Disney Planning Live Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers Movie

[Daniel]

Yep! Currently 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. Yay.

[Farerb]

Sneakerella has 100%

[gaastra]

Getting a theatre release in la.

https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-ch ... llery.html

[Ben]

This. Movie. Is. INSANE BANANAS!!

How they did some of this, I don’t know. Obviously they had to make some deals with Universal, mostly, but there are some wonderfully deep cuts in here from many distributors, including a couple of really surprising "oh, they can’t get away with that!" moments.

To say this movie is meta is an understatement, but it’s huge fun, like a modern day Roger Rabbit, where the theatrical toons have been forgotten and the TV toons took over (and are now largely forgotten themselves, although it’s nice that the villain actually doesn’t turn out to be an old cast member, who all get their own updates).

If there’s any three things I wasn’t too hot on — no spoilers — it’s that Chip 'n' Dale's pre-Rescue Rangers life isn’t touched on, so are they even the same chipmunks that starred with Donald Duck for all those years? That seemed an odd choice, but works in the context, even if isn’t, but kind of needs, explaining. And given what happened to poor Bobby Driscoll in real life, the depiction of Peter Pan here felt a little mean, though again it touches a raw nerve for basically being true.

Lastly, it’s a real shame that the hand-drawn characters — Chip especially — are not hand-drawn but CG shaded, although one gets used to it, again in the context on this movie. It’s something that could have lifted this to a whole different level of "authenticity", though, especially given some of the plot points. Why have a difference between hand-drawn and CG characters if one of your leads isn’t truly hand-drawn and is just a hand-drawn shaded representation of a CG model?

Also, the widescreen framing so screams out for a big screen release, and this certainly never feels like a D+ original, and much more like a feature that got diverted to streaming, for whatever reason. Maybe the various copyrights could only be secured for streaming and not theatrical, but — again, Chip aside — this is a big screen film in all but distribution method.

So cool to see all the homages— Sonic will get the biggest laugh and "I can’t believe they’re doing this and are able to do this!" reaction — and that their original voices are all largely back, save for when intentionally new ones are used. And just a word that this isn’t always a "kids" picture: remember that image of an old and fat Mickey Mouse all bitter and twisted at being forgotten? Pan here, especially, reminded me of that feel, and some of the humour is a little near the edge; not in a crude way, but sometimes maybe skewing a little older than for current younger fans of the Rescue Rangers show.

That said, those that were young when it originally aired will have a blast with this, if you take in all it’s silliness, bold strikes, and forgive the cheap Chip aside, as intended!

[Farerb]

The movie wasn't as terrible or irreverent as I thought it would be, and yet I still think they shouldn't have used Peter Pan and instead go for one of the characters on the Chip 'n' Dale show. I guess they wanted to make a joke about the "boy who never grew up grows up", which is terribly unclever. But anyway, not sure why Peter Pan was the only character who grew up or why he wasn't 83 years old like he probably should.

The animation was still terrible and I think it's pretty offensive that they think the audience is stupid enough to think that was real hand drawn animation (it wouldn't surprise me to know if some people thought that it was). Disney used to be known for their top quality hand drawn animation, and something like that is a stain on their legacy in my opinion, best case the movie will be forgotten in a month or so (probably would).

Peter Pan and cel shaded CGI aside, this movie was still bland, unimaginative and mediocre, but these are basically most of Disney's movies nowadays so there's that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

P.S. just to make clear why the Peter Pan thing bothers me - as I see it, everything that was made by Walt should be sacred and treated with respect, especially by the company he founded. Walt didn't make Peter Pan so he can be used as a cheap joke in a future product. He and his team poured their soul and heart on Peter Pan and the other films that were made at the time, much more than the people who made this film did. That sort of treatment just rubs me the wrong way.

[EricJ]

To say this movie is meta is an understatement, but it’s huge fun, like a modern day Roger Rabbit, where the theatrical toons have been forgotten and the TV toons took over (and are now largely forgotten themselves, although it’s nice that the villain actually doesn’t turn out to be an old cast member, who all get their own updates).

Yes, I was getting distinct "THIS is the kind of humor that can happen to you if you liked Roger Rabbit" vibes, which are almost as old as the movie itself by now.

And in response to the narcissistic hip-cynicism of the Peter Pan gag (which, if it were one gag out of nowhere, would be angering and facepalm-worthy, but here, it's just....par for the course):

Again, it's not a movie made for lovers of Disney Afternoon lore, it's the current state of cartoon humor made for other animators, who like to in-joke about how animation made before them embarrasses their professional selves.

I'm still hesitating on watching, so I don't know if the "00's Beowulf CGI" joke is as mercilessly protracted as it was in the teaser trailer, but the emphasis seems to be more on hip deconstructive pop-culture gags than on reviving a brand. It wants to satirize the 00's "CGI cartoon character revival movie" of Alvin and Yogi Bear, and at the same time, use all the tropes they memorized from each one, and fill up the void with more DreamWorks-esque "Jokes Boomers can enjoy along with their kids".
Especially if they happen to be professional animators, or spend a lot of time on CartoonBrew.

[gaastra]

Marvel and dc heroes in the same movie! Even got

transformers and snorks cameos!

[EricJ]

And

Ugly Early-Design Sonic. And the Cats-movie cats.
Which only a select group of people who go into adolescent rages about "bad CGI" care about, and the rest of us say "....Dude. It's gone now, 'kay? Look at me, I'M not an animator, and I survived, so can you."

And although certain posters will be going "See, see, it wasn't angry disgruntled Gadget!", I still get half points for calling their going to the joke-well of an angry disgruntled retired "sacred cute character" now in not-so-cute retirement.
Boy, did we see that one coming from space.

[Farerb]

Thought people might be interested in this info in relation to this film:

Driscoll's last major success, Peter Pan (1953), was produced largely between May 1949 and mid-1951.[22] Driscoll was cast with Disney's "Little British Lady" Kathryn Beaumont, who was in the role of Wendy Darling; he was used as the reference model for the close-ups and provided Peter Pan's voice, and dancer and choreographer Roland Dupree was the model for the character's motion.[23][24] Scenes were played on an almost empty sound stage, with only the most essential props, and filmed for use by the animators.

In his biography on Disney, Marc Elliot described Driscoll as the producer's favorite "live action" child star: "Walt often referred to Driscoll with great affection as the living embodiment of his own youth".[25] During a project meeting following the completion of Peter Pan, though, Disney stated that he now saw Driscoll as best suited for roles as a young bully rather than a likeable protagonist. Driscoll's salary at Disney had been raised to $1,750 per week[26] and compared to his salary, Driscoll had little work from 1952 on. In March 1953, the additional two-year option Driscoll had been extended (which would have kept him at Disney into 1956) was cancelled, just weeks after Peter Pan was released theatrically. A severe case of acne accompanying the onset of puberty,[27] explaining why it was necessary for Driscoll to use heavy makeup for his performances on dozens of TV shows, was officially provided as the final reason for the termination of his connection with the Disney Studios.

[...]

After Driscoll left the Disney studios, his parents withdrew him from the Hollywood Professional School, which served child movie actors,[31][32][33][34] and sent him to the public West Los Angeles University High School, instead. There, his grades dropped substantially, he was the target of ridicule for his previous film career, and he began to take drugs.[35] He said later, "The other kids didn't accept me. They treated me as one apart. I tried desperately to be one of the gang. When they rejected me, I fought back, became belligerent and cocky—and was afraid all the time."[36][37] At his request, Driscoll's parents returned him the next year to Hollywood Professional School, where in May 1955 he graduated.

[...]

On March 30, 1968, two boys playing in a deserted East Village tenement at 371 East 10th St. found his body lying on a cot, with two empty beer bottles and religious pamphlets scattered on the ground. A post mortem examination determined that he had died from heart failure caused by advanced atherosclerosis[57] from his drug use. No identification was on the body, and photos shown around the neighborhood yielded no positive identification. His unclaimed body was buried in an unmarked pauper's grave in New York City's Potter's Field on Hart Island.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Driscoll

[Ben]

Hence what I said…

And given what happened to poor Bobby Driscoll in real life, the depiction of Peter Pan here felt a little mean, though again it touches a raw nerve for basically being true.

[Farerb]

First, they stop making Hand Drawn animated films.
Second, they try to pass cel shaded CGI as Hand Drawn animation.
Third, they just crap all over Hand Drawn animation:


Is everything ok Disney? Do you remember how the company started?

[Dacey]

Pssst.

They’re joking. You aren’t meant to take that video seriously as an analysis of the company’s animation legacy.

[gaastra]

Classic rescue rangers aired again on Disney xd to promote the film!

Also film had to be changed after test showing--

https://twitter.com/JWCartoonist/status ... 2258460674

Peter pan was fake. Not the real pan who was still young. He was pluto in disguise who was the real bad guy mad at getting typecasted as a dog and chip and dale getting their own show. The lost kid not aging was done on purpose as a clue something was up with "pan". The young pan shows up at films end.

Chip and dales golden age was in the film and talked about. It was changed to them as kids in the 80s in reshoots. You still see golden age merch in dales garage.

Female cop had a bigger role ala eddie from roger rabbit.

Chip had a pluto ear not a snoopy ear. It was part of the edited plot.

It was pluto that turned into the monster not pan.

Gadget was the one kidnapped to work on the machine. She had more of a role. She was a stuntman toon for black widow. She was the one they had to rescue not jack.

It was changed as test viewers hated pluto as a bad guy--so they made pan the bad guy as it was cheap and just took some redubs. Yeah that's much better to turn pan into a bad guy over pluto. Still shocked disney allowed that. The fake pan became the real one in redubs!

And yes film was planned for theatres first.

[Daniel]

I heard that the whole leak was fake and originated from 4chan.

[EricJ]

And even that reshot ending is starting to blow up in their face, as more Disney-fan YouTube pundits are taking up the previously-discussed "Tasteless Bobby Driscoll context" talking point.

Hip deconstructive pop-culture irony: The only way to win is not to play.