Is a Sequel to Roger Rabbit in the Works?
Filed under: Animation, Classics, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Noir, Disney, RumorMonger, DIY/Filmmaking, Newsstand, Remakes and Sequels
With every movie of the '80s and '90s being dusted off and revisited, a return to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is not only unsurprising, but probably inevitable. MTV News caught up with Robert Zemeckis, who revealed that he was seriously considering a return to Toontown. "I'll tell you what is buzzing around in my head now that we have the ability - the digital tools, performance capture - I'm starting to think about Roger Rabbit."Of course, Zemeckis couldn't provide any further details. Two years ago, Frank Marshall told MTV that a sequel was still kicking around, and that all that had prevented it was the lack of digital technology. "It came pretty close. We shot a test. We had a script. But unfortunately, we didn't have computer generated animation quite yet -- it was just too expensive." Because Roger Rabbit would be in the entire movie as opposed to only about 48 minutes of animation, it was impossible to do at the time. Obviously, technology has updated to the point that an entire Roger Rabbit movie could be done with CG and clearly, Zemeckis would love to use his motion capture on the big, goofy bunny ... and can you imagine what they'd do with Jessica Rabbit to top Angelina Jolie as Grendel's Mom? I'm a little creeped out just thinking about that.
A Roger Rabbit sequel isn't a bad idea, but as with so many of these properties, it just feels like the ship has sailed. New technology should mean new stories, not just a return to 1988. I imagine I'm alone in that, and everyone else is dying for more Roger Rabbit even after 20 years. But will you like him as well if he's a dead-eyed motion capture and not a lovable toon?
Movie Popcorn is Bad for You? Who Knew?_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-30-2009 @ 10:13AM
Colin said...
If they could replicate cell animation with mo-cap, and have a good story to tell, then why not?
CGI blended with live action works for some types of film, Davy Jones. Would it work with bright, primary coloured, giant rabbits? Not so sure. Show us a test reel and let the public decide!
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 10:24AM
Mike said...
The problems I foresee with this are that the first one was damn near perfect (no other film that has blended live action and animation has come close) and better technology or not, if I see all of those characters again I want them to look like those characters. I don't want high gloss recreations or more realistic toons.
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 10:41AM
Kurt said...
NOW we have the tools? Roger Rabbit was exquisitely executed, i.e., they had the tools then. And even if he has the "tools", Robert Zemeckis clearly doesn't know how to use them anymore. Polar Express was god-awful. Beowulf was saved only by its gimmicky 3-D-ness. I'm sure A Christmas Carol will disappoint. Seriously, dude, step away from the Mo-Cap stage and concentrate on making movies that capture actual performances again.
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 10:43AM
Astin said...
My thought process reading this:
- Not a bad idea. I liked Roger Rabbit, and a sequel is totally do-able
- Zemeckis! Cool, always good to get the original team on board.
- Motion capture - aw crap! I forgot that was what Zemeckis was all about these days. NO NO NO!
I'm with you on the dead-eyed fear. The beauty of Roger Rabbit was the combination of well-known classic animated characters with live actors. If he goes mo-cap, it will look terrible and lose all the whimsy of the original. They have to replicate the hand-drawn cell animation of the classic characters (and I'm talking not just Roger and Jessica, but getting other known 'toons like Mickey, Goofy, Porky, Bugs, some Princesses, and other cross-branded icons). It would be a great idea to bring in the more recent known CG characters (Buzz, Woddy, Elastigirl, Lightning McQueen, Shrek, etc.) and show the contrast between styles. But why would Jessica or Roger suddenly evolve into more modern 'toons? And if they mo-cap the live actors, you lose the key aspect of the series. Toons and people living in the same world, because the real people have become toons themselves (unless that's the story).
Yah, the digital technology they were waiting for scares me now...
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 3:38PM
Ashley said...
I'm kind of loving the idea of cel-animation (Roger and Jessica Rabbit, Mickey, Betty Boop, etc.), CGI (Woody, Buzz, Nemo, etc.), and live action actors all together on screen. Some kind of take on how the CGI characters are threatening not only toon town, but live action as well. If it includes a great story, it could be just as beautifully done as the first, this time with three mediums.
4-30-2009 @ 11:04AM
JoB said...
The point of Roger Rabbit was that it WAS NOT mocap. It was animated. Animated characters don't move like we do, that was the whole gag of the film: animated vs. live action. WTF is he going to mocap? What, they think Andy Serkis and Doug Jones could be Roger Rabbit? Give me a break, let the animators do the acting.
I think they should stay away from this property and come up with a similar selling point (cartoons in the real world) but make an original story and characters. Too bad Hollywood won't risk originiality lately.
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 1:35PM
Dan said...
No, I'm with you Elisabeth. I love Roger Rabbit, he's a staple of my childhood but that's where I'd like him to stay. Do something new instead of following the trend of revisiting every single idea ever thought of in the last twenty years.
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 12:45PM
dishesaredone said...
This is nonsense, if the same creative team is going to make a sequel to their own film, why change what worked so well? So you can have another empty-eyed CG character? Nothing against CG of course, but why is traditional animation so taboo? Because of the time it takes? Zemeckis is way past having to pump out film after film, he's just got a boner for mo-cap.
Besides, the first is a near perfect film, with bob hoskins giving one of the most impressive performances I've ever seen. Is there really a story that could live up to the original regardless of how it's executed?
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 1:57PM
vegimorph said...
i'm in the middle about this one. on one hand, it sounds like a cool and fun idea and its even better that Zemeckis and the original team could be back, but on the other hand, the original is great on its own and adding a sequel or something to it wouldn't feel right.
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 2:03PM
Batzarro said...
I am not sure a sequel to that would please anyone. Especially if the charm ofcel animation is taken away...
Reply
4-30-2009 @ 2:36PM
David said...
It's not just that it's CGI/not-CGI -- it's that the characters are FLAT. TWO-dimensional. They're DIFFERENT from the humans. The discrimination against them was part of the point. Give them shading and texture and WEIGHT and you're entirely missing the idea. I think almost anything they try to "update" this movie would be weak in comparison.
Also, if they DID make them CGI (also a big mistake, in my opinion, as WFRR was kind of the last hurrah of innovative cel animation), wouldn't you have to set the movie 50 or 60 years after the first one?
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 1:34AM
hardcle said...
You're wrong, the Toons were 3D. At least in our world. In Toontown they were 2D. Remember Jessica's performance at the Ink & Paint club? There's a 360 degree shot of her. Definitely 3D. It would've been tough for them to interact with our world otherwise.
I'd love to see a sequel, but I think it would be difficult to re-capture the same spirit. There's also no way a motion capture Roger would work. It wouldn't be nearly wacky enough.
7-08-2009 @ 3:32PM
Falcione said...
Well, I've got a few comments:
1. What Robert Zemeckis meant when he said "Now that we have the tools", he really meant "Now that we have the tools to do it EASIER."... Which, to me, wouldn't be as impressive. I love the original because they took the time to hand animate the toons to match the camera's movements in real space. CGI just wouldn't be as impressive.
2. In the latest release of Roger Rabbit on DVDE, they had a CGI Benny the Cab in the menu selection screens. They were able to make him look "kind of" toony, but it still wasn't anywhere near traditional hand-drawn animation.
3. Though I have these gripes, I do love me some Roger Rabbit. It's my favorite movie. I'd be willing to take a gamble if it meant more Roger Rabbit... Even it it was only half as good as the original, it'd still be pretty darn good.
Reply