1. 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 with registration or your account login.

  2. Help Muppet Central Radio
    We need your help to continue Muppet Central Radio. Show your support and listen regularly and often via Radionomy's website and apps. We're also on iTunes and Apple TV. Learn More

  3. "Muppet Guys Talking" Debuts On-line
    Watch the inspiring documentary "Muppet Guys Talking", read fan reactions and let us know your thoughts on the Muppet release of the year.

  4. Sesame Street Season 48
    Sesame Street's 48th season officially began Saturday November 18 on HBO. After you see the new episodes, post here and let us know your thoughts.

The Chipmunks

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Yorick, Feb 15, 2011.

  1. Xerus

    Xerus Well-Known Member

    That's like how Looney Tunes Back in Action used puppets of Bugs and Daffy, with Bruce Lanoil puppeteering them, so the actors could see what it would be like to work with the Looney Tunes.
  2. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    UGH! Yeah, I'm staying FAAAAR FAAAAR FAAAAAAAAAAAAR away with this one. Toby successfully made the second film incredibly terrible. Now I'm SURE that casting Jason Lee as Dave was a bad idea, since it seems like he doesn't want to be in these movies. Of course, it's probably since Fox wants A) someone even younger and B) wanted to shove another TERRIBLE love story (we had one with the Chipmunks and the Chipettes ANYWAY! What's the deal with that?) into the kid's movie, since ALL kid's movies have to have Marty Sue and Mary Sue love stories, artificially added for no apparent reason. There are ENOUGh bad romantic comedies out there already, no sense in shoving them into kid's movies.

    Not only did I feel no sympathy for Toby (who spent most of the movie whining about how pathetic he is), I wish HE was the one in the wheelchair getting pushed down the flight of stairs.
  3. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    He doesn't, that's the thing... honestly, nobody wants to be in these movies (that why the character of Claire was never brought back because Cameron Richardson refused to reprise the role); the only reason Jason Lee accepted the role of Dave was because among those who were offered the role (and turned it down) was his idol, Bill Murray.

    And Lee simply is NOT Dave... he just isn't... Dave, whether it was Ross Sr or Jr, was always a loving father-figure, despite constant and continual exasperation... Lee performance as a father-figure seems more forced and reluctant, like he doesn't even want to be caretaker to The Chipmunks, but does so anyway.
  4. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    You can tell that in his performance. But then again, why not just... I dunno.. recast him? I still think Bob Sagat was BORN to play that part, likewise, he would have made a BETTER Ranger Smith...Don't tell me I'm the only one That sees it... but I guess he was too busy with his revamping his career phase at that point.

    Though I think a little of the reluctant parenting is based on the "edgy" writing.

    Seriously, David Cross saved BOTH movies.
  5. Yorick

    Yorick Active Member

    You may be a fan and/or like the parts he played in the films, but can you really say he saved the films?
    (If you can, that's cool:)-I'm not saying it's not possible) Myself, I've known films where a fave actor of mine was in it, and they were great, but that still didn't save the film :concern:
  6. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    It seems like David Cross has been the only one, so far, whose put any effort into the role he's been given in the movies. In addition to Jason Lee just not being Dave, Toby was so wimpy and so pathetic, it was like watching paint dry.

    I think even Justin Long once said he'd mind being in the movies a little less if Ross and Janice weren't so, "Crazy, scary obsessed" with their creations.

    You kind of have to draw the line somewhere, but from what I've read, those two actually DO think of the characters like their own children (again, Janice was in tears when she talked about Simon being the neglected middle child in the 80s), and I think that was actually the subject of yet ANOTHER lawsuit here a while back: were Alvin and The Chipmunks a REAL music group? I mean holy cow, one of upcoming puppets is an aspiring singer/songwriter, that'd be like if I were to have a legal battle over her being a REAL solo artist.
  7. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    There are examples of movies where one actor basically carries the weight of the whole picture while all the other actors phone it in for a check. Chipmunks was such a film. As stated, Jason Lee didn't care much for it, so much they had to come up with a lame Marty Sue character to fill the void left in the second one. If Ross and Janice are so lawsuit happy, I don't see why they couldn't sue the studio until they found another actor or something.

    You can always tell when an actor is having fun and when it's a paycheck. Jason Lee's performance was angry, wooden, an completely listless. And that's a shame, because his roles in My Name is Earl and the Incredibles you can tell he was having such a blast. I deride the fact they canned MNIE for that lame Parks and Rec series. Though, I will say this... he felt working with CGI pasted chipmunks was beneath him, YET he had no problem with Tom Greene. I call that trading up. :)

    Now, David Cross... not only did he have a character that was more fun to play, he had a LOT of fun playing it. The subplot about getting caught up by the machine of fame and it's dark underbelly was superior than the father son moments for two reasons... firstly, it seemed more genuine and less of a flat cliche done poorly, secondly Jason didn't exactly sell loving father while David was just wonderful as the seemingly innocuous oily producer with a fake smile. By far a good performance can shine in ANY kind of movie, even with a bad script.

    But I just want to touch on this for a second.

    I LOVE Bill Murray and all, but really... he doesn't mind putting his name on terrible movies, but he's insanely stubborn when it comes to helping Ghostbusters 3 go anywhere! He's rationalizing his decision to take the lead voice of Garfield by saying he THOUGHT the Cohen brothers wrote it. Bull! Other than the fact that it is a common last name in Hollywood for writers, I think that either A) he was still subconsciously annoyed by the fact that his character was given Garfield's voice in the Ghostbusters animated series or B) it's a easy money recording gig where he doesn't really have to do anything but speak into a mike.

    Yeah, that's all well and good, but how do you explain City of Ember?

    Seriously, they should have JUST made the animated Ghostbusters movie instead... we'd've actually GOT the thing.
  8. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    Yeah, they've had stranger lawsuits before... like copyrighting the letter 'A'... ugh.
    True, that's one of the first things I noticed when Chris Knowings came on SST, you can tell he's having a great time being on the show, and reading his bio in the 40th anniversary book proves that point.
    Well who doesn't? He's one of the greats!
  9. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Still... they could've sued the studio until they got someone better... or sued a GOOD performance out of Jason.

    I'd sue whoever wrote for and starred as Toby for turning a potentially enjoyable second movie into a pile of "just a raisins" with his very presence.

    Seriously! What...the heck... was the point... of another love story in the movie... If you have a very obvious one between 3 pairs of chipmunks anyway? I swear... adding Toby ruined the potential for putting Miss Miller into the films.
  10. Yorick

    Yorick Active Member

    I just saw the "Toby" Chipmunks film, and I was ready to dislike the character from what I heard here, but I thought he was pretty good, actually. But I'm the person who likes Scooby Doo better with Scrappy than without, so I know my opinion won't reflect that of most folks!
    I won't count on this idea of mine coming true, but maybe they can have the girls move in with Miss Miller in the next film, since they just didn't have time for her to show up in the last one.
    How did that turn out?
  11. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    Wellp, guess what happened today?

    I just got a strike on my YouTube account for copyright infringement, and guess who filed the complaint? You guessed it: Ross Bagdasarian Jr. and Janice Karman, for Bagdasarian Productions.

    The offense? For taking the soundtrack version of The Chipettes song "Diamond Dolls", and repitching it to sound like the movie version from The Chipmunk Adventure.

    So yeah, my actions on YouTube were frozen until I finished watching a four-minute Happy Tree Friends instructional video about copyright infringement, then take a test on the subject of copyright, infringing, fair use, etc, before I could be granted access to my account again, which now has this big read tag on it saying that as far as copyright goes, "Your account is not in good standing".

    Despite being popular with people, I put my old YouTube Poop with Jeanette's windmill fetish on private (like that'll help, it seems even my private videos have matched third-party content, which is just plain scary) and completely deleted the sequel Poop that everybody asked for but then nobody liked it.

    So, yeah... gotta love those Bagdasarians, lol.
  12. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    I've got one foot out the door on this poop stuff myself. The copyright nonsense is getting ridiculous. Fair use does NOT exist, and even if it did, they're trying to find ways around it. I'm sure Peacekeeperjohn or whatever his name is that had all the Chipmunks songs from Out of print media (some on vynal) got it too. YT keeps getting closer to becoming hulu and the only original content is crappy vlogs, crappy cat videos, and crappy tweenagers singing crappy songs.

    A "contains content from" disclaimer saves face, gets the copyright holders their fair share, and doesn't tick off the fan base. Why everyone BUT Classic Media, Rick Roll, and Lady Gaga seem to get that is BEYOND me!
  13. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    I don't know, I just checked, and it would appear that all of his stuff is still available, as well as other random videos that I've favorited, or put into playlists... but how I got singled out, I have no idea.

    And the thing of it is, it's actually not just Ross and Janice who have it in for Chipmunk vids, it's also WB: although WB DOESN'T own the rights to the franchise, they'll remove episodes of the cartoon for two reasons, if it A) has the Cartoon Network logo on it or B) simply because they distributed the cartoon (or the first 65 episodes) in syndicated reruns.
  14. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Well, at least when the owners took it down, the OWNERS took it down. Not a third party associated with the company, a fourth party that had the song on a CD that one time, or a fifth party copyright that owns video rights and does nothing with them or owned video rights in the past.

    YT has become VERY not fun anymore.
  15. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    What bothers me is that mostly, the owners will bust you if they find out, BUT, they don't go looking for them... with Ross and Janice, it seems to me that they're ALWAYS looking for SOMETHING that infringes on them, so I'm not entirely sure if they found out about it, or if they just simply found it themselves.
    They've BEEN VERY not fun anymore for a couple of years now.
  16. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    They probably employ people to do internet video searches of everything... I think that most of the big studios do. But again, I hate when anything's taken down, but if it's the owners, I'll respect it on that level. If it's someone who kinda sorta had some connection slightly with someone or something at one point in time, I call BS on that.
  17. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    Kind of like how a guy removed a lot of Sid & Marty Krofft vids from YT from time to time, and his only connection to the Kroffts? He was a friend on MySpace.
  18. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    I retract my previous statements, it appears that after the discussion earlier today, Bagdasarian Productions made additional rounds on YT today, and yes, Peacekeeperjon has indeed been banned, as well as several other accounts that posted Chipmunk content.

    I think PKJ actually had been suspended before and came back to repost the same content, so it's possible he will again, but there were also some people who had Alvin Show clips posted, and I don't believe those might be seen again, since those were posted YEARS ago, and most of those accounts hadn't had activity in the same amount of time; but then again, people do download the videos and such, so toerh random users would probably repost them.
  19. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    If they're planning to release ALL the way out of print vynal on CD or digital download of some sort fine... but if they're just going to sit on a huge pile of unreleased stuff for no one ever to see in the history of ever that's just selfish and annoying.

    I'm just saying... contains content:

    A little button can go a LONG way!
  20. D'Snowth

    D'Snowth Well-Known Member

    The funny thing is, we always hear the same excuse: royalties.

    It seems to me that Bagdasarian Productions makes butt-loads of money off of this franchise, from the movies they're making, to the merchandising, and other stuff... you'd think they'd be able to part with a small fraction of their income (which I'm sure is huge, since they also do all their own writing and producing and such) to cover the costs to keeping songs and such intact on products without having to resort to replacements. We've only a handful of episodes of the 80s cartoon on DVD, and a few of them DO have song replacements, and it's because of that, we can't have season sets and such released because of all the legal drama regarding the songs; some people have turned to bootlegs, I know a friend of mine (who's well fallen out of the fandom since then) bought one of those bootlegs a few years ago that claimed to be the "complete series', but only had 54 of the 65 syndicated episodes, and like what happened yesterday, she had them posted on YT, then one day, they all disappeared because WB yanked them, and I remember a lot of fans being outraged by that (I even remember being disappointed when I suddenly saw my favorites count from being in the 100s going down to like 75 or so).

    There were rumors circulated once that The Alvin Show WAS going to have a complete series release, but those were debunked, and all we got was like the pilot episode of that series on a single DVD release; then of course, there's the infamous Chipmunks Go to the Movies episode that 90% of the entire fandom wants to see released on DVD, and all because Simon and Jeanette kiss.

    The ALVINNN!!! Edition was worth the buy, they restored the episodes (somehwat), and the holiday set was also worth the buy, because those holiday specials are seldom seen on television, plus they each came with bonus episodes (in somewhat poor quality, but still watchable). But these other releases, not so much, because they only come with like three episodes each, and it's not worth the time or the money to get; I was somewhat disappointed with that Chipettes release a couple of years ago, we only got like six episodes, all of which were good, but there were still many others that could've been released (such as their debut episode, or when Miss Miller adopts them and such)... they really could've put all the content from the Cinderella DVD on the same DVD... I really didn't understand the point of releasing "Cinderella? Cinderella!" in such a manner. Again, I'd LOVE to see complete season releases, but I don't believe we'll ever get them.

    The way I see it, if it was my work like that, and I hadn't released it officially on DVD or anything, then yes, I would have no problem with people posting content on sites like YT (and I believe the creators of South Park feel the same way), because I understand fans like that: they just want to see what they miss, and it's not like they're making money off them, and it's not like I'm losing money off them. And of course, Poops and MVs and such re always a-okay with me. If the work WAS on DVD and such, then I might remove the content from YT, not because of "copyright infringement" or anything like that, but because I would try to encourage people to purchase the DVDs because the quality and viewing experience would be far superior and such.

Share This Page