowing full well makes it worse
I think the parallels were unavoidable, given that a former child star was the idea they were going for. I mean, originally, they were going to use Charlie Brown for the role, but that would’ve only brought up parallels with his original voice actor’s rough life. It’s unavoidable in this internet age.
Honestly I thought that joke was kind of funny in a dark humor sort of way. That kind of thing happens with child stars all the time, it's nothing new or unique to that one actor. People love to get offended at everything.
That was lowkey funny though.
I think you brought up a really good point that I'd been struggling to put into words. It feels like the fact of who made it kind of neuters a lot of the concepts the movie was trying to go for. You mentioned it sometimes before, but meta jokes seem like a go-to breed of humor lately to try and appeal to older audiences, but I feel like this movie and a lot of others recently fall into the trap of thinking that meta-humor is just pointing out things. It's a similar problem with reference humor. More often than not, the joke becomes 'this thing exists' without actually saying anything about it or making any kind of real joke. Especially regarding copyright, as you said, it's hard to make a joke about that when you're the ones doing it unrepentantly, and to me at least the bootleg aspect felt like it was trying to make you feel bad for a multi-billion media conglomerate that hoards IP's losing money. It feels like the movie is trying to bring up clever and insightful concepts but doesn't actually say or do anything beyond 'this is a thing that exists.' There's no real substance to it under the surface.
I completely agree with this review except the Sweet Pete part. Having him be the villain is a bit more interesting, although the final transformation could've had a little more cartoon callbacks. As for the Bobby Driscoll parallels, I think the writers were throwing shade at Disney for how they treated him before his tragic death. It's not uncommon for the writers of a Disney project to shade Disney. Les we forget that Owl House joke a few weeks ago...
If they wanted to throw shade they should of like... Not made him a complete irredeemable monster who gets defeated and locked up at the end? What kind of dig is that? It's like a Disney movie with evil sweatshop workers and saying that's a dig at Disney's merch being made with sweatshop labor.
@@BE-fw1lr yeah that’s exactly why it didn’t work, cause he was full on villain.
It's not about Bobby Driscoll, guys! Have you seen interpretations in TV shows or movies make Peter Pan be the bad guy? I'm betting the writers decided to play it off as a joke in this movie. That whole thing you guys keep saying was probably not their intention.
@@revaslatts4301 it’s one thing to make Peter Pan the bad guy, it’s another to make the same Disney incarnation the bad guy and giving him the backstory of the VA
@@dollmaker6599 Touche! *embarrassment grows*
I like how the story literally hinges on Chip and Dale having been apart since Rescue Rangers ended when the two have appeared together in so many other things since then, including their own segment in one of the modern mickey shows and also all of the rescue rangers in ducktales '17
To be fair, this is a different universe where Toons exist and Batman fought ET. I don’t expect everything from our world happened also in their reality.
Eh, it’s a pretty low bar, and the the cel-shaded CG characters to fake 2D animation are off putting to me, when there are actual hand drawn 2D characters in the movie as well.
@Bleh isn't he in the "uncanny valley"?
It felt like since pan and chip were in it so much they did it as a cost saver
@@MatthewCSnow And they animated Jack, Gadget, and Zipper like that as well just to keep it consistent
Yeah I wish they used 2D animation, the cell-shaded CGI looked fine in the scenes where they weren’t interacting with live action objects, but when they were it looked awkward and unnatural
I think they did it to avoid some similar mistakes Roger Rabbit had.
What kinda drags the movie down is that Peter Pan is the villain and the controversial take on Peter Pan's original voice actor and yet, Disney knew what they did without a care.
Aside from that, this movie is pretty alright.
They should have made Ugly Sonic the villain.
@@ethanreynolds3522 Now THAT would have been a good call.
@@ethanreynolds3522 Or have Jar Jar Binks as the villain, so we can finally get that Darth Jar Jar we’ve always wanted
But we also need to consider the fact that not everyone knows about Bobby. Even some of animators. Plus, it happened in once upon a time.
@@roxassora2706 OUAT Peter's villainous didn't stem from being rejected by studios exec though.
The only thing that really bugs me is what they did to Bobby Discroll when introducing Peter Pan as the main villain. The fact that they made his backstory identical to the real life kid who played Peter Pan in the 1953 movie is tasteless. Disney threw Bobby Driscoll to the curb, and he ended up dying on the streets. And now, 50 years later, it's being used as a joke in a Disney movie. Apparently his actual worth meant nothing to them, but his story did. Real classy Disney.
It doesn’t ruin the movie for me, but yeah I have to agree that it didn’t really need to be a Chip n Dale movie. Heck I know this is kinda the joke they make at the end, but this could’ve easily been a Darkwing Duck movie.
"Just as long as you don't show two boys holding hands, or someone holding a tampon box".
I nearly choked on my water laughing at this! Too true! What some groups get up in arms about, while giving passes to arguably more questionable things, will never cease to amaze and terrify me. :-/
While a fly mated with a mouse and for said mouse to birth things that belong in The Fly or The Fly 2.
definitely agree on the let the title characters be the stars, yes there is a human that is somewhat relevant, but is just one human and the one thing we know about her is she is from Albany and she is a cop because of the show, she is a side charcter, was it so hard to do that with other movies, make the humans side characters and not center half the plot around them, making it half romcom half animated movie
We’re looking at you Tom and Jerry movie!
I was pretty amused when I found out that the cop lady was actually meant to appear in more scenes, but they were cut because test audiences hated them.
My biggest gripe with this movie is the craptacular writing. So much of it is bad observational humor and faux self affaisment jokes.
The main actors phone-in all their lines, I'd much rather have Tress MacNeille and Corey Burton act them out, but they couldn't capitalize on their name draw.
CGing Chip, Monty and Gadget was a travesty but completely understandable. They have to animate him for 24 frames a second and they don't have a live action protagonist to cut the work time, nor a crazy talented Richard Williams to helm the animation direction.
5/10, because I laughed at the JK Simmons joke, the Muppet joke and the Repunzel Barbie.
Eh, at the end of the day those things didn't really bother me while watching this. It was just looads of fun and that's all it was really trying to be.
I feel like there were a few people working on this movie who wanted to make the next Rodger rabbit and then every one else didn't get paid enough to care
This isn't really the movie's fault but I still CANNOT believe that we lost out on a Rescue Rangers / The Rescuers / Great Mouse Detective crossover reboot FOR THIS.
Higher praise than I would give it, but as others have mentioned, "better than Tom & Jerry" is a very low bar.
My main problem for a lot of these celebrity voice casted remake movies is simply the fact that often times they're put in roles of animated characters. Like the original VA who brought them to life is worthless and a replaceable cog that isn't worth their cash grab on star power even though many of these VA's make these characters. It's no different than celebrities being cast in singing rolls and being auto-tuned to the ends of the earth (Emma Watson from live action beauty and the beast) or can't act as they are so focused on hitting the notes (le mis reference here).
Voice Actors and Musical Theater actors need to be respected and if a celb is cast the fact that many don't even try is an insult to the skill and work that many contribute to the original product.
Also pay voice actors and those in every part of the animation industry the same as their live action counterparts T~T
I would honestly say I t’s the kind of film I wish Space Jam a new legacy was with how it leans more with the self aware tone and its commentary on the animation industry, and I say that as someone who enjoyed a new legacy.
One thing that was a little weird in this movie was how, according to Sweet Pete's backstory, Peter Pan: Return to Neverland never existed. And I think it would have worked to better flesh out his backstory if they had said it was a new kid named Peter, who looked similar enough to the original Peter Pan that they recast him.
My first reaction to Gadget/Zipper was: Wow. They found a way to shut EVERYONE up about Gadget.
My second reaction: Don’t think about it. Don’t think about it. Don’t think about it.
the only thing i liked was ugly sonic, the thing i hated was Gadget getting with Zipper and having all those hybrid kids. it's not like Roger Rabbit and Jessica Rabbit and Human and Rabbit Toon
It's like Velma getting with Scooby Doo...every type of wrong. good hearing her voice again, Tress MacNeille but not all the originals but not Jim Cummings as Monterey Jack, naaa not on board with that
Also the ending felt cruel to the original voice artist of Peter Pan, Bobby Driscoll, dumped by Disney because of his acne, and died alone and abandoned. it's not meta, it's just felt disrespectful, unless one of the writers was highlighting how Disney screws over it's child stars, and was highlighting all of it.
but i did like they touched on sharing the same name with a stripper group, that bit made me laugh
If the parallels with Driscoll were intentional, I didn’t seem like it was done out of malice. If anything, it just emphasizes the theme of the film, how former stars try to cope with rejection.
@@geoffreyrichards6079 They shouldn't of used the story of a real life person they screwed over to tell that story! What the hell!
@Chasformer They only used Peter because they had legal access to the character. Originally, it was going to be Charlie Brown, but obtaining the rights would've been too much of a nightmare. But even if they did go with Charlie Brown, people still would've drawn the comparisons between the character and the tragic story behind his original actor. You just can't avoid scrutiny these days.
@@BE-fw1lr From what I've read, the parallels might've been unintentional. The idea of an immortal kid becoming an aging former star seemed to be the direction they were aiming for. I mean, that's one of the reasons why they were going to use Charlie Brown originally.
I wouldn’t be so hard on this movie if it didn’t feel so cynical.
Just shove all these characters in a movie and slap “Rescue Rangers,” on the title because why not?
Also that whole thing with Peter Pan genuinely makes me sick.
I’m sure like you said it’s better overall. But all that just leaves too bad a taste in my mouth to just ignore.
It’s horrible that they took the tragic life of Peter Pan’s original voice actor, Bobby Driscoll, and used it as a joke.
This. Disney showed less tact than Doug "Grow a Pair of Balls" Walker on this matter.
@@yserareborn wait I'm trying to find what this is referring to. Did Doug Walker say that about the Peter Pan VA in a disnecember video or what?
@@rachaelk5567 No. I am actually referring to when Doug Walker made characters for Demo Reel based off of IRL actors with traumatic histories. To be clear: he was also tactless in his own way, but he at least made it clear that he was sympathetic to their trauma.
Disney in the meantime I feel was pretty tasteless. At best, it was a toothless roast at dead executives whose heirs had final say on the script. At worst, its a crass attempt at mining history for comedy.
...In my opinion. I don't feel like arguing with any Disney stans who might be reading tonight and I do not want to die on a hill for Doug Walker -_-
@@yserareborn oh thanks for explaining! I never watched Demo reel. And I get what you mean for that last part lol
Was it a joke? It seemed pretty serious to me, honestly.
@7:09
"You could have technically exchanged Chip 'n Dale for another nostalgic duo or even a completely fabricated IP."
That's a long winded way of saying "This should have had Disney's Bonkers."
No joke, I was thinking about Disney's Bonkers upon seeing the trailers for the Chip 'n Dale movie and seeing its "humans and cartoons living together" setting.
Heck, even Sean "Smeghead" Moore said that Bonkers would have been a better fit for this movie in his vlog of the Chip 'n Dale movie. But like he also said, Chip and Dale have better name recognition.
the movie made me relive my childhood... I forgot how much I used to LOVE the "Chip'n Dale Rescue Rangers" show!!
Wouldn't it make sense that Bob's Burgers would be less high stakes since the show generally has less high stakes then the Simpsons?
I can see why people would hate the movie, but I found it fun regardless, even outside of the overload of cameos.
Even then the cameos were pretty funny at times.
When Who Framed Roger Rabbit first came out, the crossovers in that movie were a HUGE deal because it wasn't just Disney stuff, they got permission to use Daffy Duck and other toons and it was really ground breaking at the time. That's why so many people are comparing this to that, because alot of of characters in this aren't owned by Disney. So in that regard I can see why people would compare the two. Otherwise, yeah, it's comparing apples to oranges
It's odd to me that they went with Chip and Dale as a mock-live-action detective movie when Bonkers would have fit this premis so much better.
He's a toon cop that routinely works with a detective to solve cases similar to this movie's premis.
Bonkers is closer- personality wise, to Roger Rabbit which would feel more "realistic" with how the world works in this movie (Rescue Rangers was more grounded and serious whereas Bonkers relied more on the fact that it knew it was a cartoon).
The Rescue Rangers- or Chip and Dale could have made a cameo in the movie anyway as an actual detective agency- making it more believable that they would have the drive to solve a mystery that would fall under the jurisdiction of the local police instead of actors with no law enforcement training getting in on a case they have no legal right to pursue.
Bonkers would have fit a lot better for this type of premis.
Only Bonkers has nowhere near the same recognition as Chip n Dale, which is more important to Disney
The problem is that nobody's ever bloody heard of Bonkers.
To me, it felt like the lonely island guys held someone hostage and demand Disney to make this movie without much thought. Because, not only it stared Andy and was directed by Akiva Schaffer, a lot felt like be an idea like “won’t it be cool if mlp ponies show up” and didn’t expand upon the idea.
That might be also why some the celebrities are in here cus they are friends with Mulaney, Seth Rogan, and Chris Parnell from SNL days
The whole movie is Disney doing to other companies what they would sue to hell and back for if the positions were reversed.
How so? I'm not certain where you're coming from on the whole idea of them sueing people
@@LobstertheGiggy Same. They legally got the licenses to use other studio properties, just like with Roger Rabbit.
@@Regfife They didn’t get Ugly Sonic from Paramount or Sega but he falls under parody clauses
For those who claim Peter Pan’s story being similar to Bobby Discroll’s is just an accident by Disney I just wanna point out that the chances of that being true is next to none. They literally could’ve chosen any character to play the villain. Not only could it have been any Disney character, but literally any of the characters from all the film companies they bought for this movie. And why make him the villain?! Like that’s just messed up.. And even if it was an accident (Which it’s most likely not) the story is just still just way to similar and just gives you a bad vibes even if it wasn’t intentional.
Disney disrespected the character and actor
Still think it was a coincidence. Making Peter Pan a villain after growing up honestly doesn't sound that unique, and they could easily have come up with that on their own. But i agree it was in bad taste and they should have taken Bobby Discroll's life and death into account before settling.
Agreed. Way too convenient
Nah, I think it’s fully an accident. The whole joke is Peter Pan, the eternal child, being made into a washed up former child star. Why the heck would Disney WILLINGLY INVITE CONTROVERSY by INTENTIONALLY doing this? Disney’s typically the first to crack down on this kind of stuff to preserve their family friendly image.
Definitely agree that it’s still a WILDLY uncomfortable coincidence though.
@@cartoonishidealism582 I feel like it's too close for comfort, like too on the nose to be a coincidence
With the treasure trove of the Bootleg joke, they could've easily referenced Video Brinquedo and Dingo Pictures in this.
Also, I cracked way too loud seeing SORA'S HAIR among the amputated character parts on display.
I thought that was who they were poking fun at. I mean, the Dingo knock-off of Simba has a butt for a nose and the scene where Sweet Pete plans to mutilate Chip by giving him a dog nose for a butt seemed like an indirect reference to that.
Happy to hear the Bobs Burgers movie wasn't poop. That's one I'd make an effort to leave the house for.
Also, and aside from _Ralph Breaks the Internet,_ I die a little inside when I see former non-Disney properties being used in a Disney movie. Especially Star Wars.
Even Pixar? It seems like they’ve become synonymous with the brand.
It's not bad but not great, it's in the middle road for me. Miles better than the Tom and Jerry movie which I honestly forgot existed
I really hope we dont get any other Disney afternoon movie in this approach.
I think when the only challenge is how money a studio can spend and the studio has all the money in the world, no amount of cameos feel impressive. I’d be impressed by great story but that’s really not here.
I wish the main villain was Mickey mouse himself and it was a talk about capitalism and nostalgia bating but then that’ll get too realistic for Disney
It’s funny how they have a South Park cameo even though South Park constantly makes fun of them via their version of the Mickey Mouse character
I enjoyed the movie’s story regardless. It wasn’t anything phenomenal, but still really enjoyable and the cameos made it even better for me. I wouldn’t mind another Disney movie in this approach as long as it does something unique.
Mouse X Fly? Totally fine. A S L O N G A S I T I S H E T .
Felt the movie was okay. Just okay.
I thought having Peter Pan as the villain was a great idea, until I found out that Disney basically made a joke out of the terrible reality of what happened to the original Peter Pan actor, not happy with that.
The one main human actor was more lifeless than some of the CG characters.
The voice acting was okay, Mulaney and Samberg just felt a bit bland, although they did enough to not draw me out of the film all the time.
Obviously this film relies on its references, the bootleg idea was decent though, as was main street with all the secretly shady characters. Reminded me a bit of Happy Time Murders (which I thought was never as bad as it got credit for).
Disney poking fun at the concept of reboots though felt rather shallow as they're the ones always doing reboots to death, makes me wonder why Lumiere was a '2D' character. Also they do an Alvin and the Chipmunks joke, like Disney hasn't also swept up that property.
Also I generally got this feeling that this film wouldn't be entertaining for kids at all, too much commentary and references that younger viewers won't really get. So I think the film should've gone a bit more adult and less safe to make it feel less for kids that it appeared.
What they did with Peter Pan is a clear reflection/reference they did to his original voice actor. Poor Driscoll.
I came here as soon as I saw the notification! Always super excited to see new videos from you!
I actually still need to actually watch at least a full season of Bob's Burgers before seeing the movie since I've been putting it off for so long but in the case of Chip & Dale, I absolutely despised it. You're right that it actually does the bare minimum to be better than The Smurfs or Tom & Jerry, despite the fact that it still does have them teaming with a bland human character before they actually team up with the rest of the Rescue Rangers. Yet still I was entirely miffed by the poor writing & destitute jokes in the face of a premise that actually had some promise. Like I was exhausted by the end of the first Ugly Sonic bit, I was bored & pretty much only driven by reference spotting by the time they first meet Peter Pan & by the time they reach Dale's Rescue Rangers shrine I wanted nothing more than to turn it off & just watch the actual series again. It felt like the movie equivalent of tapping one key on a piano for an hour plus & calling it a song. I mean the movie itself was angling for Roger Rabbit comparisons since his cameo was in the trailer & it billed itself as a toon mystery in Hollywood but nothing about the mystery or characters really compelled me at all. I think Peter Pan's appearance was indicative of the laziness that I felt the movie oozed. Beyond even just the gross implications regarding the actual Peter Pan VA's life, they made the character less interesting & broke the logic of the movie at the same time with him. Like Peter was conceptualized & drawn as an eternal child so why exactly did he grow up into Crime Thug Character Template F when even Black & White characters still have their original designs in the present day? And if you made the choice to use Peter Pan, why not just keep him as a sadistic villain with the childlike looks & charisma he has when that would have actually been something compelling rather than just putting a generic gangster model in green tights? The movie has a good grounding premise but it feels like it does absolutely nothing throughout to fulfill its promise beyond the bare minimum of pulling in different characters in different styles & pointing at them expecting you to be impressed without also writing something intriguing for them to actually contribute to the story & overall mystery. It feels like not only was Disney lazy in giving this film the actual budget to match it's scope & giving it just enough to justify putting it on Disney Plus only, the writers were simultaneously lazy in having a good idea but not actually following through and just coasting on reference humor & a threadbare mystery to carry them. It's the kind of movie that will feel dated by 2023 & already feels dated to me personally.
I believe the idea of this movie according to TV tropes, that it’s a parody of a lot of reboot movies in recent years. Just a matter of how well you think it executed the premise.
Disney 50 years later: “Hey Bobby, just wanted to let you know that we’re gonna be using the story of when we kicked you to the curb for getting old as the backstory for the villain in one of our new movies, who is also the most well known character you’ve ever played. Is that alright?”
Bobby Discroll: **Literally lying in his grave**
Disney: “Awesome! Thanks Bobby!”
The 2nd Sonic movie largely fixed the “too focused on humans” issue
Just wished they cut them of movie a bit.
Okay 1st of the 1st movie did focused on Sonic. The human characters were there to helped the main character to grow. So does the 2nd movie. Sure they have screentime, but they didn't stole the spotlight from the main cast.
2nd despite everything these human characters are important for the franchise and characters especially. After all you can't have Sonic without fighting against Robotnik/Eggman. Not the mention it did something that not even videogames done (especially the new ones) properly: show Sonic as person, not just dude with attitude, but also kid with emotions and hardship, someone who growing to be a hero we know and start to learn about him more.
3rd I think we all agree this is the one of best hybrid animated/live action we have and the best video-game adaptation that actually works.
While better it still gave too much screentime to the wedding subplot, and not the Sonic stuff we're here for. I'm hoping the third film gives us more Sonic characters and actually focuses on them ( we can keep G.U.N, Dr.Robotnik, and maybe Tom).
@@troyjardine5850 honestly I hardly call it a wedding subplot in second half of it (more like a rescue mission with angry-like-amy bridedzilla), but I understand that. I had no problem with that since it gives Maddie a character development I was hoping for (and Rachel surprisingly), but I do hope for more focus on main plot and main chaeacters, especially on Sonic and Shadow.🤩
One of the many things i liked most about the new Chip n' Dale film is the insane amount of character cameos that were made in the film, especially Roger Rabbit. i mean seeing all of these characters from Disney and non-Disney franchises interacting in this whole world was just cool to watch!
I think people might have took this movie a bit too seriously. The whole controversy with Driscoll's tragic life aside, this movie is ultimately meant to be a light-hearted family-friendly mainstream movie made by a giant megacorp
This movie is the embodiment of corporate greed and trying to be hip with the kids, it tries to be self aware as humor but it comes off as soulless as they aren't actually saying anything of meaning, it's just references and making fun of themselves. The movie was entertaining at least but I don't want to reward Disney for this type of movie. This isn't a love letter to animation like a lot are saying, it's just Disney flexing their IP boner and doing stuff like ugly sonic to be relevant and cool. This will be the movie forgotten to time and will age really poorly in the coming years.
the best way to describe the whole movie is and I will have to quote Ugly Sonic from the movie here, 'You can't hurt my feelings if I'm in on the joke"
I expected better from an amphibia fan
@@EduardoMartinez-rs3bu Just cause I didn't like a movie you liked? What are you even saying lmfao
You summed up my thoughts, except I didn't even find it funny or entertaining. All of the humor to me didn't rise above the level of "RECOGNIZE THIS THING AND LAUGH!"
Roger Rabbit used classic characters like Betty Boop, Lena Hyena from the Lil'Abner comic strip, Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny. Characters people remember and grew up with and they KNOW they hold up.
This movie uses... a meme.
@@Kim-Pine not because you didn’t like it just that some of your points are straight false
It is compared to Rodgers rabbit because it has things not owned by one specific corporation, it is real people with animations, is a mystery plus it shows the underbelly of a generic happy world. Oh and yknow, it has Rodger rabbit in it.
Looks like the Rocky And Bullwinkle effect Is slowly showing some major Improvements unlike last year's Tom And Jerry Live Acton Movie did! Though It may not be good compared to Ducktales (2017)'s Darkwing Reboot Episode, this on the other hand still has heart and soul despite not to being mean spirited let alone doesn't do too much of Monty, Gadget, Zipper or even the classic vilians from the show (despite being actors themselves). As for Pewter Pan, not only they did him dirty but truly disrespected the original actor; Bobby Driscoll and felt truly disrespectful even If they still didn't know about this or not It was truly poor taste. What's next are they gonna do the exact same thing to Pinocchio, Arthur/Wart, or even Taran as well out of despite?! For the camoes; they truly broken the newest record compared to both Roger and Ralph's previous cameos (for now until Pibby steals the new cameo record) and gotta say there promising and even Ugly Sonic get newfound respect too and some are begging to see him for the 3rd Movie of Movie Sonic or what the original movie could've been like despite being a box office bomb originally but who knows at this point.
Dude just had a stroke
ok the stroke result was edited
@@SparkTheSnorlax I had a stroke reading that
To be fair, the film didn’t make the parallel to Driscoll a joke or anything. It’s played pretty straight forward and it was a genuinely sad scene that contributes to the film’s theme of coping with rejection.
I remembered that live action Rocky and Bullwinkle movie
Chip would be so HILARIOUS if they had John do his higher pitched stand up voice.
Me about to finally do some work and then see CellSpex makes a new video
This is a movie where the initial premise and cameos limply carry the whole thing, execution be damned because the bar hasn't been raised since either Back in Action or Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Back in action is an underrated gem and I think its better than Space Jam.
I dunno. I think “Back in Action” was on par with this film. It’s not perfect, but it’s still fun and enjoyable.
Also, this may be a bit controversial, but I don’t think the cameos in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” really contributed much either. Sure, it made the world feel more inhabited, but the only real cameo who added any real value to the plot was Betty Boop - establishing that Eddie still had a soft spot for Toons despite his prejudice. The rest were just fluff, really,
@@geoffreyrichards6079 I think that was really the point: to populate the world. Its not only easier, but believable when the population is a bunch of pre-existing characters. Makes that world seem more "real" than if they had created hundreds of generic characters just for the background. Its because we relate to them that they really belong.
And something all three movies got REALLY right (which both Space jams did NOT) was how to populate the world with toons in a believable way: They are spread out, living AMONG humans as equals. They have jobs, their own locations, they all have a life. In Both Space Jams they are just gathered in their own world, doing their own thing, so it doesn't really feel like they are part of our world and humans would interact with them but more like invaders. Roger Rabbit, Back in action and Chip n' Dale wouldn't really work with Generic toons or with toons confined to their world and not part of the real world. (I mean, sure they have Toon Town but thats more like a hub, a neightborhood, and also part of the movie's alegory to racism, segregation and gentrification).
My family and I loved this movie. The references both older and younger audiences could relate to was the best part. And it was so funny.
The one thing that disappoints me is how little was done with the missing toons, like they talk about the rescue rangers dude for a bit then forget about him for 90 minutes
Much better than expected, but that's not difficult to achieve given the incredibly low bar other nostalgia projects have set. Still, makes me wish we were getting an actual Rescue Rangers reboot.
Not gonna address the sweet elephant in the room? where the villain is Disney literally mocking a very tragic death?
A lot of bootlegs do try to closely mimic the source material, often near perfectly, but there are a ton of examples of actual "bootleg" movies where things are changed just enough to sneak around copyright, while still obviously attempting to ride off the success of an established IP. They're more of a moral grey area since while it is basically copying and altering someone else's work, it is still a "unique" piece and can be legally(?) sold without knowledge of the original IP holders. Mockbusters are made (sometimes poorly on purpose) to poke fun at the original work, rather than trying to deceive. The line between the two is very thin and obscured though.
You missed the thing - thats not what bootleg means. Bootleg specifically means an illegal recording of something real but not officially released (like releasing cut songs from Frozen), then sold without the copyright holders approval. You're looking for the word counterfeit.
@@IsaacIsaacIsaacson You are correct, these days bootleg and counterfeit are interchangeable in english, especially casually. I mean, even the movie calls it bootlegging, and they have a drove of people who at any time could have piped up and said "uhm well actually it would be counterfeiting" and that may have happened, but "counterfeiters" doesn't sound as nice as "bootleggers". Again though, you are correct.
GMA Network here in the Philippines is a massive megacorp that became big here from making bootlegs of everything they can get their hands on.
They are pirates that make mockbusters and bootlegs of everything, especially in their kids' shows and fantasy shows.
Just to give an example, their show Tsuperhero blatantly steals sound effects from Dragon Ball.
Their most recent kids' show Daig Kayo ng Lola Ko is just filled to the brim with copyright infringement, featuring bootleg versions of Spyro, Naruto, Riverdale, and many, many more, that wouldn't be out of place with the bootlegs Sweet Pete made.
I'd say South Park handled this better in the episode where they talked about how copyright infringement hurt multi-millionaire celebrities and how one of them might not be able to buy his own island.
Being that it’s a film that it’s a film that was a *huge* part of my life, when they said ‘he’s got Polar Express eyes’ I had to pause the film because it made me laugh so much.
Mayhap is because I'm older and the nostalgia goggles were extra pink but I enjoyed this movie a lot. Mulaney and Samberg were entertaining enough. Solid second after The bad guys on animated movies for 2022
I kinda thought the reason Gadget didn’t much scene time was because of her slight connection with Russia . For those that don’t know there is a small cult in Russia that actually worships get it as a goddess. Even talk about how their worship of her would one day bring her into the real world. I wish I was kidding about this.
It’s hard to believe that both her and Jared Leto have a cult dedicated to them
So if Cellspex were an animated character, what kind would she be?
next animated hybrid movie, someone should invite UA-camrs to have (and voice, or have a good impersonator if they can't be there) their Avatars in the background, and instead of being animated, they would just swap between their different expression templates like in their videos xD
Just a silhouette that changes depending on where she's facing, complete with circles and cap. Would be a cool stylistic choice of her literally being a silhouette and not just lurking in the shadows
@@MrKlausbaudelaire Imagine an animated Odds1Out cameo, that’d sure be something
Let me just say Wren is 100% legit and is the only sponsorship I have given money to.
As you once said, being better than Tom and Jerry 2021 "isn't so much raising the bar as stepping over a crack in the sidewalk."
Eh.
I understand it’s flaws and the criticisms against it, but I did find myself enjoying it. My favourite part was probably when they were walking down that magic kingdom boulevard, with Dale describing all the shady things these cutesy toons do in secret.
Which also is a dig at Disney
I agree with you
This entire movie is just Disney flexing and showing off how many characters from different film companies they can buy
I find it so funny that they turned cartoon physics… into the laws of physics. For example, the bird being annoyed when he has to go to work in the middle of the night after someone gets hit on the head.
And Ugly Sonic is ugly.
I was kinda unimpressed. It is the best animation live action crossover I’ve seen for a while, but still not living up to the hype. My biggest gripe with it is that Chip’s VA just had no emotion to it whatsoever, I could hardly listen to him without getting mad. Celebrity VA’s just can’t make the cut most the time.
Yes, I'm a sucker for reference humor...sue me. I think you missed one very particular reason this film gets compared to Roger Rabbit; like the former film, this movie not only had IP crossovers, it had crossovers from other studios, which to my knowledge has not been done in this form (where it's brazen enough they had to ask for the rights and cite them in the credits) SINCE Roger Rabbit. I'll admit it had it's issues, but I still thought it was a fun movie.
This based
So instead of a real Rescue Rangers reboot we get a Roger Rabbit spin off where Peter Pan is evil, Ugly Sonic is some how popular, and Gadget married Zipper.
Great job Disney. 😑
I hate it too tbh
Kind of throws the important message away from the original rescue rangers show
If you had to rank chip and dale, roger rabbit, wreck it Ralph, ready player one, and the space jam movies what order would you put them in?
Mine would be;
1 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit
2 - Wreck-it Ralph
3 - Chip & Dale: Rescue Rangers / Looney Tunes: Back in Action
4 - Space Jam
I haven’t seen “Ready Player One” or “Space Jam: A New Legacy” yet to determine for myself, but I feel I’d probably enjoy the latter more than the original (the 1st film was just obnoxious in a dated way).
It was pretty good so I give it a 6 or 7 out of 10
I thought the movie was okay. It feels weird that this is going to be a lot of people's introduction to Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers considering both this and the original are on Disney+ 🤣
I thought this was a fun movie, I don't agree with people painting it as a big corporate greed behemoth. Maybe it's just because I know artists and animators whose dream job would be working on projects like this, but it's so extremely harsh to treat this movie so coldly. The amount of work animators and artists had to put into this was huge. Just imagining them needing to get (or recreate) the old 3D models for Seth Rogan's characters for a 2 second bit with them like that is super interesting. They didn't need to do that, nobody would have missed that scene, but someone did all that anyway. Knowing the kind of people who put in work on these projects makes it really hard for me to see this as some soulless endeavor, so much unique animation went into this, I bet it was a dream for some person who grew up watching Disney only to end up making this move. Solid 8.5/10 as far as animated movies like this go, I can't justify ranking it lower.
Well said.
well the "I don't necessarily dislike Mulaney" probably didn't age well since you made this oof
Too many people were looking for a strictly Rescue Rangers film.
I think we all expected Gadget and Chip to hook up in this movie, but I don’t think anyone was prepared for Gadget and Zipper’s relationship and children. Like bruh that took me off-guard.
My biggest criticism with the animation is that it’s very hypocritical.
It may not be completely great, but I had a ton of fun watching the film with my family. Everyone knows that I’m a complete animation nut and this felt like a film that was created for people like me, with al, the different mediums being referenced and homaged. And the story was genuinely heartfelt.
Sure, the CGI animation replicating the traditional look wasn’t perfect, but it was clearly better than it had any right to be. And at certain times, it looked pretty convincing. And while I do think we could’ve had Gadget and Zipper play a bit more significant role, Chip and Dale were still compelling enough characters to carry the film through. I didn’t even mind the human character they partnered with. If we get a sequel (which is likely), I can easily see these issues being fixed.
And while there are a lot of cameos and references in the film that don’t play a significant part in the story, people forget that “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” had kinda the same issue with its ensemble of cameos. I mean, the only cameo with any real significance in the film is Betty Boop since she helps establish that Eddie still has a soft spot for Toons despite his prejudice. Everyone else is just there for people to point at and go “I recognize them”. But if people don’t mind it there, this shouldn’t be any more distracting.
As for the elephant in the room, I can see why people are finding the comparisons between Sweet Pete and Bobby Driscoll uncomfortable. But to the film’s credit, it’s not treated as a joke; if anything, it’s actually one of the film’s more genuinely sad moments, and it plays a significant part in the story’s theme about celebrities being neglected. And while his backstory is similar, the key difference is that Peter isn’t Driscoll. What he does in the film isn’t meant to reflect the true individual, but what the animated character he played would’ve done. After all, his whole shtick is the boy who never grows up.
That’s just my two cents, though.
Well put.
Never thought I’d live to see the day when DreamWorks characters appear in a Disney Movie
I liked the movie. I just didn't really need to see rodent-fly hybrid babies.
Outside of the many references and cameos, redeeming Ugly Sonic, Will Arnett's performance as the villain, and the concept of having various forms of animation living in a live-action world, I was pretty ambivalent towards this film. It has the right ideas for a fun mystery film, including one for CDRR, but it didn't work as well as it should have. I didn't like how they made Peter Pan the villain (even if the comparisons to his original actor's life might be coincidental), the other Rangers didn't get as much screen time or involvement as they should've, a lot of the jokes felt like they were trying too hard, and the way they tried to combine all forms of animation into one world didn't gel as well as it should've. It's still a cool idea, but I feel they could've experimented more with the concept to mesh everything more effectively.
This was probably the most mid movie I've ever watched, not once while I was watching it did it impress me, and at the same time not once did I dislike it
I must admit that I absolutely adored the back-and-forth banter between Chip and Dale themselves in this film. Their dialogue absolutely snapped! Oddly enough though, much of the dialogue for all of the REST of the characters felt terribly under-written and trite.
3:56 and yet Ugly Sonic is the funniest Parts of the Whole movie
Chip n Dale movie maybe has a lot of flaws, but it's the closest to being a _Who Framed Roger Rabbit?_ incarnate cameo wise which it's good. Since Sweet Pete's motivation is to make movie copycats to earn money, he should be replaced with the villain "Dingo Brinquedo", named after the two studios responsible for making infamous knock off movies.
Hi, Mr. political
I think Ugly Sonic should have been the villian.
The original villain was gonna be Pluto
@@KaminoKatie I know, but I'm glad they didn't make him one.
@@KaminoKatie why though?
Huh. Didn’t expect a…. Well not positive, but not super negative about it like a lot of people. So like, somewhat amusing and novel depending on how much corporate you can handle is what I get from that.
I mean I probably won’t watch it Becuase honestly that one scene with Seth Green characters I assume just inches into only Disney can do this territory that gets to me but hey kinda amusing is better than I expected. Least being divisive makes it interesting.
(And I just had the terrifying thought about what if they made Sora the child star instead of Pan. That actually could works and would be in less bad taste.)
The post credits scene is Sora joining a fight club with Chris Pratt, Ryan Reynolds, and Ben Schwartz
Ugly Sonic was the highlight of this entire movie
I like they gave backstory to chip and dales friendship and how important it is to communicate how you're feeling to your friends. It also shows the downside of being actors. That more often than not, if you are reaching a certain age, or don't fit a certain image they don't want you. But I think the most important theme was not letting too much time go without talking your issues out with your friends and honest if a decision they made hurt you. Because in the long run it hurts every one.
I don't understand the "it pays respect to animation angle."
It never goes any deeper than "hey look, here's that thing you know and love" before moving on.
Honestly, I feel like it's more disrespectful to animation than respectful.
Beyond the tragic situation of Bobby Driscoll, they make fun of mo-cap movies, which they themselves drove into the ground with "Mars Needs Moms" resulting in the loss of thousands of people's jobs. They tease actual 2d animation for Chip and Dale before switching to 3D, which clearly shows that they didn't think 2D animation was actually necessary for their 2D CHARACTERS in a world filled with other 2D ANIMATED CHARACTERS. They constantly make fun of the low-bar of modern animated movies without ever actually rising above that bar.
The entire movie is just Disney saying "yeah we have the money and man power to make good things but we don't want to, fuck you"
I dunno. Isn’t that like saying Pixar films hate 2D animation because they hardly ever bothered with the medium?
Sure, the 2D animation isn’t incredible and the CGI replicating the look isn’t great, but that’s likely just a budget constraint. And them poking fun at motion capture/realistic CGI is more of a lighthearted poke since the special effects team that helped make the film also worked on those sorts of films and even reused/recreated models for this - suggesting that they’re in on the joke.
It would be a lot better if Eric Goldberg handled the animation.
On the bright side, he is teaching new animators about "2D"
I have a love hate relationship with this movie. On one hand I liked it and laughed at some parts, on the other hand I was also extremely disappointed with some of the decisions Disney made.
Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers is not a perfect film. It has its issues, namely a weak villain and some strange animation.
However, this does not take away how cool this film is. The world that Disney have created is an interesting one that I'd like to see explored more in future projects. It's basically a modern Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Chip and Dale themselves are compelling characters, and their relationship is one of the highlights of the film. They have their own struggles, and things to work through before they trust each other again. They have their fight towards the end of the movie, as the cliche typically goes, but it is immediately side-lined for the plot to continue. Chip and Dale realize that the only way they can solve this case is to work together, so they have a fight, make up, and continue the plot.
The rest of the cast is pretty good too, with highlights being Captain Putty ( J.K Simmons ) who has some of the coolest animation in the film, and Sweet Pete ( Will Arnett ), who has a compelling backstory, but suffers slightly from the movie's runtime.
And that's the biggest problem with this film. It is way to short, only around ninety minutes. I wish that we got to see more of this world and these characters. Because of the runtime, the story happens so fast that you wish that there was more to it.
Overall, Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers is a new cult classic.
Heck, in some ways, “Roger Rabbit” has some of the same flaws as this film. The culprit isn’t really a mystery, and some of the animation can look kinda rough (mostly for the background characters). But that doesn’t negate how great of a film it is.
That's like saying a Subway Steak and Cheese is better than a rotting cow carcass.
I'm honestly surprised and a little disappointed to hear you say this felt like it was respecting animation as a medium. Just because it has REFERENCES to other animation styles, does not mean it RESPECTS those styles. More than anything that scene of them being scanned with all the different styles just felt like pandering to people like myself who love and adore and study animation. They go "oh see we have characters in traditional animation" all the while having Chip and Peter in DISGUSTING cel shaded animation. You'd think they would actually put EFFORT in having their LEADS look good. Cel shaded can look stunning. _Into the Spider-Verse, Peanuts 2014, Arcane_ are great examples of WELL DONE cel shaded 3D animation with a blend of traditional animation as well. No no no this wasn't a love letter to animation. It was hate mail to animation. I am so done with this notion "new tech means better animation" because a 30 second clip of Bugs and Mickey talking while free falling in a movie released in 1988 looks better than anything found in this. Not to mention there are incredible videos like Warrior Cat MAPS done by incredible artists, animation story time tubers like Jaiden Animations, Odd1sOut, and _Helluva Boss_ that are proof enough people do care and still consume animation that looks like it's done traditionally, just with newer tech. So WHY Disney has this idea that movies like _Lion King 2019_ IMPROVE on the original because of "newer technology" I have no idea. You can have all the tech in the world to create a story, but if you do not have TALENT then it means nothing.
I agree 100%
yep yep yep yep yep. I flippin' love Warrior Cat Maps and I haven't even read the books past new prophecy.
I disagree with everything you said but you mentioned and praised arcane so now I have to support you