29:35 A note about Bobby Driscoll: After Disney, he got shadowbanned from the rest of the industry because one guy didn't like him and somehow got all other studios to not hire him.
@@Alfafabatutinha Specifically to mock, though. Compare this to Roger Rabbit, where every character on display was handled with a level of respect and tact (which sounds ironic considering said characters are a bunch off screwballs). Donald and Daffy are at each others throats in a way that's totally believable, while Mickey and Bugs are just chilling having fun. Betty Boop was treated with a palpable reverence to her original works, with her being the only Toons Eddie could tolerate because she's Betty freaking Boop, how could anyone NOT like her. Droopy feels like Droopy, Woody feels like Woody. Every character is there to celebrate every aspect of the golden age of animation in equal measure. Meanwhile most of the third party Ips in Rescue Rangers exist to be the butt of a specific joke; Ugly Sonic is there to mock Paramount, Cats is there to mock Universal. Alvin and the Chipmunks is brought up a LOT because it's very obvious this movie was only greenlit because of their momunental popularity in the 2000s. Meanwhile Disney gets away unscathed despite perpetrating most of the worst trends in Hollywood in the last decade, most of which this movie is trying to mock! Just like Wreck it Ralph 2, the whole movie just ends up being this ineffective, toothless circlejerk made for Disney executives and no one else.
@@Alfafabatutinha I'd like to add something to the Roger Rabbit contrast: The use of character IPs are not relevant to the plot and only focuses on the characters that the story revolves around, given the title of the movie and the book it was adapted from. It's also done to recreate a bit of familiarity to the time period that the cartoons were based around; doing away with the "drab, droll and mundane" feeling of newspaper comics from the 70s and 80s that Gary K. Wolf based the original premise around (as the original book mentioned about leaving a mess of word balloons, or using disposable stunt doubles created of a Toon's mental mind, and a toon is also killed like a human rather than be treated like an ink and paint drawing), and instead make it colorful and interesting, as it puts focus on slapstick humor and surreal fantasy elements. Movies like Teen Titans Go, Space Jam: A New Legacy, Ralph Breaks the Internet, and Chip 'n' Dale: Ripoff Rangers, are nothing more than glorified fad movies, focusing on bad memes, cancel culture, and a lack of rational thought; it's not a reference movie, it's a "Corporate Cringe" Movie.
When I heard they were going to make a Rescue Rangers movie, I thaught it would be like a reboot about how they met and face off against their archenemy, Fat Cat
The fact that a major part of this movies plot and marketing is how shitty CGI looks on a lot of modern iterations of classic characters WHILE HAVING SHITTY CGI VERSIONS OF CLASSIC CHARACTERS AS THE STARS was a red flag for me even before the damn film came out; like you pointed out its not that funny to make jokes about ugly sonic when Dale is pretty mush the same but not blue
@pooplicker2010 The point is its Fake 2D in a movie that already has actual 2D sprinkled everywhere, the suits clearly didn't want to pay some Traditional animators a pretty penny to do one of the Major characters throughout the runtime.
@pooplicker2010 It may be "not _that_ cursed," but it _is_ unmistakably cell-shaded 3D and not 2D animation, correct? Like it looks more like something played on a GameCube (i.e. Wind Waker) than an actual cartoon.
I’ve heard that the director swore up and down that the Peter Pan and Bobby Driscoll thing was an accident, and that originally the villain was gonna be either Pluto the dog or Charlie Brown (can’t remember which), but that goes to show that the people making this movie aren’t as versed in animation history as they should be considering they’re making all these meta commentary jokes if none of them knew about the story and would have been able to alert the others that it would be in bad taste, but the story isn’t that obscure.
Pluto would have made way more sense anyway, since Rescue Rangers was a show about pet problems. I'd argue it doesn't matter if the Peter Pan thing was a coincidence or not. Someone involved should have known better.
Even if we give them the stupidly over-charitable take that they were completely oblivious to the entire Bobby Driscoll thing, it still doesn't make sense in the logic in their own world. Why would he be literally the only cartoon character to ever age? In a world where Toons don't age by default, but he also has "not aging" as kind of a "super power." Also the lost boy didn't age... what's up with that?
The original voice actor for Charlie Brown didn’t really fare much better in adulthood than Bobby Driscoll, which IMO makes both the initial idea and the way it ended up even worse.
It's actually worse than that because everything in this movie is canon to all other pieces of media that appear in it. It fundamentally ruins many, many unrelated franchises with its mere existence.
Those films should be called IP dump films. They’re expressions of how many IPs massive media corporations own, or have bought the licenses for. They’re used to refresh IPs for keeping it either for later use or (far more likely) just to keep it. An IP dump can be good, but it requires more work than the companies who make IP dumps are willing to give.
It's so jarring how the more you watch the movie, the worse the quality becomes. Normally, you find good stuff when you rewatch movies, but with this film you just find more awful things.
@joshuamunn2410 The MCU introduced the multiverse just so they can reuse non-MCU Marvel films for their own MCU films Initially, Loki was a great way to introduce different worlds, What If...? is just a fun, disconnected show about different interpretations and No Way Home (though still fanservice-laden) is at least a proper conclusion for Tobey and Andrew's arcs while also allowing Tom's Peter Parker to shine as Spider-Man. The moment we get to Multiverse of Madness (with Patrick Stewart as a Variant of Professor X) and The Marvels (which brought back Kelsey Grammer as Dr. Hank McCoy), it's clear that Disney is deliberately nostalgia-pandering to make up for their lack of originality. And I just hope that Deadpool & Wolverine chill with the cameos instead of trying to shove the entirety of the Fox X-Men in what is supposed to be a solo film centred around, well...Deadpool and Wolverine. Or at least give the X-Men a purpose and a role instead of being a glorified cameo that means nothing to the plot (though Cassandra Nova being the main villain in D&W means Professor X will have some big role at least, so the X-Men may be necessary).
I think making Peter Pan the villain in this film is what for me crossed the line between "bad movie" and "disgusting movie". I don't believe for a second that nobody at disney realised what they were doing.
Man, the death of 2D animation to the point where you even animate a character that is supposed to be 2D in 3D is truly horrifying. A whole craft going to shit because people choose to see it as "outdated" instead of being it's owns thing. I hate this so much.
I think 2D is going to make a comeback, some of it is animated in 2d but using a (very cheap) 3D model costed less money that they needed to use on celebrity voices and cameos
@@LegoGoblinI feel like there’s a difference with beastars they animate in the style they do because they have a passion for it! Kind of like the team behind the Spiderverse films! What they mean is Disney with Wish and such where they just…don’t try anymore and are trying to “appease” 2d and 3d watchers
The 2D animation is also terrible - rogar in rogar rabbit was actually animated in 2D animation he had so much movment & emotion in him Meanwhile the “2D animation” in chip n dale is just so-ugly , its ugly & hollow it ruins the contrast between the CGI characters & the 2D characters
"Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" led to the invention of a whole new term just to describe how they went above and beyond to put extra care and effort into their scenes. This movie feels like it deserves a parallel, but I think just calling it lazy and derivative is a lot more fitting a judgement for it than that. If you wanna see a relatively recent take on the concept of miltumedia showbiz that might even involve a dancing skeleton, I'd highly recommend the short film "Rebooted" that you can find here on TH-cam. It investigates the high concept of relevancy and replacement in a much more entertaining way and doesn't weigh itself down with its references.
I found an early draft of this movie's script, and while the general story is the same, there's a few notable differences that kinda-sorta improve the writing a bit... - The Peter Pan character was originally named Mean Dean. He was a realistic Santa Claus, who used to be 2D until he got CGI surgery for a gritty Santa origin story movie, but wound up looking too horrifying. He runs the bootlegging facility and Monty still owes him, but the Valley Gang isn't responsible for Monty getting kidnapped. This is because... - Ellie actually _was_ the twist villain traitor (the Albany thing is what tips Chip off). She framed Mean Dean in order to take over his business, and she's the one who transforms at the climax. Sgt. Putty was also still a villain. - Since this draft was written long before the Sonic movie was a thing, the character that became him was Erik Estrada. Apparently Jar-Jar was also considered in a later draft, as there's an animatic out there that features him instead of Ugly Sonic. - Instead of Chip and Dale activating the machine and jumping into it, the whole factory is booby-trapped, and the two have to make it through the bootlegging machine (which is against the wall) to turn off the power. None of this could've saved this film, but I felt it was worth pointing out.
Disney had the perfect opportunity to make a good Rescue Rangers movie, and yet they wasted all that potential on an uninspired Who Framed Roger Rabbit knockoff. I've read fan fiction that had better plots, ugh.
It like how DC made The Flash, but instead of making a solo film centred around, well, The Flash, they adapted Flashpoint and brought back Michael Keaton. Also, the dead actors of older adaptations of DC characters "revived" via CGI and the questionable ethics. Doesn't help that the main lead is played by a criminal (Ezra Miller).
The worst thing is, literally any characters could've been used for this plot. This could've been a Scooby Doo or Speedy Gonzales movie and it wouldn't have changed anything. There's literally nothing about this movie that Chip and Dale fans would've liked.
Making it like Roger Rabbit would have meant giving equal respect/mockery of all studios involved. One of the most famous details about Roger Rabbit is that they made sure Donald Duck/Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse/Bugs Bunny had equal screentime, because even though it was Disney production the weight of those characters appearing on screen together was handled with the care it deserved. Not to mention that the main animated protagonist wasn't previously belonging to any animation studio in particular.
I'm not sure if there's an official name for this genre... some of the movies listed are reboots, but not Ready Player One. I personally call it nostalgiabait.
As someone who is over 30, I can assure you, I did not like this movie. I would've much preferred a proper Rescue Rangers story without all the meta gags. When I realized they were going for a Roger Rabbit style, I was willing to give it a chance, but still didn't like most of it.
I liked the little animated bit in the movie that looks so good in the art style of the original series why couldn't we just get a RR movie like that or they could have made a Bonkers movie since it pretty much had the same premise.
Or instead of chasing a trend from the 80s, just... I don't know... make the movie good instead of making it so awful it also destroys the reputation of all crossovers too.
I think due to the way this show is trying to mash a bunch of different styles onto a live action setting, a more apt comparison than who framed roger rabbit would be to the amazing world of gumball, which looks 10x better on its animated kids show budget. Gumball actually puts attention and care into its lighting and different mediums of animation to make sure everything works as seamlessly as possible and it works so well.
It's weird because I often looked up Who Framed Roger Rabbit and on wikipedia and other sites they talked about making a sequel. Then it slowly became a disney only project about mickey mouse and roger rabbit on a roadtrip; changing to a prequel and then out of nowhere the story was dropped for a story about peter pan getting older. Only for a tech demo to appear online (which those who remember saw, it was a bit from this movie) and then this Chip and Dale movie was revealed. It feels like the whole idea of being a roger rabbit movie, or inspired by, slowly turned into this. So many changes and rewrites eventually mutated it into this when we could of had a really cool roger rabbit story. It was something I followed the news on the most; from college all the way to now.
I think the best example that the title really means nothing is that, for some dumb reason, they decide to pair up Gadget with Zipper. I get the story tells us the characters are just actors (as actor Zipper in the movie is implied to be older than Chip and Dale), but to those who grew up with Gadget and Zipper, it feels like a kick in the teeth. And I didn't grow up with Gadget, btw. Also, why did they use Peter Pan in a story that's so insultingly close to his actor's tragedy? If they want a character to use for that idea without crashing to any real life subtext, they could've used Pinocchio. Most notably, human Pinocchio. If they want one that makes sense for conflict, they could've used Pluto or Donald. Calling it Disney's worst movie isn't true. But it's certainly could be a lot better, even as a Roger Rabbit type of movie. At least it's not Space Jam 2.
On top of it being a mid movie at it's very best, being hypocritical and mean and uninspired, the worst sin it committed was the fact that they shipped Gadget with Zipper. For a kiddo who grew up with the show and had a crush on her, it felt personal.
It's like solving the Betty vs Veronica debate by having Archie decide to go and marry a dog instead. Also, go on to have 42 biological children with that dog.
It bugs me how for this movie they could get all these different non-Disney properties but when I was watching Invincible last night Disney couldn’t let them use Spider-Man for a 30 second scene because Invincible is made by Amazon so instead they had to come up with their parody Spider-Man despite us all knowing that it supposed to be Spider-Man.
Somehow I understand wreck it Ralph movie more than the chip and dale movie Even with the video game references I understood the plot and the message it was trying to send
The first Wreck it Ralph movie is a basically a love letter to video games. It has a good story, good plot, good twist villain, and a good balance of nostalgia. The second one decided to attempt to adapt the _internet_ into a movie, and also every Disney IP for some reason... it didn't work so well.
I remember it being a point that in Who Framed Roger Rabbit Warner Bros. and Disney characters were required to have the same amount of screentime, how fitting they would both go on to make embarrassing IP dump movies. Also, none of these big companies will ever get self-referential meta humor right, they either wouldn't dare actually make fun of themselves (just obvious light stuff nobody cares about) or they're too oblivious to even know how to actually make fun of themselves. Not even the supposed "kings" of meta humor Rick and Morty do it right, nobody is apparently capable of actually "roasting" themselves.
The only people I saw praising the movie were teenagers on tiktok everyone else I saw talk about it was trashing it. It's interesting how different people have different experiences on the Internet.
It's probably because the honeymoon phase is over. I guess you could blame Your Movie Sucks, LS Mark, Manga Writer, Beaniiebrian, Dumbsville & Just Stop for this.
I think one of the biggest reasons why I didn't like this movie can be summed up in two words: overly cynical. Something which should never be associated with a Disney property. A touch of cynicism and some tongue-in-cheek edginess is okay and can even be brilliant but if you look at the film everyone compares this to, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, there is a real earnestness about the world they are presenting. Bob Hoskins did not once half-ass his performance, if he had it wouldn't have worked. Likewise even the cartoons that have traditionally cartoony voices convey emotion and depth, they come across as charming characters who would make you laugh when you feel down and offer help if you brought up your problems. I love John Mulaney and Andy Samburg they're very funny gentlemen but it feels weird hearing grown male human voices come out of Chip and Dale of all characters. Even the Alvin and the Chipmunks films had celebrities voicing the chipmunks but still sped the voices up. It just feels like they don't trust the audience to form a relationship with a cartoon character who...sounds like a cartoon character. And yeah I thought Peter Pan as the villain was tone deaf and too mean spirited. It's not Disney making fun of itself it's poorly aimed meta humour "Remember this, remember that?" and that awful "God I hate it when people do this, could you imagine if we did that?" Right before they do the exact thing they hate later on in the movie, like the rap scene. It's not just crossover and meta-humour movies I've noticed it in a lot of modern fantasy. Everyone's making "this is weird" and "tHaT hApPeNeD" one-liners instead of just accepting the magic. If they remade Laberynth today Sarah would be cracking unfunny lines and questioning if she was high rather than accepting the world she's entered into.
The overly cynical nature of much of modern media is honestly why I'm still a Kingdom Hearts fan, because despite the admittedly silly premise of the series, it takes things seriously and plays everything straight. Kingdom Hearts is an incredibly earnest series, and I think we can learn a lot from how it presents itself as such.
You can definetely make a good animated on 2s/3s effect in 3d. When animating on 2s/3s in 2d they tend to add emphasis on some frames by making them longer. They also go between 2 very different frames to make the movement seem fast or use smear frames like you said. With chip he just had regular 3d animation at a lower frame rate.
I feel like the whole concept of the film is practically shot in the foot the moment they decided that the main characters were going to be CG animated. Hell, the puppet and Gumby characters are made with CG. What's the point in trying to show the differences between animation styles when you don't actually use different animation styles like real puppets or claymation?
I feel like the 2d characters should’ve been more bouncy, embrace smears! Embrace squash and stretch! Embrace exaggeration! I get it would take a while to figure out with the advanced models, but it’s such a disappointment!
@@nobodyinparticular9640 They would have saved even more money if they stopped re-writing the thing over and over again. All previous drafts of the movie would have been MUCH better than what we got.
The funniest part of this movie is how pissed off some people got from the girl Rescue Ranger was married and had kids with the bug guy. Apparently the girl has like a huge underground fanbase, especially in countries like Russia, and people were not happy to see their childhood crush getting railed by an insect
You’re right about Disney being unable to make fun of themselves because originally, Pluto the dog was planned to be the villain because, you know, in the cartoons, he antagonizes Chip and Dale. That would mean Pluto would talk and basically be Sweet Pete but Disney didn’t want the pet of Mickey Mouse to be a villain. One last thing I’ll add is they end the movie with Darkwing Duck, another Disney cartoon from the 90s. If anything, it would make more sense for him to be the protagonist of this story instead of Chip N Dale because he’s an incompetent asshole hero wannabe who would cling to the good old days. Chip N Dale, in this movie, feels nothing like the ones from the cartoon. They don’t even have their chipmunk voices, the whole reason why they exist in the first place!
To quickly comment on the animation, it really is soulless to see that they didn't employ any of the actually good methods of giving (not)2d characters like Chip more 2d-esc movement using the actually incredible tools that 3d animators have developed to have 3d characters look more expressive and 2d. If your curious on what that can look like, I'd HIGHLY recommend checking out the GDC talks on Guilty Gear Xrd and Strive cause the way they're able to bend and shape models to give them some of the more expressive qualities of 2d + there are some great examples of indie 3d animation that genuinely look like it'd be impossible to be 3D
It really is! Less on the indie scene but if like hotel Transylvanias animation can be bouncy and expressive- while still being 3d I don't see why 3d animation that IS intended to look 2d wouldn't do something like that
@idi0tsanswich379 I suggest checking out the 2021 Tom & Jerry movie. That movie actually merged every single classic 2D aesthetic into the software for VFX. The production coined an alternative of traditional animation called "2D+", which captures the style and feel of 2D with the quicker production times of CGI and completely hid that it's CG underneath.
The Spider-Verse movies are also "3D animated like 2D", but the only difference that they put effort into making it "comic book-y" and the references at least play a role since the main lesson is about what it means to be Spider-Man. Chip & Dale is just...it doesn't know what it wants to be? Like they missed a good opportunity to just do a normal adaptation of Chip & Dale, but they instead turned it to a movie filled with references. Spider-Verse has passion and the references have purpose. Chip n Dale felt more mean-spirited and cynical when trying to be "self-aware" (almost like talking down at the audience).
The correct way to do this duo's voices is to have a fairly normal voice sped up/pitch shifted for Chip, who is the straight man, and have a deep slow-talker pitch shifted by a similar proportion for Dale, who is a little bit slow. Seeing these designs but hearing just normal voices of full sized humans instead of high pitched chipmunk voices is _wrong_ .
Feel ike they just stole assets from other companies, i doubt that Trey and Matt would let Disney use Randy, maybe hasbro with MLP considering G5 uses the Disney style Rodger rabbit did the same thing with universal but both Disney worked together
My reason for the poor performances in this film is partially bad material, but more notably lockdown. Actors can’t naturally bounce off of each other’s performances if they can’t react to said performances. This likely hit the worst with Ellie’s actor because she had no live actors to perform with. The film being rushed likely meant that voice actors couldn’t record together and may not have even seen each other’s performances or been able to provide new takes before the deadline.
what pisses me off the most is that BOTH chip and dale are 3D animated. Just one is rendered to look like 2D and the other one is rendered to the point it looks hyperrealistic and yet they wanna replicate the media clashing of rodger rabbit or the original space jam. The 3D "2D" look just doesn't do it for me, it still looks 3D as fuck. They didn't even care to bring back 2D animation and that just shows how hollow and fake this movie actually is
Wreck it Ralph and the Lego movie were better movies with references because they focus more on the plot than cameos and have original main characters.
If Disney really did have the balls, they would have made that weird Chef Muppet actually Swedish Chef. Also, yeah, I wish they leaned more in to more clever background gags like Politican Butthead and Gucci Dobby. Also, the dark ass implication of Linda from Phineas and Ferb on Main Street and the fact Phineas is seen as one of bootlegged toons (I'm also pretty sure they turned Sora in to Johnny Test). From what I know to, there was an original cut, or at least script where Pluto, Mickey's dog himself, was going to be the main twist villain (tying in to earlier Chip and Dale cartoons), which actually would have been more clever and a genuine example of Disney making fun of themselves.
11:12 did you not see the fake Simpsons near the end? They had really nice animation. Also I thought the movie was pretty alright, clearly they didn’t have the budget for one main character to be 2D animated the whole time
So, I haven't seen his movie (and I probably won't), but you're telling me that there's a scene where someone melts a Shrek figure? From that movie that was made as bitter revenge by an executive that was forced out of the Disney Company because of business politics, which went on to be more popular than anything Disney's made in 25 years? If anyone tries to tell you that this movie is Disney criticizing or lampooning themselves, just point to that scene and tell them they're stupid. The entirety of 'Shrek' wasn't as cynical as that one scene.
It's even worse than that, they're melting down unsold Shrek body wash to create portable toilets. Anyone who knows anything about recycling, knows that plastics are simply not economical to recycle. It's infinitely cheaper to just make new plastic. Like most parts of the movie, it makes no sense in-universe, and it is motivated entirely by spite.
It's even worse than that, they're melting down unsold Shrek body wash to create portable toilets. Anyone who knows anything about recycling, knows that plastics are simply not economical to recycle. It's infinitely cheaper to just make new plastic. Like most parts of the movie, it makes no sense in-universe, and it is motivated entirely by spite.
@OwlBloodandHoneyII We asked for a good movie and Disney said no. Asking for something that isn't shit isn't "ungrateful" no matter how much you rewrite reality.
15:36 it's animated on 2s to look more like 2d animation. That part actually isn't a budget thing. it might actually be more work to have choppier frame rate for 3d animation because the posing has to be prioritized more .
Damn I must have forgot to mention that it was meant to "look" like 2D cause its in 2s but feels more like a justification for it to look choppy rather than actully do things that would benefit it like posing compared to spiderverse having dynamic action scenes or puss in boots having high action too. There's not a lot of high action in this movie. Shit im pretty sure roger rabbit was animated in ones to match the framerate of the live action but I couldn't find any source for that so I didn't mention it in the video.
Hey, professional animator here. Keeping the more stylized, flat shaded 3D characters like Chip in constant twos (12fps) without additional readjustments is the easiest and cheapest way to imitate a 2D feel in movement. And making the chopped down 3D anim feel like actual 2D anim comes down to the extra work needed to emulate traditional 2D animation outside of the framerate, which indeed in most scenes of this film doesn't seem to be the case either because of time constraints (which would be tied to budget), or because the 3D animators working on those stylized characters fundamentally do not understand how a traditional 2D pipeline works with all its limitations (either they never tried 2D anim themselves, they didn't do the research or their anim supervisor failed to explain them the exact process). The latter reason could explain the quality for the actual hyper realistic 3D charas like Dale (which honestly is pretty good overall). _______ Just for the framerate: Fundamentally 3D animation is just one rig moving from one pose to another with automatically generated interpolations that can be readjusted with curves on a graph. By itself having those curves interpolated in ones, twos, threes, or hell, animated in 60fps makes almost NO difference when it comes to workload/budget (except only for FK/IK switching, Follow spaces and rotation orders), unlike traditional 2D anim where going from twos to ones means producing twice as much drawings in rough, tiedown, clean and colo, with extra attention being put in inbetweens when it comes to the lines spacing. But just because the decision is made to prioritize one framerate doesn't mean it needs to be 100% consistent, even within a single shot. In old school 2D Disney features even if most of the anim stays in twos, whenever a character makes a sudden move in subtle acting shots (not just action shots), the animator can switch to ones for a fraction of a second just to make this movement more dynamic/lively without exponentially increasing his workload, and whenever a character doesn't move much or is not the focus of the shot the animator can transition to threes, or even hold one key pose for much longer. A common mistake made by 3D animators when imitating 2D is to say "I need to have the character move ALWAYS in twos", which makes the result boring and fake. The only exception can be for action scenes with a lot of camera movements (like Jim flying the hoverboard in Treasure Planet) or where there are interactions with a BG on ones (like the shot with Tarzan swinging on the trees, and a lot of shots where cartoon characters interact with humans in Roger Rabbit) where it can stay in ones (which even in Chip and Dale it seems to be the case sometimes), mainly to have the character in synch with environment interactions and avoid it to slip on the ground. And then outside of the framerate, to really get the 2D feel, the animator to pay extra attention to each key poses to make it feel drawn (like in Spiderverse for most action/money shots). Ideally there should be a bunch of 2D consultants/supervisors drawing those poses in rough, and the 3D animator should perfectly match those 2D poses down to each hair and finger, even if it means completely breaking the 3D rig (which in this case the benefit of having a flat shaded render means the animator doesn't have to worry too much about smooth mesh topology which would break fur and textures on a more realistic 3D model when stretched too much). And the perfect volume and consistent shapes of the 3D rig need to be broken either with more stretch and squash or moving some details around to make it feel less static, with interpolations being less automated, all the while following traditional 2D anim rules like curves, silhouette, appeal, follow through, asymmetry... (One thing in particular that I notice are the mouths: in a lot of instances they just kept the default pose of the teeth during lipsynch without readjusting them to make it look like hand drawn. You don't actually see the molars in a lot of traditional 2D animation outside of some very steep camera angles, since they can be very unappealing). And that's JUST for the animation (aka movement). One note I would have for the final render is that the outlines are too static/consistent. The renders could definitely benefit from a slightly more wobbly outline that would need to be perfectly in synch with the animation (as if each key was "drawn" separately), and not on a consistent framerate. The lighting could probably use some work too, at least in compositing, but I don't think it needs to be too crazy most of the time. ____ Just to summarize, choppy 3D is just the beginning for imitating real 2D. If anything, having Chip being made in 2D, even if not to the level of Roger Rabbit, would probably look better since those 2D limitations would come down more naturally.
@@HeartOfNoMad I have a lot of things to say in response to your video. 1. Roger Rabbit is more than 24 frames per second; it's mostly animated in the amount of frames that the live-action footage is done on; there's also consideration that it was animated by an animation studio that relies on lively character animation; If they wanted Chip and Dale to be lively, they should be animated by a slightly higher fps like Roger Rabbit. And I'd argue that Space Jam, and Looney Tunes Back in Action, have better usage of mixing 2D and 3D, even with a few flaws. The Looney Tunes characters were animated similar to how they were animated in the 40s and 50s, which is what they stuck with for the characters, and there's some 3D backgrounds used in Space Jam to give off dynamic shots and characters going on different angles. Also in Looney Tunes Back in Action, there's a cameo of Scooby and Shaggy, and they're animated "on twos" similar to how they are originally animated back in 1969, and a later scene has Brendan Fraser against a giant robot dog, and it's not as jarring as how Ripoff Rangers handled 3D animation. 2. It doesn't matter if they're mocking Bobby Driscoll, if it was a coincidence, or that they're just tone-deaf about it, you should NEVER use that actor's misfortune to represent the character they played the role of, being used in this film, because it leads to controversy over mistreating their actors. The only example where it does work within the narrative is if you don't base it on an actual person; for example, Balthazar Bratt from Despicable Me 3 (or "Despicable M3"). In the movie, Balthazar was a child actor who's more into playing the role of a villain, and actually takes pride in doing so, reveling in that direction. He did lose his stardom upon puberty, but unlike Bobby Driscoll or Peter Pan (Where Ripoff Rangers vilified a hero character, as well as the actor it was voiced by), Balthazar Bratt actually embraces his TV Villain persona to the point of using it as his only identity. 3. The biggest sin of the movie to me (even if I didn't see the movie) is that this is a "reboot" of a TV Series, yet the movie has nothing to do with what "Rescue Rangers" is actually about: the premise of the show is that Chip and Dale not only go on Adventures with Gadget, Zipper and Monterey Jack, but they take up cases that the police couldn't do, mostly rescuing animals and stopping petty crimes; there's also the fact that "Rescue Rangers" is actually meant to be a TV Series based around the Rescuers; instead, they used Chip 'n' Dale as the breakthrough characters because the Rescuers Down Under flopped at the Box Office. Also, the show has an established world, being set in New York City, their home base is a treehouse; and their two primary villains are Fat Cat (a Mafia type Tabby Cat who likes to steal trinkets) and Prof. Norton Nimnul (a Mad Scientist with a superiority complex). Nowhere in the movie (outside of the "TV Show" scene where they're filming one of their "Adventures") does it feel anything like the show it's meant to represent. 4. I can't believe you're disregarding the twist that Judge Doom is secretly an Ink-and-Paint Toon disguised as a Flesh-and-Blood Human. There are hints that show that Judge Doom is secretly a toon, mostly a type of toon that has a knowledge of animation tropes, and perversing it to his advantage in killing his own kind; In fact, he is meant to be the "Anti-Toon" of ToonTown. Here are the hints. Upon Judge Doom's defeat, the other toons gather around his latex-suit corpse, saying that he's not a rabbit, duck, dog, puppet, sheep, woodpecker, or a cat. Throughout the movie, Judge Doom leads a mob of gangsters who are weasels, implying that Judge Doom was secretly a mob leader himself. Eddie Valiant mentioned that his brother Teddy was killed by a toon who has piercing red eyes and speaks in a high squeaky voice, which were part of Judge Doom's reveal of being a toon. But the Smoking Gun to Judge Doom's true identity was when Eddie was interrogating R.K. Maroon over ToonTown's fate; Before Judge Doom killed off R.K. Maroon, Eddie saw the gun reflecting from a poster with the same design gun that's being held by a cartoon villain possum. To sum up, Judge Doom's true identity was a Mob Leader Toon with a thirst for murder, and his name is the same as the one on the poster: "Pistol Packin' Possum"!
The live-action remakes remind me of the "there is now a level zero" quote from the original Kung-Fu Panda. Chip & Dale is more like entering the minus world. So much actively worse than zero, that you actually start to _miss_ zero.
It is incredible just how little care or attention to detail is on display with this film. One of the things that irk me to no end is how it couldn't even get the info about the original show right! Literally every Rescue Ranger "factoid" presented in the movie is false, easily disproven with a google search! Hell, Chip and Dale splitting up is complete nonsense in a meta sense. They've been in most productions together involving Mickey and his friends since the 90s, including Mickey Mouse Works, Darkwing Duck, House of Mouse, Quack Pack, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, even KINGDOM HEARTS! This movie literally does not work on a fundamental level. This movie is the anti-Roger Rabbit. If Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a love letter to animation as a medium, Rescue Rangers is the Death Note.
I never got that into Rescue Rangers personally, but I would crumble into dust if a movie did this to one of my interests. A movie that pretends it’s catering to fans only to make stuff up because the writers are lazy and insecure. Praying the Seth Rogen Darkwing movie doesn’t turn out this way.
IKR, implying that every single episode ended with them hitting Dale over the head with a pipe? Literally zero episodes ended like that, it didn't even happen on the show once. And it was "always the police chief?" Excuse me? It was _never_ the police chief. It was usually Norton Nimnul or Fat Cat, or a one time villain. And how could "Double 'o Dale" be an unaired pilot when it was a regular episode that ran in syndication? Also the Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers cartoon did in fact air on TV in Albany on WXXA FOX 23... why _wouldn't_ the Disney Afternoon air in a major metropolitan city?!
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone else who cares about this stuff. A lot of people just don't care if it looks good or can't tell it looks bad
36:50 “50% of my lines are delivered like I just learned how to read, and you have a problem with me being in this movie?” - Drew Gooden (Money Plane vid(you’ll understand once you hear it))
Thank you for this review, I always thought this movie was overrated as all hell. Of course, it's not like people were saying this movie was awesome or even good, but people were praising it for all the IPs they managed to get and I was like "Ok but this movie did almost nothing with it and also sucked" Even with all my friends they were more OK with the movie but for me it was always a horrible mess, so yeah your review was really good. It basically echoed everything I felt with the movie as well. Signed, The guy who said "I believe in "Washing dishes with your own hands" supremacy"
Also the whole story would've been fine if it was the older 40s theatrical shorts Chip and Dale trying to kill the 80s ones as the 80s ones let go of the past and train their zoomer succesors. Cut down on the Ips make it a little more concise batta boom.
I like how they tried to bully the sonic movies when the sonic movies at least have the balls to not only be their own thing but not be total cash grabs Lmfao
You know its bad when I find this movie more obnoxious with the Reference-poisoning than Ready Player One! Literally "I KNOW WHAT THAT IS" Movie 39:01 I had the same critique for for the Chip's VA direction. Made even worse when I realized the VA played Jack Horner from Puss in Boots: The last wish! A very better voice directed character! 42:53 I suffered! 😩 I watched this movie twice 🏴☠First on my own and Second with a friend only so we can SUFFER together during a Bad movie night! :D
Another comment I want to add compare this movie to Batman Lego Movie. Lego Batman has references to the shows and past movies BUT ITS STILL ACTUALLY FUNNY. It still at least tries. It’s not perfect or amazing but at least they clearly cared for what they were making..
Yeah but, that’s AN ACTUALLY AWFUL COMPARISON because Lego Batman ISN’T CENTERED ON THE REFERENCES. It mostly only calls back to other Batman and DC property and they’re overall pointless to the story of the film and only there for the hardcore fans to point out.
This is so ironic that people who watched Rescue Ranger give this movie high score when they should be the ones most disappointed as the have waited for a Rescue Ranger movie based on a show for a long time and not a meta reference movie not faithful for the TV show. I saw this show during its last breath on ToonDisney and Disney Channel in the 2000s and I'm not that obsessed with it as my classmates but I find this show just disrespectful to the show. Apparently the nostalgic filter glasses seemed to work for Disney as fans are so desperate that they just ate anything that has something that they desperately needed no matter what. It seems like Disney already had an ultimate nostalgia reference trip metaverse movie like SpaceJam and Roger Rabbit and they notice that the demand for Rescue Ranger is so high but don't know what to do with it so they decided that slap the Rescue Ranger's name on it.
The only ones that saw through the nostalgia glasses were Russians, and for the wrong reason. They started to tear down the movie when it showed their waifu gadget being married to the fly, and only because of that they started to see the flaws. Too bad it got overshadowed by degenerates """joking""" about that by drawing really disgusting porn to piss off russians, it didn't help that the Ukraine war started a little before the release, so it was also fueled by political bullshit. The only good thing that came out of that was the Gosling Dale memes (or was it Chip? I'm not a fan ngl)
This movie just makes me feel bad for fans of Rescue Rangers, because what about this movie makes it a Rescue Rangers movie. The characters? The movie makes it apparent that the characters portrayed in the show are different from the ones in the movie, they were just actors, so it's not them. IMO this didn't need to be a Rescue Rangers movie, you could've taken any old cartoon, or hell just make one up, and the plot wouldn't change much. It's painfully obvious that the Rescue Rangers IP was used to get people, in particular nostalgic millenials, to watch this Roger Rabbit knockoff. Sorry Rescue Rangers fans, Disney finally acknowledges one of your favorite shows after all these years just to use it as the sacrificial lamb for this middling project...
You kinda speak out for me with the frame rate difference between 3D and 2D. I had always thought that the choppiness was more exaggerated in 3D as actual 2D animation don't really do that as both limited and fluid animation looks often way smoother than they actually are. I do love the artistic choice of choppy 3D animation but I don't like when people compare it to the frame rates of 2D as I would rather refer it to be inspired by comic book frames.
Anyone who says that choppy animation makes things "look like a comic" is wrong. Comics don't move, still would make it "look like a comic," holding a frame... like this movie does would make it "look like a comic." All choppy animation makes things look like is stop motion.
I remember in 8 or 9th Grade, my teacher put on this movie in class, because it was the end of the year, and we didn't have any more work to do that day. I distinctly remember the movie starting, and in the first 5-10 minutes, I saw the 2d characters sliding during their animation, and I just started laughing. Sufficed to say, the movie really wasn't good, and those first few minutes of already poor animation just kinda showed the lack of quality in the film.
this movie is like if they took gumball and chewed it up and shoved a bunch of random shit in the gum and now it's just this weird gum soup thing and the gum isn't even good anymore because you already chewed it and the flavor is gone
One thing I noticed is that the Rescue Rangers animated segment is nothing like the actual show. Feels more like a cartoon you'd see on TV when watching a Looney Tunes parody.
Great video. At first, I thought Chip n Dale 2022 was alright, but over time I realized that not only was it garbage, but it also ripped off Bonkers' 2-part pilot movie! I know Bonkers is a divisive show, but bear in mind I was watching the show when I watched Chip n Dale 2022. And I am super invested in the lore of Bonkers and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it's insane!
Long story short, Disney fired basically all of their 2D animators in the 2000's after a handful of their 2D movies didn't do as well as they hoped in the box office, and jumped onto 3D assuming that's all modern audiences wanted. So they probably literally didn't have anyone in house that could animate a 2D chipmunk, least not for a feature length film.
The genre is Nostalgia Bait. That's the type of movies you're thinking of. All nostalgia, no soul at all. At least Spider-Man No Way Home had content outside of Tobey and Garfield. I'm 37 and I hated this cynical, awful, extremely disrespectful, shitty reboot-of-a-reboot, the likes of which you'd expect from trash like Seth Rogen, and I don't think anyone but Disney shills liked it. But still, Strange World is by far Disney's worst animated movie ever, with Lightyear being a close second.
Who cares. Most casual people just want a fun and entertaining movie with a bunch of characters they’re familiar with. The Disney shills are correct to like it because it’s a good movie.
@@games_on_phone89 Calm down. It’s just a cartoon movie. Go watch Teen Titans Go or Annoying Orange or something instead. Is that more fun and entertaining for you?
@@quangamershyguyyz7166 i AM calm, i'm just baffled by how willing to accept sloppy mediocrity you are, "it's just a cartoon" is no excuse, and your whataboutism doesn't work because they're just as mediocre and unfunny
Finally someone said it. This movie still bothers me, especially after seeing a lot of people defending it when it came out. Not only this movie looks horrendous, but the plot makes zero sense and it sets the lore of Who framed Roger Rabbit on fire for no good reason. Though, it’s kinda funny that even without connection with the old movie this one still manages to be filled with plot holes to such an extent that it is capable of making trypophobes sick…
29:35 A note about Bobby Driscoll: After Disney, he got shadowbanned from the rest of the industry because one guy didn't like him and somehow got all other studios to not hire him.
I call these types of movies "show off movies" because they're just excuses for companies to show off how many IPs they own.
But in this movie's case they used IPs from other companies such as paramount and dreamworks
@@Alfafabatutinha
Specifically to mock, though. Compare this to Roger Rabbit, where every character on display was handled with a level of respect and tact (which sounds ironic considering said characters are a bunch off screwballs). Donald and Daffy are at each others throats in a way that's totally believable, while Mickey and Bugs are just chilling having fun. Betty Boop was treated with a palpable reverence to her original works, with her being the only Toons Eddie could tolerate because she's Betty freaking Boop, how could anyone NOT like her. Droopy feels like Droopy, Woody feels like Woody. Every character is there to celebrate every aspect of the golden age of animation in equal measure.
Meanwhile most of the third party Ips in Rescue Rangers exist to be the butt of a specific joke; Ugly Sonic is there to mock Paramount, Cats is there to mock Universal. Alvin and the Chipmunks is brought up a LOT because it's very obvious this movie was only greenlit because of their momunental popularity in the 2000s. Meanwhile Disney gets away unscathed despite perpetrating most of the worst trends in Hollywood in the last decade, most of which this movie is trying to mock!
Just like Wreck it Ralph 2, the whole movie just ends up being this ineffective, toothless circlejerk made for Disney executives and no one else.
@@felixdaniels37 you really bought up a great point that i didnt noticed beforehand
@@Alfafabatutinha I'd like to add something to the Roger Rabbit contrast: The use of character IPs are not relevant to the plot and only focuses on the characters that the story revolves around, given the title of the movie and the book it was adapted from. It's also done to recreate a bit of familiarity to the time period that the cartoons were based around; doing away with the "drab, droll and mundane" feeling of newspaper comics from the 70s and 80s that Gary K. Wolf based the original premise around (as the original book mentioned about leaving a mess of word balloons, or using disposable stunt doubles created of a Toon's mental mind, and a toon is also killed like a human rather than be treated like an ink and paint drawing), and instead make it colorful and interesting, as it puts focus on slapstick humor and surreal fantasy elements.
Movies like Teen Titans Go, Space Jam: A New Legacy, Ralph Breaks the Internet, and Chip 'n' Dale: Ripoff Rangers, are nothing more than glorified fad movies, focusing on bad memes, cancel culture, and a lack of rational thought; it's not a reference movie, it's a "Corporate Cringe" Movie.
When I heard they were going to make a Rescue Rangers movie, I thaught it would be like a reboot about how they met and face off against their archenemy, Fat Cat
The fact that a major part of this movies plot and marketing is how shitty CGI looks on a lot of modern iterations of classic characters WHILE HAVING SHITTY CGI VERSIONS OF CLASSIC CHARACTERS AS THE STARS was a red flag for me even before the damn film came out; like you pointed out its not that funny to make jokes about ugly sonic when Dale is pretty mush the same but not blue
@pooplicker2010 The point is its Fake 2D in a movie that already has actual 2D sprinkled everywhere, the suits clearly didn't want to pay some Traditional animators a pretty penny to do one of the Major characters throughout the runtime.
@pooplicker2010 It may be "not _that_ cursed," but it _is_ unmistakably cell-shaded 3D and not 2D animation, correct? Like it looks more like something played on a GameCube (i.e. Wind Waker) than an actual cartoon.
I’ve heard that the director swore up and down that the Peter Pan and Bobby Driscoll thing was an accident, and that originally the villain was gonna be either Pluto the dog or Charlie Brown (can’t remember which), but that goes to show that the people making this movie aren’t as versed in animation history as they should be considering they’re making all these meta commentary jokes if none of them knew about the story and would have been able to alert the others that it would be in bad taste, but the story isn’t that obscure.
Pluto would have made way more sense anyway, since Rescue Rangers was a show about pet problems.
I'd argue it doesn't matter if the Peter Pan thing was a coincidence or not. Someone involved should have known better.
I almost want to see a thriller about Charlie Brown's revenge now
Even if we give them the stupidly over-charitable take that they were completely oblivious to the entire Bobby Driscoll thing, it still doesn't make sense in the logic in their own world. Why would he be literally the only cartoon character to ever age? In a world where Toons don't age by default, but he also has "not aging" as kind of a "super power." Also the lost boy didn't age... what's up with that?
The original voice actor for Charlie Brown didn’t really fare much better in adulthood than Bobby Driscoll, which IMO makes both the initial idea and the way it ended up even worse.
Of course a Disney's writer of what a large crime organization would be doing is bootlegging movies.
"When WE mess up a public domain story, it's always GOOD, but when someone ELSE messes with OUR stuff, that's always BAD!"
"Key jangler" could be one term for this kind of media.
It's actually worse than that because everything in this movie is canon to all other pieces of media that appear in it. It fundamentally ruins many, many unrelated franchises with its mere existence.
@joshuamunn2410 Have you tried not spamming this reply under every other comment
@@YujiUedaFanYeah, that’s really overreacting to it.
@@YujiUedaFan_how_ is it canon?
Those films should be called IP dump films. They’re expressions of how many IPs massive media corporations own, or have bought the licenses for. They’re used to refresh IPs for keeping it either for later use or (far more likely) just to keep it. An IP dump can be good, but it requires more work than the companies who make IP dumps are willing to give.
@joshuamunn2410 Dude, do you HAVE to say that to every post?
It's so jarring how the more you watch the movie, the worse the quality becomes.
Normally, you find good stuff when you rewatch movies, but with this film you just find more awful things.
@joshuamunn2410 The MCU introduced the multiverse just so they can reuse non-MCU Marvel films for their own MCU films
Initially, Loki was a great way to introduce different worlds, What If...? is just a fun, disconnected show about different interpretations and No Way Home (though still fanservice-laden) is at least a proper conclusion for Tobey and Andrew's arcs while also allowing Tom's Peter Parker to shine as Spider-Man.
The moment we get to Multiverse of Madness (with Patrick Stewart as a Variant of Professor X) and The Marvels (which brought back Kelsey Grammer as Dr. Hank McCoy), it's clear that Disney is deliberately nostalgia-pandering to make up for their lack of originality.
And I just hope that Deadpool & Wolverine chill with the cameos instead of trying to shove the entirety of the Fox X-Men in what is supposed to be a solo film centred around, well...Deadpool and Wolverine. Or at least give the X-Men a purpose and a role instead of being a glorified cameo that means nothing to the plot (though Cassandra Nova being the main villain in D&W means Professor X will have some big role at least, so the X-Men may be necessary).
Isn’t that most movies?
This movie is like Rodger rabbit without any of the effort
I know this film is a slap to the face to 2D animation
Or the charm
Or literally everything that made Roger Rabbit great
@@conorrigoli7578 charm requires effort.
The only effort they made was making a legally distinct Sonic, which is why he's the most charming part
2-D
I think making Peter Pan the villain in this film is what for me crossed the line between "bad movie" and "disgusting movie". I don't believe for a second that nobody at disney realised what they were doing.
Man, the death of 2D animation to the point where you even animate a character that is supposed to be 2D in 3D is truly horrifying. A whole craft going to shit because people choose to see it as "outdated" instead of being it's owns thing. I hate this so much.
beastars does it really well, sometimes you'll look at the scenes and not even think it's possible to be in 3d.
I think 2D is going to make a comeback, some of it is animated in 2d but using a (very cheap) 3D model costed less money that they needed to use on celebrity voices and cameos
"needed" in quotations
@@LegoGoblinI feel like there’s a difference with beastars they animate in the style they do because they have a passion for it! Kind of like the team behind the Spiderverse films! What they mean is Disney with Wish and such where they just…don’t try anymore and are trying to “appease” 2d and 3d watchers
Not really horrifying more so just cheap
The 2D animation is also terrible - rogar in rogar rabbit was actually animated in 2D animation he had so much movment & emotion in him
Meanwhile the “2D animation” in chip n dale is just so-ugly , its ugly & hollow it ruins the contrast between the CGI characters & the 2D characters
"Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" led to the invention of a whole new term just to describe how they went above and beyond to put extra care and effort into their scenes. This movie feels like it deserves a parallel, but I think just calling it lazy and derivative is a lot more fitting a judgement for it than that.
If you wanna see a relatively recent take on the concept of miltumedia showbiz that might even involve a dancing skeleton, I'd highly recommend the short film "Rebooted" that you can find here on TH-cam. It investigates the high concept of relevancy and replacement in a much more entertaining way and doesn't weigh itself down with its references.
I found an early draft of this movie's script, and while the general story is the same, there's a few notable differences that kinda-sorta improve the writing a bit...
- The Peter Pan character was originally named Mean Dean. He was a realistic Santa Claus, who used to be 2D until he got CGI surgery for a gritty Santa origin story movie, but wound up looking too horrifying. He runs the bootlegging facility and Monty still owes him, but the Valley Gang isn't responsible for Monty getting kidnapped. This is because...
- Ellie actually _was_ the twist villain traitor (the Albany thing is what tips Chip off). She framed Mean Dean in order to take over his business, and she's the one who transforms at the climax. Sgt. Putty was also still a villain.
- Since this draft was written long before the Sonic movie was a thing, the character that became him was Erik Estrada. Apparently Jar-Jar was also considered in a later draft, as there's an animatic out there that features him instead of Ugly Sonic.
- Instead of Chip and Dale activating the machine and jumping into it, the whole factory is booby-trapped, and the two have to make it through the bootlegging machine (which is against the wall) to turn off the power.
None of this could've saved this film, but I felt it was worth pointing out.
Literally every re-write of the script made it worse and worse. The only people who like it are either literal children or got paid to watch it.
@@YujiUedaFanOnce again, children have the better opinion than most critics.
Jar jar would’ve saved the movie
Disney hears 2D animation and they get hives
Disney had the perfect opportunity to make a good Rescue Rangers movie, and yet they wasted all that potential on an uninspired Who Framed Roger Rabbit knockoff. I've read fan fiction that had better plots, ugh.
It like how DC made The Flash, but instead of making a solo film centred around, well, The Flash, they adapted Flashpoint and brought back Michael Keaton. Also, the dead actors of older adaptations of DC characters "revived" via CGI and the questionable ethics.
Doesn't help that the main lead is played by a criminal (Ezra Miller).
Shut up its better than woke disney cr4p
Did you know the movie originally was a adaptation of The Rescue Rangers with a slight dark tone like a 40's noir film?.
The worst thing is, literally any characters could've been used for this plot. This could've been a Scooby Doo or Speedy Gonzales movie and it wouldn't have changed anything. There's literally nothing about this movie that Chip and Dale fans would've liked.
Making it like Roger Rabbit would have meant giving equal respect/mockery of all studios involved. One of the most famous details about Roger Rabbit is that they made sure Donald Duck/Daffy Duck and Mickey Mouse/Bugs Bunny had equal screentime, because even though it was Disney production the weight of those characters appearing on screen together was handled with the care it deserved. Not to mention that the main animated protagonist wasn't previously belonging to any animation studio in particular.
I'm not sure if there's an official name for this genre... some of the movies listed are reboots, but not Ready Player One. I personally call it nostalgiabait.
I call it "Metaslop"
@@jimmyspingus8895 Ohh... that's actually creative...
"Key janglers" could be a good term.
i hate ready player one and its protagonist so much (havent read the book but i watched 372 pages review it and i know i would hate it too)
Diarrhea's a good name for it
As someone who is over 30, I can assure you, I did not like this movie. I would've much preferred a proper Rescue Rangers story without all the meta gags. When I realized they were going for a Roger Rabbit style, I was willing to give it a chance, but still didn't like most of it.
I liked the little animated bit in the movie that looks so good in the art style of the original series why couldn't we just get a RR movie like that or they could have made a Bonkers movie since it pretty much had the same premise.
I wish they came with the original script, an adaptation with a slightly dark tone like a 40's noir film.
Or instead of chasing a trend from the 80s, just... I don't know... make the movie good instead of making it so awful it also destroys the reputation of all crossovers too.
I think due to the way this show is trying to mash a bunch of different styles onto a live action setting, a more apt comparison than who framed roger rabbit would be to the amazing world of gumball, which looks 10x better on its animated kids show budget. Gumball actually puts attention and care into its lighting and different mediums of animation to make sure everything works as seamlessly as possible and it works so well.
It's weird because I often looked up Who Framed Roger Rabbit and on wikipedia and other sites they talked about making a sequel. Then it slowly became a disney only project about mickey mouse and roger rabbit on a roadtrip; changing to a prequel and then out of nowhere the story was dropped for a story about peter pan getting older. Only for a tech demo to appear online (which those who remember saw, it was a bit from this movie) and then this Chip and Dale movie was revealed.
It feels like the whole idea of being a roger rabbit movie, or inspired by, slowly turned into this. So many changes and rewrites eventually mutated it into this when we could of had a really cool roger rabbit story. It was something I followed the news on the most; from college all the way to now.
I think the best example that the title really means nothing is that, for some dumb reason, they decide to pair up Gadget with Zipper.
I get the story tells us the characters are just actors (as actor Zipper in the movie is implied to be older than Chip and Dale), but to those who grew up with Gadget and Zipper, it feels like a kick in the teeth. And I didn't grow up with Gadget, btw.
Also, why did they use Peter Pan in a story that's so insultingly close to his actor's tragedy? If they want a character to use for that idea without crashing to any real life subtext, they could've used Pinocchio. Most notably, human Pinocchio. If they want one that makes sense for conflict, they could've used Pluto or Donald.
Calling it Disney's worst movie isn't true. But it's certainly could be a lot better, even as a Roger Rabbit type of movie.
At least it's not Space Jam 2.
The worst part is what a horrible card they dealt to Bobby Driscoll both through this movie and decades earlier in real life.
The whole movie feels like a bad parody from MAD.
Oh no, _parody_ is self-aware.
That's an insult to mad
I more compare it to those Collegehumor-vids or Steve Cutts's "Toons - Where Are They Now"-brand cynicism.
On top of it being a mid movie at it's very best, being hypocritical and mean and uninspired, the worst sin it committed was the fact that they shipped Gadget with Zipper. For a kiddo who grew up with the show and had a crush on her, it felt personal.
It's like solving the Betty vs Veronica debate by having Archie decide to go and marry a dog instead. Also, go on to have 42 biological children with that dog.
It bugs me how for this movie they could get all these different non-Disney properties but when I was watching Invincible last night Disney couldn’t let them use Spider-Man for a 30 second scene because Invincible is made by Amazon so instead they had to come up with their parody Spider-Man despite us all knowing that it supposed to be Spider-Man.
@joshuamunn2410 That's disappointing
Wasn't that the point??? They made a fake Spider-Man and Batman on purpose and it has nothing to do with lack of licensing rights.
@@shroomer8294 Dude, they literally posted the exact same message like 30 times.
@@YujiUedaFan I think he's referring to the "Amazon never contacted them" comment
@@jmann6368 Obviously. Why contact anyone if it's going to be a parody anyway?
I call these movies IP dumps
Yes
Somehow I understand wreck it Ralph movie more than the chip and dale movie
Even with the video game references I understood the plot and the message it was trying to send
The first Wreck it Ralph movie is a basically a love letter to video games. It has a good story, good plot, good twist villain, and a good balance of nostalgia. The second one decided to attempt to adapt the _internet_ into a movie, and also every Disney IP for some reason... it didn't work so well.
And the little details:
Bowser holding his cup
The cake at the party
Zangief’s THIGHS
The end credits
Volcano with the mentos
And Calhoun backstory
I remember it being a point that in Who Framed Roger Rabbit Warner Bros. and Disney characters were required to have the same amount of screentime, how fitting they would both go on to make embarrassing IP dump movies. Also, none of these big companies will ever get self-referential meta humor right, they either wouldn't dare actually make fun of themselves (just obvious light stuff nobody cares about) or they're too oblivious to even know how to actually make fun of themselves. Not even the supposed "kings" of meta humor Rick and Morty do it right, nobody is apparently capable of actually "roasting" themselves.
It’s kinda funny how this movie went from being praised to being hated in the span of 2 years.
The only people I saw praising the movie were teenagers on tiktok everyone else I saw talk about it was trashing it. It's interesting how different people have different experiences on the Internet.
It's probably because the honeymoon phase is over. I guess you could blame Your Movie Sucks, LS Mark, Manga Writer, Beaniiebrian, Dumbsville & Just Stop for this.
wait 2 years? i thought that came out just yesterday.... jeez time needs to stop going so fast
Just like what happened with Turning Red which is the most divided opinion movie in history
@@thenitpickycat or Toy Story 4 and also minions the rise of gru.
I think one of the biggest reasons why I didn't like this movie can be summed up in two words: overly cynical. Something which should never be associated with a Disney property. A touch of cynicism and some tongue-in-cheek edginess is okay and can even be brilliant but if you look at the film everyone compares this to, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, there is a real earnestness about the world they are presenting. Bob Hoskins did not once half-ass his performance, if he had it wouldn't have worked. Likewise even the cartoons that have traditionally cartoony voices convey emotion and depth, they come across as charming characters who would make you laugh when you feel down and offer help if you brought up your problems. I love John Mulaney and Andy Samburg they're very funny gentlemen but it feels weird hearing grown male human voices come out of Chip and Dale of all characters. Even the Alvin and the Chipmunks films had celebrities voicing the chipmunks but still sped the voices up. It just feels like they don't trust the audience to form a relationship with a cartoon character who...sounds like a cartoon character.
And yeah I thought Peter Pan as the villain was tone deaf and too mean spirited. It's not Disney making fun of itself it's poorly aimed meta humour "Remember this, remember that?" and that awful "God I hate it when people do this, could you imagine if we did that?" Right before they do the exact thing they hate later on in the movie, like the rap scene. It's not just crossover and meta-humour movies I've noticed it in a lot of modern fantasy. Everyone's making "this is weird" and "tHaT hApPeNeD" one-liners instead of just accepting the magic. If they remade Laberynth today Sarah would be cracking unfunny lines and questioning if she was high rather than accepting the world she's entered into.
The overly cynical nature of much of modern media is honestly why I'm still a Kingdom Hearts fan, because despite the admittedly silly premise of the series, it takes things seriously and plays everything straight. Kingdom Hearts is an incredibly earnest series, and I think we can learn a lot from how it presents itself as such.
@@shiethegal KH has its own problems like everything to do with the plot and gameplay of KH3.
Sincerity is dead.
That's that Forspoken game, right?
I'm pretty sure that Once Upon A Studio is was killed the hype around Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers.
You can definetely make a good animated on 2s/3s effect in 3d. When animating on 2s/3s in 2d they tend to add emphasis on some frames by making them longer. They also go between 2 very different frames to make the movement seem fast or use smear frames like you said. With chip he just had regular 3d animation at a lower frame rate.
I feel like the whole concept of the film is practically shot in the foot the moment they decided that the main characters were going to be CG animated. Hell, the puppet and Gumby characters are made with CG. What's the point in trying to show the differences between animation styles when you don't actually use different animation styles like real puppets or claymation?
The puppet thing is particularly stupid when you realize that Disney literally owns The Muppets
I feel like the 2d characters should’ve been more bouncy, embrace smears! Embrace squash and stretch! Embrace exaggeration! I get it would take a while to figure out with the advanced models, but it’s such a disappointment!
But that would take money and effort
and Disney clearly doesn't have either
that they're willing to use, of course
@@nobodyinparticular9640 They would have saved even more money if they stopped re-writing the thing over and over again. All previous drafts of the movie would have been MUCH better than what we got.
Because you can't have expressive emotions from characters that look like PS2 models.
Of course all the puppeteers are in unions, they are the world's strongest
Being a puppeteer is very strenuous on your body, especially your back, neck, right arm and shoulder.
The funniest part of this movie is how pissed off some people got from the girl Rescue Ranger was married and had kids with the bug guy. Apparently the girl has like a huge underground fanbase, especially in countries like Russia, and people were not happy to see their childhood crush getting railed by an insect
They really hate dreamworks, and this movie shows it well. i know Dws mocks Disney all the time
40:50 The fact I completely forgot that Randy was in the sauna until you mentioned it- 😭
*Mickey Mouse:* "Do I own South Park?"
*Flunky:* "Not yet, sir!"
You’re right about Disney being unable to make fun of themselves because originally, Pluto the dog was planned to be the villain because, you know, in the cartoons, he antagonizes Chip and Dale. That would mean Pluto would talk and basically be Sweet Pete but Disney didn’t want the pet of Mickey Mouse to be a villain.
One last thing I’ll add is they end the movie with Darkwing Duck, another Disney cartoon from the 90s. If anything, it would make more sense for him to be the protagonist of this story instead of Chip N Dale because he’s an incompetent asshole hero wannabe who would cling to the good old days. Chip N Dale, in this movie, feels nothing like the ones from the cartoon. They don’t even have their chipmunk voices, the whole reason why they exist in the first place!
This movie is what critics & Film Twitter accused Space Jam 2 of being.
@joshuamunn2410 Nice double post.
@@YujiUedaFan joshuamunn2410 has been adding that exact same reply to every other comment on this video!
@@BagOfMagicFood I know.
To quickly comment on the animation, it really is soulless to see that they didn't employ any of the actually good methods of giving (not)2d characters like Chip more 2d-esc movement using the actually incredible tools that 3d animators have developed to have 3d characters look more expressive and 2d.
If your curious on what that can look like, I'd HIGHLY recommend checking out the GDC talks on Guilty Gear Xrd and Strive cause the way they're able to bend and shape models to give them some of the more expressive qualities of 2d + there are some great examples of indie 3d animation that genuinely look like it'd be impossible to be 3D
It really is!
Less on the indie scene but if like hotel Transylvanias animation can be bouncy and expressive- while still being 3d
I don't see why 3d animation that IS intended to look 2d wouldn't do something like that
@idi0tsanswich379 I suggest checking out the 2021 Tom & Jerry movie. That movie actually merged every single classic 2D aesthetic into the software for VFX.
The production coined an alternative of traditional animation called "2D+", which captures the style and feel of 2D with the quicker production times of CGI and completely hid that it's CG underneath.
The Spider-Verse movies are also "3D animated like 2D", but the only difference that they put effort into making it "comic book-y" and the references at least play a role since the main lesson is about what it means to be Spider-Man.
Chip & Dale is just...it doesn't know what it wants to be? Like they missed a good opportunity to just do a normal adaptation of Chip & Dale, but they instead turned it to a movie filled with references.
Spider-Verse has passion and the references have purpose. Chip n Dale felt more mean-spirited and cynical when trying to be "self-aware" (almost like talking down at the audience).
Not only is this movie a collection of lame, lazy, & often gross memes, Rescue Rangers deserves a real reboot for a new generation.
The correct way to do this duo's voices is to have a fairly normal voice sped up/pitch shifted for Chip, who is the straight man, and have a deep slow-talker pitch shifted by a similar proportion for Dale, who is a little bit slow. Seeing these designs but hearing just normal voices of full sized humans instead of high pitched chipmunk voices is _wrong_ .
Feel ike they just stole assets from other companies, i doubt that Trey and Matt would let Disney use Randy, maybe hasbro with MLP considering G5 uses the Disney style Rodger rabbit did the same thing with universal but both Disney worked together
That might actually be the case, it's been confirmed Sora's hair was traced from fanart. It's just that no one wants to risk fighting Disney legally.
@@felixdaniels37 true the mouse is more powerful then nintendo
This movie is like everything I disliked about wreck it ralph 2 multiplyed by 10 in a live action lens.
My reason for the poor performances in this film is partially bad material, but more notably lockdown. Actors can’t naturally bounce off of each other’s performances if they can’t react to said performances. This likely hit the worst with Ellie’s actor because she had no live actors to perform with. The film being rushed likely meant that voice actors couldn’t record together and may not have even seen each other’s performances or been able to provide new takes before the deadline.
what pisses me off the most is that BOTH chip and dale are 3D animated. Just one is rendered to look like 2D and the other one is rendered to the point it looks hyperrealistic and yet they wanna replicate the media clashing of rodger rabbit or the original space jam.
The 3D "2D" look just doesn't do it for me, it still looks 3D as fuck. They didn't even care to bring back 2D animation and that just shows how hollow and fake this movie actually is
Wreck it Ralph and the Lego movie were better movies with references because they focus more on the plot than cameos and have original main characters.
This movie can go to hell for trashing on Disney's Bonkers.
If Disney really did have the balls, they would have made that weird Chef Muppet actually Swedish Chef.
Also, yeah, I wish they leaned more in to more clever background gags like Politican Butthead and Gucci Dobby. Also, the dark ass implication of Linda from Phineas and Ferb on Main Street and the fact Phineas is seen as one of bootlegged toons (I'm also pretty sure they turned Sora in to Johnny Test).
From what I know to, there was an original cut, or at least script where Pluto, Mickey's dog himself, was going to be the main twist villain (tying in to earlier Chip and Dale cartoons), which actually would have been more clever and a genuine example of Disney making fun of themselves.
11:12 did you not see the fake Simpsons near the end? They had really nice animation. Also I thought the movie was pretty alright, clearly they didn’t have the budget for one main character to be 2D animated the whole time
So, I haven't seen his movie (and I probably won't), but you're telling me that there's a scene where someone melts a Shrek figure? From that movie that was made as bitter revenge by an executive that was forced out of the Disney Company because of business politics, which went on to be more popular than anything Disney's made in 25 years?
If anyone tries to tell you that this movie is Disney criticizing or lampooning themselves, just point to that scene and tell them they're stupid. The entirety of 'Shrek' wasn't as cynical as that one scene.
@joshuamunn2410 why do you keep spamming that everywhere
It's even worse than that, they're melting down unsold Shrek body wash to create portable toilets. Anyone who knows anything about recycling, knows that plastics are simply not economical to recycle. It's infinitely cheaper to just make new plastic. Like most parts of the movie, it makes no sense in-universe, and it is motivated entirely by spite.
Shrek being more popular than anything Disney made in 25 years is hilariously untrue. Lol it’s just a scene in a dumb movie. It ain’t that deep.
It's even worse than that, they're melting down unsold Shrek body wash to create portable toilets. Anyone who knows anything about recycling, knows that plastics are simply not economical to recycle. It's infinitely cheaper to just make new plastic. Like most parts of the movie, it makes no sense in-universe, and it is motivated entirely by spite.
Yeah... they used Chip n Dale to try and make a Roger Rabbit 2... pathetic..
This movie gave us Ugly Sonic. That at the very minimum set it leagues above Wish.
The movie didn't give us ugly sonic he was the original trailer for the sonic movie gave us ugly sonic
that was a horribly unfunny forced meme and that fact you found it funny says a lot about your intelligence.
You say that like it's a good thing.
@OwlBloodandHoneyII In what world was Wish "well made"?
@OwlBloodandHoneyII We asked for a good movie and Disney said no. Asking for something that isn't shit isn't "ungrateful" no matter how much you rewrite reality.
15:36 it's animated on 2s to look more like 2d animation. That part actually isn't a budget thing. it might actually be more work to have choppier frame rate for 3d animation because the posing has to be prioritized more .
still looks like shit
Damn I must have forgot to mention that it was meant to "look" like 2D cause its in 2s but feels more like a justification for it to look choppy rather than actully do things that would benefit it like posing compared to spiderverse having dynamic action scenes or puss in boots having high action too. There's not a lot of high action in this movie. Shit im pretty sure roger rabbit was animated in ones to match the framerate of the live action but I couldn't find any source for that so I didn't mention it in the video.
Hey, professional animator here.
Keeping the more stylized, flat shaded 3D characters like Chip in constant twos (12fps) without additional readjustments is the easiest and cheapest way to imitate a 2D feel in movement.
And making the chopped down 3D anim feel like actual 2D anim comes down to the extra work needed to emulate traditional 2D animation outside of the framerate, which indeed in most scenes of this film doesn't seem to be the case
either because of time constraints (which would be tied to budget), or because the 3D animators working on those stylized characters fundamentally do not understand how a traditional 2D pipeline works with all its limitations (either they never tried 2D anim themselves, they didn't do the research or their anim supervisor failed to explain them the exact process). The latter reason could explain the quality for the actual hyper realistic 3D charas like Dale (which honestly is pretty good overall).
_______
Just for the framerate:
Fundamentally 3D animation is just one rig moving from one pose to another with automatically generated interpolations that can be readjusted with curves on a graph. By itself having those curves interpolated in ones, twos, threes, or hell, animated in 60fps makes almost NO difference when it comes to workload/budget (except only for FK/IK switching, Follow spaces and rotation orders), unlike traditional 2D anim where going from twos to ones
means producing twice as much drawings in rough, tiedown, clean and colo, with extra attention being put in inbetweens when it comes to the lines spacing.
But just because the decision is made to prioritize one framerate doesn't mean it needs to be 100% consistent, even within a single shot.
In old school 2D Disney features even if most of the anim stays in twos, whenever a character makes a sudden move in subtle acting shots (not just action shots), the animator can switch to ones for a fraction of a second just to make this movement more dynamic/lively without exponentially increasing his workload, and whenever a character doesn't move much or is not the focus of the shot the animator can transition to threes, or even hold one key pose for much longer. A common mistake made by 3D animators when imitating 2D is to say "I need to have the character move ALWAYS in twos", which makes the result boring and fake.
The only exception can be for action scenes with a lot of camera movements (like Jim flying the hoverboard in Treasure Planet) or where there are interactions with a BG on ones (like the shot with Tarzan swinging on the trees, and a lot of shots where cartoon characters interact with humans in Roger Rabbit) where it can stay in ones (which even in Chip and Dale it seems to be the case sometimes), mainly to have the character in synch with environment interactions and avoid it to slip on the ground.
And then outside of the framerate, to really get the 2D feel, the animator to pay extra attention to each key poses to make it feel drawn (like in Spiderverse for most action/money shots).
Ideally there should be a bunch of 2D consultants/supervisors drawing those poses in rough, and the 3D animator should perfectly match those 2D poses down to each hair and finger, even if it means completely breaking the 3D rig (which in this case the benefit of having a flat shaded render means the animator doesn't have to worry too much about smooth mesh topology which would break fur and textures on a more realistic 3D model when stretched too much). And the perfect volume and consistent shapes of the 3D rig need to be broken either with more stretch and squash or moving some details around to make it feel less static, with interpolations being less automated, all the while following traditional 2D anim rules like curves, silhouette, appeal, follow through, asymmetry...
(One thing in particular that I notice are the mouths: in a lot of instances they just kept the default pose of the teeth during lipsynch without readjusting them to make it look like hand drawn. You don't actually see the molars in a lot of traditional 2D animation outside of some very steep camera angles, since they can be very unappealing).
And that's JUST for the animation (aka movement). One note I would have for the final render is that the outlines are too static/consistent. The renders could definitely benefit from a slightly more wobbly outline that would need to be perfectly in synch with the animation (as if each key was "drawn" separately), and not on a consistent framerate. The lighting could probably use some work too, at least in compositing, but I don't think it needs to be too crazy most of the time.
____
Just to summarize, choppy 3D is just the beginning for imitating real 2D.
If anything, having Chip being made in 2D, even if not to the level of Roger Rabbit, would probably look better since those 2D limitations would come down more naturally.
@@ThatGrayCartoonPony well said!
@@HeartOfNoMad I have a lot of things to say in response to your video.
1. Roger Rabbit is more than 24 frames per second; it's mostly animated in the amount of frames that the live-action footage is done on; there's also consideration that it was animated by an animation studio that relies on lively character animation; If they wanted Chip and Dale to be lively, they should be animated by a slightly higher fps like Roger Rabbit. And I'd argue that Space Jam, and Looney Tunes Back in Action, have better usage of mixing 2D and 3D, even with a few flaws. The Looney Tunes characters were animated similar to how they were animated in the 40s and 50s, which is what they stuck with for the characters, and there's some 3D backgrounds used in Space Jam to give off dynamic shots and characters going on different angles. Also in Looney Tunes Back in Action, there's a cameo of Scooby and Shaggy, and they're animated "on twos" similar to how they are originally animated back in 1969, and a later scene has Brendan Fraser against a giant robot dog, and it's not as jarring as how Ripoff Rangers handled 3D animation.
2. It doesn't matter if they're mocking Bobby Driscoll, if it was a coincidence, or that they're just tone-deaf about it, you should NEVER use that actor's misfortune to represent the character they played the role of, being used in this film, because it leads to controversy over mistreating their actors. The only example where it does work within the narrative is if you don't base it on an actual person; for example, Balthazar Bratt from Despicable Me 3 (or "Despicable M3"). In the movie, Balthazar was a child actor who's more into playing the role of a villain, and actually takes pride in doing so, reveling in that direction. He did lose his stardom upon puberty, but unlike Bobby Driscoll or Peter Pan (Where Ripoff Rangers vilified a hero character, as well as the actor it was voiced by), Balthazar Bratt actually embraces his TV Villain persona to the point of using it as his only identity.
3. The biggest sin of the movie to me (even if I didn't see the movie) is that this is a "reboot" of a TV Series, yet the movie has nothing to do with what "Rescue Rangers" is actually about: the premise of the show is that Chip and Dale not only go on Adventures with Gadget, Zipper and Monterey Jack, but they take up cases that the police couldn't do, mostly rescuing animals and stopping petty crimes; there's also the fact that "Rescue Rangers" is actually meant to be a TV Series based around the Rescuers; instead, they used Chip 'n' Dale as the breakthrough characters because the Rescuers Down Under flopped at the Box Office. Also, the show has an established world, being set in New York City, their home base is a treehouse; and their two primary villains are Fat Cat (a Mafia type Tabby Cat who likes to steal trinkets) and Prof. Norton Nimnul (a Mad Scientist with a superiority complex). Nowhere in the movie (outside of the "TV Show" scene where they're filming one of their "Adventures") does it feel anything like the show it's meant to represent.
4. I can't believe you're disregarding the twist that Judge Doom is secretly an Ink-and-Paint Toon disguised as a Flesh-and-Blood Human. There are hints that show that Judge Doom is secretly a toon, mostly a type of toon that has a knowledge of animation tropes, and perversing it to his advantage in killing his own kind; In fact, he is meant to be the "Anti-Toon" of ToonTown. Here are the hints. Upon Judge Doom's defeat, the other toons gather around his latex-suit corpse, saying that he's not a rabbit, duck, dog, puppet, sheep, woodpecker, or a cat. Throughout the movie, Judge Doom leads a mob of gangsters who are weasels, implying that Judge Doom was secretly a mob leader himself. Eddie Valiant mentioned that his brother Teddy was killed by a toon who has piercing red eyes and speaks in a high squeaky voice, which were part of Judge Doom's reveal of being a toon. But the Smoking Gun to Judge Doom's true identity was when Eddie was interrogating R.K. Maroon over ToonTown's fate; Before Judge Doom killed off R.K. Maroon, Eddie saw the gun reflecting from a poster with the same design gun that's being held by a cartoon villain possum. To sum up, Judge Doom's true identity was a Mob Leader Toon with a thirst for murder, and his name is the same as the one on the poster: "Pistol Packin' Possum"!
That's a bold statement when Disney's remakes of their own movies exist.
The live-action remakes remind me of the "there is now a level zero" quote from the original Kung-Fu Panda. Chip & Dale is more like entering the minus world. So much actively worse than zero, that you actually start to _miss_ zero.
A fun fact: This movie came out in theaters the same time Sonic the Hedgehog 2 did. So,imagine seeing that film,then seeing this one.
This movie was in theaters? I thought it was a straight to streaming deal.
@@shiethegalYeah, I don’t think this comment is getting it’s fact right.
It is incredible just how little care or attention to detail is on display with this film. One of the things that irk me to no end is how it couldn't even get the info about the original show right! Literally every Rescue Ranger "factoid" presented in the movie is false, easily disproven with a google search! Hell, Chip and Dale splitting up is complete nonsense in a meta sense. They've been in most productions together involving Mickey and his friends since the 90s, including Mickey Mouse Works, Darkwing Duck, House of Mouse, Quack Pack, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, even KINGDOM HEARTS! This movie literally does not work on a fundamental level.
This movie is the anti-Roger Rabbit. If Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a love letter to animation as a medium, Rescue Rangers is the Death Note.
The movie is like a bizarre smear piece, if that term even applies to fictional characters.
I never got that into Rescue Rangers personally, but I would crumble into dust if a movie did this to one of my interests. A movie that pretends it’s catering to fans only to make stuff up because the writers are lazy and insecure. Praying the Seth Rogen Darkwing movie doesn’t turn out this way.
IKR, implying that every single episode ended with them hitting Dale over the head with a pipe? Literally zero episodes ended like that, it didn't even happen on the show once. And it was "always the police chief?" Excuse me? It was _never_ the police chief. It was usually Norton Nimnul or Fat Cat, or a one time villain. And how could "Double 'o Dale" be an unaired pilot when it was a regular episode that ran in syndication? Also the Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers cartoon did in fact air on TV in Albany on WXXA FOX 23... why _wouldn't_ the Disney Afternoon air in a major metropolitan city?!
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see someone else who cares about this stuff. A lot of people just don't care if it looks good or can't tell it looks bad
My only memory of this movie will be me randomly remembering Ugly Sonic's 20 second cameo and I think I'm more than fine with that.
It was _a lot_ longer than 20 seconds. He also comes back later to save the day.
Does pixels count as part of this 'genre'?
actually yes
I have to give Pixels props for being brave enough to make a character that’s a parody of Billy Mitchell
36:50 “50% of my lines are delivered like I just learned how to read, and you have a problem with me being in this movie?”
- Drew Gooden (Money Plane vid(you’ll understand once you hear it))
Every new "disney movie" nowadays is the worst Disney movie ever made.
The praise this movie got from some people when it came out baffled me.
Same with the people who liked Free Guy.
I hated free guy so much I violently lashed out (I regret my decision and am doing better now)
I also disliked Free Guy. It was a movie that went in one ear and out the other. I remember very little from it.
Thank you for this review, I always thought this movie was overrated as all hell. Of course, it's not like people were saying this movie was awesome or even good, but people were praising it for all the IPs they managed to get and I was like "Ok but this movie did almost nothing with it and also sucked"
Even with all my friends they were more OK with the movie but for me it was always a horrible mess, so yeah your review was really good. It basically echoed everything I felt with the movie as well.
Signed, The guy who said "I believe in "Washing dishes with your own hands" supremacy"
Also the whole story would've been fine if it was the older 40s theatrical shorts Chip and Dale trying to kill the 80s ones as the 80s ones let go of the past and train their zoomer succesors. Cut down on the Ips make it a little more concise batta boom.
I watched roger rabbit as a kid and later on in life I thought it wasn't real and that it was a fever dream I had
I like how they tried to bully the sonic movies when the sonic movies at least have the balls to not only be their own thing but not be total cash grabs Lmfao
You know its bad when I find this movie more obnoxious with the Reference-poisoning than Ready Player One! Literally "I KNOW WHAT THAT IS" Movie
39:01 I had the same critique for for the Chip's VA direction. Made even worse when I realized the VA played Jack Horner from Puss in Boots: The last wish! A very better voice directed character!
42:53 I suffered! 😩
I watched this movie twice 🏴☠First on my own and Second with a friend only so we can SUFFER together during a Bad movie night! :D
John Mullaney was clearly having more fun voicing Jack Horner. He really brought that character to life
@@BigBossMan538 Definitely! His voice and mannerism fitted Jack Horner like a glove too!
Admit it, you and your friend had the most FUN to ENJOY watching a movie in a long time after seeing this! 😅
Completely off topic, but the minute rice chillin in the corner is killing me
I call these movies "crossover movies" because that's the only advertising scheme they use to get people to watch it.
why didnt his dark evil clone stop him from reviewing this movie
Another comment I want to add compare this movie to Batman Lego Movie. Lego Batman has references to the shows and past movies BUT ITS STILL ACTUALLY FUNNY. It still at least tries. It’s not perfect or amazing but at least they clearly cared for what they were making..
Yeah but, that’s AN ACTUALLY AWFUL COMPARISON because Lego Batman ISN’T CENTERED ON THE REFERENCES. It mostly only calls back to other Batman and DC property and they’re overall pointless to the story of the film and only there for the hardcore fans to point out.
This is so ironic that people who watched Rescue Ranger give this movie high score when they should be the ones most disappointed as the have waited for a Rescue Ranger movie based on a show for a long time and not a meta reference movie not faithful for the TV show.
I saw this show during its last breath on ToonDisney and Disney Channel in the 2000s and I'm not that obsessed with it as my classmates but I find this show just disrespectful to the show.
Apparently the nostalgic filter glasses seemed to work for Disney as fans are so desperate that they just ate anything that has something that they desperately needed no matter what.
It seems like Disney already had an ultimate nostalgia reference trip metaverse movie like SpaceJam and Roger Rabbit and they notice that the demand for Rescue Ranger is so high but don't know what to do with it so they decided that slap the Rescue Ranger's name on it.
The only ones that saw through the nostalgia glasses were Russians, and for the wrong reason. They started to tear down the movie when it showed their waifu gadget being married to the fly, and only because of that they started to see the flaws.
Too bad it got overshadowed by degenerates """joking""" about that by drawing really disgusting porn to piss off russians, it didn't help that the Ukraine war started a little before the release, so it was also fueled by political bullshit.
The only good thing that came out of that was the Gosling Dale memes (or was it Chip? I'm not a fan ngl)
Shit smells worse than it tastes, piss tastes worse than it smells.. I can't remember the rest of what I was gunna put here.
you...have experience with that..??
I assumed metaphor but
whoever first made that saying has explaining to do
@@idi0tsanswich379 I once accidentally ate shit, with piss I heard it from a friend.
I strive for my videos to be this well edited, good shit dude
I was surprised to see this channel only has 11,000 subscribers, you’re seriously underrated man
This movie just makes me feel bad for fans of Rescue Rangers, because what about this movie makes it a Rescue Rangers movie. The characters? The movie makes it apparent that the characters portrayed in the show are different from the ones in the movie, they were just actors, so it's not them. IMO this didn't need to be a Rescue Rangers movie, you could've taken any old cartoon, or hell just make one up, and the plot wouldn't change much. It's painfully obvious that the Rescue Rangers IP was used to get people, in particular nostalgic millenials, to watch this Roger Rabbit knockoff. Sorry Rescue Rangers fans, Disney finally acknowledges one of your favorite shows after all these years just to use it as the sacrificial lamb for this middling project...
You kinda speak out for me with the frame rate difference between 3D and 2D. I had always thought that the choppiness was more exaggerated in 3D as actual 2D animation don't really do that as both limited and fluid animation looks often way smoother than they actually are. I do love the artistic choice of choppy 3D animation but I don't like when people compare it to the frame rates of 2D as I would rather refer it to be inspired by comic book frames.
Anyone who says that choppy animation makes things "look like a comic" is wrong. Comics don't move, still would make it "look like a comic," holding a frame... like this movie does would make it "look like a comic." All choppy animation makes things look like is stop motion.
oh man... that lip syncing is truly awful
I thought this movie was a twisted fever dream, how is it real? How was this made?!
Every Fever dream every person on earth has ever had was real.
This is why I don't want the Super Smash Bros. movie to get made
I remember in 8 or 9th Grade, my teacher put on this movie in class, because it was the end of the year, and we didn't have any more work to do that day. I distinctly remember the movie starting, and in the first 5-10 minutes, I saw the 2d characters sliding during their animation, and I just started laughing. Sufficed to say, the movie really wasn't good, and those first few minutes of already poor animation just kinda showed the lack of quality in the film.
this movie is like if they took gumball and chewed it up and shoved a bunch of random shit in the gum and now it's just this weird gum soup thing and the gum isn't even good anymore because you already chewed it and the flavor is gone
One thing I noticed is that the Rescue Rangers animated segment is nothing like the actual show. Feels more like a cartoon you'd see on TV when watching a Looney Tunes parody.
Yeah, I would be surprised if anyone who worked on this movie has ever even seen the show.
You are by far my favorite channel to watch when it comes to small creators.
Great video. At first, I thought Chip n Dale 2022 was alright, but over time I realized that not only was it garbage, but it also ripped off Bonkers' 2-part pilot movie! I know Bonkers is a divisive show, but bear in mind I was watching the show when I watched Chip n Dale 2022.
And I am super invested in the lore of Bonkers and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it's insane!
its nostalgia drug overdosing, its a lot of flash but no substance or content
the second i saw chip i was like “omg he looks like one of those anime fortnite characters”
The jack nicholson chip on the thumbnail 💀
I didn't mind this video actually so yeah take that lasor
It's like Roger rabbit if it was made by people who hated animation
TwoMad died and became NoMad.
Shit looks like VR chat
this movie is the most cynical hateful piece of media i have ever watched in my entire life
How is Disney not able to animate a 2d chipmunk?
Long story short, Disney fired basically all of their 2D animators in the 2000's after a handful of their 2D movies didn't do as well as they hoped in the box office, and jumped onto 3D assuming that's all modern audiences wanted. So they probably literally didn't have anyone in house that could animate a 2D chipmunk, least not for a feature length film.
The genre is Nostalgia Bait. That's the type of movies you're thinking of. All nostalgia, no soul at all. At least Spider-Man No Way Home had content outside of Tobey and Garfield. I'm 37 and I hated this cynical, awful, extremely disrespectful, shitty reboot-of-a-reboot, the likes of which you'd expect from trash like Seth Rogen, and I don't think anyone but Disney shills liked it. But still, Strange World is by far Disney's worst animated movie ever, with Lightyear being a close second.
Who cares. Most casual people just want a fun and entertaining movie with a bunch of characters they’re familiar with. The Disney shills are correct to like it because it’s a good movie.
@@quangamershyguyyz7166 are you insane? this movie is not fun, nor entretaining, nor GOOD
@@games_on_phone89 Calm down. It’s just a cartoon movie. Go watch Teen Titans Go or Annoying Orange or something instead. Is that more fun and entertaining for you?
@@quangamershyguyyz7166 i AM calm, i'm just baffled by how willing to accept sloppy mediocrity you are, "it's just a cartoon" is no excuse, and your whataboutism doesn't work because they're just as mediocre and unfunny
Finally someone understand me why this film is the worst thing disney has ever made!
Finally someone said it. This movie still bothers me, especially after seeing a lot of people defending it when it came out.
Not only this movie looks horrendous, but the plot makes zero sense and it sets the lore of Who framed Roger Rabbit on fire for no good reason. Though, it’s kinda funny that even without connection with the old movie this one still manages to be filled with plot holes to such an extent that it is capable of making trypophobes sick…