PDA

View Full Version : Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because God hates you



TheArsenal
2011-10-30, 10:45 AM
Horray for the world: We get ANOTHER alvin and the Chipmunks movie!

Mystic Muse
2011-10-30, 11:16 AM
......

What's even going to end up happening in this one?

Also, sources or it didn't happen. Sadly, I'm not optimistic enough to believe for one micro-instant that this isn't going to happen.

Fredaintdead
2011-10-30, 11:26 AM
Well, if this is the right one, then it has an IMDB page, and it comes out this December (16th).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615918/

All I have to say is... Why? Just why? I don't know anyone who openly said they liked either of the other moves, and now the chipmunks get on a cruise ship? Just... why?

TheArsenal
2011-10-30, 11:48 AM
Just... why?

:smallannoyed:

Points to title.

Mystic Muse
2011-10-30, 12:29 PM
You know, the title of this thread would be a good title for the movie.

The Glyphstone
2011-10-30, 01:10 PM
No! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc&feature=related)You thought it'd be Vader, didn't you?

Mr.Silver
2011-10-30, 04:29 PM
No! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc&feature=related)You thought it'd be Vader, didn't you?

More proportionate reaction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eal4fep7pK4)

CoffeeIncluded
2011-10-30, 04:44 PM
An oldie, but a goodie. (http://nooooooooooooooo.com/)

The Glyphstone
2011-10-30, 05:29 PM
Even the chipmunks themselves can't deny it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8YOtURQgPI#t=1m52s)

Dante & Vergil
2011-10-31, 05:42 AM
This is the best thread name ever. I especially liked Glyphstone's first "No!". Cracks me up every time.

Friv
2011-10-31, 07:00 AM
All I have to say is... Why? Just why? I don't know anyone who openly said they liked either of the other moves, and now the chipmunks get on a cruise ship? Just... why?

Because the second movie cost $70 million to make, and earned the studio $443 million, plus an additional god-alone-knows-how-much in merchandise.

Yeah, that movie made over four hundred million dollars.

You can resume screaming now.

TheArsenal
2011-10-31, 07:16 AM
This is the best thread name ever.

Alternate titles are:

Because god is in an affair with the devil.

Well, at least there is proof that the devil exists

Humanity is Doomed.

Traab
2011-10-31, 07:58 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: /sob
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Proof There Is No God, The Spoon May Still Be Real.
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Why Couldnt It Be A Lie? Like The Cake?

Radar
2011-10-31, 08:13 AM
I have bad fealing about this...
They might even try to put "I'm On A Boat" cover into this trainwreck.

Traab
2011-10-31, 08:17 AM
OOH!

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Its As If A Million Voices Cried Out
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Third Time's The /BLEAAARRGH!
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: WHERES THAT $#%$# BLUE PILL?!

TheSummoner
2011-10-31, 09:26 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: More Proof That Humanity Is Doomed
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because Suicide Is Painless
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Marginlly Less Painful Than Vivisection

Traab
2011-10-31, 09:39 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Where Did I Leave That Pitchfork And Torch?
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: At Least It Isnt Dominic Deegan The Movie.
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Hopefully Mr T Will Beat Them Up And They Will Skip The Comeback

Mr.Silver
2011-10-31, 10:43 AM
Dominic Deegan The Movie.

Don't give them ideas!

TheArsenal
2011-10-31, 10:53 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: because hearing Lady Gagas ordinary voice isn't charming enough.

Radar
2011-10-31, 11:31 AM
Don't give them ideas!
I'm not quite sure, it could have ended up as a B-movie classic. If only Ed Wood lived long enough to direct this movie...

Arcane_Secrets
2011-10-31, 12:14 PM
Because the second movie cost $70 million to make, and earned the studio $443 million, plus an additional god-alone-knows-how-much in merchandise.

Yeah, that movie made over four hundred million dollars.

You can resume screaming now.

After I saw the title of this thread, I never stopped. I'm kind of impressed I can type this well with my head banging into my monitor.

MammonAzrael
2011-10-31, 01:12 PM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because it's still going to make money.

AtlanteanTroll
2011-10-31, 05:56 PM
They might even try to put "I'm On A Boat" cover into this trainwreck.
I would actually go and see it if this happened.

Muz
2011-10-31, 06:28 PM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Just Marginally Better Than Friedberg and Seltzer

Traab
2011-10-31, 07:02 PM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: It Was Either This, Or Battlefield Earth II

Lord of Rapture
2011-10-31, 09:03 PM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Let's See How Far We Can Run This Into the Ground

TheSummoner
2011-10-31, 09:46 PM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Coming December 21, 2012

Xondoure
2011-10-31, 10:04 PM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Coming December 22, 2012

Because the mayans didn't want to imagine a world with this film in it.

Traab
2011-10-31, 10:11 PM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: And There Followed A Silence In Heaven

Whiffet
2011-11-01, 12:31 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because There Are Still Plenty of Suckers Who Will Pay for This
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: The Last of Your Faith in Humanity's Goodness is Gone Now
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: How Many Better Uses Are There for the Resources We Used?
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because You Must Be Punished For Your Misdeeds
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Did We Mention People Pay for This?

Hey, this is pretty fun. :smallbiggrin:

More seriously, I'm just going to ignore it like I do with so many other movies. Hopefully they'll be done milking it after this.

TheSummoner
2011-11-01, 12:37 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: I Bet You Regret Having Kids Now
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: We Wanted To See If People Would Actually Pay For This.
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: It'll Be In 3D. It's Exactly As Bad As It Sounds.

hanzo66
2011-11-01, 04:03 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Dave Finally Buys A Weedwacker

Traab
2011-11-01, 08:28 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: PETA Strikes Back.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-01, 09:37 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Chip n Dale say "Challenge accepted!"

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Some people do eat rodents

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Cruella de Vil makes real fur popular

Anteros
2011-11-01, 01:50 PM
Sometimes people like different things than you do.

*The More You Know!*

Starwulf
2011-11-01, 03:21 PM
Well, if this is the right one, then it has an IMDB page, and it comes out this December (16th).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615918/

All I have to say is... Why? Just why? I don't know anyone who openly said they liked either of the other moves, and now the chipmunks get on a cruise ship? Just... why?

Just to throw this out there: I LOVED the first two chipmunk movies, as did both of my daughters, AND my wife. So, now you have 4 people who openly say and admit(To anyone who asks, and even to those who don't), that like(love) the first two Chipmunk Movies.

Edit: After going through and reading the entire thread(which sadly is nothing but a lot of bashing of the Chipmunks), I have to ask: Didn't ANYONE grow up watching and loving "Alvin & The Chipmunks"? Hell, they've been around so long, MY MOM grew up watching them, and she loved the first two movies as well. It's quite nostalgic, and brung back many good memories of my childhood youth(and likely did for my mother as well). It's kind of disturbing(and sad) to see all this bashing on such classic, iconic cartoon personalities.

Winter_Wolf
2011-11-01, 03:27 PM
I think I might have seen a trailer for this in the theater. I also think that Alvin may have literally jumped a shark in it. Jus' sayin'.

TheArsenal
2011-11-01, 03:38 PM
We are bashing their reanimated remains.

I saw some of the older cartoons. =)

But these newer ones are pure ****.

With overtly cheesy and fake sentimentality, crappy jokes, jokes about crap, predictable villians and jokes. Oh and hearing Lady Gagas sped up voice isn't doing any favours.

Radar
2011-11-01, 03:52 PM
We are bashing their reanimated remains.

I saw some of the older cartoons. =)

But these newer ones are pure ****.

With overtly cheesy and fake sentimentality, crappy jokes, jokes about crap, predictable villians and jokes. Oh and hearing Lady Gagas sped up voice isn't doing any favours.
Yup! There's a reason for necromancy to be considered evil. Franchise necromancy even more so.

TheArsenal
2011-11-01, 04:03 PM
What can we do but bash? The franshise infection is spreading.

Oh this also fits:

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: The Black Heart of Franchise Necromancy

irenicObserver
2011-11-01, 04:47 PM
Just to throw this out there: I LOVED the first two chipmunk movies, as did both of my daughters, AND my wife. So, now you have 4 people who openly say and admit(To anyone who asks, and even to those who don't), that like(love) the first two Chipmunk Movies.

Edit: After going through and reading the entire thread(which sadly is nothing but a lot of bashing of the Chipmunks), I have to ask: Didn't ANYONE grow up watching and loving "Alvin & The Chipmunks"? Hell, they've been around so long, MY MOM grew up watching them, and she loved the first two movies as well. It's quite nostalgic, and brung back many good memories of my childhood youth(and likely did for my mother as well). It's kind of disturbing(and sad) to see all this bashing on such classic, iconic cartoon personalities.

I have a friend who is virtually obsessed with the show, i'm rather nostalgic about the monster movies they made.

Traab
2011-11-01, 05:56 PM
Only thing I really remember about the old cartoon was that around the world in 80 days movie they had. The show itself isnt that bad, its just the voices piss me off now. They give me a headache. Honestly, I dont care about the movie coming out, I just wont watch it, I just enjoy making up titles. :p

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Fifteen To Go Till It Matches Pokemon Movies!

Dr.Epic
2011-11-01, 06:45 PM
After Transformers 2 got a sequel, it no longer surprises me nostalgic TV shows keep getting movies and sequels to said movies. Heck, I hear the Smurfs is even getting a sequel.


All I have to say is... Why? Just why? I don't know anyone who openly said they liked either of the other moves, and now the chipmunks get on a cruise ship? Just... why?

Hey, a cursed ship might make the movie awesome. Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger might be in it.:smallwink:

H Birchgrove
2011-11-01, 07:25 PM
Heck, I hear the Smurfs is even getting a sequel.

Barbarian, berserker, RAAAAAAAGE! :smallfurious:


Hey, a cursed ship might make the movie awesome. Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger might be in it.:smallwink:

Hey, if the 1983-90 series could made a spoof out of RoboCop...

Dr.Epic
2011-11-01, 07:52 PM
Barbarian, berserker, RAAAAAAAGE! :smallfurious:

Well maybe the sequel will answer the question will answer the question what color a smurf turns when you choke it.

Traab
2011-11-01, 08:08 PM
Well maybe the sequel will answer the question will answer the question what color a smurf turns when you choke it.

Choking a smurf? Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

H Birchgrove
2011-11-01, 08:17 PM
Well maybe the sequel will answer the question will answer the question what color a smurf turns when you choke it.

Actually, I love the Smurfs; it's the new adaptation I hate. The original comics were great, at least the first ten TPB's, and the Hanna Barbera cartoons from the 1980's were pretty good too.

Mr.Silver
2011-11-01, 08:17 PM
Sometimes people like different things than you do.

*The More You Know!*
You don't say? Well, I'd guess we'd all better stop voicing opinions on things then. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I don't think anyone is unaware of this. I mean, younger children (the target demographic here) will pretty much like anything, statistically some adults are going to like any given product (I know people who think the live action Cat in the Hat film was genuinely good, for example). Hell, I recall someone on this forum defending Disaster Movie back when that was out. Even if it's entirely subjective though, negative opinions still have to be considered equally valid and deserving of expression as positive ones.




Edit: After going through and reading the entire thread(which sadly is nothing but a lot of bashing of the Chipmunks),
The thread is called 'Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because God hates you.' What did you think it was going to consist of? :smalltongue:


I have to ask: Didn't ANYONE grow up watching and loving "Alvin & The Chipmunks"?
I did.


Hell, they've been around so long, MY MOM grew up watching them, and she loved the first two movies as well. It's quite nostalgic, and brung back many good memories of my childhood youth(and likely did for my mother as well). It's kind of disturbing(and sad) to see all this bashing on such classic, iconic cartoon personalities.
It's kind of disturbing to see such nauseating films made from iconic cartoons, but that's pretty much the norm this decade.

Starwulf
2011-11-01, 09:23 PM
You don't say? Well, I'd guess we'd all better stop voicing opinions on things then. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I don't think anyone is unaware of this. I mean, younger children (the target demographic here) will pretty much like anything, statistically some adults are going to like any given product (I know people who think the live action Cat in the Hat film was genuinely good, for example). Hell, I recall someone on this forum defending Disaster Movie back when that was out. Even if it's entirely subjective though, negative opinions still have to be considered equally valid and deserving of expression as positive ones.



The thread is called 'Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because God hates you.' What did you think it was going to consist of? :smalltongue:

I did.

It's kind of disturbing to see such nauseating films made from iconic cartoons, but that's pretty much the norm this decade.

I think that Anteros was more likely referencing the very comment that I myself started my post off by quoting, and that was Fredaintdead claiming he literally doesn't know ANYONE that liked the first two chipmunk movies. Or at least, that's what I would guess he was referencing.

Also, while I know what the thread title was, I was kind of hoping at least a few people would be defending the Chipmunks. Instead, the closest thing there was was Anteros saying "Sometimes people like different things" and that's it. Kind of saddens me. I don't know why or even understand the intense bashing and dislike of the movies, I thought they were clever, funny, cute, and fairly true to the original cartoons(with obviously a few liberties taken, but hey, it's a cartoon to movie adaption, there are going to have to be some changes).

I mean, unless you went into these movies with the mindset that they could be absolutely amazing cinematic feats of brilliance, I don't really understand the dislike. It's a movie about chipmunks...who talk. Of course there are going to be the odd poop joke thrown in, and of course it's going to be sophmoric humour, do little kids really understand anything less? Let's not forget that's who the movie was aimed towards in general(that and the group of people like myself, who enjoyed the classic cartoons and enjoyed the trip down memory lane, while getting to introduce my kids to the same kind of stuff I liked when I was a kid). If you expected more, well, I guess that's your own fault for over-estimating what was supposed to be a feel-good comedy. When taken at face-value however, it lived up to all expectations and left a very good impression.

Xondoure
2011-11-01, 09:34 PM
Kids can understand pretty high brow humor as long as the concepts or vocabulary aren't beyond their grasp. Sure they like this too but that doesn't make it better for the rest of us.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-01, 09:34 PM
The first one I really didn't mind so much. It wasn't a Disney classic or anything, but there are worse movies, and it was entertaining while I was watching it, which is all I can ask for.

I remember so little of the second one, other than that I didn't like it. I don't even remember why, just that I didn't, and I have more important things to attend to than watching it again, and movies I would enjoy watching/re-watching more.

OracleofWuffing
2011-11-01, 09:59 PM
Heck, I hear the Smurfs is even getting a sequel.
Don't smurf about that, if we all ignore it it won't happen.


Only thing I really remember about the old cartoon was that around the world in 80 days movie they had.
Basically, the crazy occasionally-dark upside-down diamond-smuggling-ring around-the-world movie is my only distinct thing I remember of Alvin and the Chipmunks. I mean, I know I saw some of the really old first-season-esque cartoons ages ago, and I guess I had a Christmas special VHS at one point, but all I ever remember is Wooly-Booly and The ____ of Rock and Roll. And also, "Ms. Miller / I want / Alvin / Simon and Theodore / To meet me / in Europe / Goodbye." I don't even remember how the movie ended anymore, but I'm guessing it was a song and dance number and David yelling ALLLLLVIN!

Helanna
2011-11-01, 10:03 PM
I mean, unless you went into these movies with the mindset that they could be absolutely amazing cinematic feats of brilliance, I don't really understand the dislike. It's a movie about chipmunks...who talk. Of course there are going to be the odd poop joke thrown in, and of course it's going to be sophmoric humour, do little kids really understand anything less? Let's not forget that's who the movie was aimed towards in general(that and the group of people like myself, who enjoyed the classic cartoons and enjoyed the trip down memory lane, while getting to introduce my kids to the same kind of stuff I liked when I was a kid). If you expected more, well, I guess that's your own fault for over-estimating what was supposed to be a feel-good comedy. When taken at face-value however, it lived up to all expectations and left a very good impression.

So basically it's a kids movie, so it's allowed to be bad? And if we say it's bad it's our fault for not expecting it to be bad? And it's okay if the jokes are terrible bodily function jokes, because kids are too stupid to understand anything else and that magically makes the jokes good? (Hint: that's not true.)

A bad film is a bad film, no matter who the intended audience was, and saying that having a negative opinion is the audiences' fault is a ridiculous defense, and it sounds like it's meant to marginalize and dismiss any negative opinions. I can think of plenty of excellent children's films that adults and children alike can enjoy. I don't think anybody went in to this movie expecting a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean the movie was good.

Of course, I don't remember much about the first movie, so I can't actually comment on it. All I remember is the burning, burning hatred of the awful "Chipmunked" pop songs, which I was forced to listen to over and over because my youngest sister loved the movie. So yeah I'm not thrilled about another movie coming out.

Starwulf
2011-11-01, 10:26 PM
So basically it's a kids movie, so it's allowed to be bad? And if we say it's bad it's our fault for not expecting it to be bad? And it's okay if the jokes are terrible bodily function jokes, because kids are too stupid to understand anything else and that magically makes the jokes good? (Hint: that's not true.)

A bad film is a bad film, no matter who the intended audience was, and saying that having a negative opinion is the audiences' fault is a ridiculous defense, and it sounds like it's meant to marginalize and dismiss any negative opinions. I can think of plenty of excellent children's films that adults and children alike can enjoy. I don't think anybody went in to this movie expecting a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean the movie was good.

Of course, I don't remember much about the first movie, so I can't actually comment on it. All I remember is the burning, burning hatred of the awful "Chipmunked" pop songs, which I was forced to listen to over and over because my youngest sister loved the movie. So yeah I'm not thrilled about another movie coming out.

The problem is, is everyone keeps talking about how terrible the movies were, but virtually noone has actually given a freaking reason as to WHY they thought the movies were so god-awful, with the exception of one freaking poop joke, which I actually thought quite funny(if a bit gross). it's people like yourself, who keep saying it's awful, but don't give a reason, that is getting on my nerves in this thread. "Oh, i had to listen to the chipmunk pop songs over and over, so I can't stand the movie" is NOT A VIABLE REASON FOR DISLIKING A MOVIE.

Just as invalid as my own "It was meant for kids" defense. Which honestly, I did back up by mentioning that I myself liked it, and why: Clever, funny, and brung back loads of good memories, ie: Feel-good movie. Which is a hell of a lot more then anyone else has given on this freaking thread, instead resorting to bashing the films over and over with ridiculous Movie Title names and just saying they were awful.

Either give some good, valid reasons, or stop bashing, because otherwise, you're not doing anything other then bashing, and I'm sorry, but bashing, is not a valid opinion, because it's not an opinion. It's like saying XXX car is terrible because it's just awful, without giving a reason for it beyond you just don't like it.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-02, 12:25 AM
Don't smurf about smurf, if smurf all smurf smurf smurf won't smurf.

I fixed it for you.:smallwink::smalltongue:

Helanna
2011-11-02, 01:17 AM
The problem is, is everyone keeps talking about how terrible the movies were, but virtually noone has actually given a freaking reason as to WHY they thought the movies were so god-awful, with the exception of one freaking poop joke, which I actually thought quite funny(if a bit gross). it's people like yourself, who keep saying it's awful, but don't give a reason, that is getting on my nerves in this thread. "Oh, i had to listen to the chipmunk pop songs over and over, so I can't stand the movie" is NOT A VIABLE REASON FOR DISLIKING A MOVIE.

Just as invalid as my own "It was meant for kids" defense. Which honestly, I did back up by mentioning that I myself liked it, and why: Clever, funny, and brung back loads of good memories, ie: Feel-good movie. Which is a hell of a lot more then anyone else has given on this freaking thread, instead resorting to bashing the films over and over with ridiculous Movie Title names and just saying they were awful.

Either give some good, valid reasons, or stop bashing, because otherwise, you're not doing anything other then bashing, and I'm sorry, but bashing, is not a valid opinion, because it's not an opinion. It's like saying XXX car is terrible because it's just awful, without giving a reason for it beyond you just don't like it.

Actually, I never said the movie was terrible. I can't judge the quality, because I really don't remember it at all. I don't think I liked it very much, but I don't think I hated it, either, and I never saw the second one. I just really hate the "Well, it's just a kids' movie! Don't be so harsh!" defense. And I really took issue with your implication that if someone doesn't like it, it's their own fault, since it implies that there is absolutely no valid reason to dislike the movie and therefore anyone who has a negative opinion is just being petty and stupid about it. Not what you meant, I'm sure, but that's how it came off to me. I realize I came off like I hated the movie though, so sorry for the confusion.

I do, however, hate the songs from the movies with a fiery passion. Bringing them into the world is a valid reason for me to hate the existence, if not the quality, of the movie. :smalltongue:

Starwulf
2011-11-02, 01:32 AM
Actually, I never said the movie was terrible. I can't judge the quality, because I really don't remember it at all. I don't think I liked it very much, but I don't think I hated it, either, and I never saw the second one. I just really hate the "Well, it's just a kids' movie! Don't be so harsh!" defense. And I really took issue with your implication that if someone doesn't like it, it's their own fault, since it implies that there is absolutely no valid reason to dislike the movie and therefore anyone who has a negative opinion is just being petty and stupid about it. Not what you meant, I'm sure, but that's how it came off to me. I realize I came off like I hated the movie though, so sorry for the confusion.

I do, however, hate the songs from the movies with a fiery passion. Bringing them into the world is a valid reason for me to hate the existence, if not the quality, of the movie. :smalltongue:

lmao, I can respect that I guess. The songs, after the second or third time, do get kind of old, especially if you have to listen to a 3-8 year old(maybe a bit older) mangle them so horribly they sound nothing like the song they are supposed to be. My oldest kept singing "All my Single ladies" over and over in the car afterwards last year, and she kept mangling every other word, so it was something like "All my emming madies". Talk about annoying ^^

Arcane_Secrets
2011-11-02, 01:41 AM
Actually, I never said the movie was terrible. I can't judge the quality, because I really don't remember it at all. I don't think I liked it very much, but I don't think I hated it, either, and I never saw the second one. I just really hate the "Well, it's just a kids' movie! Don't be so harsh!" defense. And I really took issue with your implication that if someone doesn't like it, it's their own fault, since it implies that there is absolutely no valid reason to dislike the movie and therefore anyone who has a negative opinion is just being petty and stupid about it. Not what you meant, I'm sure, but that's how it came off to me. I realize I came off like I hated the movie though, so sorry for the confusion.

I do, however, hate the songs from the movies with a fiery passion. Bringing them into the world is a valid reason for me to hate the existence, if not the quality, of the movie. :smalltongue:

You probably wouldn't like the Chipmunk Macarena either, then.

TheArsenal
2011-11-02, 02:16 AM
Again, I think you are confusing your love with the original show with us bashing the reanimated corpse of the orginal.

I hate it because it treats its audience like dirt. Kids are stupid but look at pixars next movie Brave. It looks like it has more respect for its audience then 90% then most adult movies.

This movie didn't give a crap, and it started off the

"Lets Crib off of better movies with a fast talking animal, entering the world, and found by a human- with "The meaning of Family/ Brotherhood/ Spanish dancing" thrown in along with jokes about eating feces (Seriously, Smurf Movie, Hop, Alvin and the chipmunk).

Its the epitome of grabbing peopel for sentimental value.

It has a lazy plot, lazy villians, lazy jokes, lazy everything.

That is why I hate it.

Radar
2011-11-02, 05:44 AM
(...)
I hate it because it treats its audience like dirt. Kids are stupid but look at pixars next movie Brave. It looks like it has more respect for its audience then 90% then most adult movies.
(...)
This is worth underlining - it's even worse then using baby-talk around babies. I wouldn't call kids stupid though - simple might be a more accurate description. They are most certainly very logical in their reasoning (which is a cause of many surprises for parents).

Such an attitude of movie producers is well pornounced in movies aimed for teenagers as well. I could probably name a few adult-oriented movies as well.

Mr.Silver
2011-11-02, 05:56 AM
The problem is, is everyone keeps talking about how terrible the movies were, but virtually noone has actually given a freaking reason as to WHY they thought the movies were so god-awful, with the exception of one freaking poop joke, which I actually thought quite funny(if a bit gross). it's people like yourself, who keep saying it's awful, but don't give a reason, that is getting on my nerves in this thread. "Oh, i had to listen to the chipmunk pop songs over and over, so I can't stand the movie" is NOT A VIABLE REASON FOR DISLIKING A MOVIE.
In what possible universe is 'film kept doing something I found obnoxious and grating' not a 'viable' reason for disliking something? I know it's irritating to see something you like get ripped apart but come on man.



Just as invalid as my own "It was meant for kids" defense. Which honestly, I did back up by mentioning that I myself liked it,
That's not how you 'back-up' the assertion that 'It's meant for kids so of course it's not going to be very good'. In fact, if you wanted to defend that you'd have to find some way of dismissing the existence of most of Pixar's films (as a starting point).

It's good that you used that point though, because one of my biggest problems with it was that it felt very much like the people behind the film subscribed whole-heartedly to that view. Hence why they took a show that typically featured the gang going on adventures and learning/discovering things and picking songs that were usually referencing specific events or periods in music and turned it into a generic 'price of fame - remembering your real friends' story with some songs that just happened to be popular at the time being just being edited to have a higher-pitch (which anyone can do these days with even basic sound editing software). Sure, it wasn't as insultingly awful as The Smurfs, but it was still thoroughly mediocre that got away with it because it could fall back on the 'well it's for kids' defense. In fact the film and it's sequel (which by all accounts was worse) is an excellent example of how the 'it's for kids' excuse can be used to allow for lazy, uncreative films to still get churned out, even when it's been fairly well-established by now that you can still make a genuinely good film aimed at children (Wall-E, Up, Monsters Inc, How To Train Your Dragon, etc.).


and why: Clever, funny, and brung back loads of good memories, ie: Feel-good movie.
Being 'funny' and nostalgia factor I can't really argue with as they're both highly subjective. I don't recall anything in the first film being particularly clever though.



Either give some good, valid reasons, or stop bashing
Fine, equally you can't just go and say things like being annoyed by it' are not valid reasons just because you weren't. Otherwise you kiss goodbye to your attempts at defending it since, as previously mentioned, humour and nostalgia are just as subjective.

Leliel
2011-11-02, 06:06 AM
More titles!

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because Children Are Stupid

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Don't Worry, Studios Were Just As Big Sell-Outs Back in the Day.

TheArsenal
2011-11-02, 06:09 AM
Alvin And the Chipmunks 3: The Chipmunkeneing.

Fredaintdead
2011-11-02, 06:11 AM
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: No! Nooooooooooooo! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yfr_Zj1iU4)

Just thought I'd throw that one in there. :smallbiggrin:

TheSummoner
2011-11-02, 10:01 AM
I think the "producers don't have any respect for their audience" thing plays a big role. That and it seems like they're out of original ideas. If you want to make a good kid's movie, you still have to actually make a good movie. Spewing out some garbage and slapping a recognizable name on it to carry the thing doesn't make a good movie and you can't justify the crappy quality by saying it's for kids.

And because I find it so fun, a few more...

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: Because The Target Demographic Can't Tell The Difference.
Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: It Was Either This Or A Direct To DVD Disney Sequel.

Mystic Muse
2011-11-02, 10:03 AM
lmao, I can respect that I guess. The songs, after the second or third time, do get kind of old, especially if you have to listen to a 3-8 year old(maybe a bit older) mangle them so horribly they sound nothing like the song they are supposed to be. My oldest kept singing "All my Single ladies" over and over in the car afterwards last year, and she kept mangling every other word, so it was something like "All my emming madies". Talk about annoying ^^

I already hate that song beyond all reason, so the Chippettes singing it in their ultra-high voices wasn't doing me any favors.

grimbold
2011-11-02, 11:55 AM
i saw the trailer for this before I saw Tintin
I leaned over to my uncle and said "There is no God"
XD

Starwulf
2011-11-02, 02:33 PM
In what possible universe is 'film kept doing something I found obnoxious and grating' not a 'viable' reason for disliking something? I know it's irritating to see something you like get ripped apart but come on man.


That's not how you 'back-up' the assertion that 'It's meant for kids so of course it's not going to be very good'. In fact, if you wanted to defend that you'd have to find some way of dismissing the existence of most of Pixar's films (as a starting point).

It's good that you used that point though, because one of my biggest problems with it was that it felt very much like the people behind the film subscribed whole-heartedly to that view. Hence why they took a show that typically featured the gang going on adventures and learning/discovering things and picking songs that were usually referencing specific events or periods in music and turned it into a generic 'price of fame - remembering your real friends' story with some songs that just happened to be popular at the time being just being edited to have a higher-pitch (which anyone can do these days with even basic sound editing software). Sure, it wasn't as insultingly awful as The Smurfs, but it was still thoroughly mediocre that got away with it because it could fall back on the 'well it's for kids' defense. In fact the film and it's sequel (which by all accounts was worse) is an excellent example of how the 'it's for kids' excuse can be used to allow for lazy, uncreative films to still get churned out, even when it's been fairly well-established by now that you can still make a genuinely good film aimed at children (Wall-E, Up, Monsters Inc, How To Train Your Dragon, etc.).

Being 'funny' and nostalgia factor I can't really argue with as they're both highly subjective. I don't recall anything in the first film being particularly clever though.


Fine, equally you can't just go and say things like being annoyed by it' are not valid reasons just because you weren't. Otherwise you kiss goodbye to your attempts at defending it since, as previously mentioned, humour and nostalgia are just as subjective.

A: Helanna was referencing the fact that her sister kept playing the songs over and over on the movie soundtrack CD, not the movie, so your entire point there is invalid. If you read closer, they specifically mentioned they didn't even remember the movie, so we already resolved that issue.

B: My entire point, is if you go into a kids movie, expecting a cinematic miracle, instead of what it is obviously meant to be, it's your own damn fault for having to high of an expectation. I go into every kids movie with the idea that it's likely going to be dumbed down, so that way if the movie turns out to be any good at all, I'm pleasantly surprised.

C: You still haven't given an actual reason as to why you dislike the film. All I see is you just picking apart my own argument as to why it's good. Congratulations, you can dissect what someone says, but you still haven't provided a single reason as to why you dislike the film, beyond you feel the developers were lazy by making it for kids? That's about all I got out of your entire post.

The movie was good. The humour, while a bit low-brow, was funny, it genuinely made me laugh all throughout both movies. The plot-line was pretty standard for many movies nowadays, so, while it was overused, it wasn't terrible in any sense of the word, and at least it's characters were unique. It had pretty good pacing as well, never particularly feeling rushed, and the ending was hilarious and heart-warming all at the same time.

There, are those concrete enough reasons to like the film? Oh, and as far as Pixar, their movies aren't particularly that great, certainly not as pedestal placing most people seem to think they are. I hate Toy Story, enough inconsistencies in that trilogy to drive a man insane. Wall-E was pretty good. I can't stand Cars, like Toy Story it has enough inconsistencies, and unbelievable things if you really start to think about it, as to drive a person mad. So, comparing Alvin & The Chipmunks to Pixar isn't really making as big of a statement as you seem to think it is. As far as I'm concerned, the only truly great movie Pixar has ever produced, is Up.

TheArsenal
2011-11-02, 04:02 PM
Alright man, your argument plan is genuis:

"State evidence"

"Here it is"

"Thats not evidence, just let me skip most of it"

Hell anybody can win an argument that way.

Relax man- We are not hating on the older show- Let it go.

Mr.Silver
2011-11-02, 04:12 PM
A: Helanna was referencing the fact that her sister kept playing the songs over and over on the movie soundtrack CD, not the movie
Fair enough.


B: My entire point, is if you go into a kids movie, expecting a cinematic miracle, instead of what it is obviously meant to be, it's your own damn fault for having to high of an expectation. I go into every kids movie with the idea that it's likely going to be dumbed down, so that way if the movie turns out to be any good at all, I'm pleasantly surprised.
No one is asking for a cinematic miracle, but it's not too much to expect a well-made film that treats it's audience with respect. Yes, many films aimed at children don't even manage this (because, sadly, they can afford to get away with it) but that shouldn't excuse it. Helanna answered this point pretty clearly in her first reply to you, as have a number of other posters by now.



C: You still haven't given an actual reason as to why you dislike the film.
Erm...

It's good that you used that point though, because one of my biggest problems with it was that it felt very much like the people behind the film subscribed whole-heartedly to that view. Hence why they took a show that typically featured the gang going on adventures and learning/discovering things and picking songs that were usually referencing specific events or periods in music and turned it into a generic 'price of fame - remembering your real friends' story with some songs that just happened to be popular at the time being just being edited to have a higher-pitch (which anyone can do these days with even basic sound editing software). Sure, it wasn't as insultingly awful as The Smurfs, but it was still thoroughly mediocre that got away with it because it could fall back on the 'well it's for kids' defense. In fact the film and it's sequel (which by all accounts was worse) is an excellent example of how the 'it's for kids' excuse can be used to allow for lazy, uncreative films to still get churned out, even when it's been fairly well-established by now that you can still make a genuinely good film aimed at children (Wall-E, Up, Monsters Inc, How To Train Your Dragon, etc.).


All I see is you just picking apart my own argument as to why it's good. Congratulations, you can dissect what someone says, but you still haven't provided a single reason as to why you dislike the film, beyond you feel the developers were lazy by making it for kids?
No, I said they took lazy decisions in making the film and tried to justify that with the 'it's for kids' excuse.

That's about all I got out of your entire post.
Ok then, allow me to provide bullet-points from my last post, since it seems I wasn't clear enough.
It was uncreative, even less so than the original show it was based on Used a tired, almost cliche story No real attempt to have songs fit the theme of the film, making a song sound high-pitched isn't enough to be considered doing something interesting with Just generally came across as a cash-grab; no real heart or soul to it




The movie was good. The humour, while a bit low-brow, was funny, it genuinely made me laugh all throughout both movies. The plot-line was pretty standard for many movies nowadays, so, while it was overused, it wasn't terrible in any sense of the word, and at least it's characters were unique. It had pretty good pacing as well, never particularly feeling rushed, and the ending was hilarious and heart-warming all at the same time.

There, are those concrete enough reasons to like the film?
Well, just flat-out asserting that 'the movie was good' isn't, obviously. The rest is mainly your own subjective enjoyment of it, which is fine as humour tends to be very subjective. I'm not saying you shouldn't like the film, I'm saying that it's not a particularly good film (not terrible, no, but still mediocre).

Starwulf
2011-11-02, 05:04 PM
Ok then, allow me to provide bullet-points from my last post, since it seems I wasn't clear enough.
It was uncreative, even less so than the original show it was based on Used a tired, almost cliche story No real attempt to have songs fit the theme of the film, making a song sound high-pitched isn't enough to be considered doing something interesting with Just generally came across as a cash-grab; no real heart or soul to it



Well, just flat-out asserting that 'the movie was good' isn't, obviously. The rest is mainly your own subjective enjoyment of it, which is fine as humour tends to be very subjective. I'm not saying you shouldn't like the film, I'm saying that it's not a particularly good film (not terrible, no, but still mediocre).

You know the real issue here? Is that apparently neither of us are going to be able to say definitively whether or not the movie was any good, because it is ALL apparently subjective. Because you saying that you found the film uncreative and lazy, is entirely contrary to how I viewed the movie. I did believe the movie was creative, and it didn't seem particularly lazy at all, it just specifically catered to kids, which I dno't see as lazy at all. While the storyline was over-used, it's not like you can really do to much with a movie based on an older cartoon, especially in this day and age. Hell, I can take almost any movie that has came out within the last decade, and compare it to another dozen movies and give you a long, drawn out plot line and show how they are similar. Hell, I can do the same with almost any movie in the last 2 decades. Story-telling has been around since mankind's beginnings, we've pretty much tapped out all the imaginative, unique storylines that can be thought of. Story-tellers have been ripping off stories that they grew up reading for thousands of years, because there are only so many ways to tell a story, so saying that a storyline is overused and cliche, really ISN'T a valid argument in this day and age. You can change the characters from human, to animal, to even cars, but the story remains the same.

So, let's just drop it this whole argument, eh? I'm through arguing, I just find an entire thread bashing on the movie distasteful, I've made that clear, I'm done.

Also: TheArsenal, I'm not just defending the cartoon, in case you haven't been reading any of my posts, I'm defending the actual movies too.

TheArsenal
2011-11-02, 05:23 PM
Then your a bit of a hypocrit then.

Its understandable that what you like or dislike is subjective, but you cannot say

"Your dislike is subjective, but my liking isn't".

We are a large group that collectivly hate the movie. This review is a pretty good one explaining my thoughts (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35487/alvin-and-the-chipmunks/).

I thought the jokes where bland and uncreative. Its not about the story type. Its about its presentation: And AATC was "I don't care lets slap this **** out" bland with no real creative flares at all.

Starwulf
2011-11-02, 06:40 PM
Then your a bit of a hypocrit then.

Its understandable that what you like or dislike is subjective, but you cannot say

"Your dislike is subjective, but my liking isn't".

We are a large group that collectivly hate the movie. This review is a pretty good one explaining my thoughts (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/35487/alvin-and-the-chipmunks/).

I thought the jokes where bland and uncreative. Its not about the story type. Its about its presentation: And AATC was "I don't care lets slap this **** out" bland with no real creative flares at all.

Actually, that would be Mr.Silver who is being the hypocrite. Nowhere have I said that your alls dislike is subjective(though I did argue that just saying "it sucks" without reasons isn't really having an opinion, it's just flat out bashing). It was actually MrSilver who told ME that all of MY OPINIONS were subjective. My last post was just to illustrate that he was in fact being a hypocrite, saying the reasons I give for liking the movie are subjective, while portraying his opinions of the movie as fact. In the end, all our opinions are just subjective, that's the entire basis of an opinion. None of us here can prove the movie was bad, or good. we can just say what we individually thought of it. So Mrsilver, and everyone else arguing me down saying that my idea of the movie being good and my reasons for why it was are subjective, are in fact the hypocrites, and need to realize that their opinions are just as subjective as mine.

Mr.Silver
2011-11-02, 07:36 PM
You know the real issue here? Is that apparently neither of us are going to be able to say definitively whether or not the movie was any good,
Erm, yeah, that's the point. You asked for people to say why they didn't like the film, which I and several others then did. I've never said you're wrong to have enjoyed the film either. The fact that neither of us is going to change the other's enjoyment of said work shouldn't really be a problem.


So, let's just drop it this whole argument, eh? I'm through arguing, I just find an entire thread bashing on the movie distasteful, I've made that clear, I'm done.

Well ok then, agreeing to disagree is fair and probably the best outcome. We'll say no more about it then. :smallsmile:



Actually, that would be Mr.Silver who is being the hypocrite. Nowhere have I said that your alls dislike is subjective(though I did argue that just saying "it sucks" without reasons isn't really having an opinion, it's just flat out bashing). It was actually MrSilver who told ME that all of MY OPINIONS were subjective. My last post was just to illustrate that he was in fact being a hypocrite, saying the reasons I give for liking the movie are subjective, while portraying his opinions of the movie as fact. In the end, all our opinions are just subjective, that's the entire basis of an opinion. None of us here can prove the movie was bad, or good. we can just say what we individually thought of it. So Mrsilver, and everyone else arguing me down saying that my idea of the movie being good and my reasons for why it was are subjective, are in fact the hypocrites, and need to realize that their opinions are just as subjective as mine.

Oh for crap's sake... :smallsigh:

Starwulf
2011-11-02, 07:49 PM
Erm, yeah, that's the point. You asked for people to say why they didn't like the film, which I and several others then did. I've never said you're wrong to have enjoyed the film either. The fact that neither of us is going to change the other's enjoyment of said work shouldn't really be a problem.

Well ok then, agreeing to disagree is fair and probably the best outcome. We'll say no more about it then. :smallsmile:




Oh for crap's sake... :smallsigh:

Sorry bout that last bit, but I wasn't going to let someone call me a hypocrite, when I wasn't. ^^ You may now return to your regularly scheduled chipmunk bashing

Also, slight derail, but who here hates Halloween gum? You know, the kind that everyone gives out to trick-or-treaters? I take the gum from my kids(3 and 8) since they don't particularly like it, but it loses it flavor like 2 minutes after putting it in your mouth, and it starts out hard, and stays hard, never gaining any sort of flexibility to blow any bubbles with it.

Aotrs Commander
2011-11-02, 09:17 PM
Edit: After going through and reading the entire thread(which sadly is nothing but a lot of bashing of the Chipmunks), I have to ask: Didn't ANYONE grow up watching and loving "Alvin & The Chipmunks"? Hell, they've been around so long, MY MOM grew up watching them, and she loved the first two movies as well. It's quite nostalgic, and brung back many good memories of my childhood youth(and likely did for my mother as well). It's kind of disturbing(and sad) to see all this bashing on such classic, iconic cartoon personalities.

For the record, I am old enough to have grown up with the original, and I never liked it then, and time has not changed my opinion.

However, the existance of the entire sequence of films has, by me, been met with nothing more than a bored eyeglow roll; because after making a movie based on Battleship, even multiple Chipmonk sequels cannot depress me further...

Also, Twilight's ludicrously and hilariously inappropriate musically scored trailer, followed immeditaely by the trailer for the Muppets and Puss in Boots - both of which were parodying the overly-dramatic-trailer and were far better at it made me completely forget about the entire thing until I saw this thread...

TheArsenal
2011-11-03, 03:34 AM
Let me explain WHY I called you a hypocrit.

When we stated evidence you just brush it off as

"Pff thats just subjective"

Followed up by reasons why YOU liked the chipmunks. Then you proceed to say that our bashing is baseless even though we mention WHY.

I was never arguing why YOU should dislike the movies. Take your family to watch it, whatever.

Thats why I calle you a hypocrit: Whenever WE mention evidence you say "That doesn't count because its subjective" but proceeded to mention reasons you LIKE the film in the exact same manner.

Plus what really insulted me was the "What did you except, its a kids film".

H Birchgrove
2011-11-03, 08:50 AM
Let's keep it civil, lest the thread gets locked.

Gamerlord
2011-11-03, 09:17 AM
Who knew a trilogy of movies about a singing group of CGI chipmunks could inspire such debate? :smalltongue:

H Birchgrove
2011-11-03, 09:25 AM
It's the internet. :smalltongue:

grimbold
2011-11-03, 12:20 PM
It's the internet. :smalltongue:

*sings* c'eeest l'internneeeeet

H Birchgrove
2011-11-03, 05:54 PM
*sings* c'eeest l'internneeeeet

I siiiiing... (http://youtu.be/K48qSWDnwlE)

Starwulf
2011-11-03, 06:07 PM
Let me explain WHY I called you a hypocrit.

When we stated evidence you just brush it off as

"Pff thats just subjective"

Followed up by reasons why YOU liked the chipmunks. Then you proceed to say that our bashing is baseless even though we mention WHY.

I was never arguing why YOU should dislike the movies. Take your family to watch it, whatever.

Thats why I calle you a hypocrit: Whenever WE mention evidence you say "That doesn't count because its subjective" but proceeded to mention reasons you LIKE the film in the exact same manner.

Plus what really insulted me was the "What did you except, its a kids film".

not to get into this tooo much more, but please go back and read ALL of my posts. NOWHERE Did I EVER say your alls reasons were subjective until I do believe my second to last post, where I was telling MrSilver that we should just stop arguing, because HE KEPT CALLING ALL OF MY REASONS FOR LIKING THE FILM SUBJECTIVE, but that his reasons for disliking it were ALSO SUBJECTIVE. The whole Subjective thing was told TO ME over and over again, saying humor and what not were entirely subjective.. The ONLY thing I ever said, was that mindless bashing of the film without giving concrete reasons, can't be considered opinions, it's just, well, mindless bashing.

So, no, I wasn't the hypocrite in this situation. I NEVER NOT EVEN ONCE(until it was thrown at me several times) said that the reasons given to me were subjective. To be more precise, I specifically said that no-one was GIVING reasons as to why they disliked the film, until MrSilver came along(and helanna, to a lesser extent, but her reason had nothing to do with the film, instead it was due to her younger sister playing the movie soundtrack CD over and over again) and said he just found the film lazy. Oh, and the poop joke, and if someone is going to call a film bad because of one singular poop joke..well. whatever.

So, no, Sorry, but I wasn't being a hypocrite anywhere ^^

TheArsenal
2011-11-03, 06:13 PM
Oh, Sorry I guess.

You still did continue to mention that our bashing was baseless even though we did mention why we hated the film.

edit:

Or at least I did.

I still have to question, do you REALY think "Made for kids' is a valid excuse?

Starwulf
2011-11-03, 06:21 PM
Oh, Sorry I guess.

You still did continue to mention that our bashing was baseless even though we did mention why we hated the film.

edit:

Or at least I did.

I still have to question, do you REALY think "Made for kids' is a valid excuse?

To be honest? Yeah, I kind of do. A kids film is going to be a bit dumbed down so it can effectively reach it's target audience, and keep them entertained for the entire 2 hours or whatever they are in the movie theater, and maybe get them to bug their parents to buy them the movie on DVD, and/or the resulting toys that might come around as well. Yes, it is possible to make a kids movie that can appeal to adults as well, but it is extremely rare, and to expect every kids film to do so, is entirely unrealistic and unreasonable in my opinion.

Also, up until MrSilver and Helanna(and the infamous poop joke person), when I first the read the thread, and made my initial comments, no-one was actually saying why they hated the movies, they were just mindlessly bashing them, saying how they sucked(and there is NOTHING I hate more in this world, then mindless bashing on something, without actually giving a reason why), but not why they thought the movie sucked. Since then(and my comments calling them out on it), people have given a few more reasons, which I'm fine with, though I'll be 100% totally honest, I still don't fully understand MrSilvers comment of "The film was lazy". Lazy in what ways? Not saying it's not a valid reason, but I would love a more in-depth response explaining that comment, so I can better understand his viewpoint.

Lord Seth
2011-11-03, 06:24 PM
All I have to say is... Why? Just why?Alvin and the Chipmunks: $60 million budget, $361 million in the box office.
Alvin and the Chipmunks 2: $70 million budget, $443 million in the box office.

Do the math.

The real "why" question, if you ask me, is "why do people seem to care so much?" It's just a movie, get over it and move on.

TheArsenal
2011-11-03, 06:32 PM
You know, thats the kind of attitude that continues making this ****.

In a kids film I expect:

No explicit sexual content

No Detailed gore

A more energetic plot

And no swearing.

Thats it. I do not expect it to be lazy and pandering. Im not saying every kids movie should be high art but it should have quality. Think about it: The only movies that get a pass because of thier target audience are porno, and kids films.

I find it utterly disgraceful. You willing to give crap to kids?

Even action movies are excepted to have good action and something new to bring to the table.

Lazy as in "Unoriginal", Souless, groan worthy jokes, predictable punch lines, a one note "IM EVILLLLLLL villian (and not even a funny one at that) and a very cliche "Learn- About family" shlock.

These things are all subjective, which again- you are dismissing.

Starwulf
2011-11-03, 06:38 PM
You know, thats the kind of attitude that continues making this ****.

In a kids film I expect:

No explicit sexual content

No Detailed gore

A more energetic plot

And no swearing.

Thats it. I do not expect it to be lazy and pandering. Im not saying every kids movie should be high art but it should have quality. Think about it: The only movies that get a pass because of thier target audience are porno, and kids films.

I find it utterly disgraceful. You willing to give crap to kids?

Even action movies are excepted to have good action and something new to bring to the table.

Lazy as in "Unoriginal", Souless, groan worthy jokes, predictable punch lines, a one note "IM EVILLLLLLL villian (and not even a funny one at that) and a very cliche "Learn- About family" shlock.

These things are all subjective, which again- you are dismissing.

To all that, but mostly(primarily) the last bits, I say this(and have before): It's 2011. There are only so many ways to be creative, and innovative, and different, and when it comes to storytelling, we've pretty much exhausted all of those ways. The only things we can really change nowadays, are the faces and names(and bodies) of the characters in the story. Every single story in the last god only knows how many years, is nothing more then a regurgitation of a story that was written before it, and The Chipmunks are absolutely no exception. The key is to look past that, since there is nothing that can particularly be done about it.

TheArsenal
2011-11-03, 06:48 PM
Thats all a bunch of bolloks otherwise the creative community would have killed itself by now.

What does Giving quality have to deal with invention?

Personally I believe its not the idea- Its the presentation that matters.

So even a big filled with money movie Avatar (Made for adults) has a worse way of presenting the rather tired plot, then "How to train your Dragon" ( A KIDS film) which fixed allot of plot problems and manged to get through, and keep my sisters attention WITHOUT jokes about **** and a huge roster of bland presentation techniques.

Starwulf
2011-11-03, 06:57 PM
Thats all a bunch of bolloks otherwise the creative community would have killed itself by now.

What does Giving quality have to deal with invention?

Personally I believe its not the idea- Its the presentation that matters.

So even a big filled with money movie Avatar (Made for adults) has a worse way of presenting the rather tired plot, then "How to train your Dragon" ( A KIDS film) which fixed allot of plot problems and manged to get through, and keep my sisters attention WITHOUT jokes about **** and a huge roster of bland presentation techniques.

That's the difference between you and I then. IMO, the creative community IS dead, at least as far as unique storylines go. There is not a single movie(or even world event in real life) that can't be compared to something that has come before it. Literally, nothing. That's why a site like TVTropes exists, to show how every single modern(and even non-modern) story uses the same storytelling techniques, and the same story in general. All that can be changed is, as you've said, how the story itself is presented. And in movies based on older cartoons, or games, or older stories in general, you don't have as much leeway to go off script, as you do with a movie like..Wall-E, or Up.

And, in the end, you say that Chipmunks lacked quality, I thought it had decent quality. As has been said before, it's all subjective. what pleases me, won't please you, and what pleases you, might not please someone else, and what pleases them, likely won't please either of us. And please, stop with the referencing of the singular poop joke. It was ONE JOKE. One. One does not ruin an entire movie, nor does it particularly detract from it. Unless your 100% against sophomoric humour, in which case, well, I don't know. LOL. I like sophisticated humour, and I like sophomoric humour as well. I enjoy all sorts of humour, as long as it's appropriately funny.

edit: To be honest, judging on your obvious dislike of Avatar, I'd venture to say we may never come to any sort of agreement on what constitutes a good movie, as I honestly liked and enjoyed Avatar. It may be that your tastes are more refined, or it may be must that I have none at all, since I honestly tend to like a LOT of movies other people don't, like, The Cable Guy, I loved the cable guy, found it utterly hilarious. Avatar!, Chipmunks!, other movies that have been given terrible reviews, I've quite enjoyed. It may be because I don't watch movies to find a "Bigger picture" or "references to life and the world as a whole" which many people seem to. I do it to escape from the mundane existence of life, to find a place where I don't have to worry about the rest of the world. IN that sense, just about any movie will suffice(just about! Not all! The Grudge(1 and 2), Soul Survivors, any movie with the guy Katy Perry married, and various others I can't stand)

Traab
2011-11-03, 07:57 PM
Just because there have been bad guys with brilliant tactical minds in the past doesnt mean you cant create a new bad guy with a brilliant tactical mind and NOT rip off someone else. Most tvtropes are such condensed aspects of creativity they might as well go, "Oh that movie has a PLOT?! Pfft, thats been done so many times before. try being original!" "Oh geez, ANOTHER movie that has a protagonist and an antagonist, can you BE anymore cliched?" Thats really what most tvtropes do, they strip away everything unique about a character until they can shoehorn him into a specific trope. Just because you can dissect every character, movie scene, and plot point into a trope doesnt mean you cant have originality.

Candle Jack
2011-11-03, 08:12 PM
Saying that fiction is dead because it uses tropes is like saying architecture is dead because people keep building houses with wood and bricks.

Geno9999
2011-11-03, 08:27 PM
Just to throw this out there: I LOVED the first two chipmunk movies, as did both of my daughters, AND my wife. So, now you have 4 people who openly say and admit(To anyone who asks, and even to those who don't), that like(love) the first two Chipmunk Movies.

I'll say this: I sort of liked the first movie, the second one just didn't seem to work, and I'm fearful of what zany schemes will be for the third.

Starwulf
2011-11-03, 08:42 PM
Saying that fiction is dead because it uses tropes is like saying architecture is dead because people keep building houses with wood and bricks.

I'm not saying fiction is dead because it uses tropes, I'm just using tropes as a way show that every single storyline has been done before. There hasn't been an original story in...well, forever.

Take Avatar for example: First thing that comes to my mind is Enders game, at least in how we initially fight against them, then eventually Ender comes tounderstand them, and respects them. He leaves the Battle Fleet, and devotes his life towards trying to protect what remained of their civilization. Kind of like the soldier in Avatar: He initially fights against them, by trying to understand them(much Like Ender did and was trained for), then after a while, he truly came to understand them(much like ender did, though it took Ender wiping them out beforehand to understand them), and worked to right those wrongs, just like Ender did.

There isn't an originality in plots. Only in how it's presented to us. Which many make the contention that AATC did a poor job of that. I disagree, but that's because we are all different people with different views. Honestly, I'm ready to drop the whole thing(I was yesterday, I only stepped back in to defend myself from being called a Hypocrite, which was in fact retracted(Thank you TheArsenal), and I'm done with further debate, it's only going to keep going round and round in circles, until someone loses their patience or temper, spouts off some stupid crap, and the thread gets locked, and while I don't approve of an entire thread bashing on a series, that's your right, and I'll not see it locked due to my interference in the thread.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-03, 08:59 PM
Yeah, see, I always hated obviously dumbed down movies and TV-Shows, even when I was tiny.
Conversely, I don't see any logical or rational room to excuse childrens films being poor quality and/or patronising, not if you've seen UP.

Traab
2011-11-03, 09:48 PM
The problem with the thought that lack of totally original creations that cant be traced to also exist in other works means nothing excellent and new and exciting can be done is flawed. Just as an example, I bet we could take the Illiad, and find dozens of tropes contained in there. I know damn good and well there was at LEAST one magnificent bastard in that story. Does that mean that every story that has been produced since then to have a magnificent bastard in it was ripping off the illiad? That all of the works of the last few thousand years were unoriginal because characters with a similar personality trait were in a story written in 800bc? Of course not! There have been hundreds, if not thousands of timeless classics written since then, several that had characters that matched the tv tropes definition of various characters of the illiad or the oddesy or of events that happened in them.

Tv tropes reduces elements of a story to a basic level. Too basic to make that sort of claim just because the trope already exists. Its like saying all elements are the same because they all have protons. Its the stuff that gets added to the basic trope that determines whether an idea can be considered original. Ok, so my main bad guy is a magnificent bastard, true, but how many of those bastards have you seen with a kangaroo fetish? Whats that? None? Then guess what? Original idea. The devil is always in the details. Admittedly the very VERY basic definitions of each character and personality type already exist and have for centuries, but by creating different combinations of details and tropes, you can still come up with something new.

Starwulf
2011-11-04, 12:36 AM
The problem with the thought that lack of totally original creations that cant be traced to also exist in other works means nothing excellent and new and exciting can be done is flawed. Just as an example, I bet we could take the Illiad, and find dozens of tropes contained in there. I know damn good and well there was at LEAST one magnificent bastard in that story. Does that mean that every story that has been produced since then to have a magnificent bastard in it was ripping off the illiad? That all of the works of the last few thousand years were unoriginal because characters with a similar personality trait were in a story written in 800bc? Of course not! There have been hundreds, if not thousands of timeless classics written since then, several that had characters that matched the tv tropes definition of various characters of the illiad or the oddesy or of events that happened in them.

Tv tropes reduces elements of a story to a basic level. Too basic to make that sort of claim just because the trope already exists. Its like saying all elements are the same because they all have protons. Its the stuff that gets added to the basic trope that determines whether an idea can be considered original. Ok, so my main bad guy is a magnificent bastard, true, but how many of those bastards have you seen with a kangaroo fetish? Whats that? None? Then guess what? Original idea. The devil is always in the details. Admittedly the very VERY basic definitions of each character and personality type already exist and have for centuries, but by creating different combinations of details and tropes, you can still come up with something new.

I'm not saying that every story contains tropes that relate it to another story, I merely used that as a way to get across my main point which is this: Every story has been done before. There is NOTHING new. Every story written now, at it's heart, has been done before, with almost certainly at least 85% of it being completely identical to another story. The other 15%, can be traced to another story. Nothing is new and fresh anymore, but that's just my opinion. There is a reason why I can accurately predict any movie I watch within 15 minutes of watch it, right down to who does what, and why they are doing it. All that changes, in my opinion, are the faces and names and mode of transportation for the characters(be it human, talking chipmunks, talking cars, walking robots, Ninja turtles, or whatever). The basic, AND NOT basic storyline of any movie, is unoriginal.

edit: Ya know, the funny/sad thing about all of this, is that, while at my core, I truly believe everything I'm saying, I don't WANT to believe it. This is me at my most pessimistic. I very much want to believe(and generally do) that what I'm watching is the first time it's been done before, that while it may share some similarities in it's most basic story, that it's fresh and innovative. For whatever reason, this entire discussion has evolved to the point where I'm so entrenched in my pessimism, that It's going to take me weeks to get out of it and back to being fine and happy and content with whatever I watch. LOL

TheArsenal
2011-11-04, 01:26 AM
To be honest what your saying made me go "Well no **** sherlock". There are only like....34-24? Types of stories you can tell. Period.

Just because there are only 34 story types it doesn't mean a story is unoriginal.

They might follow a similar plot line, but core differences are important.

Lets say I take the movie: Daybreakers. Nothing like it was ever told before.

Or Up, or Wall-e.

And what does this have to do with AATC?

And no, I don't hate ONE joke. I hate most of them in the movie.

Starwulf
2011-11-04, 02:22 AM
To be honest what your saying made me go "Well no **** sherlock". There are only like....34-24? Types of stories you can tell. Period.

Just because there are only 34 story types it doesn't mean a story is unoriginal.

They might follow a similar plot line, but core differences are important.

Lets say I take the movie: Daybreakers. Nothing like it was ever told before.

Or Up, or Wall-e.

And what does this have to do with AATC?

And no, I don't hate ONE joke. I hate most of them in the movie.

Hmm, everyone keeps saying that AATC was un-original. So I was making the point that every single movie in recent decades, is unoriginal.

Honestly, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find another movie, or another story that Up or Wall-E was copied from. As far as Daybreakers.. no idea what it's about, so can't comment on, but if it's anything to do with vampires that can walk about in daylight, I'd point you to the first Blade movie ^^

TheArsenal
2011-11-04, 02:25 AM
I already mentioned:

You can tell the same story a hundred times. It depends HOW you tell the story. The music you chose, the villains you pick, the dialogue you present.

Which in AATC is "Generic".

Arcane_Secrets
2011-11-04, 07:15 PM
Hmm, everyone keeps saying that AATC was un-original. So I was making the point that every single movie in recent decades, is unoriginal.

Honestly, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find another movie, or another story that Up or Wall-E was copied from. As far as Daybreakers.. no idea what it's about, so can't comment on, but if it's anything to do with vampires that can walk about in daylight, I'd point you to the first Blade movie ^^

Even if that was true, those movies at least don't have main characters whose voices make me want to puncture my eardrums with an icepick because it would be less painful.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-04, 07:17 PM
Honestly, I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find another movie, or another story that Up or Wall-E was copied from.

I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Given your prowess at predicting the plot of movies, you must have seen more than I have, though. I'd be generally interested, if you could suggest a close parallel for each.

[edit] - Never seen Daybreakers myself, but here's the synopsis to aid discussion.


Two-time Academy Award nominee® Ethan Hawke plays Edward Dalton, a researcher in the year 2019, in which an unknown plague has transformed the world's population into vampires. As the human population nears extinction, vampires must capture and farm every remaining human, or find a blood substitute before time runs out. However, a covert group of vampires makes a remarkable discovery, one which has the power to save the human race.

Doesn't sound like it would have many plot similaties to Blade, but perhaps there are other more similar movies?

Lord Seth
2011-11-04, 07:28 PM
I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Given your prowess at predicting the plot of movies, you must have seen more than I have, though. I'd be generally interested, if you could suggest a close parallel for each.For Up, "The 21 Balloons" has a similar premise.

For Wall-E, the idea of humans messing up the planet so much that they go into space and leave robots behind to clean the mess up so they can come back later was used in Vectorman.

H Birchgrove
2011-11-04, 07:31 PM
Frederick Pohl had mankind leaving a polluted Earth while letting robots inherit it in Midas World, though the robots didn't make an effort in cleaning it up or "saving" it for mankind.

Let just say Pohl likes satirical dystopias a lot.

Tiki Snakes
2011-11-04, 07:43 PM
For Up, "The 21 Balloons" has a similar premise.

For Wall-E, the idea of humans messing up the planet so much that they go into space and leave robots behind to clean the mess up so they can come back later was used in Vectorman.

I can readily confirm the plot of UP does not significantly involve any secret diamond based utopia, nor does it's theme involve the idea of what you would do with fabulous wealth, nor is it a largely straightforward story about a jolly amusing adventure in strange places. Of course, I'm only able to go by the Wikipedia entry on the subject of the 21 Balloons.
Also of note, the 21 balloons in the book are also different, being an entirely different type of balloon altogether from the ones in up, but that's really beside the point.

Vectorman, on the other hand, is a mildly obscure sega game. At least, that's the only Vectorman I can remember or find reference to online. I certainly don't think there was much run and gun platforming in Wall-E, though having not seen it, I can only go by reputation. :smallsmile:

Assuming I found the correct Page, Midas World sounds equally as unrelated in substance. I must say though, it sounds like a genuinely awesome series of short stories. Quite wonderfully deranged.

Lord Seth
2011-11-05, 12:43 AM
I can readily confirm the plot of UP does not significantly involve any secret diamond based utopia, nor does it's theme involve the idea of what you would do with fabulous wealth, nor is it a largely straightforward story about a jolly amusing adventure in strange places.I never said it was exactly the same. But there are similarities to the point that I have to wonder if they were not at least partially inspired by it. At any rate, I was never asserting they were exactly the same, just that they had a number of strong similarities.


Vectorman, on the other hand, is a mildly obscure sega game. At least, that's the only Vectorman I can remember or find reference to online. I certainly don't think there was much run and gun platforming in Wall-E, though having not seen it, I can only go by reputation.But again, a number of similarities. The premise is very similar, and some parts of the plot occur in both. It harkens back to the idea that it's the same general thing, it's just the presentation that are different.

PhantomFox
2011-11-05, 12:55 AM
If you boil any story down long enough, you'll get it to resemble something else. The less boiling required, the less original the work is. Nothing is TRULY original, but some things are more original than others, which is a distinction that needs to be made here. There's where X is Y, But in Space which is pretty unoriginal, and then there's the heroic quest which is a fundamental concept that requires a lot of boiling to get to that level.

Having not seen the movies, I can't criticize it fairly, but I can translate what others are saying. When people say it's unoriginal, I think they mean that it doesn't stray far from the standard formula. It's a cake with no icing. The cake itself is okay, but with nothing to make it stand above the rest and a few flaws that bother people, it is believed to be sub-par.

As for kids movies to be held to a lesser standard, kids are not THAT stupid. And they can tell when you think they are. Ever see a parent try to talk in kids slang? It's kinda like that. For children's movies done right, see Pixar. They make 'kids movies' that EVERYONE can enjoy. One can attribute the Pony craze to this same phenomenon: a kids show done well enough so that everyone can enjoy it without feeling stupid.

Dr.Epic
2011-11-05, 10:48 AM
Edit: After going through and reading the entire thread(which sadly is nothing but a lot of bashing of the Chipmunks), I have to ask: Didn't ANYONE grow up watching and loving "Alvin & The Chipmunks"? Hell, they've been around so long, MY MOM grew up watching them, and she loved the first two movies as well. It's quite nostalgic, and brung back many good memories of my childhood youth(and likely did for my mother as well). It's kind of disturbing(and sad) to see all this bashing on such classic, iconic cartoon personalities.

Oversized chipmunks who can sing and talk and create musical albums? What's the appeal again?:smallconfused:

TheArsenal
2011-11-05, 11:15 AM
Oversized chipmunks who can sing and talk and create musical albums? What's the appeal again?:smallconfused:

No offence but:

A Show about talking ponies based on a cash cow from the 80s?

People have thier reasons.

Mewtarthio
2011-11-05, 05:53 PM
Really? From debating the quality Alvin and the Chipmunks to debating the very nature of narrative itself?