After seeing the trailer for Road Chip . . . honestly, this doesn't even look remotely interesting. If the Chipettes are in this one (and they must be, because I last heard Amy Poehler was being replaced as Eleanor's voice), they weren't shown in the trailer, and Jason Lee has clearly aged since the last one with his graying hair. The one joke in the trailer was a tired and cliched as well ("you drive like my grandmother!").
-
Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
You are viewing our forum as a guest. Join our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please contact us if you need help. -
Jim Henson Idea Man
Remember the life. Honor the legacy. Inspire your soul. The new Jim Henson documentary "Idea Man" is now streaming exclusively on Disney+. -
Back to the Rock Season 2
Fraggle Rock Back to the Rock Season 2 has premiered on AppleTV+. Watch the anticipated new season and let us know your thoughts. -
Bear arrives on Disney+
The beloved series has been off the air for the past 15 years. Now all four seasons are finally available for a whole new generation. -
Sam and Friends Book
Read our review of the long-awaited book, "Sam and Friends - The Story of Jim Henson's First Television Show" by Muppet Historian Craig Shemin.
The Chipmunks
- Thread starter Yorick
- Start date
To be fair they don't show much, and what they do show isn't that engaging. I find they're having better success with the cartoon series than they are trying to keep the movie franchise afloat.
I think the problem for me is the first one was at least brave for basically taking a "only a raisin" in the face of the music industry. As I've said a billion times before, the plotline of a a newly developed band being suckered in by an unscrupulous manager that basically turns the band into slaves after throwing goodies at them is all too real. Plus, I do kinda find it a nice tribute to Ross Sr. and how his fortunes turned with the creation of the group. Then I have the feeling Fox didn't really think this film would have been successful and was surprised it became that big so they just made sure the films shifted to a younger, kiddy tone. The second one partially, but painfully obvious in the third one. This one looks just as kiddy as Chipwrecked without the little bite at the music industry the first and second films had. I never felt Jason was a good fit for Dave, and his lack of interest in the second film spoke volumes. The loser cousin aspect seems as tacked on as it should. I never really saw him be that close to the Chipmunks until the third film (what I've seen of it). Seems like he just tolerated them enough in the first one due to his disinterested muddle through. Jason is a strong talent when he's in the right project. My Name is Earl was a completely lovable show, and I really enjoy his guest spots as Charlie the Sasquatch on We Bare Bears. It's a shame he didn't really care much for this film series, yet somehow can't break free of it.
I think the problem for me is the first one was at least brave for basically taking a "only a raisin" in the face of the music industry. As I've said a billion times before, the plotline of a a newly developed band being suckered in by an unscrupulous manager that basically turns the band into slaves after throwing goodies at them is all too real. Plus, I do kinda find it a nice tribute to Ross Sr. and how his fortunes turned with the creation of the group. Then I have the feeling Fox didn't really think this film would have been successful and was surprised it became that big so they just made sure the films shifted to a younger, kiddy tone. The second one partially, but painfully obvious in the third one. This one looks just as kiddy as Chipwrecked without the little bite at the music industry the first and second films had. I never felt Jason was a good fit for Dave, and his lack of interest in the second film spoke volumes. The loser cousin aspect seems as tacked on as it should. I never really saw him be that close to the Chipmunks until the third film (what I've seen of it). Seems like he just tolerated them enough in the first one due to his disinterested muddle through. Jason is a strong talent when he's in the right project. My Name is Earl was a completely lovable show, and I really enjoy his guest spots as Charlie the Sasquatch on We Bare Bears. It's a shame he didn't really care much for this film series, yet somehow can't break free of it.
I've said it before, but I've never bought Jason as Dave, I just didn't, for the reasons you've stated and more - remember, he only took the role because he learned it was previously offered to his idol, Bill Murray. As much as I love Bill Murray, I'm not entirely sure he could pull Dave off either. Jason as Dave feels like Ross Sr. as Dave but with a chip on his shoulder (no pun intended).
I agree, the new series is doing much better, but it's largely due in part to Bagdasarian having more creative control: the character sound, act, and feel more like themselves as opposed to the characterizations in the movies.
On an unrelated note, your comment about each of the sequels becoming increasingly more kiddy makes me think of Shrek: the first came out during a time when DreamWorks was still Pixar's biggest rival, and their movies always tended to be considerably edgier than Pixar's; the first Shrek movie had swearing, tons of innuendoes and double-entrendres - the sequels to follow had virtually no language, and the adult jokes were toned down considerably (though the "Ye Olde Hooters" joke in #3 got the biggest laugh I ever heard in a theater . . . even though the little girl sitting next to me didn't understand why, lol). Ice Age's sequels are clearly Blue Sky's attempt to have a cash-cow franchise of their own like DW has with Shrek: the first was fine as a one-shot, the second sucked, the third came out the same time as that awful LAND OF THE LOST movie and made it feel like a dueling movie.
I agree, the new series is doing much better, but it's largely due in part to Bagdasarian having more creative control: the character sound, act, and feel more like themselves as opposed to the characterizations in the movies.
On an unrelated note, your comment about each of the sequels becoming increasingly more kiddy makes me think of Shrek: the first came out during a time when DreamWorks was still Pixar's biggest rival, and their movies always tended to be considerably edgier than Pixar's; the first Shrek movie had swearing, tons of innuendoes and double-entrendres - the sequels to follow had virtually no language, and the adult jokes were toned down considerably (though the "Ye Olde Hooters" joke in #3 got the biggest laugh I ever heard in a theater . . . even though the little girl sitting next to me didn't understand why, lol). Ice Age's sequels are clearly Blue Sky's attempt to have a cash-cow franchise of their own like DW has with Shrek: the first was fine as a one-shot, the second sucked, the third came out the same time as that awful LAND OF THE LOST movie and made it feel like a dueling movie.
On the subject of Shrek, I really loved the first two movies, and I think the second one was the gem of the franchise (unless you count the Puss in Boots Spinoff, which I think worked better as a movie free from Pop Culture anachronism), the third one seemed like the franchise killer considering multiple other sequels were planned (Darnit! I wanted "Shrek Pleads the Fifth!), but only one more was made. And the thing is, when the fourth Shrek hit, the pop culture bits were toned down, the fart jokes were non-existant (in a Shrek movie, mind you), and it was bizarrely more in tone with the other films DW was doing at the time. It seemed to be deep for some reason. Strangely they broke their no fart streak on Penguins of Madagascar the Movie, which I just shrugged off.
As for the Chipmunks, it really feels that the first one at least had biting satire to it, and the rest increasingly played to the younger audiences. The third one was an extended episode of the cartoon series, and it's a shame since the second film was half good, and there could have been ample room for a plot about Alvin being fed up with Dave's treating the group like they're his kids (read: modestly and with a sense of values) and goes off with another unscrupulous recording contract, splitting the group up. To me, that's the logical step for the movie series. Instead it was just "Look at them have wacky fun on an island." I'm glad they sort of covered a story like that in the new series with Theodore being a break out hip hop star.
As for the Chipmunks, it really feels that the first one at least had biting satire to it, and the rest increasingly played to the younger audiences. The third one was an extended episode of the cartoon series, and it's a shame since the second film was half good, and there could have been ample room for a plot about Alvin being fed up with Dave's treating the group like they're his kids (read: modestly and with a sense of values) and goes off with another unscrupulous recording contract, splitting the group up. To me, that's the logical step for the movie series. Instead it was just "Look at them have wacky fun on an island." I'm glad they sort of covered a story like that in the new series with Theodore being a break out hip hop star.
If they were going to replace Amy Poehler as Eleanor . . . why did they have to bring in Kaley Cuoco?! I'd mention my displeasure of knowing she's associated with the Chipmunk franchise is due in part to her lack of moral scruples, but I know I really can't judge considering Janice's pre-Chipmunk work . . . but I really hate the idea of the Chipmunks now being indirectly connected with THE BIG DANG THEORY; that makes two franchises that I hold so near and dear to my heart being blemished by having indirect connections with that awful show.
I just never got the point of putting B and C list celebrities in the Chipmunks roles as... well... speeding up the voices makes them unrecognizable. And even then, they didn't pull a Dreamworks and list any of the celebrity voice actors on the posters. Kids wouldn't know and care, so why was this so important to Fox? I mean with the Garfield movie, you knew Bill Murray was in it. They didn't skip a chance to say "Hey! Garfield's Bill Murray." Same with that completely unnecessary Marmaduke movie. They plastered "Owen Wilson farted through this to get a paycheck he didn't need" all over. Both Fox films. I mean, I even see the need for the celebrity voice acting in the Smurf movies, though I'd say a good number of them were wasted only giving one line, Paul Reubens as Jokey especially (why oh WHY did they have to force Gutsy so hard in the first movie? Also, Fred Armesand was great as Brainy. Too bad they didn't remember Brainy wasn't actually smart, but that's a long rant for another day). The Smurf films didn't really focus on saying who played who (though they did emphasize Katy Perry), but at least you knew they were there. Chipmunks? Anyone could be sped up and sound roughly the same. They wanted star power illogically, thinking that big names being hidden would somehow be the draw.
Anyway, I wouldn't sweat someone you don't like being a recast. I'd say there's a chance you were going to skip this film anyway. I was. I remember back when the second one was announced, there was that rumor Miley Cyrus was going to be one of them, and I complained on another site about it and everyone wouldn't stop berating me for it...then saying how they pretty much pirate movies anyway. Then of course seeing the film gave me more things to actually complain about (though overall, the good parts of the film were good). I don't think this movie would be that good no matter who plays any of the 'Munks or 'Ettes. This may just be their last film and their bigger loss. I'd stick with the cartoon series. It's far better done, and keeping the creative control in the family worked wonders.
Anyway, I wouldn't sweat someone you don't like being a recast. I'd say there's a chance you were going to skip this film anyway. I was. I remember back when the second one was announced, there was that rumor Miley Cyrus was going to be one of them, and I complained on another site about it and everyone wouldn't stop berating me for it...then saying how they pretty much pirate movies anyway. Then of course seeing the film gave me more things to actually complain about (though overall, the good parts of the film were good). I don't think this movie would be that good no matter who plays any of the 'Munks or 'Ettes. This may just be their last film and their bigger loss. I'd stick with the cartoon series. It's far better done, and keeping the creative control in the family worked wonders.
Chloe has a very promising career - I'm just fearful that like others before her (lookin' at you, Lindsay Lohan) she'll end up throwing away her talent by wasting her life on drugs, alcohol, hard-partying, hoeing herself, getting in trouble with the law, thus becoming another washed-up former child star who will never be able to regain what she once had again; I mean I wouldn't say Lindsay was the greatest actress there was, but I think she would have had a pretty steady and decent career in showbiz if she didn't throw it all away.
As I've said before, as sick as I am of NPH being every where (seriously, it's gotten to the point that every thing he does or says has to be all over the news, like sharing pics of his kids - he's almost got Kardashian-level media attention) I do respect him for not being another washed-up former child star, and has managed to not only keep his image and record clean, but earned a very nice career for himself beyond Doogie Howser.
As I've said before, as sick as I am of NPH being every where (seriously, it's gotten to the point that every thing he does or says has to be all over the news, like sharing pics of his kids - he's almost got Kardashian-level media attention) I do respect him for not being another washed-up former child star, and has managed to not only keep his image and record clean, but earned a very nice career for himself beyond Doogie Howser.