The Chipmunks' Triumphant Return

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
But why so late? Most sequels seem to come rather fast nowadays.
Well keep in mind, it was actually debated as to whether or not a sequel should really be done, and now that that's settled, there's still a script that needs to be written, and you know it's going to take a while to animate six CGI chipmunks. Animation is very time consuming.

Yeah, the movie was called "Rear Window" He just played a cameo role in the movie as a piano-playing songwriter who composes, plays, and sings a song called "Lisa".
Lol, being typecasted as a songwriter is an occupational hazard when you are one.
Daniel said:
The sequel is set to be released on March 19th, 2010 with rumors circulating on Drew Barrymore, JoJo, and Miley Cyrus doing the voices of the Chipmunks.
Where did you read March 19? IMDb?
Daniel said:
I know people here aren't really happy with Miley Cyrus doing one of the voices(I've read this thread, trust me, I know) but let's not start that argument again.

Daniel
So far, the only one people are somewhat happy with is Drew Barrymore, nobody's happy with Miley NOR JoJo.
 

Drtooth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
31,718
Reaction score
6,707
Well keep in mind, it was actually debated as to whether or not a sequel should really be done, and now that that's settled, there's still a script that needs to be written, and you know it's going to take a while to animate six CGI chipmunks. Animation is very time consuming.
How long was it between Garfield and A Tale of 2 Kitties? Like 2-3 years? I see the same thing happening here. Unless they pull a Lord of the Rings/Harry Potter and film movies back to back, there's usually a pretty decent sized waiting period.
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
And as has been pointed out, IMDb is quite unreliable at times.
At least IMDb's more reliable than WikiPedia. Especially now, considering you have to PAY to use IMDb's services now.
 

wwfpooh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
5,424
Reaction score
64
At least IMDb's more reliable than WikiPedia. Especially now, considering you have to PAY to use IMDb's services now.
Too true. I wonder if making sure there was a penalty for purposely modifying what's true for one's own opinion (ex: those dummies modifying the Mr. Rogers wiki to say that the "Fred was a tattooed military vet" rumor was true when in it actuality it is far from the truth) could stop the problems on Wikipedia?
 

Teheheman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,430
Reaction score
203
Actually read that on Wikipedia. I dunno how reliable that is, but that's where I read it.

Daniel
 

wwfpooh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
5,424
Reaction score
64
Wikipedia is as unreliable as a stick, because a lot of rumors, half-truths, and outright lies are posted there.
 

D'Snowth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
40,651
Reaction score
12,811
Wikipedia is as unreliable as a stick, because a lot of rumors, half-truths, and outright lies are posted there.
Like when Sinbad found out someone edited his Wiki article saying he was dead.

Or like how someone posted Ryan Stiles got drunk and shot Colin Mochrie to death.
 

wwfpooh

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
5,424
Reaction score
64
Which is why I ask: I wonder if making sure there was a penalty for purposely modifying what's true for one's own opinion (ex: those dummies modifying the Mr. Rogers wiki to say that the "Fred was a tattooed military vet" rumor was true when in it actuality it is far from the truth) could stop the problems on Wikipedia?
 
Top