So, was this a good adaption of Alvin and the Chipmunks? Was it better than the original movie?

So, was this a good adaption of Alvin and the Chipmunks? Was it better than the original movie?

>CG chipmunks in a live action world
>Chimpettes look like ass

Nothing about Alvin and the Chipmunks has ever been good.

Nothing.

Now now you wouldn't say that

Why do the CGI Chipettes look so cute?
They nearly tempted me to be a furry.
I didn't give in to the temptation of the furries.

It's their wardrobe.

It's a shit movie, just like every other movie where they take an old ass anthropomorphic animal character and put them in a live action environment through the magic of CGI.

You see, this is why I get so confused over the whole freak out over the new Ghostbusters. We've had the Chipmunks, Smurfs, Rock and Bullwinkle, and several other shitty reboots, as well as Pixels, but none of them garnered the pure, seething hate that Ghostbusters has on it.

I saw it, and, it was fun. Nothing great, but, nowhere near the level of these cinematic abortions, yet it gets the months long hatetrain going down on it since it was announced. I just don't get it.

Ghostbusters has a not-so-subtle agenda behind it on top of being bad. Those other movies you mentioned are just bad.

From what I've seen, the freak out begin as soon as they said the main cast were all women, and nothing more. Before any spin other than "GIRL POWER" was put out, everyone on the internet hopped on it like a rabid dog, then they started to lash back. Perhaps I missed something, but, the immensely negative immediate response seemed very itchy trigger finger to me.

>Nothing about Alvin and the Chipmunks has ever been good.
Well, almost nothing.

I'll give it credit, it's not nearly as bad as that godawful poster suggests.

Still completely terrible though.

Because Ghostbusters was a kind of adult comedy made with an original concept at the time and is still considered one of the most unique comedy franchises from the 80's while all those you mentioned up there(Chipmunks, Smurgs, Rock and Bull) were never that highly praised anyways.

Also it's coming after at least 2 80's remakes that were regarded as boring or at least not nearly as good (Total Recall and Robocop)

Also Sony had gathered a bad rep lately due to the spiderman and fantastic four shitty released.

The girl power angle was just the cherry on top that made people just say "that's enough".

Ghostbusters 3/a revival of the franchise had been dicked around with the fans for actual fucking decades.

Some people wigged out, yeah, but the real issue for a lot of fans was it being a remake instead of a sequel and just how many rewrites and executive tugs the script had gotten over the life of the project.

The "like this or you hate women." push didn't help.

Okay, that makes more sense than every other argument that I've heard against the new Ghostbsuters. Not so much of the movie itself, but, the things that were building up before it was announced.

I myself try to judge each work on it's own, but, I can understand that. That said, I still don't get just how much hatred has been lopped at it and the people behind it. It's.. kinda insanely overboard.

To be fair, after Harold Ramis's death, could you really do a Ghostbuster's 3 anymore? I mean, I'm still not sure if it was in good tastes or not to do the remake so shortly after his passing, but, remake or not, was everybody still expecting GB3 to be a thing?

It's just a backlash that was just waiting to happen. The "female only cast" was just the right move to make people want to cry bullshit as loud as they can.

Sure, stupid people will focus on lashing out against the actresses themselves, but that's not the point. The point is some suit knew that the ghostbusters remake would be badly received due to the points I mentioned before and decided to do the "all female cast" decision to deflect any criticism and cynism the movie would get by just calling out whoever goes againist the movie sexist.

I saw a similar thing with Mass Effect 3 a few years ago when the fans of the series were complaining about lackluster story, the removal of RPG elements, lack of choices, etc.

And most of those critics were ignored due to the fact that they general public tought they just disliked the game because male shepard could be gay in ME3 and the homossexual characters.

It's a cynical move from the people in charge of selling the game to disguise the products faults behind a single, easy to defend aspect of said media.

I could point out another non-gender related case, Red Wings, the George Lucas war movie featuring a black cast, that was being bashed by critics, but got around the issue that the movie was boring as hell by calling any critic a racist.

The '80 series (the Ruby seasons) and the Chipmunk Adventure are not bad.

All love the Chipettes

Let me tell you a story

Once existed a untalented hack called Ross Bagdasarian, famous for doing annoying voices and terrible catchy musics. He had the idea of releasing a stupid overpriced vinil, he discovered that speeding up the record would creat a very "cute" effect. Autistic pos-war kids loved it, and parents with functional ears and full wallets had to endure this crap for generations. For ever and never. Because even in his grave, Ross stupid cancer would reincarnate.

The moral is: Alvin and the Chipmunks is the FNAF of decades ago, and Ross is the ancestor of Crazy Frog

He was a songwriter and successful. Also cousin of William Saroyan(Google him).

Pizza Toots really got to you, eh.