Apparently, when I wasn't looking the live action Alvin and the Chipmunks films have been so successful that there is a third film entitled Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked being released today.
As of this writing, the film is hovering at 10% critical approval according to Rotten Tomatoes a far cry from the 21% of the second film and the 26% of the original.
But while critics seem to shrug these films off, people tend to adore them. A lot. Moviefone created a graph to illustrate the popularity in cash.
click for larger version
These films have made more almost ten times more than the Make-A-Wish foundation received in donations for 2009. Of course, that is all Chipmunk films compared to a single year of donations. But if we look at individual film grosses it doesn't get much better.
The first film made $217,326,974 domestically and $361,336,633 worldwide. The second film dwarfed that with a haul of $219,614,612 domestic and $443,140,005 worldwide.
But according to the graph, the Make-A-Wish foundation received a little over 97,000,000 in 2009 and the Environmental Defense Fund made slightly over $134,000,000.
Some others?
American Friends Service Committee for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 had a total income of $27,585,741
Feeding America for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 charted $25,284,767 in individual contributions.
Having never seen any of the chipmunk films, I am not criticizing them as films...but I find it shockingly sad that people would rather collectively give $217,326,974 to watch a film about three computer generated chipmunks than give a similar amount to an actual charitable organization doing some good in the world.
Our individual priorities affect this country just as much as the priorities of the United States government and Wall Street. Americans are more than happy to stand in long lines waiting to spend $500 for an iPad 2 but balk at the government helping those in need.
A world where we are more amenable to showering money on critically reviled entertainment than in donating money to organizations which actually help others isn't a very noble world at all.
As of this writing, the film is hovering at 10% critical approval according to Rotten Tomatoes a far cry from the 21% of the second film and the 26% of the original.
But while critics seem to shrug these films off, people tend to adore them. A lot. Moviefone created a graph to illustrate the popularity in cash.
Since the singing chipmunks were once lonely little orphans who were rescued by their talent manager, Moviefone decided to compare the Chipmunks' movie dollars with some real charities devoted to animal welfare and art achievement.
click for larger version
These films have made more almost ten times more than the Make-A-Wish foundation received in donations for 2009. Of course, that is all Chipmunk films compared to a single year of donations. But if we look at individual film grosses it doesn't get much better.
The first film made $217,326,974 domestically and $361,336,633 worldwide. The second film dwarfed that with a haul of $219,614,612 domestic and $443,140,005 worldwide.
But according to the graph, the Make-A-Wish foundation received a little over 97,000,000 in 2009 and the Environmental Defense Fund made slightly over $134,000,000.
Some others?
American Friends Service Committee for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010 had a total income of $27,585,741
Feeding America for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 charted $25,284,767 in individual contributions.
Having never seen any of the chipmunk films, I am not criticizing them as films...but I find it shockingly sad that people would rather collectively give $217,326,974 to watch a film about three computer generated chipmunks than give a similar amount to an actual charitable organization doing some good in the world.
Our individual priorities affect this country just as much as the priorities of the United States government and Wall Street. Americans are more than happy to stand in long lines waiting to spend $500 for an iPad 2 but balk at the government helping those in need.
A world where we are more amenable to showering money on critically reviled entertainment than in donating money to organizations which actually help others isn't a very noble world at all.
1 comments:
Excellent article. I wrote a similar one about the film Hugo: http://jacklindstrom.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-irony-of-hugo-cabret-the-importance-of-cinema-over-child-hunger/
Even Academy Award-nominated films aren't immune to this sort of criticism, imo.
Post a Comment
Please read out comment policy before posting a comment.