Chip 'N Dale: Rescue Rangers is SURPRISINGLY Divisive...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 тра 2022
- Try 5 pairs of glasses at home for free: warbyparker.com/saberspark
The at Home Try-On Kit is only offered in the US
🔥Saber's Social Media🔥
►Watch More of Saber's Reviews Here: tinyurl.com/y5e3ya5j
►Follow Saber on Twitter: / saberspark
►Follow Saber on Twitch - / saberspark_
►Support Saber on Patreon: / saberspark
►Join and become a UA-cam Member for exclusive perks: tinyurl.com/rbc4e9h
✅Video Credits✅
►Video Edits by Jmore
/ jmore5099
►Thumbnail by Henri Yount
/ bviddycent
►Audio Edits by dBPony
/ dbponymusic
►Intro Music/Outro Music by Hirosashii
/ hirosashii
►Additional Avatar Pics by Flutter Spartan
/ flutterspartan
►Avatar Pics by Acid Neko
/ xxacidnekoxx
►Music by Home
/ home-2001 - Розваги
I gotta say, as someone who hasn't seen the movie, the three characters they chose (Coca Cola Bear, Peter Pan and the weird uncanny valley character) are probably three of the most random characters to throw into a movie together to make a super villain team.
Heads up, before you watch it, of movie sonic is in the movie, and is a main part
Bet'cha the Coca Cola bear is the villain because Coca Cola didn't pay up for the branding in the movie. Writers/producers did that with Food Fight mocking every brand that wouldn't donate and making heroes of the ones that did.
There random but it's fun. I loved Peter pan though. Idk why but God I loved it
ua-cam.com/video/iHiDi3qNV1g/v-deo.html
Finally, it's here.
I thought that the polar bear was that bear from "The Golden Compass"
I love the fact that the “uncanny valley” isn’t seen as a chart, but an actual area where all the uncanny creatures live in their world
Yeah, that was the one joke in the trailer that I actually liked.
Oh god the bots
I half expected Xavier to spirit guide them through the Uncanny Valley.
I guess they kinda based it around “silicon valley”
The way they talked about it as just "The Valley" seemed like San Fernando to me.
It's slightly worse: Disney kicked Bobby Driscoll to the curb...for getting acne. Not having his voice break, just...getting acne. Disney's got a LONG history of treating their child stars badly, and I think the thing that is the real problem here is it wouldn't really have significantly changed the story if how they handled it showed some sensitivity and awareness? (Especially if they're going to critique Hollywood anyway. Why skip the whole thing about how the Hollywood tradition of exploiting kids is perhaps wrong and harmful to kids?)
Also, it's not quite the "LOOK RANDOM IP!" is wearing on people, as much as audiences are starting to notice it's being substituted for good story. "Look over there it's Elsa! And the Death Star! (Plz ignore the plot hole it's sliding in through. That's a FEATURE!)" It doesn't actually matter at this point if it's being used as a distraction, because at this point it's like watching a bad magician--once you know the tells that he's trying to misdirect you, you'll know he is even if you didn't catch what he was misdirecting you about.
Howard Hughes's purchase of RKO at the time was also a huge factor in it
Basically if they made a modern The Wizard of Oz and made it a porno
Exactly. The characters and references in this feels like those find it books but in movie form
@@wigglestoescutely And it doesn't really sound like it got what made Roger Rabbit work. Roger Rabbit was actually a reworking of what was originally planned to be a sequel to Chinatown, but kinda sorta using the characters from a book which is well forgotten to get to make it. (And ohhhh yeah don't bother with the book. There's a reason people generally stuffed it down a memory hole and I hear the sequel novels ignore it and use the movie's story instead, so...)
The kid died an early death. Very tragic.
I think the main difference between this movie and Roger Rabbit is that Roger Rabbit felt more creative and the social commentary just felt more natural and more tone friendly.
With Chip and Dale it feels like Disney tried too hard and not try hard enough and it’s like yeah it’s supposed to be a social commentary on the industry but it feels kinda poor in a sense for several reasons.
1. Picking Peter Pan as the main villian knowing what the original actor went through feels a little tone deaf.
2. Picking “bootleg copies are bad and are ripping us” kinda feels weak knowing how much Disney is obsessed with Copyright.
3. Roger Rabbit was more of a social commentary on racism in the film industry and in general and it feels way less tone deaf.
I’m not saying it’s a bad movie but it’s kinda hard to say what kind of movie it is.
But that's why I enjoyed it. This movie is a self criticism from Disney. Not a social commentary.
@@aegisxiii2384 That also became tone-deaf with certain points, and sometimes they aren't even criticizing themselves, ironically their socially commentary on things is what made it so tone-deaf, such as their takes on bootleg movies and Peter VA's life. Using a real person's tragic life that's been made by the very company that destroyed his life to be put into their own satire movie...
@@mmecharlotte they did not rip off kimba
@@mmecharlotte Imagine thinking that The Lion King is still a ripoff in 2022 lmao
*A little* tone deaf? It’s as tone deaf as helen keller
I think the peter pan thing is both on purpose and by accident. The movie is a commentary on the actual film industry, so they designed Peter Pan's villain story based on a thing that really happens to child actors. But I don't think they intended to shit on the actual actor; it was likely an oversight. They probably picked Peter Pan because his character "never grows up" so it would be funny if he grew up, and they didn't look any further into it.
But I think the big problem, and the reason people are *really* upset is that this is a Hollywood movie made by Disney. That changes EVERYTHING. Hollywood and Disney are the ones who are directly responsible for the whole "Promise the world to the child actor up until puberty hits then toss them on the street" problem to begin with. So, Disney making the villain of Disney's movie be a victim of Disney's abusive practices... It comes across as very poor taste to say the least.
When they meta so hard they hurt themselves. You can go "it has to be an oversight" then you're like "oh, no it isn't they meant to do it"
They meta'd so hard they called themselves out because Disney is quite literally known for ruining the lives of children who worked with them when they become adults. They can't be unaware that they've been known for that for decades. It most likely was on purpose but also most likely was an oversight when it came to what occurred to the voice actor for Peter pan.
Agreed. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt at first, but honestly idk
BINGO. I haven't seen the movie myself, but I think you got why this is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way... it's by DISNEY, of all companies. Disney, with its infamous iron grip on copyright and poor worker conditions. And it makes sense it's by Disney, because that's how they got all the licenses for the characters... except WAIT, no, they included characters they DON'T own and didn't get permission for because ~parody~. :|
You might surmise from my icon that I'm a Sonic fan so I'm talking about Ugly Sonic. You would be right LOL.
Tangent about the whole Ugly Sonic thing, because I think it ties into the vitriol people are feeling toward this movie: Disney could absolutely afford to contact SEGA and/or Paramount to buy the rights to use a knockoff/abandoned version of Sonic that basically no one liked in the first place. Word on the Sonic fandom street is that they DIDN'T, which makes the whole thing feel... more cruel, somehow? That Disney, of all companies, is taking a potshot at a product that could have been every bit as soulless and a cash grab as their 'live action' reboots, but ended up listening to fans and changing it for the better. And now the Sonic movies have been outperforming DIsney's own at the box office LOL. So there's a common feeling of suspicion, resentment, and cynicism, because Disney does not have the track record to mock other companies for a shoot and a miss that they then later fixed.
OKAY SO I know I rambled a little, but I think it's relevant to what you said. Modern Disney is a horrible company with horrible practices, and I feel bad the people who may have unironically put their heart into making this movie and its meta commentary have to work for them. :C It almost reads less as parody, and more like a cry for help.
@@d-o-k-i Disney also has a long history of mocking the actions of slavery, the whole Donald duck nazi thing and just the whole copy right and poor worker treatment is just a stepping stone into the horrors of the company if you dig into the practices you'll see they treat the children like their adults causing them to lose their minds because they didn't get treated like they should have so they lose their whole childhood to strict schedules and being yelled at by directors. The child actors also get payed 11-50$ and hour averages suggest 22$ but is that worth sacrificing childhoods and early development fuck no.
I think Chip looks adorable, but Dale looks like an Alvin and the Chipmunks reject.
Yeah I agree. It was a terrible idea for them to have the 'lol look at the CGI treatment' joke, if it effected a main characters appearance for the entire movie.
Ok.
So?
*ua-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/v-deo.html*
Finally its here.
@@Thisguyisright I think it’s a good choice since it lets you know which ones which
There were continuity errors when it came to aging the cartoon characters. Outside of seeing Chippendale grow together, Peter Pan was the only noticeable cartoon character aged up. I'm not surprised people think it was done on purpose to parallel the original voice actor's story.
Before he was revealed, I literally asked my friends "so how do characters age? Do they age?" Then they show him and I immediately recognized he was the ONLY ONE. He even ran into one of the other characters from his own movie- who didnt age!!? Its so confusing and honestly took me out of the movie because it just felt forced
They also left out Chip N Dales' classic shorts and their appearances in between the Rescue Rangers TV show and this movie, not to mention Return to Neverland and Peter's guest appearance in Jake and the Neverland Pirates and any other appearances of the character I might've left out.
Are you questioning the age of a cartoon character?!?😂😂😂
Ugly sonic does seem to be a lot older than the sonic in the games, heck, he seems to be the oldest version of sonic we have, he looks to be in his mid 40s, maybe 50s
@jackhumphries1087 it's not Sonic. It's "Ugly Sonic", the version of Sonic we first saw in trailers of the first Sonic movie, which is why he looks similar to that original design.
The Peter Pan thing kinda killed Disney for my family. We still like their older content, but when I explained to my parents how Peter's story paralleled Bobby Driscoll's almost perfectly, they were PISSED. So we haven't boycotted them- we're just more cautious now with their newer stuff.
Also, why would the Coca Cola Bear be a villain? Literally, he's still popular. Always has been.
All that to say, Disney is going nuts and I'm not here for it.
Also- may I just say Silver Dollar City is the superior theme park :3
Silver Dollar City is pretty lit
I like how they made the viewer think that “Sweet Pete” was Pete the cat. Anyone who used to watch Mickey Mouse Clubhouse as a kid knows that he was the cashgrab character guy who did scummy things, so I really just guessed that Sweet Pete was him without a second thought. When it was revealed that he was Peter Pan, my jaw actually dropped a bit.
He was a cat??
@@h0lodm0966 yeah, Pete is a cat 😅
Same thought! I thought it was gonna Pete, Mickey’s old nemesis lol.
Omg I thought Pete was a dog
@@h0lodm0966 Pete was originally a bear, but after time he evolved into a cat lol
In addition to the Bobby Driscoll controversy, it felt weird how Peter Pan “aged” despite being a toon/drawing. Given how Baby Herman in Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a 40yo toon stuck in his baby body forever. And considering Roger appeared in this movie, that plot hole really bugs me
Also, Peter aged, the lost boys didn’t. Hell, no other character has aged, despite most of them being way past their apparent age, so why him?
@@PMbarbieri We see Chip and Dale grow up in the movie. Some toons age and some don’t apparently.
The roger rabbit you see in this is the "actor" roger rabbit
and the one in the roger rabbit movie is the "role" he plays in a movie so they found a way to get away with things like this...
Its kinda meta
@@cmbaz1140 no, in one scene, there was dip, so roger rabbit is technically canon to this.
@@cmbaz1140 But the acotr of roger rabbit looked the same as teh characters even after all those years... I dont think there was any meta or anything I think they just wanted a villain.
2:28
Never have we ever thought we would see that creepy human-like Sonic design again!!
reason for the dividedness is easy: disney can't, and shouldn't, make satire about the animation industry while also being one of the main culprits of the animation industry being what it is today. they're not punching up, they're not even punching down, they're throwing pretend-punches at themselves.
Why can one not criticize themself?
Disney just published it. If you knew about who created the movie you’d know they aren’t typical Disney collaborators. So isn’t it possible it was a middle finger to them and they overlooked it?
This really sums up the problem with this movie so well. Disney is a part of the problem, but they don't get that.(Or they don't care)
I’m gonna engrave this comment on a plaque, frame it and mount it on my wall. High shall it stand for years to come.
Nail on the head. ALL these commentaries are just companies being like 'hey, aren't we scummy! but we know our industry is scummy, look we called ourselves out!' And people eat it up
So for the Peterpan thing, he had an active contract with Disney, and they ended it prematurely because he went through puberty. For Disney to do it it does seem in extremely poor taste, especially since the guy died and wasn't even identified until his family went looking for him years later. It feels very deliberate in that regard.
Considering the writers and directors who were behind it, combined with the way it was executed in the movie, Saber is right- it’s very likely not deliberate.
Highly doubt its deliberate, would Disney give attention to one of their dark decisions in one of their movies?
I think it's a reference to how poorly child actors in general are treated by Hollywood
@@CrowTRobot That just means they were so lazy they did not do any research?
6:32
I think one reason that this movie hits some people the wrong way is because Disney just got done doing an amazing Ducktales reboot cartoon that also factored in Darkwing Duck, Tale Spin and even the Rescue Rangers themselves had a cameo. Seeing that and seeing what a true, good Rescue Rangers reboot could have been; I can understand why this is an eyeroll to many. That and the whole "Lol look how meta we are" schtick is getting a little tired at this point.
Kids have there own shows now, how many adults gonna care enough to watch a reboot where they still are detectices and not sctors playing themselves
@@3DMVR I'll ask the same question that keeps coming up every time.
If kids have their own shows, and you're nostalgia baiting adults who grew up with this show but you're not making it aimed at them..... who the hell is this thing for?
DuckTales was a success. Nostalgia hook the adults who grew up with it, make it clever and enjoyable for their nostalgia while introducing it to their kids and you get both with one go. Why WOULDN'T adults want to watch a reboot with the same premise as the original they're nostalgic for?
@@ninjafoxgamesgeekery4555 Thank you couldn't have worded that better myself..
Imma be honest I didn't care for The DuckTales reboot at all it was very average.
@@PeterGriffin11 I'd say above average way above average for reboot and remake standards .. given those behind it and not in the cartoon iether(as far as I am aware) mocked or dissed old fans or the old series involved which has became par for the course to mock old fans .. diss the old versions and so on when talking remakes and reboots in the media itself or in interviews and social media
I think it's very very weird they only picked Peter Pan to age up really badly, but when Peter meets one of the lost boys, the boy is still the same age. It just seems too on the nose to just be a coincidence
Well I mean... Having him as a villain can make a bit of sense too cause conspiracy theories say that he can be evil.
I think however it can go into really interesting places if the franchise can continue (especially in more adult directions). For example you can have characters like tulip Olsen, Reggie Abbott, Hilda, Marinette, Luz Noceda and Anne Boonchuy who appear like 12-14 year olds are actually something like 65 or even thousands of years old. And it's not new, nimona is 1000+ years old and so are some anime characters who look like kids.
@@shacharlem4424 now are days anime just don't care about age anymore, mostly with girls. anime has a thing that feeds peoples fetishes. that's part of the reason why it's weird and sometimes pervy most of the time.
But it's also a chance to explore such things @@rickydiscord7671. Like , how do you think that affects the characters psych and mental health to be stuck in the same grade for millennia? Maybe they wish to grow up and get a life.
My friend went to a screening with a Q&A with the director. When the Peter Pan controversy about Bobby Driscoll was brought up in a question by a fan, the director said they genuinely did not know about all that happened to him and how he died. It was never on purpose to make light of that tragedy and an honest mistake. I say take it with a grain of salt because I find it a little weird that no one in higher up Disney, who are known for keeping ties on their actors and being protective of their history, never mentioned this to them. But straight from the director, it was something that he, the writers, and the producers did not know about. It wasn't on purpose according to them
Because no one at Disney fired Bobby. That was Howard Hughes that fired Bobby. He was the distributor for Disney at the time (he owned the RKO company at the time). This happened way before Disney was it's own entity. 2 years in fact before Disney could even hire Bobby back (5 legally but 2 after RKO legals and such with HH selling it) And by then he was already doing hard drugs at 16.
I can believe that. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney kept that information from them. I feel like they could've done research but idk..
The difference for me between chip and Dale, and Roger rabbit, is that even if you would to take away all the referenced characters, you would still have a plot with original characters in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The references made by Roger just make the movie that much better, but Chip and Dale relies heavily on those references in order to make up for it’s story. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a fun movie. It’s nostalgia candy. But it’s hard to tell if it’s being satire or if that just something they accidentally stumbled on. Like Sweet Pete. Or Batman vs E.T. In the movie’s own words “You can’t hurt my feelings, if I’m in on the joke.” But what’s the joke?????
That, and WFRR put legendary amounts of effort into integrating cel-animated characters into real life. If Disney could afford to fund that movie in the late 80s, they sure as hell can afford to throw as much money at nearly any project. It just strikes me as cynical from the get-go. Why should I care about the movie if the studio cared so little? I despair for how complacent Disney has become with cheap, corner-cutting alternatives to quality 2D, at a time when they're making record profits.
@@donnylurch4207 Roger Rabbit was Touchstone Pictures though and not Disney. They shared the same parent company but Touchstone is where Buena Vista sends its “bad” films that it doesn’t think are Disney enough to do well at the box office or are too “adult” for the Disney branding.
Yeah because when you think about it, all the main players in the story were original characters, and the actual cartoon characters were used for cameos and jokes. Heck even Wreck it Ralph used that formula and mostly used original characters instead of licensed video game characters. I think that may be the....litmus test of this kind of movie. Can it stand without it's referential material.
Also people credit the movie for making fun of Pumba, but it's actually making fun of the viking character for that style of model, the only reason Pumba is saying it is because they're both voiced by Seth Rogan, hence why other characters also voiced by the same character join in to make fun of the Viking
@@princesspikachu3915 Yep, but once it proved successful Disney had no problem putting its branding on it. If it had sucked, it would have ended up like Strange Magic with the shell copy name on it and DVD cover that looks like it was made by someone who failed commercial art.
He didn’t just die in squalor….he literally died in a ditch was found and put in an unmarked grave because no one who found him knew who he was cause he had no form of ID on him and his own mother didn’t know he was dead until years and years later :/
Edit: to all the people wanting to argue in the comments if there are people today who worked for Disney as kids who say that Disney is to blame for their mental struggles & issues…. And they have proof….. how is Bobby any different??
Thats actually fucking sad, Disney did him real dirty
If I remember I don't think he died in a ditch, but it was an abandoned building. The whole story about what happened to him is pretty awful.
@@chickenbucket7842 Disney did nothing to him
@@chickenbucket7842 why do you blame Disney I mean he was hired for a job he didn't meet the standards anymore you get fired that how it works in any job
@@EmperorDxD He wasn't fired for not meeting standards. he was fired because he got acne. Why do you feel the need to defend the actions of evil people?
Fun fact: in the background of a scene where Chip is walking down the road, there’s a Gucci ad behind him. The model in the ad is Dobby the house elf.
batman vs e.t
5:22 I'm like 99% certain those nuts were simulated in a transparent boundary and composited in, it would be time consuming to animate individually otherwise, even worse if they needed to make adjustments later. I reckon it's unnerving because of the the choice to simulate ambient occlusion and not to shade the nuts in the same way, hell the movie is meta enough that it could get away with just switching up the lighting styles once the nuts are in the mouth
N U T S
This reads like an advanced deez nuts joke. Whether that was intentional or not, I applaud you.
what do you know about nuts in the mouth man? lmao
I think what especially rubs me the wrong way with the main characters not being genuine 2D is how little effort was put in to even make it look good. Literally all they did was paint a model in flat colors, drop the frame rate by 1 or 2 frames, and called it a day. And as a result the characters look so restricted and lifeless, especially during the few times they do something cartooney. And not to mention how at the more absurd angles they look so insanely ugly.
If they absolutely had to do the CGI/2D hybrid style, they at least could've mimicked some 2D techniques like squash and stretch or added smear frames here and there to better sell the illusion.
Just look at Spiderverse and how much effort was put into that to make it feel like a 2D comic come to life. Or if we're going by Disney examples they could've brought back the techniques used in that cool "Paperman" short from 2012, where they had the 2D artists trace over the CG models so that the film still has the benefits of working with CG while still retaining a lot of that 2D charm usually lost in translation.
I'm at least Glad that Disney is hiring 2D animators again because I genuinely never want to see anything like the fake 2D in this film ever again.
It always comes back to Spiderverse doesn't it 😂
I think one of the worst parts for me was the CGI muppet guy. They could've at least given him the arm rods. They literally had a sock puppet character in an earlier scene, so I don't thing having it actually move like a puppet being controlled by someone would be too out of place. I think just making a real puppet would've been much easier and actually look better.
I do not blame the Animators at all, they did their best, specially with the parts that were pure computer animation, they were great recreating past styles. I think it was a matter of budget in my opinion. They choose the cheap option for 2D in a movie that wasn't expected to make a whole lot of money.
Good 2D Animation is expensive and labor and time intensive. Even the CGI facsimile.
For what is essentially a pop corn movie for streaming it wasn't worth the effort.
Better concept and writing would be needed to justify the expense, but then it wouldn't have been a Chip n' Dale movie for streaming 🤷
@@marlonbryanmunoznunez3179 I'd honestly prefer they not make the film at all.
There is no excuse for it being this bad. Disney is one of the biggest corporations in the world and worth BILLIONS. And they throw hundreds of millions of dollars into the other Disney+ originals and are now putting Cinema quality animated shows on the platform. And saying "It's just a popcorn movie" is an insult to popcorn movies.
idk it feels like they tried something like artiswitch (sorry, that’s the only example i know) but it lowkey failed
Chip is honestly animated kind of how a VTuber is, just basically like 2.5D instead of the normal rigging of Live2D.
@Freesmart Probably Disney higherups not giving the filmmakers on the project enough money to animate characters like Chip entirely in 2D. I mean its a Disney+ exclusive based on a 90's TV show, it likely wasn't a high priority on Disney's to do list and as such likely didn't get as big of a budget as the creatives working on it had hoped for.
@Freesmart It's simply just Disney not caring about it. They made a lazily shaded 3D model and celebrated it.
“Where my VTuber Anime Waifu Rescue Ranger Disney? Get that Sora shit off my screen!”
Except Vtubers usually look better
The animation reminded me more of beastars then anything. And because of that association, In my mind people are being over dramatic when they talk about the “2D” model. I don’t get the complaints. It looks decent.
I'm grew up with Rescue Rangers and I thought it was hilarious. My girlfriend had never seen the show and also enjoyed it. I guess it just not for everyone but it was definitely our sense of humor
Same! I watched it with my boyfriend and he never heard of the show before, we both had a good time watching it xd
Same thing with my wife and me
Same with my fiance and me. We both grew up with the original show, so while I went in with an open mind, my fiance wasn't expecting much. But we both were surprised with how much we liked it. It wasn't perfect and had problems, but overall, we had a lot of laughs and enjoyed the experience.
I just can’t get over how they treated Boddy’s story of pain and dead that was forced onto him and they used that….. as a villain who is a childish man baby who is a drug lord ! Like you can’t do that by accident, like someone along the way knows his story !
The fact that Disney was able to license a lot of characters from other studios is very impressive to me
Impressive but they can afford to too lol
Eh... it's Disney, the devil himself. It can do whatever it wants.
Disney slowly revealing just how much power they have in the industry as a whole. A subtle flex/threat 😂😂
Which characters don't they own?
What do you mean? Disney owns EVERYTHING now.
they really should have put the money into the 2D animation side because the cheapness definitely showed
@im back Ugly Sonic? Yeah he's finally here
Uhhhhh I don't know about that. to be fair theres a mix of so much different animations that's already expensive enough. 2D,3D,clay mation,animatronic,cell shading I'm mean if this movie was everything like Roger Rabbit i wouldn't mind but a mix-up of animation styles is very interesting to see at least.
Couldn't fix the writing.
This movie is just a disrespect mixed with jokes and cameos. It will be forgotten very very soon.
Agreed.
I had done my reading about Bobby Driscoll years before, so the similarities between himself and Sweet Pete weren’t lost on me. I see people using “tone-deaf” to describe the character, and I tend to agree with that assessment.
By the by, I thought that Bjornson the cheesemonger was a standout character, and thinking of that scene in particular, the fat girl mouse being fed cheese by the boy mouse had some major feeder/feedee vibes.
Seeing Baloo wear modern clothing and Kaa wearing sunglasses, a gold chain necklace, and talking like a millennial, made me feel like I was having a seizure
It was pretty funny though. Pretty funny when Coca Cola bear fanboyed toward Baloo.
I kind of wish Baloo had another part where after he got done talking to the cocoa cola bear, he saw Sweet Pete in his monster form, he handed his phone to another character and he came to Chip and Dale’s rescue, and said, alright Freakazoid, I the bear Baloo order you to stop chasing my little buddies or I’ll be forced to unleash my claws on you!
1. You could replace Chip and Dale with literally any 90's characters and it wouldn't change the "story" at all.
2. The main difference between this and Roger Rabbit is you can see the CARE the crew of Roger rabbit had for the film. the shadows are perfect, there's a lot of nuance, and it respects the genre without making fun of it. Idk, I feel like this movie didn't have any heart, they just stuck a bunch of references in it and called it a day, which is all the more obvious for all the Seth rogan characters cameo. its the family guy humor of "hey look, reference!"
Also Roger Rabbit had alot more human/toon physical interactions which they convincingly pull off despite the challenges that created for the actors and crew such as the scene where Roger and the detective are handcuffed and Roger climbs all over the set bumping into objects as he goes.
I also wasn't a fan of the plucky, inexperience police officer who is belittled by the police chief and token minority female so they can play the feminism card. She was a cliche character in film with comparably more interesting characters. I did however like the "is she a mole?" subplot and was disappointed it was the chief and annoyed the payoff for it was a "look, it's a cliche, which is bad, but we're doing it anyway" joke.
This felt like it was a “direct to VHS” release in terms of production and story-effort. I was really hoping for a more The Rescuers to The Rescuers Down Under approach where the entire RR gang was called in to solve a case in the current era. Sigh.
@@emilycreativeandtall4182 I wouldn't go that far. It's a good quality movie. It's just not Who Framed Roger Rabbit good.
@@emilycreativeandtall4182 this movie was only available to Disney plus. This is literally the modern day equivalent to "direct to VHS"
@@sierrasouthwell9237 yep - that’s what most of these streaming service titles are now, sadly. I guess when a company has to pad their catalogue the quality to volume ratio doesn’t always equal out
Imagine if Rescue Rangers got a Ducktales style reboot, that would've been so much cooler ngl
They did show up as a cameo in the new Ducktales iirc.
that woudlve been so amazing but require passion and effort.
@Sheldon surley it wouldn't be nearly as grabage as your show that's for sure
That's exactly what fans prefer.
We ALMOST had that. Higher ups nixed it for this movie.
I watched this movie with my friends and we had to pause the movie before pan explained his backstory and I explained what happened to his voice actor and then pan literally recites exactly that same story back as we unpause it. It was uncanny. It was deliberate there is NO way they didn't know what they were doing.
This is my guess. I'm going to assume the writers were savvy enough to know (if they did ANY research about the real world history of the character they were using as their main villain they probably found at least someone talking about this), but the executives who signed off on the movie didn't, so it got to go to streaming unaltered.
Honestly, I think what they could have done for the Villain or in my idea Villains, Felix the Cat and Oswald the Rabbit, both out to get revenge on all the new characters as well as ones that took their spot light and you wouldn't have the controversy like you do with Peter Pan.
Like imagine Oswald's final goal was to kidnap Mickey Mouse just to turn him into a CGI monstrosity to destroy Toon Town, whilst Felix eventually comes to his senses, teams up with Chip and Dale, then goes on to fight Oswald because Oswald wanted to be Famous Again and was fuelled by hatred for Mickey whilst Felix just wanted people to remember him and the convention centre could be like him seeing people still loving Felix and having even a small fan base and maybe Chip and Dale find that even Oswald still has admirers but he was so fuelled with rage, he didn't even stop to think that people still loved him.
But that's just my idea
Hollywood needs to hire you
That's a better alternative, but they chose the ditch route cause it's the first thing they came across than walk further into the sunset.
That sounds kind of amazing. Unfortunately, post Epic Mickey, Disney doesn't really care about Oswald anymore (but then they have a bunch of other random characters that are even more obscure in Chip and Dale so maybe they could've gone for it). It would've been fun to see them reference Epic Mickey as well, like when Oswald sees how many people like him, he says something like, "I haven't been this popular since I acted in that video game."
I've heard on TV tropes that Pluto could have been the villain, which honestly makes sense as he was always historically the antagonist of Chip and Dale, that and when you think about it having to be the pet of the mascot of Disney would probably get pretty tiring given what he's often put through.
@Chipper The plot of the comment still makes sense because Felix was a kind-of 'forgotten' character that more popular characters like Mickey Mouse took the spotlight from. That, and there are SO many non-Disney references and characters in Chip and Dale, so I think they could have done it.
This just really confirms for me that Disney is NEVER bringing back 2D animation. They won't even spend the extra money and time to make 2D character appearances to look good for a movie.
What you just said isn’t entirely true because there has been news popping up recently that famous Disney animator Eric Goldberg has not only been training a new generation of animators for both 2D and 3D animation, but is going to help Walt Disney Animation Studios do a combination of both 2D animated films and CG films, and maybe even some 2D/CG hybrids.
I doubt that
Keep in mind Roger Rabbit was traditionally animated. They're not willing to put in half the effort like they use to.
Well their cartoons still have 2D animation.
I haven't seen this, but even with the slightly off-looking fake 2d (which even Ghibli has done), it looks very expensive. Remember that Roger Rabbit was done at a time when most people still regularly went to theatres to better recoup costs, and there were still a lot of classically trained animators to shoulder the massive workload.
i'm a terribly cynical person most of the time, but I still really liked this movie. It's not perfect, but it was pretty different, which in this day and age, is great to see.
^
*ua-cam.com/video/lE5U2d1shBM/v-deo.html*
Finally it's here
Yo it's kruggsmash, nice
@@draguOdoT right, yeah. nobody was expecting this movie to be oscar-worthy. It was a fun little nostalgia clip show with some tongue-in-cheek humor and competent effects. More good than bad, for sure.
uummm no, it wasn't that unique
Grew up loving Rescue Rangers, was not expecting the "who dun it" storyline, but it was a fun ride.
Lots of genuine laughs, and while not groundbreaking: it did feel clever with how it handled a lot of the dialogue
This rendition was awful. The voices are atrocious definitely not like the cartoon which after 30 mins I just turned it off. One cartoon & one CGI. Is this the best that Hollywood can do smh. Just leave our classic cartoons alone please. Anyone who likes this bullshiggity is disturbed.
@@TheMan-qv1bl Can’t take an opinion, huh?
@@TheMan-qv1bl My parents adored their classic cartoons and had a in between opinion with it about Disney reuising these characters. But they still enjoyed it, some people enjoy bad jokes we don't understand, and sometimes we laugh at jokes no one else gets. To me the movie was pretty funny and it got a few laughs out of my parents, who would usually rather watch OG cartoons. I respect your opinion, but no need to criticize the people who enjoyed it. If you didn't like it, then try watching your own cartoons but leave those who liked it alone.
Unpopular opinion: I feel like this movie did a good job of summing up the film industry
My take on the Bobby Driscoll controversy: As far as I'm concerned, the directors didn't think this through any further than "What if the Boy Who Didn't Grow Up... Did?"
I honestly didn't know about what happened to Bobby Driscoll. Hell I've never even heard of Bobby Driscoll.
I also never heard of him before. I’m a huge Disney fan but I don’t really getting into the voice actors and their personal lives.
@@kay-jay1581 ikr
They probably didn't know but it comes off as incredibly tone deaf...
Yeah I mean the Peter Pan movie is like over 60 years old. I doubt any of the people working on the movie remembered about the original voice actor because it was so long ago.
The voices bothered me a lot, but I guess its nice to know there was a plot reason for it. I wonder if they didn't do 2d Chip because it would clash too much with Dale's model? Like when they interact physically? Or maybe it was a placeholder model that ended up being used because of time constraints. Either way, odd choice.
I think it comes down to budget. The Executives at Disney likely didn't provide a big enough budget to animate Chip and other reoccuring characters like Gadget, Monty, and Sweet Pete in 2D, with the 3D cell shading models probably being the workaround needed to still tell the story and stay within the budget the execs provided the creatives.
It's much easier to integrate 3D animation into a 3D environment than it is to hand draw it. If you go into various behind the scenes clips where CGI is heavily used, you'll often see various dots and symbols on the set, which are used for getting things like distance and perspective right. I know they did it by eye in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but doing it this way was probably both much cheaper and more likely to feel like they are actually in their environment (such as giving them accurate shadows).
@@alastaircarr235 Also just having 2D and 3D characters interact requires a lot of forethought and coordination between teams. They're done with completely different software. This way Chip and Dale are surely modeled and animated in the same software. They took the easiest and cheapest option and in doing so basically killed the entire conceit of the multiple animation styles. And take that away, and what else is there to this film?
I like when movies try to combine multiple mediums of film making, it’s such a unique prospect that’s hard to pull off.
I'm waiting for that kind of movie to go to theaters. Theaters could use more diversity.
I can't tell if the movie was genuine by people who wanted to make a modern "Who framed Rodger Rabbit" or a checklist by corporate. The movie calls out that in these movies the characters always end up rapping and how that's awful, but still does it. Or,they say how the credits of the reboot would have some popstar remix the theme even though people only wanna hear the original - followed immediatly by a remix that no one wants.
So I imagine it was like this:
Writer: "Hey we wanna make fun of this"
Suit: "But you're still gonna do the thing you make fun of, right?"
Writer: "Why would we?"
Suit: "Well because our analytics says we gotta have it in the movie."
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie. I've become really cynical when it comes to reboots, particularly "live-action" takes on animated IP's, but the fact that it wasn't actually "Rescue Rangers" kind of saved it for me. I just had to turn my brain off, enjoy the humor, and play "Where's Waldo?" with all the background characters. Then it becomes a fun, if kinda goofy, movie.
@today was a good day Finally, you can be banned off youtube, spambot
I think making Peter Pan the villain in such a way that directly parallels the tragic life of Bobby Driscoll is pretty god damn evil, especially coming from the corporation that left him to die homeless and alone and then spent the past several decades covering it up to avoid taking responsibility. I genuinely do not think there is a way to spin it in a good light nor is there a way to say it was respectful. There is no way a movie this cynical and corporately driven could have had any good intentions in that portrayal.
They fired him at age 14, but dying at age 31 was what he did to himself. Just goes to show you people are taking this Sweet Pete thing way too seriously. It's not even the exact same thing.
“What he did to himself” dude do you need to retake kindergarten to learn how to care about other people?
@@umjammerlammy9993 Dude yourself! what makes you think I don't care!? As tragic as it is, we can't be biased and use a studio as the scapegoat for an alcoholic druggie's death! Bobby Driscoll could've easily went to a different studio or maybe live a normal life, but sadly, he didn't. I even heard his own parents forced him out of acting school and into regular school, which he did poorly. How close-minded can you people be?!
@@davidwallgren7575 do you fucking hear yourself. repeat your words aloud and in front of your mother. "it's his fault he died/he was an alcoholic druggie" dude are you that empty
@@davidwallgren7575 it’s a lot worse, he had his future set up. He was Disney’s golden child and he was going to a special school as a Disney contracted actor.
They cut his contract early and kicked him out of his school kid was 14
Treated him like nothing
He had to readjust his life,
And it was difficult so he did drugs
He tried gigs at other studios, continued acting
But the blow hit him pretty hard.
He hung out with Andy Warhol
But I can’t remember what got in his way. I know Howard Hughes had it out for him too and hated his guts cuz Howard Hughes is fucking Psycho.
my favorite character was Chip's mom.
it's less "tired of seeing multi IP characters together" and more that they were just there to be a reference thinking it's a joke. "hey, remember this character? how about this one?! so funny and cool we referenced them right?!" and there's even a point where they draw attention to things just being a reference in a "trying to be cool and in on the joke but it's just cringe" kinda way.
the no high pitched voices is a good thing and hope if they were to do a new animated series that they'd avoid it there too like DuckTales.
ultimately I dislike it because they did Gadget dirty, she was the best character in the series and they sidelined her, made her "the same as the character from the show" and some other stuff. they should have done more with her and it's crap they didn't.
That's my biggest issue with the film. I enjoyed it except it for the stuff they did with Gadget. They really did do her dirty especially considering how popular she was.
Did you know some people actually worshipped Gadget?
This movie was literally like Memberberries from South Park making a movie. There was no point or story to it. It was just, "Remember this?" all over and it's so tiring.
I completely agree that it's not the case that IP mixing is inherently good and a sign of quality, but that is not the same as saying IP mixing is inherently bad and a sign of tackiness. What matters is the overall experience of the movie, so whether or not it works depends entirely on how it's handled.
I will say, while I haven't seen the movie, the diversity of cameo characters definitely puts me off. On the one hand, it should feel less a studio advertising all the other properties they own, but it definitely reminds me of MCU Vulture showing up in Sony's Morbius as a way of drawing attention to an otherwise unremarkable film.
@@dublinjake For me the characters felt less of studios advertising and more of just people who lived in that world.
Ralph breaks the internet is a great example of how NOT to do it
It's getting pretty tacky.
I feel like I have to say something here. I respect Saber not wanting to dive to much into the Peter Pan controversy, but I feel like people should know how unconfortably close it is.
The original voice actor for Peter Pan was discarded by Disney after hitting puberty not only for the voice change, but also because he has too many pimples and they said it was hard to do make-up. He ended up dying really early (in his 30s if I remember) due to substance abuse.
Peter Pan in this movie grew up a little bit and Hollywood thought he was too ugly, so he becomes this has-been who is literally the villain.
Having it be Peter Pan is not just distasteful, it's cruel. You can't say between the hundreds of people who work at a disney feature film no one knew. Had they simply chosen a different character, there would be no problem at all
meh i dont really care
They should have a part where he talks about how they replaced him for the sequel.
I mean, maybe the point was to call it out that this happened? Because I guarantee that most people were not aware this was a thing
@@magmat0585 I was thinking that at the very least, this calls attention to this tragedy.
That's not what it passes, though. Like, if they wanted to do that, don't make him the villain, you know?
Pinochlo would’ve been a better choice
I watched this with my family and we had a great time finding cameos and references...
And that really felt like what the majority of this movie was. The ACTUAL PLOT about finding Monterey Jack was just the thing that gave the chance to see many characters.
This film is unbelievably odd and I love it. It’s a throwback to an old classic (Roger Rabbit, Coolworld) and at the same time a modern super meta take on the animation industry and they used Chip&Dale as the vehicle to do that.
Yeah if you wanted an actually “Chip&Dale Rescue Rangers” you definitely didn’t get that.
The movie over all is such a weird creative decision. It’s completely out of left field. I guess because Chip&Dale had been stagnant in terms of content for decades so what better choice than that to make a meta commentary fever dream.
I never thought I'd see the day when Mr Natural showed up in a Disney film. Pretty sure that was in the Book of Revelation.
I never thought I'd see the day when Jago Hazzard showed up in a Saberspark comments.
Isn't Mr Natural in plenty of old Disney media?? Or at least the artist definetly worked for them and included practically identical characters in his Disney work, because either way it seems odd to say "I never thought I'd see [character in iconic vintage Disney style] in a Disney film."
I never thought transformers would appear in a Disney movie. But there is blaster and Optimus leg.
@@-VoDkAsVengeance- Mr. Natural was created by legendary underground comix creator Rober Crumb - but he read tons of old comics & watched things like surreal Max Fleischer Betty Boop cartoon & that style definitely rubbed off onto his art.
The issue I have is that the film is critiquing nostalgia, and how often old IPs get trotted out well past the point of relevency, and it needed to do exactly that to get that message across. And it's a Disney film, a company that's been trotting out its old movies in "enhanced" live action versions for the 10+ years.
If they had made up a bunch of characters and told a story the exact same story with them, I feel like the message would hit harder. You know, rather than telling people who are fans of a cartoon from the 90s that they're stupid for watching this film.
Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. It criticizes doing the very thing Disney is doing *in this very movie* in order to get viewers.
"Aren't we cool because we poke fun at ourselves during an era when we tried to create quality content? And at you for daring to care? You're dumb for being a fan of our dumb show! Why do cartoon characters always rap? It's so cringe!" *proceeds to start rapping*
See everyone says it’s a critique of nostalgia but the critique aspect is so surface level and shallow that it loops back around to being a massive masturbatory commercial for disney
I was going to say exactly that! Disney has a "haha these things in movies sucks, huh" while they are the ones putting those things in movies. It's very tiring. Make a story without the things that suck then.
Um it’s been doing live action nostalgia bait since 1996 and that live action 101 Dalmatians movie. Even farther if you count the 1994 Jungle Book. And there’s the made for TV live action 1990’s Cinderella that had Whitney Houston in it. And all of those other “Cinderella Story” movies that Disney has churned out. So no it goes back more than a quarter century (over 25 years) with this. The only reason why it seems like it’s a more recent issue is because they weren’t nearly as creatively bankrupt back then as they are now and didn’t have to rely on remakes and sequels. Oh the good ol’ days when sequels were straight to video/DVD instead of being pumped out theatrically and when they didn’t have to make villain movies to make the evil characters more “relatable” so that the fact that they tried to kill a teen girl or puppies somehow makes sense.
I'm surprised you liked this one as to me at least, the film came off as quite disrespectful towards animation.
A lot of the jokes were jabs at other animated properties and animation styles, which would have been more forgivable if it wasn't a Disney film. Like seeing the biggest animation company making fun of films by smaller animation companies (like those who made Polar Express for exeample) just totally put me off. And in real life, a lot of the criticism towards the animation industry is directed at Disney but you know Disney would never allow a film to be critical of the company.
When the film is making fun of the original Sonic design for looking creepy or Alvin and the Chipmunks for rapping but meanwhile it's treating the 'live action' remakes of Disney classic animated films as a positive, films which are usually called lazy, cash grabby and nostalgia baiting in film circles, it just comes off as mean-spirited and putting Disney on a pedestal.
I wouldn't nessecerily mind if a film wanted to be satirical about the animation industry but when the biggest animation company is making that film, it's just punching down at that point and displays a massive lack of self-awareness.
So true!
What you said has nothing to do with the movie being good or bad
You're just criticizing Disney here
so you hated who framed roger rabbit too?
literally not a single critique of the movie was said in this long ass comment 😭
@@jonv8309 Yes there was? My whole point was that I wasn't a fan of all the jokes and comments at the expense of other animated properties. Jokes and comments that were in the movie.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit was an amazing movie with a consistent plot, outstanding soundtrack, actual 2D animation, and the characters there weren’t just there to serve as references or any type of meta. While as Chip and Dale is basically References: The Movie, and often I even forgot all about the plot because of being bombarded with references.
I have a love-hate relationship with this movie. Yeah, it was funny, the references and cameos gave me a good chuckle and the story being about bootleg disney movies was a good one, quite creative and meta. On the minus side, the fact that they transformed the Rescue Rangers from detectives to actors broke my heart. Finally, what I hated the most was... Gadget and Zipper? Forty kids? Ewww, how does that even works? Actually scratch that, I dont wanna know...
Forty two actually.
Yeah, but at least it's not Canon. I enjoyed the movie for what it is. It has its ups and downs. But regardless I say it did a decent job giving nostalgic, references, and other stuff.
Yeah, I agree this movie is an odd one! On the one hand, it is a pretty funny meta comedy that pokes fun of all the reboots and reimaginings that have been plaguing Hollywood for years. On the other hand, what does that have to do with Rescue Rangers?
I kind of feel like this could've been a homage or a parody of 90's kid's shows, with an entirely fictitious cast of characters. Kind of like how Roger Rabbit actually isn't a cartoon from the Golden Age.
Literally we have the same opinion on the movie for the same reasons, I'm glad I'm not alone 😂 overall I still like it, I just have to remember it's a different continuity and it can exist side by side with the old show without changing it
As far as I'm concerned, as soon as they established that Toons exist and are actors, Roger Rabbit style, than I manage to accept Zipper & Gadget.
The same way we could accept Roger and Jessica
Watched it with a group of people and the part when Peter Pan said “As we get older, we no longer are relevant” (something along those lines when he was introduced) kind of rubbed us the wrong way because the original child actor who voiced him O.D. because he was no longer needed because he got older, something about the quote and character saying it really seemed wrong if you know the context
Its wrong because its right?
Maybe the point was to make him a sympathetic villain
I see what you mean like it's insensitive
for me, as long as the movie is mostly enjoyable with a good bit of actually funny jokes thrown in, im fine with it. it doesnt need to be perfect or outstanding to be an enjoyable movie.
The Easter Eggs this time
For this movie was Perfect and the Gags were hilarious
Like the concept of Operations turning from Cell to 3d is hilarious too
Who's pissed off more, the Peter Pan fans who believe both his voice actor and character was disrespected or the Gadget fans for who she ended up with? 😳
You can't say "believe he's disrespected" cause this movie is meta commentary. Either he's connected, or he's not. If you say HE ISN'T connected to Driscoll, then how can THE REST of the movie be connected to OTHER things they comment on?
Clearly the Gadget Fans.
Never underestimate the horny cult.
I wanna say disappointed but Im more disturbed but Gadget's decision. Not gonna lie, I was more surprise they didn't make her gay or something.
my mom watched this with me and she was pissed about gadget
it was a little ...way too creepy to say the least on Gadget
I enjoyed this movie, but I also didn't know anything about the history about Peter Pan's voice actor beforehand. I was a Rescue Rangers fan as a kid, but it was a fun homage to the original show while being its own thing. It was a little formulaic and cliche, but it also acknowledged that and was kinda fun.
I absolutely get why the film is divisive, if I'd gone in expecting an earnest reboot instead of what I got from the trailer I would've had a miserable time, but going in knowing what to expect, I definitely enjoyed it.
I have to give kudos for all the different animation styles they seem to have put into this.
That's an amount of effort I thought Disney was incapable of.
When I saw clips of peter pan in this movie, I felt the same uncomfortable vibes. I'm glad(?) I'm not the only one who picked up on it, knowing what Bobby Driscoll went through. You're the first reviewer I've seen to comment on it.
Missed opportunity I think: Rescue Rangers (1988) was a TV spin-off of Disney's The Rescuers (1977) and The Rescuers Down Under (1990) (already in production). Those characters should have made an appearance here.
Or even reference that shared universe, Disney's got an opportunity there that they shouldn't pass up. Rescue Aid Society team up with the REscue Rangers to stop Fat Cat, who's in cahoots with some human baddie
The movie should have been Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers meet The Rescuers Bernard and Bianca. That would have been a great idea. But Disney is out of great ideas. They wouldn't know a great idea nowadays if it came up and bit them in the rear end.
@@ToHoldNothing Now THAT would have made a good Rescue Rangers movie
@@kaiser8659 NEver been really one to finish big projects, let alone screenplays beyond one that I imagine is not very good from when I was...early 20s, so 10 years ago, but I certainly seem to be able to pull out ideas and even give a skeleton to them depending
This is definitely a movie 30 something adults would watch while drinking. It’s a movie version of “Where’s Waldo” but instead “Where’s each character of your childhood”.
when the trailer first dropped, i had my concerns of it being space jam, pixels, or whatever but more chaotic, it looked to be everywhere. And when i watched it i really had fun with it, i think many refs and so were handled well. things had a purpose. its a chaotic movie, but its very enjoyable for the chaos it brought to the table. not perfect, i know its issues, but i still pretty much had my laughs and enjoyed it anyway, id give it a 7.5/10. it is something unique, rather than a reboot or return, its its very own kind of thing, and its fine
Would've been better in theaters. Pretty much everything that goes to theaters these days is generic.
I liked it. Chip and Dale's dynamic is pretty much the same a in Rescue Rangers, and the plot is something straight out of Rescue Rangers. I think the Chip with Andrew Glouberman voice is made up for by national treasure Tress MacNeille.
7:14 He's not Gumby but an off-color blockhead, which kind of makes the twist near the end easy to see coming.
I want to know who's idea it was to let Gadget and Zipper get together and have +40 plus kids? For real their children are freaking nightmare fuel.
Of mice and maggots
Wasn't zipper a pet in Rescue Rangers?
@@Necrus Yeah, he was the team mascot, couldn't even talk
@@Necrus Thats what really put me off. Gadget hooked up with what was basically the family dog? Give me a break. Theres plenty of different characters they could have picked and it would have made more sense and be less cringe.
@@NecrusNo, he was still part of the team. He was Monty's friend, not his pet.
I immediately thought the same thing of this movie being a modern Roger Rabbit. Also where as you expect Marvel movies to have crossovers, this movie was totally unexpected to me. I especially loved the inclusion of Ugly Sonic. I laughed the entire time.
I lost it when the real life woman police detective/officer just straight up says that Peppa pig of all characters got kidnapped like wth and then she goes on to say that the Paw patrol dogs rebelled... I had to pause the movie to register what she'd just said... It literally came out of nowhere 🤣🤣
Am I terrible to say that I actually wanna see that whole sequence happen on screen?
The best joke of the whole movie, imo
That part made me laugh so hard, I nearly died
I'm honestly kind of split on the whole controversy of peter pan's character in this movie.
On one hand: I kind of see this as either spiteful or uncomfortable to base a character on a real-life tragedy especially when it's the company that was "somewhat" responsible for their loss.
On the other hand: this isn't something we haven't seen before. there have been many and I mean MANY characters that are based on real-life tragedies of people in media. so to say this is disrespectful would apply that any character's fall or despair is too similar to real-life shouldn't be allowed.
and even if this is different because of the company we really don't know if the writers intended it. maybe they based it off more of peter pan mythos that the boy who never grew up did and it ruined him, and the whole Bobby Driscoll comparison was a coincidence. or they did base it off but didn't mean to mock it in some way. it has been 54 years since his passing and no one really was talking about it until now. either way, I'm honestly split about it.
I still think (however in bad taste it was in retrospect) more then likely (sad to say) none of the writers were thinking about Driscoll. What is a way to subvert Peter Pan, the eternal child…make him the opposite of all he was. As terrible as it is to say, former child star with tragic end isn’t unique to Driscoll. Do I think what Disney did to him was crappy, yes. Do I actually think the writing team on this film knew anything about it, no. Disney is not some long living singular entity where the writer of this film personally remembers Driscoll. I doubt people who worked with Driscoll then still work for Disney now. They are all likely deceased or retired at this point.
It’s mostly just cynical interpretations and severe ignorance I think. Currently ppl r starting to realize how bad child stars have it, so there’s more need for respect. and I feel like even if you base something off a real life tragedy, you have to treat it with respect. Vilifying it, mocking it, using it servitude to prop up fictional stories/characters instead is not the way to go about it.
Just cuz it’s happened before, doesn’t mean it’s ok. Even if they meant it to represent Mythos they should be aware of what they’re writing. PP doesn’t grow up, period. BUT, if you’re gonna break the rule for your story, you need to be aware of what that does. Breaking the rule cuz they’re in a Hollywood toon universe setting means that you need to consider what you’re making in the context of said setting, and realize they’re a former child star. So many of them have come out recently to talk abt the experience, and the many of them who have died cuz of it are being brought into public consciousness.
It’s just cynicism, like making Cinderella a feeble gold digger woman who’s reliant on a man, ignoring the abuse, trauma, and good things Cinderella does and is meant to represent.
I’m fairly sure the disdain for it is because it was done in poor taste or comes off malicious to the person it’s representing. Especially as the main antagonist.
While there are many characters based on people with real live tragedies the reason people are mad at peter pans is because Disney was the cause of the actors later tragedy’s he faced by putting him out of work and kinda just kicking him off to the side and it feels like Disney (the company that ruin the actors life) is now mocking the actor for how he ended up you can make a character that’s life is based off real tragedies but the different is that the person or whatever that wrote and based the character off that person was not the reason for that persons life going the way it did. So of course I understand why people feel the way they do not saying it was the writers intention or anything but I definitely think they should have been more responsible into look at peter pans character and making the comparison between the voice actor and how they were writing this Peter Pan
It doesn't help that there's a genuine basis for the trope of a youthful and innocent character grown up to be uncomfortable. There's multiple Peter Pan adaptions that take the "he refuses to grow up" angle to uncomfortable degrees. Someone had to have known about Driscoll, but the existence of this trope definitely muddies the water a bit imo.
I understand all of u never wanna see that movie but however, this movie is GREAT. They bring back the original style of animation and live action since Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The filmmakers are the fans for the classic show even on the Disney Afternoon or sometimes not but for being a nostalgia fan in the decade I grew up with, entertainment was great in that time. Unfortunately, this generation has not much good entertainment until if Disney tries to make it good. I wish they get the animated series back not a reboot but a continuation of the original series. I give this movie a 9/10. It’s the most original movie I ever seen. Please, companies make more original stuff we grew up with.
My favorite part was the nod to polar express eyes, like, you know. In the early 2000’s. “When everything looked real…but nothing looked right.”
7:07 Probably best moment from this film
*ua-cam.com/video/lE5U2d1shBM/v-deo.html*
Finally its here.
I still can't properly parse my feelings on this movie. On the one hand, when the jokes were solid, they were really solid, and I can appreciate the writers recognizing that their target audience for this was going to be people who were kids in the 90s and are now adults, which is why the humor and writing skew way more adult than... pretty much anything I can think of that Disney has co-signed on and promoted as much as they did with this.
On the other hand, some of the twists kinda felt edgy for the sake of being edgy, namely Peter Pan being the villain, and some of the jokes are super played out of just kinda felt like, "hey, 'member this thing? That's the whole joke, that this thing used to exist" and the overall tone is surprisingly grim to the point that it felt at odds with the source material and source company. I described it to a friend as, "it feels like a College Humor bit or a fan web series, but with a Disney budget" which I guess only feels weird because it didn't mesh with the kind of tone you'd expect from something on Disney Plus in the animation section?
The only other real gripe I had was with how they did the pseudo-2d animation on Chip. That style can look good when an entire film or show is done that way, but when it's not the whole production style, it looks kinda janky and even more so when the plot is trying to call attention to the fact that he's "still 2d" when Dale is now 3d.
Why they didn't just hand draw Chip is beyond me. He's also 3d like Dale, just not rendered as detailed I guess. Which sort of makes that joke of him still being '2d' while Dale's 3d not even make sense at all
@@wigglestoescutely They had a lower budget than some of Disney's recent movies. They might've had a bigger budget if this movie got an official theatrical release.
You need to get a life…
As for the Peter Pan thing it's just really bad taste & poor judgement on both the people making it as well as Disney Execs green lighting that part of the script. Disney as of the last 7 years have not been able to read the room. They're also not at a good position to be loosing (or at best not gaining) more subscribers for Disney+ over bad PR. With that said I did see it, and I liked it as a spoof though there was a lot of eye rolling moments throughout the film. In all it's like a C+ mostly for the weak story and those "meh" moments. Good for a one time viewing, but then quickly forgotten especially if anything better comes around.
To be. Fair....a lot of people don't know anything about that , me included. Had to Google. Still don't see how making him a mob boss is disrespectful to someone dying from drugs. The only character I knew had an awful fate was ducky/Anna Marie and it was bc she was a literal child murdered by her dad.
@@showerpwner I know a lot would not know it at first, but thanks to the internet/social media people can find out like you did, and Disney Execs should have seen this a mile away. It can hurt the brand in the long run, and yeah it also made the people that wrote & overseen the production look like A-Holes, and can damage future projects with these people. Anything that involves child actors in a negative way even if it happens in their adult years leaves the general public in a foul mood afterwards, and a lot of people tend to remember these thing especially if it pissed them off. Just scroll through Twitter for good examples.
@@showerpwner The disrespect is in the fact they made him the villain, and barely apologized for Disney treated him by saying "That's just how the industry goes". It's just a terrible thing what happened to him, especially the part where he lies in an unmarked grave after dieing in his 30s.
I'm just happy to see that they atleast are trying to do something unique with the reboots and stuff. Rather have that then the bad shot by shot remakes
I mean, they make fun of themselves with also no signs of stopping doing the endless bad remakes.
For sure. They poked fun at themselves for the awful Lion King 2019 movie in the movie. I was impressed.
But making it a streaming exclusive and not giving it a theatrical release kind of ruins it. Theaters could use more originality and diversity and not just the same old generic (often poorly written) stuff.
@@rommix0 "hey poked fun at themselves" Dunno if you're too young to remember MAD magazine, but it was THE satirical magazine from the 1950s until well into this century...but MAD died BECAUSE NOW EVERYTHING IS MAKING FUN OF ITSELF - PARODY AND SATIRE HAVE MOVED IN-HOUSE. That way the IP owners get to make $$ off the property AND their own parody of it. "Hey, we're in on the joke, audience - aren't we cool and hip?"
Nah I’m in the same stance as Saber. I caaaan see why people do or don’t like this movie. I personally like how this movie is essentially a jab at crossover culture and numb nostalgia.
The Peter Pan arc did have me shook though, ngl. I certainly HOPE it was coincidence…
Honestly, they don’t take a jab at it, since they are just doing it. They just pretend to.
@@micah0000 I doubt that, tbh. I wasnt aware of the VA's story and when I was watching it I predicted the lost boy joke before it happened as, logically, it would go that course. Its a ironic portrayl of a character - take the boy who never grows up and have him be the only one in his caste to grow up. I doubt disney would intend this, because WHY would they? What possible reason would Disney allow it if it was intended? Disney is the corporterion who only lives on money. If they intended this, they'd loose money.
When I was younger I loved the Rescue Rangers, so looking at this refresh with dread, however after seeing it done It don I really enjoyed it, heck I'd give it a 8/10 even, just made me smile despite a fair number of flaws... my logic is ..it could have been worse, could have been ALOT worse....
isnt it really sad tho that a big part of your feelings behind this is 'it could have been a lot worse'? and the fact that you feel that way /because/ so many lazy reboots are done..? so now subpar effort, the bare minimum, is seen as good/enjoyable?
It was a great movie. The biggest shocker was where after all these years, I was too innocent to see where Zipper was smashin' Gadget... I NEVER SAW THAT COMING!
9:12
"i'm like a sexy college professor"
R34 artist : you awakened us once again
I think this might be *too* meta. I never would have imagined that such a thing could exist.
Let's do everything we can to try to recapture that magic of Who Framed Rodger Rabbit.
This movie certainly did better than the Bonkers cartoon.
WFRR was lightning in a bottle. I don't think they'd have the spirit nor talent to pull another one of those off
The Amazing World of Gumball
Is that a joke?
ONLY FOR FANS OVER 18 YEARS 🍒
I'd love to be Leanne.Host
is my idol. Hes the person I aspire to be, hes my light of day...
Reading through most of the comments here, I can see that viewers are easily impressed with the gaggle of cameos and (frankly dragged out) the oh-so-mEtA in-jokes about them in this glorified Hollywood red carpet roll-call, not aware of the taste of how much the writers hate older Disney shows and the people who cherished them.
I haven't even watched the video or the movie yet but the title surprises me because I've NEVER heard anyone say they didn't love this movie.
I don’t really think the “Mean Peter Pan is meant to resemble his voice actors life and death” is true. I mean yeah, it’s a coincidence, but jokes about Peter Pan growing older, friendless and becoming a creep are some of the most common jokes about the character simply due to the nature of how neverland works
If that were the case then why didn't they age the Lost Boys as well?
Yeah, the joke is that Peter Pan "never grows up". Yet here he is, grown up and looking all rough as a villain. That's the comedy, it's ironic.
The parallels are there but the people acting like it's definitely a deliberate comparison to the voice actor are being too self righteous.
@@ncisfan1002 Because it adds to the irony as the lost boys WOULD grow up, so one of them saying it would add to irony. I was unaware of the VA's story but still saw that much as a clear choice for joke plotting to the point i predicted it would occur when Peter first appeared.
"Gadget hooked up with the fly"
There's a film that was released in 1986 that goes over why this is a very bad idea.
What movie are you talking about?
@@retrofan4963 The Fly
@@RayPoreon Never heard of that film. I'm curious myself of what the film is about based on your first comment lol But yeah, I'm shocked they decide Gadget to hook up with Zipper. If Disney ever ships Gadget, I thought they'll ship either Chip or Dale for her.
@@retrofan4963 Go look up images or clips of the film to see what I'm talking about. It's more or less the best example of body horror in cinema, perhaps only second to The Thing.
There is absolutely no way they didnt base Pan's story on Bobby Driscol. Even though they havent used him much, Peter Pan has been in other things since the movie but they still went with it. He was a child star that was rejected by Disney because he hit puberty, they didnt even properly fire him. He just showed up to the lot one day and was told he wasn't allowed inside. From there he spiraled and died of an overdose in his early 30s, his body buried in a pottersfield because he didnt have any identification on him. To this day no one knows where he's buried.
Really liked this film. I hope we get more of it. The world of animation and real life really worked. Closest thing to a sequel to Roger Rabbit we'll ever have IMO
I hope they put it in theaters someday. This movie looks too special to be streaming only. It kind of ruins the experience.
So I only have ONE gripe with this movie really.
So when I when I first saw who framed roger rabbit it says there’s no way to hurt or kill toon other than using dip. In this movie it shows that the characters can age then die? which is weird because I thought toons could live forever and never lose there prime, I mean look at roger rabbit a toon designed in the late 40s and hasn’t changed a bit well into the early 90s. So when they throw peter pan as the main villain and he gets older and out of his prime, it frustrates me, there’s like what a 6 year difference between Peter pans debut in 1953 and the roger rabbit in 1947? What makes it even worse is that Peter meets up with one of the lost boys in the reboot movie as well and there still in their prime, but not peter? or is that a new tubby based off the ‘return to Netherland’ movie, but then that would mean there would be another Peter Pan in his prime again, but that was made in the early 2000s, so this will happen again? my head hurts. Anyhow that’s my biggest gripe with the movie.
I can't fathom how this film can make fun of other film's animation and character design with a straight face, while their own characters look the way they do. Absolutely embarrassing
THATS THE JOKE
@@TamboBacker THE JOKE FAILED
@@TamboBacker A very lazy and weak joke
@@notatallfunctional 💀omg
@@TamboBacker Yeah, no it isn't, or else they wouldn't have also had creepy 2019 Pumbaa come in to comment on how lifeless the eyes of the Zemeckis-style character were. They're not THAT self-aware, they're just going "Hey, remember this? Remember how creepy and cringe this was? Yeah, us too! Let's harp on it several more times because that's comedy!"
After watching, the one-liner that made me laugh for some reason was a quote from Sweet Pete-"Yeah, death is coming for us all, kid."
I think another issue people have is that we got a taste of Chip n Dale from the Ducktales reboot - a good reboot. So we all were thinking that's what we would get...
My husband and I loved the movie. It got real laughs out of us and we loved watching everything hidden in the background. Yeah, it was a little heavy on the meta but at least it was a new-ish take on our childhoods and not just the same things done poorly in CG. I do agree that it was very tone def on the Peter Pan/Bobby Driscoll thing. That should never have left the planning phase. The Peter Pan character has successfully been cast as a villain in other mediums but using the original Disney Driscoll version visually was in very poor taste. The Disney version was drawn to look like Driscoll himself. That is what is sad.
The main issue I had with this movie is what makes Roger Rabbit great. In Roger Rabbit the characters, easter eggs and references are just window dressing, they appear do a joke and they're done. Not to mention the characters they use are generally well known and timeless, generally these aspects reinforce the films setting. But with Rescue Rangers it feels more like the characters and references are tightly holding the film together. If you took away all the branded characters from Roger Rabbit, the film would still be an excellent buddy-cop film involving cartoons, but if you did the same for Chip and Dale, I'm pretty sure you'd end up with a 30 minute mediocre has-been movie.
I personally think that If Rescue Rangers had pushed down more on the meta/dark side of Hollywood side of the story, the film could actually have had a decent plot. I mean imagine having Mickey as a villain who's been milking Disney character's over the last years remaking them for reboots (yes I know this would actually be kind of close to South Park's Mickey), where a cold moneygrubbing businessman just buys out every other company, cuts popular risky content, sells out to popular opinion and milks everything out of the characters they now own. I would have loved that instead of using the bootleg angle, they could've used the cgi/live action angle, complaining about how some character lost so much of their personality and life through the change, I mean the joke was right there! When Dale said he got the Cgi treatment, someone could've said: "At least you didn't end up like Simba" (camera cuts to live action Simba starring from across the room) "Now I can never tell what that guy is thinking". Or having a general debate of 2D vs 3D, I honestly would've been happy with an explanation that Chip using a cell-shaded 3D model is because the studio had to do cutbacks and give him a cheaper look to work with. Heck they could've even ended the film with Disney giving them actual 2D redesigns for an actual Rescue Rangers reboot.
Also quick side note: Am I the only one that finds it Strange that Chip and Dale are made out to first appear as TV characters in the 90s when the characters themselves are about 50 years older than that? Or why did Peter age while the lost boys and other older characters didn't? There are a ridiculous amount of plot-holes that seem to be used only for bad jokes.
There are so many missed opportunities in this film and I could be ranting about it for so long, but in the end, we got what we got, so yay or nay this is one of those movies that exists...
Tldr
Thing is Disney isn't gonna greenlight a movie that makes them look bad even if they did it would be pointless criticism because Disney is still gonna keep on milking franchises and remaking classic movies into live action.
@@PeterGriffin11 I know, it’s just wishful thinking. But heck it’s all in good fun, I’m not boycotting Disney, but I would like it if every now and then they made fun of themselves, heck if you look at Warner despite Matrix 4 and Space jam, weren’t as good as I would’ve liked, I actually found it pretty charming that they made fun of themselves and the current state of Hollywood and film pitches, despite how ridiculous and unnecessary they are. Heck, you even see some of that in Ralph breaks the internet, with the whole what Disney scene. The writers know they can do the jokes, I just wish they could go above and beyond with them.
@Freesmart definitely. It feels like most of the movie is just cameos and reference jokes. And here’s the thing, Roger Rabbit is timeless it has the same audience reaction it had back then and in thirty years people will probably still react to it the same way. But in thirty years, I doubt new viewers will understand or care about references like ugly sonic, Seth Rogen’s numerous characters or Batman v ET. It’ll literally be a cavalcade of outdated pop culture.
Now THIS is what would get people to watch.
I’ll never forget that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, and the chip and dale won’t eat whale 😵💫
I wonder how much disney paid the other studios in order to have all those cameos in the movie. I mean, my jaw dropped when I saw characters from MTV cartoons such as Stan's Dad from South Park and Butthead, whose shows aren't for kids.
For the cel shaded characters, wouldn't it have been a better compromise to render the 3D characters as black and white outlines, and then have them hand colored frame by frame by a proper 2D Animation team?
yeah, probably, but money was likely a factor in the end result we got unfortunatly
I think it was aight (edit)
Not the best but it's ok
But that would take a degree of effort.
key yo shelf retread
They could have just...done it traditionally. Which they did for some of the background characters like tigra and flounder. They just didn't want to put in the effort to be consistent. Even then, the way they incorporate them in the scenes look so fake, with the characters changing height and warbling constantly when the camera moves. It's embarrassing.
6:43 I wouldn't call it "spiteful" persay, but it's absolutely an intentional reference they made that ended up being a lot more tasteless than they probably intended. The fact that it's from a movie made by Disney specifically makes it seem especially tone deaf since that's very much a thing they continued to do with child actors after Peter Pan.
I agree, to say it's spiteful feels weird like it feels oversensitive and honestly it's not like Disney would do that on the purpose of malicious intent, that would just be a super weird choice just objectively which would benefit nobody.
I can see they were going for maybe both the irony of Peter Pan itself, and the parallels of it. It's just that it was Disney so its not even pot calling kettle black its the pot looking into the mirror and screaming black lmao.
Tbh I'm not really following Disney news but I think if Disney was changing its policies and treatment of child acting (maybe it has now idk) then this could be pulled off as like a scathing self-review acknowledging the brand's past behaviour which I think would be pretty neat. But if they don't change, even after they literally dug up their old skeletons in the closet then yeah it looks super bad. :3
Not to mention the irony of him being the villain whose evil plot is to turn characters into gross 3D CGI models to use in shitty remakes. While Disney continues making and heavily promoting and capitalizing off of shitty remakes.
I thought it was great! What a great take, it was fantastic! One of the best so far this year! VERY entertaining and worth a watch 😁
I never watched CnD before, being born at the tail-end of the 90s, but I honestly have to say I loved this movie enough to finally get around to watching the original series.
I do understand why this movie isn't for a lot of people, but a lot of the reasons someone might not like this movie (too reference heavy, not into the meta-style take) are reasons I did enjoy it. I thought it was fun to see these characters interact with each other, the idea that switching to CGI was like a cosmetic surgery was an interesting take, how some characters are left behind and forgotten about by the industry (not too unlike real life).