Disney Planning Live Chip & Dale Rescue Rangers Movie

[gaastra]

No Really.

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31465

The studio has picked up a pitch from Robert Rugan, an award-winning commercials director, who is writing an updated take on the characters in what is being envisioned as a live-action/CG hybrid.
Mandeville Films/TV, the Disney-based production shingle run by David Hoberman and Todd Lieberman that is also behind the studio’s Muppets franchise, is producing.
Chip ‘n’ Dale first appeared in a 1943 animated short starring Pluto, and went on to appear in 22 reels stretching into the mid-1950s where the duo either annoyed Mickey’s faithful four-legged friend or squared off against Donald Duck.
They popped up in various Disney cartoons and comics but got a makeover in in 1989 with Chip ‘n Dale Rescue Rangers. The show saw Chip, the brains behind the pair, and Dale, the goofball, running a detective agency and helping animal clients. Disney made three seasons' worth of shows that then ran in syndication for the next decade on The Disney Channel.
It is from Rescue Rangers that the new project would spring as it tells an origin story of sorts.
Mandeville's Alexander Young is overseeing for the shingle and will exec produce.
Live-action/CG hybrids have proven to be quite successful. Fox is in the process of making a fourth Alvin and the Chipmunks picture while Sony Pictures Animation made two Smurfs movie.
Mandeville's Muppets Most Wanted hits theaters March 21.
STORY: PGS Entertainment Takes Rights to New 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' Series
Rugan has done spots for companies such as Visa, IFC, HBO, Kodak, Nikon and Durex, winning two CLIO Awards and the CyberLion at Cannes. He was also behind popular video Wiley vs Rhodes, a live-action spoof of a Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoon.
Rugen is attached to direct Genies (aka Children of the Lamp) at Paramount with Color Force (The Hunger Games) attached to produced. He is currently adapting the book series The Genius Files for Warners and wrote an original script titled Beauregard Thibodeau to which he is attached to direct while Logan Pictures is on board to produce.
He is repped by Verve, Kaplan/Perrone and Hirsch Wallerstein.

[EricJ]

I think someone KNEW what they had in mind when the word "Chipmunk" was uttered...

[Sid Philips]

Wasn't that awful tv show bad enough?

[Ben]

It's a shame that the new movie won't be something like Furry Vengeance, but with Chip 'n' Dale in the leads. That's possibly too obvious, but at least true to their origins...making a live-action Rescue Rangers movie just seems like an odd move, especially when G-Force didn't exactly set screens alight and have audiences clamboring for more of the same.

Awaiting more on this with interest, and hope to be mildly amused at best when the thing finally arrives...

[eddievalient]

To be fair, while I wouldn't say it's a great film, G-Force could have been far worse than it was and after being turned off by the trailers, I was pleasantly surprised by it. That said, while I would have preferred an animated Rescue Rangers film, I won't dismiss it just because it's a hybrid. The ones in charge now are apparently big fans of the old Disney Afternoon shows (which is why they went out of their way to get the original voice actors for Ducktales Remastered instead of using soundalikes), so I think we should wait until the movie comes out and see how they do.

[Scar]

I just don't know why every remake of a classic kids' cartoon has to be one of these hybrid films. I remember when they used to be animated like The Jetsons Movie and Duck Tales The Movie. I blame it on Scooby Doo.

[droosan]

Odds are pretty good that the Rescue Rangers will be saving the day for a quirky human -- in New York City.


.. and can a live-action/CG hybrid Tale Spin be far behind..?


.. far, far behind. Please.

[Scar]

Of course the human has to be some famous celebirty to sucker the adults on.

[Buzz Bumble]

I just don't know why every remake of a classic kids' cartoon has to be one of these hybrid films.

Me neither. They always come off just looking like bad parodies, at best.

I also don't understand why the current generation in Hollyweird has to "remake" / "reboot" everything ... haven't they actually got any ideas of their own!?

I blame it on Scooby Doo.

I wish that were true, but unfortuantely The Flintstones movies did come first (there may have been something before that, but I can't remember anything at the moment).

[Ben]

Trouble is, they keep thinking that something would be "great in live-action", but the only way to achieve the animal effects is to animated them! So it's a no-win situation since in trying to get away from what the properties originally were, they have to return to the same medium, albeit CG nowadays.

It won't end anytime soon: these movies, for some reason, continue to be as successful as they are creepy!

In terms of what came first, well there have always been "live-action" versions of old comics and cartoons (right from Flash Gordon, Batman and Superman serials in the 40s), but the current trend, I think, traces back to the late 1970s and the success of Richard Donner's Superman movie. That got Popeye made with Robin Williams, the failure of which was deemed because it wasn't "animated" enough (I think it was just the wrong director, personally).

But since then Hollywood has been trying to work out how to turn cartoons into "live-action" movies. The CG of Jurassic Park is what really turned heads: The Mask brought Tex Avery visual gags "to life" just a year later, with The Flintstones turning Dino loose as a half puppet-half CG character, which then led to Warners starting to mine the rest of their Hanna-Barbera catalog and other studios following soon after.

It's almost a genre of its own now, so I can see why Disney want a piece of that action (something they've largely stayed away from). Using "secondary" characters like Chip 'n' Dale allows them to dip their toes in the water without getting (too much) fan backlash...

Personally, I'm interested to see this, but a disappointed this isn't "classic" Chip 'n' Dale fighting some poacher in the woods or something, as opposed to the talking chipmunks that may come off as a pale Alvin knock-off...

[Buzz Bumble]

In terms of what came first, well there have always been "live-action" versions of old comics and cartoons (right from Flash Gordon, Batman and Superman serials in the 40s), ...

I was thinking more of cartoons (rather than comic strips) being made into live-action movies. Comic strips or cartoons that feature "normal" human beings are usually easier to make into live-action than a cartoon show about talking animals. Of course, the current "dark" trend for the likes of Batman is miles away from the real version in the comic books - the "Dark Knight" is not what the original comic books were.

... as opposed to the talking chipmunks that may come off as a pale Alvin knock-off...

Like the silly so-called "Smurfs" movies are.

[Randall]

Of course, the current "dark" trend for the likes of Batman is miles away from the real version in the comic books - the "Dark Knight" is not what the original comic books were.

Well, of course that depends on which comic you're refering to. The 1980s The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, and the 1990s/2000s Jeff Loeb/Tim Sale stories are pretty dark, and those are the ones that the Dark Knight Trilogy was most based on (with Knightfall- the 1990s comic storyline that had Bane breaking Batman's back - coming in at the end of the trilogy).

Oh, and the whole "classic toons appear alongside live actors" naturally started in earnest with Who Framed Roger Rabbit - though Tom and Jerry made a couple of brief movie appearances back in the day. But as far as a "cartoon TV show come to life," the only earlier one I can think of right now is Boris and Natasha, though that never got a wide release.

[Buzz Bumble]

Well, of course that depends on which comic you're refering to. The 1980s The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller, and the 1990s/2000s Jeff Loeb/Tim Sale stories are pretty dark, and those are the ones that the Dark Knight Trilogy was most based on (with Knightfall- the 1990s comic storyline that had Bane breaking Batman's back - coming in at the end of the trilogy).

I meant the proper ORIGINAL Batman comics way back 1930s / 1940s.

But you have brought up the added problam thanks to the comic book industry themselves "rebooting" the characters as well. Few people know what "Batman" or "Superman" really is beyond the vague outlines because the story keeps being changed. If they want to keep the basics and update the story, then they're better off making it "son of Batman" / "Batman: The Next Generation", as they did in the Batman Beyond animated TV series.

Oh, and the whole "classic toons appear alongside live actors" naturally started in earnest with Who Framed Roger Rabbit - though Tom and Jerry made a couple of brief movie appearances back in the day.

That's a slightly different concept to, for example, the Yogi Bear movie where Ranger Smith was played by a live-action actor. The Flintstones live-action movies were made worse by changing the actors too.

In terms of putting live actors and animated characters together on-screen, Disney did it in Mary Poppins in 1964 and is often claimed to be "the first", but there were undoubtedly occurrences before that (probably way back in the silent film era with characters hand-painted onto film cells and "moving picture" plates).

[Ben]

Koko The Clown, the Alice Comedies...Mickey Mouse appeared with Jimmy Durante in 1934...

[ShyViolet]

Also Windsor Macay would make appearances with Gertie the dinosaur, interacting with her while she was on-screen.