The Chipmunks

Yorick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
745
Reaction score
81
Which brings me to this... I've noticed a LOT of Alvin and the Chipmunks covers have "cleaned up" lyrics... a "School's Out For Summer" cover on a Video tape had "School's Ancient History" instead of "School's been blown to pieces". And another example, when they covered "Heartbreaker" they replaced Sinner with singer. YET when they did Time Warp, they kept the part about "Voyeuristic intentions." :smirk:
Yes, at least two of the three songs by the Knack on "Chipmunk Punk" are like that...I won't mention anything specific, but they remove certain lines that are unfit for kids, but leave others. But on a side note, the Chipmunks take on "My Sharona" has heavier guitars than the Knack original! Wow!
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
The only thing I have to say about The Chipmunks without bumping the old Chipmunks thread is this...

I'm really, really aggrivated with Ross Bagdasarian, Jr. and Janice Karman right now, because it seems like ever since they won the rights back from Universal a few years ago, they seem to just go out looking for other people to sue, and for often times rather ridiculous reasons.

TWICE in the last year, they sued 20th Century Fox: once was because apparently Janice didn't receive a percentage off the movie despite penning a draft of the screenplay, the other time was because Fox announced there's going to be a third movie. That's right, Fox made the announcement, and got sued for it, because apparently, they didn't have "permission" to make the announcement (though, we all knew a third one was in the works anyway). I've actually lost count of how many lawsuits they've filed against people in the last couple of years, but it kind of paints a rather scary picture of the two; I usually have a great deal of respect for them, because that was a gutsy move on their part to take on a big corporation like Universal to get the franchise back after they'd been lied to (*coughcough* take a hint Brian, Cheryl, Lisa, etc, fight Disney *coughcough*), and that's about the only lawsuit they've filed that made sense, but at this rate, it's like the name Bagdasarian is going to strike fear into the hearts of many, because just ONE wrong move, and they'll be seeing you in court.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/07/us-chipmunks-idUSTRE7060FS20110107

This article about their most recent lawsuit has a line saying "Ross Bagdasarian, Jr. has not been afraid of suing his Hollywood partners in the past," is like the gross understatement of the year. If I worked for, or was even associated with Bagdasarian Productions at this point, I would very much be scared, because who's to say they wouldn't find something to sue me for?
 

CensoredAlso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
14,028
Reaction score
2,292
I know America is kind of "sue-happy" right now, but I can understand their reasons in the cases you mentioned. It happens far too often that a writer pens a draft for a film and then gets cheated out of the credit. And suing (or threatening to) is often the only way to ensure you get your due credit. Writers have to fight hard for justice in Hollywood. :wink:
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
That may... but you'd think with the money they make off the franchise in general that it wouldn't be a "total loss", y'know?

But I mean, I can see where your coming, and it might make sense, but take the other Fox lawsuit... 20th Century Fox is the company that's been financing these movies ever since they started with the first one back in 2007, they're also distributing and releasing the movies, and whatnot, and for them to get sued simply for saying there's going to be a third movie? Because they didn't have permission? Why did they need permission to announce a new movie of theirs is in the works? Was it supposed to be like some kind of huge surprise or something? I mean, with that logic, a mother could very well sue a family member for telling others she's going to have a baby.
 

CensoredAlso

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
14,028
Reaction score
2,292
That may... but you'd think with the money they make off the franchise in general that it wouldn't be a "total loss", y'know?
Technically yes, and it's more than most of us will ever hope to see, lol. But I guess at the same time, I think the idea is that you have to assert yourself otherwise the big companies will walk all over you.

but take the other Fox lawsuit... 20th Century Fox is the company that's been financing these movies ever since they started with the first one back in 2007, they're also distributing and releasing the movies, and whatnot, and for them to get sued simply for saying there's going to be a third movie? Because they didn't have permission? Why did they need permission to announce a new movie of theirs is in the works? Was it supposed to be like some kind of huge surprise or something? I mean, with that logic, a mother could very well sue a family member for telling others she's going to have a baby.
I'd have to know more of the details. There may have been some dispute between the two parties regarding the third film that hadn't been resolved before the announcement.

But I completely agree with you that the "culture of suing" can get pretty bizarre at times. I remember Leonard Nimoy talking about how he initially refused to do the first Star Trek film because he was currently in a lawsuit with Paramount. He was then assured that it was not at all unusual for actors to work with a film company while at the same time suing them (!). But he said he just didn't feel right doing that. So Paramount agreed to work out the lawsuit, because they knew they needed him in the film. It's all about power plays and negotiations.
 

Drtooth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
31,718
Reaction score
6,707
I dunno about you, but I truly think they should sue for having the second movie deal with that loser nephew of Dave. And all those Meerkat Manor commercials. Seriously, I liked most of that movie, actually... but just... seems like some stuff was written in last minute because Jason Lee didn't even want the paycheck.


And I think Jim Davis should sue too... for defamation of Jon Arbuckle in those terrible Garfield movies.

Other than that, if a third movie doesn't happen, no skin off anyone's noses there... but considering I bought some movie looking Alvin and the Chipmunks fruit snacks (why oh why didn't they have these in the early 90's where they made a fruit snack out of everything?), it seems like there's not really any hard feelings between the two.

Though, really... much like the TY Garfield bean bags... I just want them to make merchandise that looks like NOT the movie. I bought a swell 90's looking Alvin Christmas Ornament on clearance (unfortunately, I didn't have the money to get the other 2).
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
I dunno about you, but I truly think they should sue for having the second movie deal with that loser nephew of Dave.
Could that guy even act? Seriously, I never saw the movie itself, but I saw the trailers and such, and the way he finds them in the toilet and says "You gotta go to school"... like. I'm sure Jason Lee didn't want much to do with it (neither did Cameron Richardson for that matter, hence Claire's absence in the Squeakquel), but heck, Jason Lee was a poor choice for Dave anyway.
Though, really... much like the TY Garfield bean bags... I just want them to make merchandise that looks like NOT the movie. I bought a swell 90's looking Alvin Christmas Ornament on clearance (unfortunately, I didn't have the money to get the other 2).
I've found that the merchandising for The Chipmunks has been iffy from the get-go. Remember when the 80s cartoon was so successful, and they had a line of figurines? The figurines didn't look quite so hot, but then they came out with plushies of The Chipmunks, and vinyl dolls of The Chipettes... they were butt-ugly horrible! The TY beanie babies are pretty good, but like you said, let us have something that doesn't look like the movie versions of the characters. The best-looking merchandise I've seen in addition to some Christmas stuff, were set of plushies (made by Gund I believe) that resembled the 60s Chipmunks, and they looked fantastic, I kind of wish I had them.

On that same token, when it comes to merchandising too, The Chipettes really get the short end of the stick, they weren't licensed nearly as much as The Chipmunks were, and even if they were, they were always clumped together, rather than individually, or it was JUST Brittany (like the Happy Meal toys from the early 90s).
 

Drtooth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
31,718
Reaction score
6,707
Actually, I really loved those little PVC figurines. The thing is, they were very early in the series, so they looked like that version of the characters. I never really saw much of the 90's, cleaned up versions of the characters in merchandising... for a while it was just 1960's Alvin Show looking stuff (like the Gund Bean Bags).

There was a couple of large singing Alvin "toys" more like Christmas decorations that looked like the then current 90's versions.

But yeah, I loved those little toys. But they came out when I was REAAAALY little, and I have a Simon with the guitar stem kinda chewed up. I still hate the fact I was one of those, but luckily most of my other stuff was in pretty good condition.
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
There was a couple of large singing Alvin "toys" more like Christmas decorations that looked like the then current 90's versions.
I've seen three first hand... one is just Alvin, in a Santa hat, and a hula hoop, which is animated, and sings "The Chipmunk Song"; another has Alvin popping out of a snowman's hat, with Simon and Theodore popping out of snowpockets, also singing the same tune; there's also like the three of them singing on a sled. All looking like the 90s versions.

Oh, and I almost forgot... there were some rare knickerbocker-like plushies sometime during the early 90s that were exclusive to Target stores, I believe. I've only seen Jeanette and Eleanor on eBay a couple of years ago when a friend of mine pointed them out. They weren't too bad looking, much like those 80s SST knickerbockers which I happily display from since I was a baby, but they had on unusual outfits.
 

Yorick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
745
Reaction score
81
I must say that the studio (or whoever) forcing Ross and Janice to refrain from voicing the Chipmunks was wrong. I know why they did it - to get more "$tars" involved and therefore get more people to see it, supposedly. And I realize Ross and Janice chose to sign the contract and have the movie made. But they also wouldn't let Ross be Dave in the films, even though he seemed youthful enough in the 2005 film "Alvin and the Mini Munks". So, the companies have done them wrong, and they're returned the favor, perhaps?:big_grin:
 
Top