It gets worse.

The guy is buried in the mass grave island in the middle of New York. Poor guy couldn't even get a proper burial.

At the same time, the Pluto rumor? It's still a bad idea but holy fuck it was better than THIS.

 

Apparently there is a different cut of the film, with the human more prominent. I'm wondering if what was leaked was the original script, and the villain was changed because even Disney was not happy with Pluto's role.

 

LOL, they had the balls to put this in the credits.


Yes, it scored so big, Disney never even dared to put this crap out in theaters and sent it straight to streaming.
And honestly, they probably had a low budget too. I think some of the live action and 2D animation interaction in Roger Rabbit was better than this. I mean look at this "animated" FBI guy... Clearly they just cut off the human head and arms but the 2D insertion looks so bad reminded me of a flash anim. (And btw, why would a 2D toon wear live action clothes?)

Also, I still wonder why even use the weird CEL-shaded 3D models to pretend they are 2D, when the movie had plenty of real 2D animated characters? It was inconsistent too, the Rescue Rangers are real 2D when recording their show, then turn CEL-shaded right afterwards.

About the only funny things in these were the bootleg Little Mermaid cover, though the fake titles were unimaginative - as someone who has seen all of Phelous' Golden Films, Good Times and Dingo Pictures review, I know that these ripoffs are far more silly (like "Jungle King" or "Lion and the King"). That, and I genuinely laughed when bootleg Bart (Barf) says "Ay pechanga!" instead of "Aye caramba!".

Damn. Just like Mozart. Hope someone at Disney's merchandising section gets fired for missing this incredibly easy to avoid insult...

 

Who the hell thought this movie was ever a good idea?

 

Probably some who slept with the producers.
They hopefully are getting fired now when Disney sees the view rates.
I am actually wondering, because the tone feels similar, that Disney wanted to ape the Teen Titans Go vs Teen Titans crossover with this movie. I might not like that movie - and I hate TTG - but that show has been on the air for years and it does have a fanbase, while other than nostalgic old farts like us, no kid today even knows who Chip and Dale are, let alone has heard of the Rescue Rangers.

Hmm... yeah I too could tell a lot was cut. Gadget only shows up almost at the end of the movie, and it feels odd that Peter Pan could do this huge bootlegging operation with just 2 henchmen. Maybe he was just a hired goon in the original cut for Pluto.

 

I haven't seen the movie yet but these images make it seem like they're just kind of telling the story of the actor and didn't mean any disrespect.

And as I pulled up earlier this kind of stuff has been happening in Hollywood for years and still does with a lot of Nickelodeon and Disney Channel kid actors, not saying that it makes it right but this is just a fact of life for child actors.

 

But they're not, because it's not about the actor, it's about the character of Peter Pan. Bobby Driscoll is never mentioned AFAIK. Also Driscoll didn't graft other famous people's body parts to himself like Godrick, he died of a drug overdose.

If the goal was to tell a story about the actor's tragic life and death, making the character he voiced into a generic villain who merges his body with other cartoon characters is about as disrespectful as you can get. Why not just... tell a story about the actor's tragic life and death?

Then why make light of the situation by making it the basis for a generic villain in a terribly conceived direct-to-stream movie that primarily apes the over-saturation of reboots and Hollywood updates?

 

Yeah, it seems more like an analogy to it to me…

 

I haven't seen the movie so I really can't answer those questions without just speculating except I could say that if they did make a movie about that actor and they would have to make a dozen more about all the others just like him just like how they made one about the Superman actor who killed himself that Ben Affleck played.

 

Reminds me of the rumor I heard about how Captain Marvel's role in Endgame got seriously cut due to how negative the character was received for all sorts of reasons.

No, this was absolutely a fast-tracked attempt to ape Space Jam 2 given the breadth of inclusions regarding the characters and the prominence of the human female lead.

Disney's kind of the reason why the dude ultimately committed suicide in the first place because he was Peter Pan (like holy shit his life goes downhill literally as soon as he finishes work on that film and he was still in high school) and you're acting like it's okay for the proverbial abuser in this situation to basically whitewash it all as a comedic villain who turns into a fucking monster?

I mean, shit, this is a Rescue Rangers film, why is the bad guy not even a bad guy from Rescue Rangers? There's the doctor dude who straight up was doing Island of Dr. Moraeu style experiments in one episode (including turning himself into a coyote or something), given we know about the frankenstien monster with Prime's leg why not just use HIM?

Given how much of that shit came from Disney, that's a terrible idea to just have them throw the spotlight on the thing that they've been trying to downplay for years.

 

No I'm acting like someone who hasn't seen the movie, which I have it, and someone who realizes that companies treating their child actors like crap is just what they do, so you could either protest child acting and try to get a law passed to prevent or move on with your life and focus on bigger problems, because I'm done with this.✌

 

That doesn’t make any sense. Your logic is they had to use the character the actor portrayed rather than telling a story about the actor himself because then they’re have to do a movie for every actor who similarly suffered, but then does that mean we now must have an analogy film for each actor?

Also your entire argument falls apart because the movie itself isn’t about that analogy. It’s a bit part of the shitty plot, not sincere at all. It’s the least respectful or meaningful way you could ever have the discussion.

 

Disney apparently.

 

Burn it with fire.

Haha, how to tell you know you're wrong, but aren't willing to back down.

 

Yeah, if the movie is supposed to be about a tragic child actor (who Disney themselves indirectly caused to go down that path)...why is he the surprise villain? In a movie starring characters that have nothing to do with him? At least with the Pluto villain rumor, as bad as it was at least there it still made sense given Pluto legitimately has an antagonistic relationship with Chip and Dale. Plus, the sequel to the 1953 film; 'Return to Neverland' came out in 2002 so it doesn't even make sense for Peter to be that old.

Actually more horrifying than the dragon donkey children between Donkey and Dragon in the later Shrek movies

 

I said what I had to say and I'm sorry you didn't find it to your satisfaction.

What I said was the truth. I haven't seen the movie, so I really can't judge the scene other than what other people are telling me and everyone is making it sound like the worst thing that ever freaking happened, but don't want to provide any solutions other than saying Disney's bad.

EDIT: I swear how do I get into these stupid arguments when I just make a comment over what I see.

 

You know, if this were a straight-up Rescue Rangers movie, the villain could’ve just been Fat Cat, and avoid any unintended ugliness.

 

That is something I could have gone the rest of my life without seeing. Why Disney?  


@Mako Crab Totally should have been Fat Cat.

 

I almost said "but didn't Disney do that too" then remembered that yeah, of all the things, they still do NOT own Warner Brothers.
Yet.

Yeah, other than Peter telling his story super briefly - and then saying he then turned to bootlegging where HE can fire whoever he want and ruin their lives - it only comes up once when Chip tries to appeal to him when he is about to have disastrous CGI surgery done on him. Chip tells him he understands him and what was done to him was wrong, but Peter Pan just basically tells him "Nah I am just evil."

It makes no sense that he is this old, but black-and-white cartoon characters much older than him look the same as ever (and Scrooge has not aged a day).
But the worst part is, at the end in the convention scene, when chasing Dale he accidentally picks up one of the Lost Boys, who still looks the same as in the animated movie, and wonders what happened to Peter, who just says "Yeah, well, death comes for us all eventually." The hell??? How does this work? They are from the same movie! And what about Tinkerbelle? Is she not aging because she is magical?

But sadly, they had to instead make it some meta nonsense about uninterested actors. And I don't mean Chip and Dale. The voice actors, whoever they are, both sounded terribly uninterested and flat.
Also, clearly they did almost zero research, the only thing they did was to copy-paste a list of episodes from wikipedia and mention a few by title.
And weirdly, Fat Cat, for being a recurring main villain, you'd think his actor would be a character in the movie, maybe a red herring to the true villain. And nope - he never appears other than in flashbacks.

 

Actually the actor for Fatcat made an appearance at the end of the movie, Fatcat was voiced by Jim Cummings. You see another character he's famous for voice acting complaing he's not getting enough attention.