Kaiser's back with a new video essay! But now, with a new editor, Christopher Nies! / mrniesguy Thanks to my friend Gavin for the "House of Mouse" quote at the end, and for going over the script with me.
4:43 They don't have to do the high-pitched voices with the main actors. Tress MacNeille and Corey Burton are two of the best voice actors in the industry. Not only could they have used regular voices, but it could also open up joke opportunities! Having to deal with speaking in high-pitched all the time when "normally" they sound like their actual voice actors, which works on a meta sense cuz they ARE voiced by their main voice actors! Tress MacNeille as Chip could have jokes involving gendered performances, cuz he sounds like a woman or maybe sounds like Daisy Duck or a bunch of other characters, or even about how prolific she is as a voice actress, and Corey Burton as Dale could have jokes about how much range he has. The fact that someone who often voices such deep-sounding characters, to the point where Christopher Lee himself said "why didn't they just use him" after he later voiced Count Dooku, is also the voice of Dale is still surprising to a lot of people. Or they don't have to do commentary on either of these things and just USE them in other creative ways! I think the idea of their voice actors voicing them normally ITSELF is a really creative idea! But no, they were replaced because they're not big celebrity names to put at the end of the trailer. That's it. That's why they're voiced by John Mulaney and Adam Samberg. That's also why Will Arnett and Seth Rogen are in the film. That's also why the Allstate guy is voicing Zipper and not Corey Burton, who ACTUALLY PLAYS HIS HIGH-PITCHED VOICES IN THE MOVIE! You wanna talk about not using Jim Cummings? At least they still used a prominent voice actor. Corey Burton is in the movie, as the same character at one point, but only as a cameo, while normal dialogue with him is played by someone more popular for nothing else than the popularity alone. Voice actors have been shafted hard for celebrities in animated films for like 20 years now, but it feels especially egregious here. It's like the vocal equivalent of Chip's terrible fake-2D animation. Instead of using an actual fitting animation style, they cheap out, just like they sold out on celebrities.
And the thing is this was a streaming exclusive movie not a big budget theatrical motion picture so I really don’t get what would the filmmakers have gained from their movie having a star stunned voice cast
"Why is Chris Pratt a bad choice?" 1. He's Hollywood's darling right now who keeps popping up in *everything*, making him a popularity hire. He's being over-saturated. Which, on its own, isn't enough for it to be bad, but... 2. He doesn't have an incredibly unique voice. Which is to say, he's wonderful at playing the "everyman", but Mario is a colorful character with a lot of expressive elements, and a long history. Pratt feels like such a boring, "safe" choice. Listen, I loved him in Parks & Rec, Guardians of the Galaxy, and The Lego Movies. I just do not feel like Pratt is the person I'd choose to play an iconic character like Mario, and the only chose him because he's famous.
He could pull off a Heath Ledger and be great in the role. It just requires him to actually inhabit the role of Mario and not be, as you said, the typical everyman he plays. Charlie Day as Luigi though. Something about that sort of just connects in my brain. Like that could really, really work if the direction is there.
I feel like that goes for Tom Hanks and Scarlett Johansson as well. And maybe Nick Cage, but that man did such a phenomenal job at Spider-Man Noir that I any complaint I used to have about his “discretion” is now retracted and [REDACTED].
I was a little upset about Bobby Driscoll's backstory being used for a cheap villain plot...but then I saw the hybrid children Gadget and Zipper made. 😵💫
@@Victor-056 All things considered, Zipper was probably a dude who played someone younger than he actually was, similarly to actors for teen movies are sometimes much older than their character, especially when you consider how deep his voice actually is.
When I heard about the Bobby Driscoll "similarities", as some early reviewers called it, I just couldn't think of any other reasons NOT to see this movie. That's just some almost genuinely evil shit, to use someone's horribly sad history, attach it to a character they're known for portraying, AND make that character the villain in the story?! Like, damn, someone at Disney really wanted to tell the public that it's an evil corporate conglomerate, without directly saying it's an evil corporate conglomerate.
That might have been the intent. Some studies have observed that people more actively call out something negative (such as someone holding a sign saying "Screw the Homeless") and thereby call attention to the issue, than they would with a positive message (such as a person holding a sign saying "Please help the Homeless" and offering information on ways to help if you actually speak with them). I know that Disney is currently refusing to pay royalties to a writer who did alot of Star Wars content for them, simply because they think they can play the long-game with the lawsuit...because the writer and his wife are in poor health due to having cancer and it seems like they might actually die before the case gets settled.
You bring up a very interesting point. This was not known by anybody until this films release, and would've been a perfect time to expose it without getting in trouble for it.
I don’t think that had anything to do with it The guys who did the film are not with Disney, they are the Lonely Island crew so it feels like that plot point was just a part of the dark humor they usually deal with.
@Tin Watchman bruh I never even knew or cared about who Peter pans voice actor was before now but holy shit if I though Disney was just greedy I didn’t know they went to this level of immortality
It feels weird seeing them cheap out on the "2d animation" when they have animation studios making shows for Disney XD. Heck, I remember reading that the DuckTales team wanted to do something with chip and dale but had to settle with their cameo. I saw the trailer when the movie came out, I didn't know who the movie was meant for. A friend sat me down to watch it, I still don't know who it's for.
@@zegsi364 Are you trying to mimic some sort of brainwashed drone with the way you wrote that comment?🤨 It feels like you were using all those pauses “….” with a purpose, and everything you said in its defense just sounded like stock answers.
@@zegsi364/home A movie for everyone doesn't exist. Nostalgia and references do not inherently make anything funnier or better. The "2D via 3D" animation looked so bad that I was wondering why Disney didn't ask Arc System Works to help make it better. How much did Disney pay you to shill for the movie?
9:51 That's like the most striking theme of the whole movie. And a flaw that YMS rightfully pointed out with notably more emphasis - and (understandable) frustration.
This makes me think of shows like Thundercats Roar, a show whose very existence I question. Kids aren’t going to know who they are and won’t care, and adults who grew up with the original aren’t going to want to see a dumbed down “kiddy” comedy version of their childhood action show. It feels like the creators wanted to make a new cartoon but didn’t want to do the heavy lifting of creating characters and a world, so they just used what was lying around.
See, what you don't know is, back in 2012, Lion-O's son took out a loan to do a new version of the show. Panther-O's estate, headed by his younger brother, was a co-signer. It was actually pretty good, since Panther-Not-O was into anime and actually got Lion-O the 2nd hooked on the stuff. The original Panther-O died in the late 90s, having opened a barbecue joint in early 1991, called the Thunderpit. He actually died of a workplace accident, rather than of any coronary issues. The man had so little fat content that he was too dense to float in a vat of molasses barbecue sauce, and drowned. Lion-O the 2nd hooked up with a pretty cougar lady in the productions side of things, and had a son, Lion-O the 3rd, in late 2013. 2019 was when the Canadian Maple Mafia came to collect the debt. The things they did to little Lion-O the 3rd to get him to act and look like that? Concrete and mortar's too good a last sight for the people that did that to those poor thunderan kittens. The studio front? They're not innovators. They're just copying what the pinky-people screen actors guild does to new talent. Rather than the Maple Mafia, it's the [INFORMATION REDACTED] club. If you don't play ball their way, you're done.
What's worse is that Rescue Rangers barely feels like the right vehicle for this story. As Kaiser alluded to (and as many others have said), Bonkers would've been a far better fit because of how his show was structured: He's a toon interacting with "real people" in their world and he becomes a cop after his career hits a dead-end. Among the problems with the writing of this film, the idea of the original Rescue Rangers even being a show in the world of RR2022 seems ridiculous - the original show was about a bunch of rodents solving crimes and such while "real people" mostly ignored their existence. Pulling Bonkers out of the vault would've made more sense because I could 100% buy the idea of Bonkers being a jaded detective who needs help in getting his shit together from a new partner now that his old ones have retired. Using Rescue Rangers for this story feels like an attempt to cash in on what nostalgia still exists for the original show-which, if we're being really real here, is primarily for one specific character-while also pulling an IP Smash that adds little to the story in general. I'm an old-school CDRR fan. When I heard Disney was planning a CDRR film, I wasn't excited-I was scared of how badly Disney would fuck with the property, especially since my first hearing about the film was when the idea of the film being a meta-narrative first popped up. I had no faith in this film being good, never mind respectful to the original franchise. Sometimes, I hate being right.
For that, they'd likely have to pay writers more for the increased time it would take to create characters and worldbuilding. It's probably cheaper for them to acquire the rights to an existing ip (that might still be marketable based on former popularity) and reboot it. Sadly, money always comes before the art.
Oh hell yes. I was VERY disappointed when CN didn't just continue or do something like the awesome 2011Thundercats reboot. That was a refreshing take on the Thundercats. My daughter & I both loved it. Then we got a glance of Thundercats Roar and rolled our eyes. It was obnoxious, pointless, and shitty. We did enjoy many of the animations that had that cartoony feel like Adventure Time, Teen Titans & Steven Universe however Thundercats Roar felt very "cheap" in that cartoony style.
Apparently the original plan would've had Charlie Brown in that role. The writer didn't think he'd get permission so went with an in-house property instead.
I found a comment saying the original villain was going to be Charlie Brown, yes, that Charlie Brown from Peanuts but went with Peter Pan to avoid legal issues.
I just realized something that makes the Bobby Driscoll parallel darker. Everyone forgets (including this movie it seems) there was a Peter Pan 2 back in 2002. So if Peter starts aging then instead of after the '53 movie (maybe he decided to leave neverland after the sequel) and we assume he is 10 to 12 years old (old enough to lead the lost boys but young enough that puberty hasn't hit yet), then Sweet Pete is 30 to 32 years old. Bobby Driscoll died at age 31. Also, while I'm sure corporate politics was the primary reason he his contract was terminated by Disney, the official stated reason was that Bobby needed a lot of makeup to cover up his acne because he hit puberty around the time Peter Pan premiered. According to his biography, Walt Disney himself considered Bobby Driscoll his favorite child star, and you see where that got him.
I also found it kind of odd how they just straight up retconned the history of the Donald Duck/Chip n Dale shorts. But I guess the writers were like "Ehhh the audience isn't going to care or remember about that"
@@edman813 True, but that series has been milking itself since...well possibly Majin Buu, but to be fair post-Beerus fight has basically all beeen a soulless cash-grab. DBS is a total disgrace and the that it might all be using DBFighterZ animation for films and a tv show doesn't suprise me at all. Though, a shame, because the "Moro" storyline to me is better than anything in DBS (note-DBS didn't invent Beerus nor the battle of gods story, it was originally a Z film, so to me that doesn't count, and the 99 universes crap is just stupid).
5:00 Charles Martinet is a professional voice actor with a broad range. If you are in doubt as to his ability do justice to a feature length Mario story, you might like to look up his characters 'Orvus' from Ratchet & Clank or Paarthunax from Skyrim.
He also did parthanax in skyrim, but really those are the only 2 big names he's done besides Mario He has however done entire AR meet and greets kinda like vtubers, having seen a few of them I'd say he'd do alright, might struggle with more sad scenes just because of how Marios voice is, but his range is there
Martinet himself might have a large range, but the mario voice is a gag voice. If he's doing a more suitable voice for a film rather than a gag voice for a video game character that barely talks, he's not doing the mario voice (which will still piss people off), and the only reason to cast him is loyalty to the actor himself. I'm with Scott, having to listen to a voice that annoying for an entire movie would make me want to take a rivet gun to my ears.
Im legitimately surprised that you didn’t mention the unholy union of Gadget and Zip which spawned over 40 abominations whose existence should’ve ended while they were all malformed zygotes.
Funny thing about that last joke with "Ugly Sonic", turns out it was gonna be Jar Jar Binks before the change according to a storyboard artist of the film
I loved Rescue Rangers as a child. Actual childhood memories here. But I had zero interest in even admitting this movie even exists, for a simple reason. "Hey, you know that smart and cool character who was a childhood pseudo-crush for a lot of our viewers? Yeah, let's write her being a breeding factory for malformed fly spawn! That'll show those suckers!" Seriously, I was never one of those people obsessed with Gadget (the show was on TV in our country when I was like 6-7 years old), but this is the biggest "fuck you" to your own audience I've seen lately. Do all writers working for major companies have to be shit? Must every new take on beloved franchises be such garbage that it pollutes the context and the memory of the things you enjoyed in the past?
Having seen similar occurrences through many other reboots and follow-ups--specific examples escaping me for the moment, but I feel you, it does seem an intentional strike upon thee--I can no longer shrug it off as but mere incompetence and lowest common missteps, but rather that selective funding is put to particular fools for the dribblings which come naturally from their ears. We see it in the art world, why would studios differ any?
@@Foxpawed Waifu? Dude, I was 7. She wasn't even my favourite character, that was Rockford. But them creating something so messed up as her birthing dozens of those horrible abominations just to spite some people? I feel like I'm a kid again, because all I can say is "eww"
@@zegsi364 Yeah but like, this is basically Disney shitting all over it. Rather than remembering the actor it feels more like they were saying "nobody's gonna know about the history unless they search it up, let's just poke fun at it". Like it may not have any effect on you but it's still disrespectful that they had to reference it at all just to make it a plot point.
So I read something someone wrote about this movie, basically describing it a “f you for liking the original property”. And after watching this, I am more convinced that was the intent of the movie.
Better villain for the movie: Talespin's Shere Khan. In that show, he is a wealthy businessman who only cares about expanding his business. He is equal parts enemy and ally to the protagonists, depending on which role benefits himself the most. Granted he is more neutral than evil, it's not hard to imagine he would tip his morality scale more towards evil if he lost his wealth and power in attempts to reclaim it. He could even garner more sympathy from chip and dale (not a lot mind you) due to the fact that he was part of the disney afternoon as well.
Better protagonists? Roger Rabbit and a successor for Eddie Valiant, maybe a child or protege. Instead of a spiritual successor let's just have a sequel
I think there could easily have been a more fascinating way to write this story than what they gave us, yes. I personally saw the entire thing as a spiritual successor to Who Framed Rodger Rabbit and with the content given, it matches the corporate direction that universe was going in anyway. They didn't push in that direction far enough though: It would have been far more interesting to have the pair of chipmunk sleuths trying to relive their canceled glory days solving a big mystery no one else believes them exists, while observing other 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s cartoon characters trying to make it today in the face of modern cancel culture than what we got--especially if they involved Toon Town, or the remnants of what it had become. Missed opportunity, honestly.
Only Roger Rabbit wasn't about being corporate, it was a novelty with the help of actual collaboration of other studios. This movie on the other hand just feels like Disney was tossing every dollar to see how many cameos that could be squeezed in, so much so that it's like they focus more on that than plot.
@@Benjamillion Not about being corporate? When was the last time you saw that movie? The entire premise of the bad guy was about selling out to bigger companies. About how older toons were having to change with the times or be forgotten. The dark reality to their "happily ever after" is that The Judge was right...he just did things too fast and too hard; highways were coming anyway, and larger and larger companies were going to be made--cashing in on Toons and their properties with or without him. What I am talking about in Chip 'n Dale is purely about how the plot we got was rather thin and generic; essentially a Scooby Doo villain that's less funny. Disney has far more control over all the IPs than they did in the 80s when the Rodger Rabbit film came out. It took a massive amount of doing and contracts to involve all the characters they did. Now? Disney already works with Hasbro and Warner Bros actively. They don't need to work with other studios because other than those two, Disney owns everything else you see in the film (exception to Sonic, but because they used the scrapped version of him I bet they didn't need to pay IP for likeness and most of it falls under Fair Use...but that part's a guess. So at worse, throw Paramount in for a light 3rd company to contract with there...).
wonderful Review Scott, I think Cellsphex also put it best in her review of the film. The movie isn't "bad" but it only did the bare minimum to not be as bad as the other meta narrative movies mentioned in the video. Its not the worst, but not the best and i still will hold the film with a black mark for their conscious choice in making Peter Pan the villain with a backstory that matched his original actors tragic life.
I dunno, I think it's pretty bad. When you strip away all the references, what even is there? Cross-over movies like Roger Rabbit and Wreck-It-Ralph are actually good movies behind all the references. Even _if_ those movies were just reference-fests, they'd still be leagues better than Chip 'n Dale, 'cause those movies actually had care put into them. Roger Rabbit is a love letter to animation, and Wreck-It-Ralph is a love letter to video games. But Chip 'n Dale feels like it's making fun of animation as a whole, while also being hypocritical in itself. Like, they make fun of ugly Sonic and Robert Zemeckis characters, but not ugly and soulless "live-action" Pumbaa? Basically I'm just sick of these reference movies, and it's sad seeing 2D animation die for this.
@@juneru2 I get where you're coming from, the biggest thing Ralph and Rodger had going for them was how the writers KNEW how to balance the references with the story, they made references to other properties. In other words, the References never became the movie, they were just part of it. Ralph 2 lost sight of this and it is one of the worst movies i've seen
So in Roger Rabbit Judge Doom's plot is based on the conspiracy theory that General Motors bought the Red Cars with the purpose to dismantle LA's public transport system and I thin the destruction of Toon Town is based on an actual black neighborhood that was destroyed to build the highway. Now in this movie the villain is based on Bobby Driscoll.... Basically in Roger Rabbit the villains were based on real life oppressors and in this movie the villain is an oppressed.
I liked it because it's premise of toons of all different animation styles living together with real people which hasn't been done since Roger Rabbit and I like that and I felt the movie balanced the cameos with it's own story well enough but I'd be lying if I said the cameos didn't feel a bit much but honestly the standout was JK Simmons as the corrupt police chief. He sounded like he was just having a blast. Also the cameo at the end by Darkwing was fun. But upon learning that Sweet Pete's backstory was almost note for note what happened to Bobby Driskel I can't in good conscience watch this again. Bobby was screwed over by Disney in the worst way possible that being a change in management who didn't like kid actors so they fired him without even bothering to tell him.
I also couldn’t shake the feeling that they reference tropes from the original show that weren’t actually prevalent? Like… “it’s always the police boss that’s the corrupt one”. They have a police boss in many original episodes that was never corrupt o.o or that they laugh superlong at the end of every episode. That rarely ever happened, but they treat it like it was a staple of the show. It’s like there were two writers. One fan and one dude who’s going of his memory of something he might’ve watched a few times :/ it’s so pointless.
I always wanted to see a crossover of the Rescue Rangers and the Rescuers. I'm surprised Disney never did that crossover earlier, unless I missed some episodes of Chip N. Dale a bit ago.
If I remember correctly, the original show was (at least at some point early in pre-production) planned to be a Rescuers spin-off with a wholly original cast of characters. When that plan fell through, the show's co-creators (Tad Stones and Alan Zaslove) hit upon the idea of using Chip and Dale. (Fun fact: Stones got a one-line voice cameo in this movie.)
I just want to say how much I love your analogy with pot holes and plot holes, it's good writing. Although, as someone that grey up with the series too, I quite liked it - it was insincere in places with sterile packaging. But you can't honestly say there wasn't at least a few people on board who had warm feelings for the original
Driscoll's story is even worse than that, really. He got hooked on stims to pull the hours Disney was demanding of him, and when his addiction spiraled and he became less popular, they canned him early in violation of his contract. His inability to find work after that is suspected to have been because of a shadow-ban caused by Disney warning other studios of his troublesome behavior. Conspiracy theories also imply that Disney didn't want him to potentially get his act together and make another studio money, hence the shadow-ban. It's depressing that we can't put even the most outlandishly dickish and petty behavior past The Rat, even if we don't know for sure.
4:49 I’m not asking because “I don’t want Chris Pratt to voice Mario” or “Martinet should be Mario”, I’m asking out of actual curiosity. Aside from either of these two, who would you choose to voice Mario in the up-coming movie? I’m open to ideas and why they would work.
I more don’t understand, he said Chris Pratt is a terrible choice for Mario for a host of reasons. What reasons? I don’t see any reason to judge it before we even hear it? What’s wrong with Chris Pratt doing it?
@@skywardsword2804 I know, right?! Sometimes I hear it’s because “He’s a Hollywood actor, not a voice actor”, other times I hear “His voice doesn’t fit for Mario” or “We won’t hear Mario, we’ll only hear Chris Pratt”, but that’s besides the point. As shown with Emmet in The Lego Movie, Chris Pratt can pull of the Optimistic Protagonist quite well. Also, even though Charles Martinet has voiced Mario the longest, he’s not the only person who’s portrayed Mario. Captain Lou Albano, & Bob Hoskins have too. Heck, even Marc Graue is meme-able to be acknowledged! As Ben Affleck has proven in _Batman V Superman,_ it’s worth giving the actor a chance to show they can do a character justice. Sure, the movie isn’t that good, but everybody _thought_ Ben Affleck as Batman would be the worst part, when his performance actually turned out to be one of the best parts. If Chris Pratt’s performance as Mario gets the same response, I don’t think I’ll be able to stop laughing.
Well I thought that review summed things up perfectly, both with the film itself and modern meta-narrative as a whole. This may not get as many views as the DBZ-inspired work, but I still enjoyed watching this, and I can tell that fun was had making it. So congrats on getting a new editor, Kaiser, and may good fortune come your way!
Bobby's story keeps getting misrepresented. He turned to drugs in his teens to cope with being sent to a new school after Disney and not fitting in which apparently was completely unnecessary since his parents moved him back to his old school the next year where he graduated fine. He didn't turn back to drugs until almost FIFTEEN years later. Like, Hollywood and Disney suck with child actors but this time is seems less Burt Ward and more Lindsey Lohan.
@the hevy "former child actor has trouble transitioning into an adult actor" makes it sound a lot less about Disney and more a normal problem for people who's career was reliant on being a cute kid. People just love a sob story and love to blame the cold faceless corporation.
ppl: "that does it, Disney! I've had it up to here with your tyrannical wickedness! All your endless greed, your exploitation, your shadiness and your toxicity!! I don't care how many properties I have to boycott, from this day forward you shall not receive so much as another cent from me!" disney: "this movie has ugly sonic" ppl: "...ha, ok maybe you're alright"
If they wanted to make "Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2" with a different IP, they really shouldn't have called it "Chip and Dale: Rescue Rangers" lol. That seems to be where a lot of the issues are coming from. If it wasn't for that, I think the reaction would be, "Meh, this movie is fine. Not great, but fine."
The fake episodes just make me think they didn’t want to pay the writers of those episodes. I initially thought that was a defence but realised that is just another layer of hypocritical cynicism.
I don't think you have to pay the writers of old material in order to reference what happened in it if it's the same IP. I doubt reboots and revivals would be so self-referencial if you did.
This plot could have surgically replaced Chip 'n Dale with Darkwing Duck and Launchpad going to save Gosalyn and NOTHING else about it would need to change.
I also find it incredible that this Disney movie's main antagonistic system is... Copyright infringement. Yeah Disney, you've made your enemy clear decades ago lmao
My main take away from this movie was that sora's hair makes a cameo in the scene of all of the features taken from bootleg toons which considering what's currently happening in Kingdom Hearts has some hilarious implications
13:05. I did see Bonkers in the movie. But it was at the end in the docks scene. So they could have probably spun it as he was one of the first taken or something while investigating badly. Oh you brought it up at 14:06.
Thank you nailing the nail on the head. After looking at the official preview of C&DRR on online, I was like "meh". 10% of me was nostalgia glad while the other 90% was "this feels very half-ass". I won't have minded it if they did the Roger Rabbit or Cool World route but Disney's kid-friendly appeal money train capped that idea. That would require someone else owning C&DRR other than Disney and unapologically revising C&DRR into an animation film of mature level plot without the studio property sh*t dump.
The bootleg character idea probably allowed them to get around a few copy right loopholes. After establishing that they done got them licenses it's a cool way of making the animated world feel more connected than it is.
i found it fun, a lot of nostalgia moments, interesting cross references. but i also watched it as its own movie and not a continuation of the original, (ive learned to watch reboots and remakes as their own movie and not a comparison to the originals as nostalgia can make the new stuff never feel up to snuff)
And as a movie, it was written so terribly. Never laughed at a single joke, thought the rap sequence was the stupidest things ever put on screen, and motivations for the characters were so under written and non important that I'm surprised anyone green lit this.
Probably the "worst" part of the movie was dale applying a will Ferrell character mood during the movie, the whole "can't take anything serious unless it's about me"
It’s kinda boring, and I absolutely hate how they cheapened up to the MAX by not including hand drawn animation but putting 2D details on a 3D model. Lame. When will we ever get classic hand drawn toons again?
I mean from an animators perspective it's a lot more cheaper and easier. Creating a 3d model allows more editing opportunities. While 2d you would have to make if from scratch inorder to change something. But yeah I miss 2d drawn animation.
TBH, I feel like the only good 2D/3D animation from Disney is Paperman (that was created around 2012). That was a wonderful work of art, not to mention it has a nice story.
When I was watching the movie, I thought 'Sweet Pete' was a knock off version of the actual Peter Pan lying that he was him cause in my mind I thought that there is no way disney was going to let that backstory fly (No pun intended) All and all it's not the best movie, it's really is a testament that no one can recapture that lightning in the a bottle that is Who Framed Roger Rabbit to this day.
What I get from this review is that there was definitely enough talent to create a good movie, but not enough love for the series or characters they were given to tell a story with. The Lego Movie is still my pick for "cross promotional commercial that's actually genuine and fun."
Regarding the Mario thing, you are aware Charles Martinet is a Shakespearian trained actor and that his Mario voice is based on how he portrayed Petruchio from Taming of The Shrew, right? As for Chris Prat being cast in the role, I'm actually willing to give him a chance. For all we know, he might knock it out of the park as Mario. I mean didn't people have similar hang-ups about Michael Keaton playing Batman or Heath Ledger playing The Joker? They were both seen as terrible choices until both of their respected movies came out and people actually ended up loving them in the roles with Heath even winning an Oscar for his Joker and it's also because of how well Keaton did why I was one of the people who wanted Ryan Gosling to be the next Batman because of how people often associate him with The Notebook. Was Prat my first pick for Mario? No. Are there better choices to voice him? Probably. But I'm not gonna automatically write him off as the worst possible choice because of some arbitrary reasons. I'm going to wait for a trailer to make my judgement on whether he's right for the role.
Never watched the movie and i probably wont because i have zero interest and dont care about the franchise and most of the actors. But if anything, this review has made me want to go watch *'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'* again - a movie i probably havent seen in 20 years because they just did this whole animated characters in a real world thing a lot better. The acting and voice acting was a lot better too. ::edit:: oof - It seems we had the same idea - I made my comment about roger rabbit early on in the video before the 7min mark so i hadnt seen you reference it till halfway through. None the less - I still stand by my opinion - I would very much rather watch WFRR.
Honestly you have many very valid points about the entire movie. Enough so that I share the feelings you have for it. It has this great core framework but has so many odd choices peppered in that you suddenly wonder why your watching it. So at the end you kinda enjoy it but at the same time you kinda wonder why ya did. Had it just committed to something and refined it. Maybe it would have been a fun commentary without Space Jam 2 comparison’s.
No joke, even before you mentioned that they were cell shaded 3D models trying to appear as "2D" I had already noticed that detail. Kind of obvious what they were trying to do while also not really doing it.
