FANDOM


  • I have got a complaint about Ian Hawke reforming in Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked. Why could they not let Ian remain a villain like in the previous films? I love Ian better as a villain than a protagonist!

    Plus, I think Ian was much better as a villain! Why all of a sudden, he is no longer bad? Somebody please explain this to me!

      Loading editor
    • I think it was because David was contracted for three films and the producers didn't want him to go out as a villain.

        Loading editor
    • What does that mean David was contracted for three films?

        Loading editor
    • David Cross, the actor who plays Ian, signed a contract before the first film to be a part of three films. If he wasn't in contract for the third film, he most likely wouldn't of been in it because he stated it was one on the most unpleasant things he'd ever done. But money's money, and he needed it.

      As for him reforming, I think it made sense. I believe Ian might have realized stealing, lying, and manipulating or even revenge weren't going to get him anything. When he picked up on this, he was able to convince Zoe to help him save Dave. He was later rewarded with Zoe's story.

        Loading editor
    • But how come Ian just all of a sudden realized this when he could have remained bad?

        Loading editor
    • I don't think he was all that bad. He wasn't too far gone, so to speak, to change. The change wasn't too sudden, to me anyway, because of how long Dave and Ian were together during Chipwrecked. Dave tired to show Ian that the chipmunks are more than money, that money isn't the only thing that matters. It took most of the movie to convince Ian, and even when Dave was hanging from the log, he wasn't all good or overly concerned with saving him. He was more on the fence with his decision as he was okay with Dave falling to his death or living.

        Loading editor
    • So, was it like Ian was still mostly evil like he always was?

        Loading editor
    • Huh? I don't think he was evil. He developed into a better person with his time with Dave.

        Loading editor
    • But how, if you just said he even let Dave fall to his death?

        Loading editor
    • No, no, no. He didn't let Dave fall to his death. In the end he convinced Zoe to save Dave. That was the climax of his transformation from "bad" to "good." I was getting at the fact that if he let Dave fall to his death he would of stayed bad but he would be good if he didn't. I wouldn't see the producers killing a character like Dave, this is one reason Ian reformed.

        Loading editor
    • Will Ian ever go back to being the old villain he used to be?

        Loading editor
    • This I can't say for certain, but I believe he won't for two reasons. First of all, most of his hate came from the chipmunks taking away his career. He gets his career back at the end of Chipwrecked by selling Zoe's story to Hollywood. And secondly, I do not think David will agree to another film. Anything can happen, but this is what I think will happen.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. But the reason I say this is because honestly, I have always loved Ian more as a sneaky villain rather than a friendly protagonist.

        Loading editor
    • And there's nothing wrong with that. It can be disappointing if a character you like changes.

        Loading editor
    • And it was disappointing. For me.

        Loading editor
    • Reformed or not, I'm not so sure I want to see him the fourth film.

        Loading editor
    • Why not?

        Loading editor
    • I don't know.  Maybe because if he really had reformed, I prefer him as a villain, or maybeI've just had enough of him.

        Loading editor
    • Site Looker wrote:
      I don't know.  Maybe because if he really had reformed, I prefer him as a villain, or maybeI've just had enough of him.

      I can understand having enough of him, many have. I was surprised he was even in the third film.

        Loading editor
    • Ian is too funny to be villain in the third film.

        Loading editor
    • Ian was kind of the villain in the third film. The scenes include when he thinks Theodore's necklace was ugly, and when he tried to stop Dave from hang gliding, and when he stopped Dave from crossing a path to Alvin, and when he tried to eat Theodore's necklace.

        Loading editor
    • The trailers gave it away that Ian was gonna be a Good character in the 3rd movie. The part where Ian and Dave are watching the Chipmunks perform from backstage, and exchange the dialogue- Ian: "Good to be back, huh?" Dave: "It sure is!"  The two are obviously chummy in that scene. If Ian was going to be a villain again, he wouldn't be having a happy conversation with the protagonist.

        Loading editor
    • Zyterga123 wrote:
      Ian was kind of the villain in the third film. The scenes include when he thinks Theodore's necklace was ugly, and when he tried to stop Dave from hang gliding, and when he stopped Dave from crossing a path to Alvin, and when he tried to eat Theodore's necklace.

      Well, I still consider Ian the main villain of the third film.

        Loading editor
    • Why? I'd say Zoe much worse things in the third film then Ian did. 

        Loading editor
    • Ian is really much of a bad person. In the first film at the exposition he was friends with Dave. However in that movie, he took things too far and ended up losing in fortune. In the second movie, he was broke and had the life of a hobo. That is, until the Chipettes showed up. Ian lied to them to get revenge on the Chipmunks, but not on Dave? He might have heard about the accident that happened to him in the beginning and decided not to pursue Dave after all. Ian later takes things too seriously again, and became jobless again. in the third film, he now wants revenge on Dave while he poses as a seagull costume in the film. When they got into an island, Dave convinced Ian that life is more important that untold riches, but he refused. When the gang saw the volcano, he helped the others build a boat to float away from the island before it can explode. Just as Zoe was about to make Dave fall to his death, Ian appeared out of nowhere and told her about the times he wanted to get back at Dave for all those years of riches to rags. Then he helped Alvin pull Dave out of the log with Zoe and made their way to the boat. When they got back to Earth, Ian is once again rich and Dave's ally, and sold Zoe's story to Hollywood. (Although I don't really know what happened to Zoe after the helicopter rescued the main characters.) But on the plane scene, Ian is nowhere to be found. Ian's personality needs to get a hobby.

        Loading editor
    • DJSponge
      DJSponge removed this reply because:
      02:30, March 14, 2015
      This reply has been removed
    • Why'd you remove your reply?

        Loading editor
    • Heeha wrote:
      Why'd you remove your reply?

      Wrong thread.

        Loading editor
    • Wow. What a reaction. Mine was "Oh my God".

        Loading editor
    • ian was not in the fourth film but Agent Suggs is pretty similar

        Loading editor
    • i think David Cross was contracted to do 3 movies of Alvin and The Chipmunks so that he reprises his Chipmunks role to represent the chipmunks and chipettes.

        Loading editor
    • The fact that Ian Hawke was made a hero is one of the reasons I HATED Chipwrecked. He tried to stop Dave from saving his kids from that kite mishap, thus technically Ian was putting their lives in danger. I count that as unforgivable and as a result, he should have been arrested with the captain in the end. Overall rating of this joke of a film, 4/10. 

        Loading editor
    • i only liked Ian Hawke because he and Dave Seville went to the island finding the chipmunks and chipettes in the 3rd film of Alvin and The Chipmunks.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message