Tag Archives: animation

It was, of course, inevitable. But it’s also dangerous. What might happen when singing rodents go stereoscopic? Because Alvin and the Chipmunks and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel left so many questions unanswered – questions like “Why won’t they make it stop?” and “Oh God, why won’t they make it stop?’ – a third Alvin & The Chipmunks film has just been announced for next year. And this time it’s going to be in 3D. But of course it is. Thanks to the success of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland and, to a lesser extent, The Final Destination, most upcoming films will be released in 3D. The final Harry Potter films will be in 3D. The next Toy Story will be in 3D. There’s talk of producing a 3D sequel to The Last Station – provisionally entitled The Laster Station: Tolstoy’s Comin’ Atcha! – just so that people can experience Christopher Plummer’s magnificent beard as if it was right there in front of them. So let’s not kid ourselves – Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D was always going to happen. But what’s it going to be like? That’s harder to say. Obviously all the classic moments from the last two films will have to be given a 3D makeover – like the poo-eating skit from the first film, the confusingly erotic performance of Beyonce’s Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It) by the three lady-chipmunks from The Squeakquel and the increasing look of desperation on David Cross’s face as he slowly sails away from his little island of credibility from both films – but what else? Well, there should at least be a nod to the Dramatic Chipmunk YouTube video . Imagine how amazing that would be – Alvin jolting his head around in three dimensions, threatening to take out the first seven rows of the cinema with his little furry snout. Or, failing that, some sort of horrible, needlessly graphic, three-dimensional extended orgy sequence between the chipmunks and the Chipettes. The technology’s there, so it’d be a shame to waste it. One thing that the Alvin and the Chipmunks producers should be wary of, however, is the manner in which they employ the 3D technology. The sensible thing to do would be to follow the example of Up and keep the effects as subtle as possible. You wouldn’t want, say, Theodore to pop right out of the screen during one of the film’s endless gratingly high-pitch song and dance numbers, for instance. Not only would it scare most of the children in the audience, but the parents – who by that point would be driven into a profound state of irritation by the film’s constant shrill inanity – would begin to involuntarily lash out at it. Then they’d end up punching the person in front of them in the back of the head, and the next thing you know the cinema would have a riot on its hands. Three-dimensional discretion would save the producers a lot of bother, trust me. And then there’s the title to think of. You can’t simply get away with calling it Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 or Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D, because the bar has already been set heroically high with The Squeakquel. Unless producers can invent a pun which can simultaneously convey that the film is a) about some chipmunks, b) the third part of a trilogy and c) being presented in 3D, then what’s the point of even making it? It’s tricky, too – try it. The best I could come up with after a full hour of head-scratching was Alvin and the Chipmunks Squee: Squee-Squee (Alvin and the Chipmunks 3: 3D), but that’s clearly not very good. Can anyone do better than that? Can you? 3D Animation Stuart Heritage guardian.co.uk