FA+
Shop
Ch-Ch-Ch-Chip and Dale?
12 years ago
General
Okay. So, I am a huge Chip and Dale fan. Huge. They're quite possibly my favorite Disney characters, and I say that as someone who adores all things Disney (except 'The Wild', because *&!$# that movie.) I buy Chip and Dale goodies. I have Chip and Dale hats, shirts, pins, DVDs, the works. Yes, I have even written fan fics, that's how geeked out I am for our two nut-hoarding chipmunk heroes.
So, how to take the recent news that Disney has green-lit a live action/CG 'Rescue Rangers' movie? I dunno, honestly. I really don't. It's like I'm rejoicing and cringing at the same time. As a 'munk fan, I'm greatly intrigued by the possibilities... after all, Disney hasn't done much with C&D in many years, apart from slapping their likenesses on merchandise, so it's a thrill just to think that there may be some new material in the works.
But what material? What, exactly, are they planning on doing? That's what's got me worried. Let's break it down into pros and cons:
Good - Chip and Dale and friends, on the big screen? Yes, please. Fans of the original 'Rescue Rangers' cartoon may remember that there was an animated feature film in the works back in the day, but it was scrapped following the perceived "failure" of the 'Ducktales' movie (failure, Disney? Seriously?) I've always wondered just what it was that we missed out on, so this new flick may just be the next best thing.
Bad - Let's be cynical for a second here... there have been an awful lot of these live-action/CG nostalgia cash-ins lately, and to put it bluntly, most of them have sucked. My apologies if you're a huge fan of the 'Smurfs' movies, but personally I find these half-assed money grabs, with their lame pop-culture jokes, ugly CG, tired fart and boobie gags, slumming C-list celebrities and awful pop music soundtracks to be nothing less than depressing. Of course, it's easy for me to just roll my eyes and skip over, say, 'Garfield' or 'Scooby Doo', but this one hits me right in the feels.
Good - The 'Rescue Rangers' characters and universe are ripe for a thoughtful updating. To be frank, as much as I adore the original cartoon, I'll be the first to say that it wasn't exactly the best written or animated show in the Disney Afternoon lineup. 'Ducktales' and 'Gummi Bears' had way better artwork and snappier writing, while 'Talespin' put a clever, imaginative twist on 'The Jungle Book'. In comparison, 'Rangers' was sort of clumsy, with only sporadically amusing jokes, underdeveloped characters and a strange pun-based universe that never really came to believable life. A smart, inspired writer could do a lot with the Rangers... for crying out loud, it's a show about intelligent rodents using homemade trinkets to build flying machines and save the world from mad scientists and criminal masterminds. In the right hands, this could be a whimsical, fun adventure filled with delightful characters.
Bad - In the wrong hands, this could be 90 minutes of yelling, farting, mugging, twerking, Google plugs and One Direction cameos. I would rather leave the 'munks in the Disney vault than see them run through that smug 'Ha ha, nostalgia sure is dumb, amiright?' shredder. You'd like to think that Disney would treat some of their most beloved, iconic characters with a bit of respect, but then again this is the studio that gave us 'G-Force'.
Good - If they make this movie, and it turns out halfway decent and successful, it will doubtless lead to sequels and other such tie-ins (new comics? New merchandise? New tv series, even?) If they take enough trips to the well, even a disappointing start can lead to greatness further down the line.
Bad - This movie is not going to be made with folks like myself in mind. I'm a fringe fan, someone far outside Disney's main scope... they (understandably) care a lot more about the 13 and under set, or folks my age who actually have kids (shudder). What I would want from a new 'Rangers' movie - complex characters, a richly imagined world, clever humor and touches of honest poignancy - are not required elements for a film like this to be successful, and let's face it, it's a lot simpler (and safer) to go for cheap and easy rather than take real creative risks. These movies are almost never someone's passion project. They're investments, and Disney's probably looking for a safe bet after the financial losses of 'John Carter' and 'The Lone Ranger'.
Good - If the Marvel movies are any indication, Disney appears to have learned that sometimes hiring talented people with real vision pays off. Would 'The Avengers' have been a success if they'd gone with Brett Ratner instead of Joss Whedon? Probably, but by going with someone who understood the material (and then largely staying out of his way), they reaped huge profits as well as critical acclaim.
Bad - I doubt if Joss Whedon is in line to make 'Rescue Rangers'. The guy who's pitch they bought is essentially a commercials director with an unproven track record, while the production studio, Mandeville Films, is all over the map in terms of quality. Sure, they gave us a halfway decent updating of the Muppets, but they're also responsible for 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua'. It's possible, of course, that there's an inspired classic in the works (or at the very least, something that respects the original idea), but...
So here's an old-school 'Rangers' fan in a queasy state of both anticipation and dread. The cynic in me keeps jabbing me in the ribs and going "Hey, you'd loooove to see the 'munks fall into a toilet, right? And are you ready for some helium-pitched Katy Perry songs? Maybe a surprise cameo by a bored-looking Seth Rogen?" On the other hand, that cynical voice has never fully been able to drown out the little kid in me, the one who still looks forward to these sorts of things with a sense of hope and wonderment at what-could-be. Until further information reveals itself, put me down as "cautiously, perhaps even foolishly, optimistic".
So, how to take the recent news that Disney has green-lit a live action/CG 'Rescue Rangers' movie? I dunno, honestly. I really don't. It's like I'm rejoicing and cringing at the same time. As a 'munk fan, I'm greatly intrigued by the possibilities... after all, Disney hasn't done much with C&D in many years, apart from slapping their likenesses on merchandise, so it's a thrill just to think that there may be some new material in the works.
But what material? What, exactly, are they planning on doing? That's what's got me worried. Let's break it down into pros and cons:
Good - Chip and Dale and friends, on the big screen? Yes, please. Fans of the original 'Rescue Rangers' cartoon may remember that there was an animated feature film in the works back in the day, but it was scrapped following the perceived "failure" of the 'Ducktales' movie (failure, Disney? Seriously?) I've always wondered just what it was that we missed out on, so this new flick may just be the next best thing.
Bad - Let's be cynical for a second here... there have been an awful lot of these live-action/CG nostalgia cash-ins lately, and to put it bluntly, most of them have sucked. My apologies if you're a huge fan of the 'Smurfs' movies, but personally I find these half-assed money grabs, with their lame pop-culture jokes, ugly CG, tired fart and boobie gags, slumming C-list celebrities and awful pop music soundtracks to be nothing less than depressing. Of course, it's easy for me to just roll my eyes and skip over, say, 'Garfield' or 'Scooby Doo', but this one hits me right in the feels.
Good - The 'Rescue Rangers' characters and universe are ripe for a thoughtful updating. To be frank, as much as I adore the original cartoon, I'll be the first to say that it wasn't exactly the best written or animated show in the Disney Afternoon lineup. 'Ducktales' and 'Gummi Bears' had way better artwork and snappier writing, while 'Talespin' put a clever, imaginative twist on 'The Jungle Book'. In comparison, 'Rangers' was sort of clumsy, with only sporadically amusing jokes, underdeveloped characters and a strange pun-based universe that never really came to believable life. A smart, inspired writer could do a lot with the Rangers... for crying out loud, it's a show about intelligent rodents using homemade trinkets to build flying machines and save the world from mad scientists and criminal masterminds. In the right hands, this could be a whimsical, fun adventure filled with delightful characters.
Bad - In the wrong hands, this could be 90 minutes of yelling, farting, mugging, twerking, Google plugs and One Direction cameos. I would rather leave the 'munks in the Disney vault than see them run through that smug 'Ha ha, nostalgia sure is dumb, amiright?' shredder. You'd like to think that Disney would treat some of their most beloved, iconic characters with a bit of respect, but then again this is the studio that gave us 'G-Force'.
Good - If they make this movie, and it turns out halfway decent and successful, it will doubtless lead to sequels and other such tie-ins (new comics? New merchandise? New tv series, even?) If they take enough trips to the well, even a disappointing start can lead to greatness further down the line.
Bad - This movie is not going to be made with folks like myself in mind. I'm a fringe fan, someone far outside Disney's main scope... they (understandably) care a lot more about the 13 and under set, or folks my age who actually have kids (shudder). What I would want from a new 'Rangers' movie - complex characters, a richly imagined world, clever humor and touches of honest poignancy - are not required elements for a film like this to be successful, and let's face it, it's a lot simpler (and safer) to go for cheap and easy rather than take real creative risks. These movies are almost never someone's passion project. They're investments, and Disney's probably looking for a safe bet after the financial losses of 'John Carter' and 'The Lone Ranger'.
Good - If the Marvel movies are any indication, Disney appears to have learned that sometimes hiring talented people with real vision pays off. Would 'The Avengers' have been a success if they'd gone with Brett Ratner instead of Joss Whedon? Probably, but by going with someone who understood the material (and then largely staying out of his way), they reaped huge profits as well as critical acclaim.
Bad - I doubt if Joss Whedon is in line to make 'Rescue Rangers'. The guy who's pitch they bought is essentially a commercials director with an unproven track record, while the production studio, Mandeville Films, is all over the map in terms of quality. Sure, they gave us a halfway decent updating of the Muppets, but they're also responsible for 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua'. It's possible, of course, that there's an inspired classic in the works (or at the very least, something that respects the original idea), but...
So here's an old-school 'Rangers' fan in a queasy state of both anticipation and dread. The cynic in me keeps jabbing me in the ribs and going "Hey, you'd loooove to see the 'munks fall into a toilet, right? And are you ready for some helium-pitched Katy Perry songs? Maybe a surprise cameo by a bored-looking Seth Rogen?" On the other hand, that cynical voice has never fully been able to drown out the little kid in me, the one who still looks forward to these sorts of things with a sense of hope and wonderment at what-could-be. Until further information reveals itself, put me down as "cautiously, perhaps even foolishly, optimistic".
Wait? Twerking in 90 mins!? :D
I have to admit, part of me kind of wants to see the 'munks twerking. ;P
It's sad that the news of a movie based on a beloved show actually causes unease, but it's true. The live-action treatment is too often a horrible idea, but studios seem to be in love with it. I don't want to see Rescue Rangers in a realistic style, but I also do want to at least see what they would look like. The art would surely be beautiful. Their gadgets would at least look good in a realistic style. Gadget, however, I expect to look kinda weird.
Unfortunately I'm all but certain the only reason this thing even got approved in the first place is because movies like 'The Smurfs' make huge money. You can just imagine someone in management going "Hey, why can't we get in on some of that sweet 'Alvin and the Chipmunks' money? Don't we have some chipmunks of our own somewhere?"
I share your concern about what they're going to look like live action, too. I'm actually having a hard time even imagining what they'll end up being... their designs are so 'toony that it'll be tough to flesh them out in CG, but you can't change them up too much or they won't be recognizable anymore. Is Zipper going to look like a little green dude, or will he be an actual photo-realistic housefly? Either way, it's going to be odd.
Gadget, I'm afraid, is going to look like a woman. A human woman with a button nose and ripe, pouty lips. Yeesh.
I can't even imagine what he'd look like. I have a feeling whatever he winds up looking like, I'm going to have to post a re-interpretation of his character. AND THEY'D BETTER NOT MAKE ANY POOP JOKES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE A FLY! I can tolerate a "Your fly is down" joke, considering the Zipper=fly correlation.
Hollywood Reporter reports that it'll be an origin story, which is VERY over-done. Never start with a character's origin. Instead just get to the story. Origins are rarely interesting. At least it's not an over-told origin story like Superman or Spiderman. I think the Rescue Rangers origin story is minor enough that it won't overwhelm the actual story, and the "getting to know you" aspect could actually drive the story some, with new things introduced throughout the movie. I'll remain optimistic about the whole "origin story" part.
I don't have a problem with them doing an origin story, provided they put some thought into it... after all, the 'Rangers' pilot movie glossed over their beginnings rather quickly ("Hey, look, a hat! I'll be a detective from now on!") I'd love to see them spend some time developing their characters, and why they end up being the Rangers in the first place. Unfortunately, the past track record of these sorts of flicks indicates that deep characters and well thought-out worlds aren't on the agenda, and with 'Smurfs' making almost a billion dollars at the box office, they're probably going to follow the trend and just dish out a bunch of lame jokes. Keeping my fingers crossed extra hard, though...
I'm actually trying to wrap my head around what they're going to look like as "live" CG critters, not least because their 2-D, traditionally animated selves are so firmly established. I suppose they could do a full "Alvin" style reinvention, but it seems to me that if you change the 'munks appearance too much, they kind of stop being who they are. On the other hand, if they try to adapt their original look as CG, they might end up looking sort of grotesque (shades of live-action 'Garfield'). Don't know how they're going to pull this off, really.
For starters, why live-action/CG instead of just CG? It's been a long time since I watched the show, but I don't remember a wealth of human characters. Didn't focus mostly on the rodents? I'm worried that they're just trying to copy those OTHER beloved chipmunk characters...
For another thing, are today's kids even aware of the show? It was on 20 years ago, and like you said, Disney hasn't been doing much with the characters since then.
I'm a big fan of C&D too, so I'll be sad if Disney does something horrible with them. But hey, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Still. Still... live action Chip and Dale? That's so completely counter to how they've always been, I'm actually having a hard time even imagining it.
I do remember quite a few human characters on 'Rescue Rangers', but as you say they weren't really very important, apart from providing oddball villains or sad-eyed orphans who needed to find their lost kitty. The animal world was always the real draw, and one hopes that they'll do a good job imagining it. On the other hand, they might just go full 'Smurfs' and stick them in a suburban setting, with a permanently flustered Channing Tatum yelling at them not to destroy his kitchen.