Robert Zemeckis 'Buzzing' about a second Roger Rabbit Movie

[JJandJanice]

Oh man this would be so awesome if it came to be, a new Roger Rabbit movie, I would love.

Read about it here (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/04/29/exclusive-robert-zemeckis-buzzing-about-second-roger-rabbit-movie/)

P-p-p-p-please!

[frogboy4]

Oh man this would be so awesome if it came to be, a new Roger Rabbit movie, I would love.

Read about it here (http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/04/29/exclusive-robert-zemeckis-buzzing-about-second-roger-rabbit-movie/)

P-p-p-p-please!

I would like nothing more than to see a Roger Rabbit sequel. The subject matter lends itself to another picture - if made correctly. The classic hand drawn animation of Who Framed Roger Rabbit is as much a part of the film as the title character himself. Robert Zemekis wants to motion capture the performances this go-round! Ugh, ick, oogie!

I could stomach some CG animation with toon shaders mixed with some traditional cel animation in bits, but the characters need to be animated - not motion captured. How does one motion capture the squash and stretch fluidity of a Tex Avery style toon?

I don’t want to see Roger, Jessica, Benny and the gang appearing like the cardboard corpse-like creations in the horribly expressionless Polar Express. I think Roger Rabbit is the perfect vehicle to bring cel animation back to the forefront. If that means dumping Zemekis than I’ll get the Toontown catapult.

I wanna be excited about this - but not using this ill-fitting technique. :sympathy:

[RedPiggy]

I thought the funniest idea was from the comment below the article which theorized Lucasville would battle Toontown. Now THAT would be hilarious. Remember that Betty Boop griped about the appearance of color cartoons. So, technically, this plot idea isn't a big stretch.

[Drtooth]

I would like nothing more than to see a Roger Rabbit sequel. The subject matter lends itself to another picture - if made correctly. The classic hand drawn animation of Who Framed Roger Rabbit is as much a part of the film as the title character himself. Robert Zemekis wants to motion capture the performances this go-round! Ugh, ick, oogie!

That sounds as bad as making Underdog a live action, non-anthropomorphic dog....

But in all honesty, I don't see a Roger Rabbit 2 getting off the ground... especially if Roger has less motion than a Disneyland Walkaround. If it must be done, it HAS to be 2-D animation mixed with live action, like the first. But the chances of RR2 are the same as Ghostbusters 3.... they'll bring back rumors every year, it gets one inch closer to production, and then it winds up going 5 feet back. Indiana Jones 4 happened, sure... but I just see this falling apart at the seems like Hercules 2, Wacky Races the Movie, Hong Kong Phooey the movie, Naked Gun 4.... and all of that.

Of course, look how long it took the Jetsons to get off the ground. They wanted to make one since 1996. And now we have something a little more solid, and it's probably gonna happen.

[ryhoyarbie]

I hope this doesn't happen. The movie came out 20 years ago. I like Roger Rabbit as a stand alone picture. Sure they could have had a sequel or two, but now I think it's too late.

Just leave Roger Rabbit alone. It shouldn't take 20 years to make a sequel, though Indiana Jones 4 came out about 20 years after the third one......:sympathy:

[Drtooth]

Hey, I don't think they're even going to clear up that rift between Amblin and Disney. Warner and Amblin seem to have made agreements as per the Animaniacs/Freakazoid/Tiny Toons DVD's... but they are among the most pricey DVD's out there. I'd be surprised if we even saw a wave of 25th anniversay Roger Rabbit products at the Disney Store, let alone a new movie.

[bazooka_beak]

I don't know - it came out 20 years ago and that seems like a LONG time to put a sequel out. Plus, would Disney even allow Mickey and the gang to be in it like the last one? What decade would the story be in? Would it still prominently feature the classic characters like Bugs Bunny and Betty Boop, or would more modern toons take over? Who would they add in, Spongebob?

[Ilikemuppets]

Yeah, I think it's too late for a sequel personally. Plus I hear that Zemeckis is far more interested in special effects these days than making a good movie.

[Colbynfriends]

Animated sequals scare me, because usally they arn't as good as the first one. But as some people have already said. if it's done correctly, then it'll be ok.

[frogboy4]

I see Roger Rabbit as its own thing - more than an animated movie. It had this detective B-movie vibe that easily translates into a sequel. It's also a period piece, yet half of the cast of characters never age.

The original film took place in 1947 - a post-war age of prohibition, but I think a sequel should take place several years later in 1954 with the infamous McCarthy Hearings. It could be about their impact on Toontown. All tempered with wacky parody, of course. The original picture cemented a human vs toon sort of climate that would play interestingly with the McCarthy setting.

To me, this isn't like making a sequel to Cinderella or Pinocchio. It could be more like a sequel to Star Wars or Indiana Jones of the Toon variety if done right. Just say no to motion capture. It doesn't work with classic toons.

[Drtooth]

To me, this isn't like making a sequel to Cinderella or Pinocchio. It could be more like a sequel to Star Wars or Indiana Jones of the Toon variety if done right. Just say no to motion capture. It doesn't work with classic toons.

Of course, everyone hated the sequels to both franchises....

As far as I'd go, I'd wanna see either a movie version of the second book, or something where Television hit, and old time toons are losing their jobs (something about 1959 would do). Think about it... they could have Rocky and Bullwinkle animated in there. Something where Roger has to take on a limited television animation job to keep carrots on the table, and it doesn't even do all that well. Something where Roger gets caught up in some criminal conspiracy, and his misery is the perfect motive to frame him for something, say the death of a TV animation producer.

[Telly]

I've heard rumors for the last ten years about a sequel. I like the idea of the "Who Discovered Roger Rabbit/Toon Platoon" pre-quel idea. Then they might as well turn it into a trilogy with the "Who P-p-p-plugged Roger Rabbit" sequel taken from the book. The sequel to the "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" book was a lot better than it's predecessor, in my opinion.
But, yeah, I'm with Jamie on this. They don't need motion capture. Just look at the menu to the "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" DVD. Benny looks cheap knock-off of himself! It might be a lot easier if they used CGI for props. I think that would work. But not the characters. I also don't want to see the likes of Spongebob, Smurfs, or modern day cartoon characters.

[bazooka_beak]

^ It would also be really weird to see the more modern animated characters we grew up with (The Smurfs, Scooby Doo, Spongebob etc.) in something so "adult." I know the movie disturbed me on many levels ;)

[Ilikemuppets]

^ It would also be really weird to see the more modern animated characters we grew up with (The Smurfs, Scooby Doo, Spongebob etc.) in something so "adult." I know the movie disturbed me on many levels ;)I wouldn't actually call scooby modern day, but he is compared to other toons. But I wouldn't mind them making bref cameos. Like something hidden you have to catch in the back ground.

But I hope they don't exactly repeat themselves, either. I do think that they should have toons from what ever time the movie taks place.

[Kiki]

Man I love that movie. And a sequel actually sounds rather awesome. Hope it happens! :excited: :D

[Drtooth]

The likelihood of Spongebob showing up is roughly the same likelihood that the Smurfs and He-Man would have shown up in the first one, made in the 80's. Unless the movie expressly is a commentary on Roger Rabbit living in today's world, which I really can't see happening, we'll only see period cartoon characters. Sure, there were a few characters Disney added in that didn't exactly exist in that time frame (Tinkerbelle, and maybe a couple others)... but they were all pre-1960's.

The motion capture bit is the only thing that concerns me... or would concern me if I didn't have a feeling this film would stall for 3 years and nothing would come out of it. And honestly, if Disney, Warners, and a couple others don't give the same kind of compromise that they did for the first one, it just won't have the same magic.

[JJandJanice]

^ It would also be really weird to see the more modern animated characters we grew up with (The Smurfs, Scooby Doo, Spongebob etc.) in something so "adult." I know the movie disturbed me on many levels ;)

As Dr. Tooth more or less said, Roger Rabbit was set during the really "golden age" of animation. Spongebob and Smurfs is very unlikey unless they wanted to do something that was set in todays world, which I honsetly can't picture how they would be able to pull that off.

The original movie was set in 1947, though their were some cartoons that appeared in that movie after that year such as Tinkerbell, Speedy Gonzales, and a few others.

I think it would be interesting if they did something where the movie was set maybe 20 years after in 1967 then I would like to have seen characters from the Jungle Book, Flintstones, and Winnie the Pooh (though I think Piglet could have been seen in the first one) make cameos.

Another thing I just thought of though, does anyone think Warner Bros would be willing to work with Disney again on this or vise versa? I mean I was just thinking about and the Warner company as well as all these other toon companies had people counting their characters time and lines to make sure the other toons (minus Roger and Jessica needless to say), don't get more time and lines than their toons.

[Drtooth]

I think it would be interesting if they did something where the movie was set maybe 20 years after in 1967 then I would like to have seen characters from the Jungle Book, Flintstones, and Winnie the Pooh (though I think Piglet could have been seen in the first one) make cameos.

I still say a movie that takes place about 1959-1960, where the theatrical toons are losing their jobs to TV animated stars would work. And cameos by Bullwinkle and the Flintstones and stuff like that would work rather nicely.

[bazooka_beak]

As Dr. Tooth more or less said, Roger Rabbit was set during the really "golden age" of animation. Spongebob and Smurfs is very unlikey unless they wanted to do something that was set in todays world, which I honsetly can't picture how they would be able to pull that off.



I know it takes place in the "golden era," but if they'd tried to put it in more modern settings (70s, 80s or later), I was curious if they'd dip into characters we grew up with (and how disturbing it might be :P).

I think this time around it would be a lot harder to get Mickey and the gang in (I'm really surprised they did it the first time).

[Fluffets]

I would like nothing more than to see a Roger Rabbit sequel. The subject matter lends itself to another picture - if made correctly. The classic hand drawn animation of Who Framed Roger Rabbit is as much a part of the film as the title character himself. Robert Zemekis wants to motion capture the performances this go-round! Ugh, ick, oogie!

I could stomach some CG animation with toon shaders mixed with some traditional cel animation in bits, but the characters need to be animated - not motion captured. How does one motion capture the squash and stretch fluidity of a Tex Avery style toon?

I don’t want to see Roger, Jessica, Benny and the gang appearing like the cardboard corpse-like creations in the horribly expressionless Polar Express. I think Roger Rabbit is the perfect vehicle to bring cel animation back to the forefront. If that means dumping Zemekis than I’ll get the Toontown catapult.

I wanna be excited about this - but not using this ill-fitting technique. :sympathy:

There was NOTHING wrong with Polar Express, I LOVE that movie!:grouchy:

[Baby Gonzo]

There was NOTHING wrong with Polar Express, I LOVE that movie!:grouchy:

But it would be HORRIBLE and not to mention downright creepy to see Roger Rabbit in that style. :scary:

[Fluffets]

I think live action cartoon croosovers are pretty good and I haven't seen this either in ages or ever but I HAVE seen looney tunes back in action and a sequel to that would be good too, or a movie that winds up both! It doesen't have to be cartoon cameos too I think because if you've seen Looney Tunes Back In action you'll notice many live action, famous monsters in the area 52 scene. Including robby the robot, robot monster and 2 daleks to name a few.So clebrity cameos would be good too, OOH ANOTHER IDEA! there could be a muppets cameo or something. OMG MORE IDEAS:)! Add in other classic and memorable characters too like Gremlins from the Gremlins movies! Any other thoughts?:):)

[Fluffets]

But it would be HORRIBLE and not to mention downright creepy to see Roger Rabbit in that style. :scary:
True.:D

[Drtooth]

I think live action cartoon croosovers are pretty good and I haven't seen this either in ages or ever but I HAVE seen looney tunes back in action and a sequel to that would be good too, or a movie that winds up both! It doesen't have to be cartoon cameos too I think because if you've seen Looney Tunes Back In action you'll notice many live action, famous monsters in the area 52 scene. Including robby the robot, robot monster and 2 daleks to name a few.

Yeah, but what worked for Back in Action clearly won't work here. I must also add that Back in Action, while I think deep down it was a good movie was the wrong vehicle to gauge the popularity of the franchise. Look at all the garbage the Looney Tunes went through after that movie. I'm talking about that terrible Loonatics show and the horrendous lack of LT merchandise ever since (except for all those Hallmark cards and ornaments). Plus, the movie had the deep flaw of revolving around the 2 human characters a lot more than the cartoon characters... the same problem that the Bullwinkle film had. Seriously, I wanna know the name of the board member that said that Rocky and Bullwinkle need to be comic relief to a Mary Sue.

That said, I REALLY don't like how Polar Express came out... and I'm really hoping the crap about this Roger Rabbit film being CGI motion capture is the biggest rumor of them all.

I think this time around it would be a lot harder to get Mickey and the gang in (I'm really surprised they did it the first time).

I'm still confused about this... but isn't Roger Rabbit co-owned by Amblin and Disney? Hypothetically speaking, if they can clear up the Disney/Amblin stuff that really keeps this franchise underground, I don't think seeing Mickey, Goofy, and the like would be a problem. Bugs, Daffy, Betty Boop and all of those other ones would really be a problem. Of course, with Warner Brothers owning all the Hanna Barbera toons, hypothetically, if they can make that deal with WB, then there's no reason why Droopy and Tom and Jerry couldn't be in the film.

[frogboy4]

There was NOTHING wrong with Polar Express, I LOVE that movie!:grouchy:

The characters looked like dancing corpses to me. I always refer to Polar Express as the Christmas zombie movie. :eek:

I forget the term, but there is one for when computer generated models took so close to real, yet miss a few key details thus rendering them creepy and off putting. Aside from a few swooping camera shots, there is nothing I liked from Polar Express. Monster House on the other hand got closer to the mark. And that was supposed to be creepy. :concern:

Either way – Roger Rabbit should always be traditionally animated. That’s the foundation for the character’s appeal. However, a Judge Doom character could be motion captured. I just find the technology lazy when used for this type of entertainment. They should leave motion capture to video games for the most part.

I enjoyed reading the credits of Ratatouille where it states that no portion of the film was motion captured. It’s sad they even have to put that in. It is funny to think of a bunch of rodents running around with reference point balls stuck all over them, but the sad truth is that the entertainment community is filled with untalented people who try to slide by and fake it. In Zemekis’ case he’s a creative dude that has just given up in recent years.

[Drtooth]

I enjoyed reading the credits of Ratatouille where it states that no portion of the film was motion captured. It’s sad they even have to put that in. It is funny to think of a bunch of rodents running around with reference point balls stuck all over them, but the sad truth is that the entertainment community is filled with untalented people who try to slide by and fake it. In Zemekis’ case he’s a creative dude that has just given up in recent years.


Among other things, I feel that Pixar wants to right away say that everything they have done in CGI has been from scratch, without having to use any cost cutting/corner cutting moves like using motion capture, like other studios have started doing. It seems like they just want to stress the fact they're doing pure animation, and they're committed to it.

But with directors, it eventually happens... young wizkids turn into doddering old perfectionists that make films less and less magical for the sake of what they think is art or makes money. Look at Spielberg and what he did to ET.... sure the stuff that Lucas added to the original Star Wars trilogy was dodgy at best... but censoring the kid's foul talking, pasting a fake looking CGI ET over the more realistic puppet, and replacing guns with walkytalkys? Ridiculous.

[frogboy4]

Among other things, I feel that Pixar wants to right away say that everything they have done in CGI has been from scratch, without having to use any cost cutting/corner cutting moves like using motion capture, like other studios have started doing. It seems like they just want to stress the fact they're doing pure animation, and they're committed to it.

But with directors, it eventually happens... young wizkids turn into doddering old perfectionists that make films less and less magical for the sake of what they think is art or makes money. Look at Spielberg and what he did to ET.... sure the stuff that Lucas added to the original Star Wars trilogy was dodgy at best... but censoring the kid's foul talking, pasting a fake looking CGI ET over the more realistic puppet, and replacing guns with walkytalkys? Ridiculous.

Hey, tossing a walkytalky at someone would really, really...hurt. :p

[Fluffets]

The characters looked like dancing corpses to me. I always refer to Polar Express as the Christmas zombie movie. :eek:

I forget the term, but there is one for when computer generated models took so close to real, yet miss a few key details thus rendering them creepy and off putting. Aside from a few swooping camera shots, there is nothing I liked from Polar Express. Monster House on the other hand got closer to the mark. And that was supposed to be creepy. :concern:

Either way – Roger Rabbit should always be traditionally animated. That’s the foundation for the character’s appeal. However, a Judge Doom character could be motion captured. I just find the technology lazy when used for this type of entertainment. They should leave motion capture to video games for the most part.

I enjoyed reading the credits of Ratatouille where it states that no portion of the film was motion captured. It’s sad they even have to put that in. It is funny to think of a bunch of rodents running around with reference point balls stuck all over them, but the sad truth is that the entertainment community is filled with untalented people who try to slide by and fake it. In Zemekis’ case he’s a creative dude that has just given up in recent years.


Lolz xmas zombie movie! :) Thats a cracker!

But still I like pretty much anything cheesy if its xmas. Heck I'm probably the biggest fan of "Santa Claus Conquers The Martians" by a long shot! By the way I'd like to share this new link because the CGI is great and it features one of our faveourite frogs! (watch the very end) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEDMVNAPk4

[Drtooth]

I forget the term, but there is one for when computer generated models took so close to real, yet miss a few key details thus rendering them creepy and off putting.

Are you thinking of "Uncanny Valley," or is that just a term for robotics? I hate ultra-realistic looking CGI humans too. The stylization of humans in Monsters Vs Aliens and The Incredibles, and Up and others like them work, because they still look like cartoons. At the risk of over-speculating, I'd hate to see Roger look like some horrible cross bread between a toon rabbit and a real one, like Scooby Doo and Garfield came out.

I still say the chances of Roger Rabbit 2 are the same as Ghostbusters 3. But then again, we got Rocky 6 and Indiana Jones 4.....

[RedPiggy]

But Ghostbusters 3 is coming ... as a video game, but that's the best we're getting.

[Drtooth]

But Ghostbusters 3 is coming ... as a video game, but that's the best we're getting.

Nope. Ghostbusters the game is NOT Ghostbusters 3. It shouldn't count as GB 3... all I know is that before the video game idea came about, there was to be a CGI animated DTV with the original cast of the first 2 films doing the voice overs... sort of like the H-boy cartoon DVD's that came out in between the 2 movies, or those Watchmen DVD's that just came out. From my understanding, the DTV never made it because none of the cast could agree on mutual terms... so they basically used the same plot as a video game.

If that did count as a real sequel, then Roger Rabbit 2 would technically be this old Amiga game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pqp1_yPG5o)...

[RedPiggy]

I've read articles where Dan Akroyd SAYS that's what you're getting for Ghostbusters 3.

From the references section of Wikipedia (and I read that GameInformer article): "Game Informer, December 2007: 81. Akroyd:"I've seen work on the video game, I've watched it progress, my rap now to people is 'This is essentially the third movie.' "

So, from the horse's own mouth ... accept this as the third installment.

[The Count]

Actually, a third GB movie has been confirmed. Here's a link with some info you might want to check out from a month and a half ago.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/969/969613p1.html

[Drtooth]

Actually, a third GB movie has been confirmed. Here's a link with some info you might want to check out from a month and a half ago.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/969/969613p1.html

Man, they're REALLY playing tennis with that one... Oh! It's happening... No it's not!... Oh wait it is...
Yeah, the third movie theoretically would/will be like the show "Extreme Ghostbusters," using the concept of the original GB being retired and teaching a new class. I, for one like the idea. Just make sure Egon gets enough screen time.

I always said, if they don't wanna do this, heck with it. Call up Maurice LaMarche, Dave Coulier, Frank Welker, and Arsineo Hall (or whoever the other guy was... come to think of it, what exactly is Arsineo doin' these days?)... make a DTV animated Real Ghostbusters feature.

From the references section of Wikipedia (and I read that GameInformer article): "Game Informer, December 2007: 81. Akroyd:"I've seen work on the video game, I've watched it progress, my rap now to people is 'This is essentially the third movie.' "

So, from the horse's own mouth ... accept this as the third installment.

I always wondered, what does count as a true sequel? A sequel to the actual movie with a follow up movie? Or can it be a comic book, animated series, video game, or series of novels? If it is widely accepted as GB3, like the Nightmare Before Christmas game is accepted as NBC2, then it really does count.

[bazooka_beak]

I'm so tired of the back and forth. Until I see a poster or something really official, I refuse to believe they're actually REALLY making a GB3 this time.

[Fluffets]

Man, they're REALLY playing tennis with that one... Oh! It's happening... No it's not!... Oh wait it is...
Yeah, the third movie theoretically would/will be like the show "Extreme Ghostbusters," using the concept of the original GB being retired and teaching a new class. I, for one like the idea. Just make sure Egon gets enough screen time.

I always said, if they don't wanna do this, heck with it. Call up Maurice LaMarche, Dave Coulier, Frank Welker, and Arsineo Hall (or whoever the other guy was... come to think of it, what exactly is Arsineo doin' these days?)... make a DTV animated Real Ghostbusters feature.



I always wondered, what does count as a true sequel? A sequel to the actual movie with a follow up movie? Or can it be a comic book, animated series, video game, or series of novels? If it is widely accepted as GB3, like the Nightmare Before Christmas game is accepted as NBC2, then it really does count.

Wait which show was extreme ghostbusters? Once on a disney channel there was a show that was done by the same animators as men in black: the series and godzilla: the series but I can't remember the title of it.....:D

[Drtooth]

I'm so tired of the back and forth. Until I see a poster or something really official, I refuse to believe they're actually REALLY making a GB3 this time.

Me too. Once I get news of a real working script and a projection date, and the ding of the first scenes being filmed, then I'll believe it.

Wait which show was extreme ghostbusters? Once on a disney channel there was a show that was done by the same animators as men in black: the series and godzilla: the series but I can't remember the title of it....

Yes. off topic, I always hated the title having the 90's buzzword "Extreme" in it. Ghostbusters the Next generation, or the new class or something like that would have been more filling, and not so much of a turn off.

[dwayne1115]

Roger Rabbit 2 would only be good if they took the same passion with this one as the second one and hand drawing all the cartoons. It would also be great if they did it like 10 years latter or so when Hanna Barbera cartoons such as Tom and Jerry, and such came out. I could just see Tom and Wiley Koyote working together to try and get the Road Runner and Jerry. It would also be great to see Micky and the gang back in there classic Animated from. Bugs and Daffy for that matter as well.

[Fluffets]

Me too. Once I get news of a real working script and a projection date, and the ding of the first scenes being filmed, then I'll believe it.



Yes. off topic, I always hated the title having the 90's buzzword "Extreme" in it. Ghostbusters the Next generation, or the new class or something like that would have been more filling, and not so much of a turn off.

No I meant which one is which?:confused:

[JJandJanice]

Roger Rabbit 2 would only be good if they took the same passion with this one as the second one and hand drawing all the cartoons. It would also be great if they did it like 10 years latter or so when Hanna Barbera cartoons such as Tom and Jerry, and such came out. I could just see Tom and Wiley Koyote working together to try and get the Road Runner and Jerry. It would also be great to see Micky and the gang back in there classic Animated from. Bugs and Daffy for that matter as well.

Actually Tom and Jerry were created in the 1940s and would of fit in just fine with the toons in the original 1988 classic.

And indeed they were planned to be include, but due to copyright issues, they didn't get their cameo in the movie. Tom and Jerry were among a few cartoons that were suppose to have a cameo in the movie, but due to copyright or trademark issues didn't get to been seen with the other toons. Along with Tom and Jerry, this list also includes Superman, Casper the friendly ghost, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, Popeye, and Felix the Cat (though Felix can be seen beifly in the flim in a picture where he's shaking hands with R.K. Moroon and he's face is used at the entrance to Toontown, but as a speaking and interacting character he never got the chance), bummer isn't it?

[JJandJanice]

No I meant which one is which?:confused:

The 1980's cartoon titled "The Real Ghostbusters" is the one that picks up where the movie left off and features all four Ghostbusters with Slimer.

"Extreme Ghostbusters" featured Egon as a teacter to new students learning to become Ghostbusters and the other three Ghostbusters (Ray, Peter, and Winston) weren't seen til the last episodes. The show was made in 1997.

As DrTooth stated this is off topic since this thread is supposed to be about Roger Rabbit, but I also just wanted to mention that their is yet another cartoon titled simply "Ghostbusters" by Filmation which feature a talking ape. That's why the cartoon that featured the very popular Smiler had the "Real" added to their name. This show might be adding to your confusion over which ghostbuster cartoon is which.

[Drtooth]

And indeed they were planned to be include, but due to copyright issues, they didn't get their cameo in the movie. Tom and Jerry were among a few cartoons that were suppose to have a cameo in the movie, but due to copyright or trademark issues didn't get to been seen with the other toons. Along with Tom and Jerry, this list also includes Superman, Casper the friendly ghost, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, Popeye, and Felix the Cat (though Felix can be seen beifly in the flim in a picture where he's shaking hands with R.K. Moroon and he's face is used at the entrance to Toontown, but as a speaking and interacting character he never got the chance), bummer isn't it?

Tom and Jerry weren't going to be in it due to copyrights... but I wonder how they were able to get Droopy, since they were technically owned by the same company at the time.

Popeye and Bluto were supposed to be the pall bearers for R. K. Maroon's funeral, by the way.

[bazooka_beak]

Popeye and Bluto were supposed to be the pall bearers for R. K. Maroon's funeral, by the way.

I'm trying to picture such a scene but everything comes out looking awkward (Popeye and Bluto fighting then dropping the casket, or them holding it with one hand each until Olive walks by and they drop it, etc.) :P

[JJandJanice]

Tom and Jerry weren't going to be in it due to copyrights... but I wonder how they were able to get Droopy, since they were technically owned by the same company at the time.

Popeye and Bluto were supposed to be the pall bearers for R. K. Maroon's funeral, by the way.

Well I probably shouldn't have said all those toons won't in the movie due to copyright issues, that's the reason for most toons not being in the film, but I think I few others just got cut for "production limitations" as well.

Even though they got Disney characters a Skeleton dancer from Silly Symphonies's The Skeleton Dance and Ben Ail Gator from Fantasia was cut. As well as Pepe Le Pew even though most of the other Looney Tunes were seen.

[Drtooth]

All and all, I'm glad Superman wasn't in the film. He really would have seemed out of place, as far as I'm concerned. Plus, it would have been such a cheat... he could have faced Judge Doom all by himself, dip or no dip.... unless Doom had Kryptonite...

[JJandJanice]

All and all, I'm glad Superman wasn't in the film. He really would have seemed out of place, as far as I'm concerned. Plus, it would have been such a cheat... he could have faced Judge Doom all by himself, dip or no dip.... unless Doom had Kryptonite...

It would of been the old 1940s Superman cartoons so he would look too out of place as far as how it would of look had the comic book Superman was with them. He probably won't of had any interaction with Judge Doom.

But than again I can see your point, I guess it would seem a bit silly that Superman would scared of the same thing that can take out Roger Rabbit, :). It also would of looked silly to have Superman signing with the likes of Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny and Woody Woodpecker at the end too.

On the other hand, it was a well known cartoon of the 1940s, so it could of fit, :confused:. I mean when I think about it, he doesn't look too out of place whenever I see those "giant cartoon collection" dvds or whatever that you can get for like five bucks at Wal-Mart.

But oh well, truth be told out of all the cartoons that didn't get their cameos, I think the ones I'm most bummed about are Felix the cat and Casper the friendly ghost, just cause they would of fit in perfectly, ;). Maybe if this movie does see the light of day, these toons will finally get their cameo.

Still as I mention it seems hard to believe that they'll be able to get all this companies like Warner Bros and Disney and others to work together again, or rather have their toons share screen time together. It really does seem like the kind of thing that can really only happen once, which it already did.

[Drtooth]

Even a 1940's Superman wouldn't work as far as I figure. If you ever watch those, they were WAAAY ahead of their time, in terms of dramatic cartoons. Heck, Lois Lane, still in a dress, seemed like a front runner to the feminist movement.

I'm sure he would have had a brief cameo, if anything.... and I really couldn't see him acting the same way the other toons acted (like you said, singing, dancing, being cartoonishly afraid of the dip)... I could see him somehow rescuing Eddie from a dangerous fall.

[dwayne1115]

ya Casper and Filix the cat would have been great in the movie! I really loved the way they did Betty Boop, she is such a classic cartoon icon that it would have been very sad if they did not put her in the movie. Popye would have also been a great addition to the movie. He was a great cartoon and many fans love him even to this day.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Warner Bors. own like most of the classic cartoons now? I know they own everything done by Hanna Barbera now what else do they own?

[Drtooth]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Warner Bors. own like most of the classic cartoons now? I know they own everything done by Hanna Barbera now what else do they own?


From my recollection they own DC comics (which includes EC comics from the 50's), Turner properties (which includes Hanna Barbera) , and their own Looney Tunes... I'm not sure if Animaniacs, Pinky and the Brain, and all of those are co-owned by Amblin... I'm sure they are, since they needed their permission for the DVD releases as I said earlier (making them pricey).... They somehow have the distribution rights for Popeye DVD's, but only the old Fleischer ones (I'm sure Paramount owns the rest) and the 1970's and 80's Hanna Barbera ones.

[JJandJanice]

Even a 1940's Superman wouldn't work as far as I figure. If you ever watch those, they were WAAAY ahead of their time, in terms of dramatic cartoons. Heck, Lois Lane, still in a dress, seemed like a front runner to the feminist movement.

I'm sure he would have had a brief cameo, if anything.... and I really couldn't see him acting the same way the other toons acted (like you said, singing, dancing, being cartoonishly afraid of the dip)... I could see him somehow rescuing Eddie from a dangerous fall.

You know I actually haven't seen those 1940s Superman cartoons since I was a kid, so I can't remember them too well.
But overall I do agree with you Drtooth that Superman would of seemed a bit out of place with the other toons. If Superman did have a cameo like you said it would of been to save Eddie, maybe when Tweety played with his "pitties" and Bugs gave him a tire, :D. Though that would of taken away from the ugly woman whom wanted Eddie, :insatiable:.

It kind of reminds me of that Imagationland episodes of South Park. Don't know if anyone here watchs South Park, but in the second episode of that when the evil characters were unleased, I couldn't help but laugh cause one of the good guys characters was DC's The Flash and when the bad guys were unleased he ran away all scared, and he didn't even run fast, :) .

But back to Roger Rabbit, you know I was thinking if they did set it to more recent times, they could do the movie about Roger Rabbit's comeback, just a thought. But even though I'm the one that started this thread and thinking it would be cool if it did happen, now I'm starting to think their really isn't away it could happen.

[Count von Count]

I would LOVE to see a new Roger Rabbit movie by Robert Zemeckis!
Roger Rabbit is one of the best cartoon/live action movie I have ever seen.
It is just so good in every way, a 2nd movie would be Great

[muppets2]

yea they used all of wb and disney's charcthers i espcially like daffy and donald battleing on the piano

i would go see it

[Fluffets]

yea they used all of wb and disney's charcthers i espcially like daffy and donald battleing on the piano

i would go see it

Yeah there's a bit of fuss over what donald said, some people thought he says "Incompatant nitwit!" while others say, erm... "Incompatant Ni****!" I hate to have to quote it:o but it is slightly interesting bwcause it makes sense, sicne donald's feathers are pale and daffy's are darker black, if Donald was being racist its not entirely surprising, after all I saw an old propaganda cartoon on youtube where Donald was a nazi!:eek: but thankfully it was a dream he had, and at the end there's a cheesy "Thank god I live in america!" ending. :rolleyes:

[Drtooth]

Yeah there's a bit of fuss over what donald said, some people thought he says "Incompatant nitwit!" while others say, erm... "Incompatant Ni****!"


Ugh... that stuff makes me so annoyed. Those stupid little rumors they make to pollute Disney movies with themes that just aren't there... trust me. Animators do think about adult things because they are adults... they just have the sense to hide it more carefully.

HOWEVER... did you know the word "Toon" is actually meant as a slur of sorts the humans call the cartoon characters? That's sub-context that's heavily veiled.

if Donald was being racist its not entirely surprising, after all I saw an old propaganda cartoon on youtube where Donald was a nazi!:eek: but thankfully it was a dream he had, and at the end there's a cheesy "Thank god I live in america!" ending. :rolleyes:


I remember an old cartoon where Donald Duck says, and I quote "I might as well be in an Concentration Camp." I'm guessing it was an offensive phrase Americans said at the time... but that's what you get when you actually listen closely to Donald's speech... it CAN be done with enough practice.

[bazooka_beak]

^ Wow, really? There's also a Nazi short he's in, but I can't bring myself to look for it and watch it. Or is the concentration camp thing from the same short?

[frogboy4]

1942's "Der Fuehrer's Face" featured Donald Duck wearing a Nazi uniform (at one point he even resembled Hitler); however it was all a bad dream for Donald. He wakes up in patriotic pajamas at the end.

This was a propaganda film shown during war time. The humor was directed at making fun of Nazis. The atrociousness that occurred in WWII is now widely known (except by Mel Gibson's family) and some of the piece is insensitive in that light. Nonetheless it has some of the most humorous gags I've ever seen in a Disney film. It is featured in one of the Chronological Donald DVD sets. Check out this historical Anti-Nazi wartime art piece if you can.

[Drtooth]

This was a propaganda film shown during war time. The humor was directed at making fun of Nazis. The atrociousness that occurred in WWII is now widely known (except by Mel Gibson's family) and some of the piece is insensitive in that light.

Dude... you do NOT know how much that made me laugh right there... nice one! :D

[frogboy4]

Dude... you do NOT know how much that made me laugh right there... nice one! :D

He he. I try. :o

[ferrell]

yes,now they could put some Hanna Barbara characters in the movie as well..

[Fluffets]

Here's the nazi-donald short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YroTk6Vobww

[Ilikemuppets]

Here's the nazi-donald short: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YroTk6VobwwYou trying to point something out about Donald Duck?

[Drtooth]

I still say if this movie gets anywhere near development, I'll buy a hat and eat it.

[muppets2]

yes,now they could put some Hanna Barbara characters in the movie as well..
yes that would be nice they could do a daffy donald and yakky doodle piano battle

or any other h-b char cameos

[Fluffets]

You trying to point something out about Donald Duck?

Not at all.

[Ilikemuppets]

Not at all.Oh, sorry! I was only kidding, heh!

[Unknown Delight]

I love Roger Rabbit. Loved the film and the various cartoon shorts that were produced in the years that followed it. Loved the whole concept....and loved what the film helped to bring back into the spotlight.

As much as a love all those things, i am very hesitant to say i will 'love a sequel'. Sequels in general are never as good as the original..although yes, there have been a FEW rare exceptions in some cases. For THIS project however, i cannot see it topping the first without a mish-mash of all the elements that film studios' feel NEED to be in such a film ( overkill on the CGI 'effects' for one thing). No...i have a hard time getting excited about such a project as i have a serious feeling of dread grip me whenever the topic comes up. I think the characters have plenty of future potential, but this should be built on the medium that they themselves are KNOWN FOR - 'CLASSIC CEL ANIMATION'.

I have a problem with the oversaturation of CGI elements and characters in films and tv series these days. Many of these could have been better executed IMO by using cel animation. We have a entire generation now it seems that have been brainwashed into thinking that 'animation' is CGI based stuff produced by Dreamworks and Pixar. Of course i understand that these days, studios want to keep the production costs down and all...and CGI based animation is usually the less expenisve option when compared to hand drawn/cel animaton in most cases. What gets me really in a fury though is when such studios seem to express the sentiment that 'Trad' Animation is 'less desired' and 'less marketable' then CGI based work. I find that depressing and anger inducing all at the same time.

I don't think we will see any new Roger works until the time comes Classic Traditional -style animation comes back into 'fashion' May the Gods bless Disney's 'Frog and the Princess' to do just that. If that film hits it big and sets off a sudden high demand for Traditional Cel Animation again like 'An American Tail' and 'Roger..' did in the mid 80's, i think things will look more promising for a new Roger film.

[Drtooth]

It's not so much the CGI that bugs me as the whole motion capture thing. I'm sure they could make it look cartoony with some sort of CGI'traditional looking animation cross bread... but I'm really not liking the obsessiveness of Zermeckis and his motion capture system. I liken it to George Lucas's constant CGI revisionist history (No! No! Things were supposed to look like HD movie thrill rides! Especially since they didn't exist prior to then, and no one would have predicted them). Polar Express, I completely agree with Frogboy, had a very ghoulish, pail look to it. It seemed very dark. I couldn't even get through watching it. And I'm not exactly loving "A Christmas Carol" which just seems to be a feature length 3-D movie theme park attraction. Watch the trailer for it...and you'll see what I mean (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ3lr3urgDU). Compair it with UP, which was also seen in 3-D... the movie's graphics were enhanced by the effects, but it never detracted from the movie, and it plays just as well on a standard 2-D, non-digital projected screen. While Up was a movie that just so happened to distributed in 3-D, Christmas Carol seems like 3-D that just so happens to be distributed in a movie.

And with news of this and the Yellow Submarine remake, seems they're going to make movies specifically for the 3-D market... e.i. random effects akin to the characters pointing at the screen going "WeeeoooOOOOOooo! WeeeeeOOOOOOoooo!"

But I doubt this movie will happen at all... Amblin and Disney aren't really on friendly terms, and there was virtually nothing for the 20th anniversary of Roger Rabbit in terms of merchandise... I think I saw a large snowglobe and nothing else.

We have a entire generation now it seems that have been brainwashed into thinking that 'animation' is CGI based stuff produced by Dreamworks and Pixar. Of course i understand that these days, studios want to keep the production costs down and all...and CGI based animation is usually the less expenisve option when compared to hand drawn/cel animaton in most cases. What gets me really in a fury though is when such studios seem to express the sentiment that 'Trad' Animation is 'less desired' and 'less marketable' then CGI based work. I find that depressing and anger inducing all at the same time.

I think the problem lies with studio heads, some from studios that never even distributed animated features at all. Pixar may have started this trend, but I assure you, they're the ones most concerned with the state of 2-D animation. As they're owned by Disney now, they actually run their entire theatrical animation department... and I'm sure they're the ones who pressed to make Princess and the Frog a 2-D feature. In fact, there's a semi-subliminal message in the movie "Cars." The bumper sticker decorated character Filmore the Hippy bus has a sticker that says "Save 2-D animation."

What people forget is when Disney had a string of hits with 2-D features, companies like Warner Bros, MGM, and Fox also jumped on that trend as well... and while we got some gold, like American Tale, The Land Before Time, and the Iron Giant (which unfortunately flopped, no thanks to not having a Disney label slapped on it), we also got a lot of forgotten clunkers like Anastasia and Thumblina (both almost a waste of Don Bluth's talents, moreso the last one). Disney initially switched to a CGI format when movies like Treasure Planet and Brother Bear failed to click commercially and critically.