The Live-Action Chipmunks movie

[noob_2_net]

Why did the filmmakers decide to make the Chipmunks more naturalistic in the live-action film as opposed to making them more like their cartoony counterparts?

 

[liza_longoria]

If by "naturalistic" you mean why did the producers make the Chipmunks actual chipmunk size as opposed to being human child sized as they were in the cartoons, my guess is that the movie's producers felt that this would be more believable for a live action universe.

Personally, I'm glad that they made that decision. I personally wouldn't want to have seen CGI human child sized rodents parading around on the screen. That would have been uber creepy. Like giant mascots running amok.

 

[gamer5311996]

Naturalistic meaning resembling real chipmunks.

 

[ayieZ]

Believe it or not but as originally conceived the Chipmunks did look a lot like real animals. So this isn't really as out there as you'd think it is.

 

[tezza~82]

Not every stray thought deserves a thread, Mavericker.

 

[fr_nnnnnn]

I think also if they were based on real chipmunks they could get away with more visual jokes.

Remember the "raisin" bit?

 

[mind reader]

Yeah, I can't picture that being animated with the 1960s or 1980s 2D designs. That just feels dirty.

But was that bit actually in the movie?

 

[littlecuitie]

I'm trying to forget that, honestly. :sweat:

 

[slept on]

LOL-I didn't see the movie but I saw that bit on Youtube.com.

 

[ILY & I know you love me]

I don't think there's anywhere else for this topic to go.

 

[Kunmui]

Do you think it would have been cheesy if the Chipmunks were 2-D animated as opposed to being 3-D CGI?

 

[EMO ANiiME]

Hey, what if they were little people in costumes? Like Howard the Duck? Would that be worse or would it be so bad it would go through the other side of the universe and come out the greatest movie of all time?

 

[Sonu Singh]

What if they were childsize and 3-D CGI? You can do a lot more with CGI than with people in costume.

The Mask films are evidence of that.

 

[Angry Larry]

What if they were little people sized and in ratty looking chipmunk suits?

 

[Kunmui]

I can so picture Warwick Davis, Tony Cox, and Verne Troyer as Alvin, Simon, and Theodore now.

 

[fantasylover123]

I don't think it would fair that well.

Since you mentioned Howard, I think that movie would have done better if the Duck was CGI.

 

[Izabell]

Yeah, but it was made in the 1980s. So they would have had to have either invented time travel or settled for a Howard that looked liked those guys in that Dire Straits "Money for Nothing" video.

And really, that movie's problems all start at the script level. They just didn't get what made Howard in the comics great. Hint, it's not that he's duck-shaped.

 

[blue...]

They should remake Howard the Duck now that they got the digital film-making technology.

I take back what I said- I think the Chipmunks movie might have done better if they were more cartoony.

That's what made the traditionally animated Chipmunk movies stand out.

 

[Catie (:]

Special effects =/= a good film.

 

[Chaz G]

I've noticed a trend on rabroad lately of people seriously wondering why companies don't remake movies that were giant, utter bombs at the box office. Why isn't the answer to this obvious?

Don't you realize that Howard the Duck ruined the careers of dozens, if not hundreds, of movie studio executives and movie makers? That its total US box office receipts were less than half of the $37 million, in 80s dollars, it cost to make it? That it was critically savaged and is an industry joke? No one will touch it with a ten-foot pole.