Subjected myself to this C&D:RR dreck, (Yaar, matey!) and my distaste for Disney keeps on the rise. All I can say is: what a wasted opportunity to do an actual Rescue Rangers movie in earnest, something that honors the past and shows the characters and the franchise at their best to a new generation, but nah, fuck legacy, instead we get this cynical and obnoxious "Oh I know that reference, therefore funny" movie. Also, they really, REALLY leaned heavily on the Sanic meme, like full on an important key plot point of the movie hinges on it. Oh and because what I want in a Rescue Rangers movie is protracted Ugly Sonic teeth jokes ( The writers are internet meme addicted hacks).
Real fucking tasteful Disney. The villain is a bitter aging Peter Pan. Meanwhile IRL Disney Peter Pan actor Bobby Driscoll gets abandoned by Hollywood and turns to drugs once he's aged past his kid years, and fucking dies in an abandoned building at 31.
Slow fucking clap. You goddamn monsters.
The real kicker being that cartoon characters aren't supposed to age. None of the Rescue Ranger characters show any sign of aging but somehow Peter Pan (the character whose whole premise is that he doesn't grow up) is the exception. The writers can't even seem to keep the internal logic of the movie consistent. OK, let's assume "human" style cartoon characters do age, then why show one of the "Lost Boys" that were also in the Peter Pan movie as a kid that hasn't aged at all. Isn't that a massive plot hole?!
They just don't care.
Just as they didn't care to make the cell shaded 3D even resemble hand drawn animation, it is so jarring because they show real hand drawn animation from the original show and the difference is staggering on how bad the 3D models look in comparison. At this point I kinda wish they had gone and made all the models look like Dale's full fur render just for visual consistency.
They licsenced Shrek just to make a joke about setting old bottles of his soap on fire... I can see that as a joke being made back in 2001 2002 when the rivalry between the two was at its bitterest, but not 20 years later when Jeffrey katzenburg doesn't even run dreamworks anymore.
No, they licensed Shrek just so there would be a follow up joke where Seth Rogen could insert his laugh because they wanted us to suffer.
What the fuck disney?!
View attachment 3302364
I wanna give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that toons have their "children" drawn for them by animators or delivered by toon storks... And there's no actual sex involved. But that's just me trying not to think about the horrible implications.
No benefit of the doubt whatsoever. This whole movie exists for the sole purpose of defacing and ruining whatever fond memories the audience had of these characters. The frauds involved in these kind of projects just as it was with She-Ra, ThunderCats, etc, have no respect for the stories, characters or the people who created them, and far less for the fans of said works. I'll go so far as to say that they hate the fans.
If making a beloved character such as Peter Pan, who is the embodiment of childlike wonder, optimism and joy into a bitter, old, jaded villain, so too, putting the mental image of Gadget getting fucked and impregnated by a fly and having mutant offspring is something they did out of spite.
but it's not a rating.
