So the villain in "Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers" is pretty fucked up... [Spoilers]

[DrForester]

Like, REALLY fucked up



So, in Chip 'n Dale, the villain turns out to be Peter Pan. Dumped after starting to grow up, he turns to kidnapping and altering toons to make bootleg films.

The fucked up thing is that it's basically the backstory for the kid who really did play Peter Pan for Disney.

Bobby Driscoll - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He was let go of his contract by Disney shortly after the movie's release because he hit puberty and got acne. He went through a lot of drug problems, and years later was later found dead in an abandoned warehouse, and buried in a pauper's grave because they didn't identify the body for over a year.

I can't believe someone involved in the production DIDN'T know this backstory.

 

[Claire Delune]

Wasn't the buzz in the run up to this movie that this explicitly *not* going to be Peter Pan and be a knock off named Dirty Dean or something?

 

[DrForester]

Wasn't the buzz in the run up to this movie that this explicitly *not* going to be Peter Pan and be a knock off named Dirty Dean or something?

Click to shrink...

I remember some rumors saying it was going to be Pluto, but don't know the details.

 

[y2kyle89]

Wasn't the buzz in the run up to this movie that this explicitly *not* going to be Peter Pan and be a knock off named Dirty Dean or something?

Click to shrink...

I had thought the leaks said Pluto was going to be the bad guy?

But yeah, between that and using the Roger Rabbit metaphor to have Disney say "Pirating our stuff is like human trafficking!" shits fucked.

 

[Choppasmith]

I enjoyed the movie and, I, too, thought it was Dirty Dean but no, they REALLY went with that story. Yeah, I'd hate to be surviving relatives learning about this movie. :/

 

[TheKeipatzy]

Yeah what happened to the voice actor was first thing on my mind especially the fact that Disney will not acknowledge that at all...

 

[diakyu]

I feel like they definitely knew, it's just a tasteless joke

 

[Dice]

Oof, yeah that's not cool at all. Either the world's worst oversight, or super tactless. And to be THE villain?? 😬

 

[antispin]

Oof. Didn't know this, that's really bad.

 

[Cow Mengde]

I didn't know about this either.

 

[NeonZ]

Wasn't the buzz in the run up to this movie that this explicitly *not* going to be Peter Pan and be a knock off named Dirty Dean or something?

Click to shrink...

I had thought the leaks said Pluto was going to be the bad guy?

Click to shrink...

He is called "Sweet Pete", but they're obviously not hiding who it is. The fake leaks claimed that "Sweet Pete" would turn out to be just a disguise/bodysuit of an unrecognizable Pluto who would have fused with a bunch of different stolen cartoon parts... although in the actual movie

Spoiler

that's just a transformation "Sweet Pete" goes through, being hit by the bootleg machine going haywire. It's all him, no one else.

 

[Lord Fanny]

I had thought the leaks said Pluto was going to be the bad guy?

But yeah, between that and using the Roger Rabbit metaphor to have Disney say "Pirating our stuff is like human trafficking!" shits fucked.

Click to shrink...

What's the thing about Roger Rabbit?

 

[RockmanBN]

Oof. Can't imagine the family liking Hollywood mocking the guy.

 

[entremet]

Why do people keep saying Disney? This was a Lonely Island production. Same thing with referencing other story beats. Disney is not some amorphous blob. There are actual people behind each production.

 

[WrenchNinja]

This movie is just weird and fucked up in a lot of ways.

 

[Cuburger]

I assumed it was just commentary on child stars in Hollywood (which it still works as), but the real-life story of the actor who played Peter Pan is tragic. Is this well known? I can't imagine they did this intentionally because that just seems too ghoulish for a film that is trying to be more cute and cheeky than edgy and controversial.

 

[B.K.]

I read about that in ComingSoon's review yesterday. They said it was too similar to be a coincidence. It sounds pretty fucked up to do that.

 

[Yukari]

I don't understand why he grows up?? the cartoon character in this movie seems not to get age [Chip and Dale it like 50's years old]

He bumps into one of the lost boys later who still look the same.

 

[Sketchsanchez]

Do we really need to pearl clutch about this?

 

[y2kyle89]

What's the thing about Roger Rabbit?

Click to shrink...

Is it not doing the Roger Rabbit 'cartoons as actors' thing?

 

[Lord Fanny]

Is it not doing the Roger Rabbit 'cartoons as actors' thing?

Click to shrink...

I thought you meant Roger Rabbit was in the film and was literally tied to human trafficking

 

[Punchline]

literally we meet another character from the peter pan movie and they havent aged up at all so its like, it really comes off like they wanted to ape off the actor who played him and his tragic story for their villain in their movie about how knock-offs are bad. from the company that has a catalog of adaptations of public domain material that are infamously skewered to hell and back.

this movie sucks. sorry folks.

 

[NinjaScooter]

His backstory seems to mimic a lot of child stars and be playing on that as some sort of trope. Unless there are some more direct connections I'm not sure its as tasteless as you are suggesting.

 

[Nikus]

Do we really need to pearl clutch about this?

Click to shrink...

Yeah seriously.

 

[Sketchsanchez]

I find it hard to think of it tasteless at all. He died over 50 years ago, his own family didn't even care until they thought "oh boy it'd be great if he could reunite with his almost dead dad"

This is Extremely Online Discourse buffoonary

 

[Betty]

Even if they are relating to the real life incident I don't see an issue.

It's more an indictment on how badly Disney did back then than anything underhanded against the voice actor himself.

 

[yap]

Yeah after that scene, it was hard to think this was by accident. They could have pick any other young disney character, but they stuck with Peter Pan to make an unnecessarily tastless joke.

 

[SinnyIndonesian]

It's from the same people who made these:


I'd guess it's completely tounge-in-cheek and likely a criticism of how Hollywood treats child actors.

 

[Cuburger]

I read about that in ComingSoon's review yesterday. They said it was too similar to be a coincidence. It sounds pretty fucked up to do that.

Click to shrink...

I don't know if I'd say it's "too similar to be a coincidence" like they wrote the character based on the real-life actor. For one, the Peter Pan character didn't become an addict and die, he's just older. He lost his job based on his age like many child actors, and in that sense, the character of Peter Pan represents the quintessential childhood role of a character that never grows up, but of course any child actor that plays a role of a kid will grow up eventually.

It seems more of a coincidence that the real-life actor had a hard life after harshly being fired, in some real irony, from playing Peter Pan, but if there was anything where this production was culpable, it would seem to be if they found out about the real story at any point during production and didn't change it before release to another child character just to avoid unfortunate comparisons. People thinking they intentionally evoked the real-life actor and made him a villain is just....what? Tasteless, sure, if they knew, but people think they intentionally wrote this to mock a dead person?

This movie has got some weird discourse around it.

 

[Bane]

Even if they are relating to the real life incident I don't see an issue.

It's more an indictment on how badly Disney did back then than anything underhanded against the voice actor himself.

Click to shrink...

That's exactly how I see it. I think it was a deliberate call out of sorts.

 

[NinjaScooter]

Yeah after that scene, it was hard to think this was by accident. They could have pick any other young disney character, but they stuck with Peter Pan to make an unnecessarily tastless joke.

Click to shrink...

The entire point of Peter Pan is why his characterization here makes sense.

 

[Daysean]

Yeah after that scene, it was hard to think this was by accident. They could have pick any other young disney character, but they stuck with Peter Pan to make an unnecessarily tastless joke.

Click to shrink...

They stuck with him because he would be the best fitting example as his gimmick was that he literally CANT grow up, the character in general is literally THE symbol of youthful escapism, he's not JUST a "young disney character"

 

[Deleted member 13798]

His backstory seems to mimic a lot of child stars and be playing on that as some sort of trope. Unless there are some more direct connections I'm not sure its as tasteless as you are suggesting.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much what I got from it too.

You're talking about Disney here, a company that won't even commit to any legitimate displays of LGBTQ character romance, I doubt they'd do anything intentionally tasteless like this.

 

[Senator Toadstool]

I mean it changes a lot about the story. He got married in real life and did have some roles before moving to New York.

Also, I don't know how it's mocking him?

 

[ratify]

He was let go of his contract by Disney shortly after the movie's release because he hit puberty and got acne. He went through a lot of drug problems, and was later found dead in an abandoned warehouse, and buried in a pauper's grave because they didn't identify the body for over a year.

Click to shrink...

Peter Pan came out in 1953 and this guy died in 1968. You make it seem like he died a few weeks after filming with your, "was later found dead" comment. It was 15 years after he worked on the movie.

 

[MisterHero]

This movie is soooooo close to making me cancel my Disney+ sub. There's too much classic stuff to give up.

 

[DrForester]

Peter Pan came out in 1953 and this guy died in 1968. You make it seem like he died a few weeks after filming with your, "was later found dead" comment. It was 15 years after he worked on the movie.

Click to shrink...

You're right, I made an edit to clarify.

 

[vixolus]

I find it hard to think of it tasteless at all. He died over 50 years ago, his own family didn't even care until they thought "oh boy it'd be great if he could reunite with his almost dead dad"

This is Extremely Online Discourse buffoonary

Click to shrink...

.

 

[Ridley327]

I wish I understood the rationale behind why Peter Pan was able to be an aged wash-up but Chip and Dale had an origin story that immediately tosses out the nearly 40 years they had been around prior to there being a Rescue Rangers. Even the whole "because millennials don't care about the old Chip and Dale" excuse falls apart when they have Baloo show up right at the start and acknowledge his entire history as a character.

What a deeply stupid and careless film, beyond some good jokes checkered throughout.

 

[yap]

They stuck with him because he would be the best fitting example as his gimmick was that he literally CANT grow up, the character in general is literally THE symbol of youthful escapism, he's not JUST a "young disney character"

Click to shrink...

Fair point and I get that, and but in the film we see child cartoon characters who remained young decades later. One of them is even a child character from Peter Pan. It's inconsistent with the real world problem they're alluding too and the symbolism of Peter Pan washes away. That and the repeated jokes at Peter's age doesn't feel like they cared much about the topic anyway.

It's a comedy, and I can totally believe that they wanted to do some social commentary with Peter Pan, but as-is it comes off as a gag that easily be misinterpreted by some.

 

[Futabaisthebest<3]

Omg, I just literally finished watching this movie a few minute ago. It's really mindblown (and creepy) that they did. 😨

 

[SinnyIndonesian]

I wish I understood the rationale behind why Peter Pan was able to be an aged wash-up but Chip and Dale had an origin story that immediately tosses out the nearly 40 years they had been around prior to there being a Rescue Rangers. Even the whole "because millennials don't care about the old Chip and Dale" excuse falls apart when they have Baloo show up right at the start and acknowledge his entire history as a character.

What a deeply stupid and careless film, beyond some good jokes checkered throughout.

Click to shrink...

Because Peter Pan has the "forever a child" thing built into his mythology. Others don't. Do... do people really not get the "why" here?

Fair point and I get that, and but in the film we see child cartoon characters who remained young decades later. One of them is even a child character from Peter Pan.

Click to shrink...

...Oh. Y'all really don't, huh.

 

[Birdie]

He's not an addict or anything in the film though? He's basically a greasy gangster stereotype.

 

[NookSports]

Because Peter Pan has the "forever a child" thing built into his mythology. Others don't. Do... do people really not get the "why" here?
...Oh. Y'all really don't, huh.

Click to shrink...

Nope. It's all whoosh everywhere.

 

[thisismadness]

Given the amount of child actors that have had very similar tragic stories, its certainly possible it could just be a coincidence. I feel like I've seen a similar take on Peter Pan before, maybe in some sketch show or something.

 

[Reinhard]

Really stretching here. As has been stated, it's the kid actor in Hollywood trope and what happens when they grow up. And in this case, they made it so other toons don't age while the supposedly ageless Peter does grow up.

 

[Pluto]

How is this fucked up? The real guy developed a drug problem and eventually died in his 30s, Peter Pan grew up and became a criminal. That's not even similar, this feels like people getting up in arms to feel superior and to pretend they care about an actor they most likely never heard of before yesterday.

And in the story every child has to grow up except Peter Pan, in the movie toons don't age except Peter Pan, they reversed it, it's not that deep.

 

[deimosmasque]

Like, REALLY fucked up



So, in Chip 'n Dale, the villain turns out to be Peter Pan. Dumped after starting to grow up, he turns to kidnapping and altering toons to make bootleg films.

The fucked up thing is that it's basically the backstory for the kid who really did play Peter Pan for Disney.

Bobby Driscoll - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

He was let go of his contract by Disney shortly after the movie's release because he hit puberty and got acne. He went through a lot of drug problems, and years later was later found dead in an abandoned warehouse, and buried in a pauper's grave because they didn't identify the body for over a year.

I can't believe someone involved in the production DIDN'T know this backstory.

Click to shrink...

Cool someone got to do the Fables original idea for the Adversary.

 

[HardRojo]

Yeeeeahh… that's a stretch.

 

[wenis]

Just a coincidence. The cartoon figure and concept of Peter Pan just works for what they needed and it isn't that big of a suspension of disbelief to just roll with it.