Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2 (ImageMovers)

[slave2moonlight]

Incidentally, here is that Marvel graphic novel sequel I'm always talkin' about. I was so psyched when I found it. They came out with an adaptation of the film before this, and both are in a beautiful, large size (rather than regular comic book shaped like many graphic novels, they are more album shaped like older graphic novels). Of course, there's also the book sequel, Who P-p-p-plugged Roger Rabbit, but I guess that is more a sequel to the original novel (still have to read both), while this is a sequel to the film.


http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Rabbit-resu ... 04&sr=8-20

A short-lived comic book series followed this book, plus a spin-off called Roger Rabbit's Toontown. I have no idea why (must have been some legal issue), but they replaced Eddie Valiant (possibly through the course of this sequel, or more likely just in the first issue of the comic, can't remember) with a new, fit, blonde-haired detective, ha. I have some of these comics, but still need to get a few that I missed. And, of course, there's also the very Roger Rabbit inspired series "Bonkers" for those jonesin' for more Roger-stye entertainment. It's pretty much a modern, all-animated Roger Rabbit scenario, though instead of teaming with a human Detective, the toon character (similar in design in some ways to Roger) teams with a cop and becomes a cop himself. It keeps the "toon" aspect going (though without mention of a "Toontown") and includes cameos of famous Disney toons, though I'm sure most people here know about this '90's TV show already. Man, it totally needs a DVD release, though I still think I have the three official (yet very poor quality) VHS tapes I bought years back.

[Elladorine]

Wow, I'm remembering that "Resurrection of Doom" title but I don't think I actually read it. I'm guessing those graphic novels came out slightly before I had any buying power, otherwise I'd have gotten my hands all over them.

I do remember those comic book issues with Rick Flint very well as I managed to pick up most of them (seems like there was around 12-15 issues or so total). I never got my hands on the first issue in order to understand exactly why they replaced Eddie Valiant though, at least story-wise (I also assumed it must have had something to do with legal issues). I also picked up the Toon Town issues, seems like there was only five or so of those before most of the Disney comics lines went under (aside from old staples like WDC&S and Uncle Scrooge). I remember thinking it was really, really cool at the time that they had Roger meet Gertie the Dinosaur, one of the earliest animated characters ever to hit the screen.

This was back when they were publishing Disney Afternoon-related comics (DuckTales, Rescue Rangers, TaleSpin, Darkwing, etc.) and I got my first exposure to Carl Bark's work in the form of Scrooge and Donald comics. Wow, those were the days. Those comics were some of the first things I ever bought with my own money. And yep, I was told by my parents that I was wasting it.

[slave2moonlight]

Ha, yeah, the Disney comics were among my first purchases too, and I think I got to the point where one could say I was addicted to them. I got into them with the first issues from Gladstone back in the mid-'80's or so, though I never did find their first Scrooge issue. I kept buying them from there onward, through when they companies and focuses a lot. Surprise, surprise, they got really commercialized when Disney took over in the sense that they focused on the Disney Afternoon and other current subjects, but I still loved them and they were still good, ha. But it was surely a big change, and things were never the same after Gladstone...

But yeah, the Roger Rabbit and Toontown comics had a short run, but they sure were cool for the Roger fanatic. I only managed to get the early ones though, because around that time I started to feel there were too many titles out there and I just didn't have any money anymore for some reason, so I had to stop buying comics. Yet if I had stuck with it for just a few more issues, I could have run the course of the Disney publishing, ha. What a rip! But that happened to me more than once. For the last year or so of Gladstone publishing, I wasn't buying anymore because they had so many titles I just couldn't afford them. Anyway, I never got back into regular comic book purchasing after the time of Roger Rabbit and those titles, though I still buy comics on occasion, especially titles that are like, 1 or 4 or something. I was really into Star Wars comics for a while too, and I bought the Buffy comics for the first year or so, but I don't remember when I was collecting those. Anyway, currently I have a big trunk in my room that is filled to the brim with Disney comic books, and at least the same amount of non-Disney comics in a couple of dresser drawers. Someday, I'll get back into regularly collecting, not to mention seeking out the gaps in my collections...

But sorry for getting somewhat off topic. Point is, if you're a big Roger film fan seeking a sequel, there is that great Marvel graphic novel that I highly recommend, plus there were those two comic book titles that only had a few issues.

And if they do make a sequel, I certainly hope we see lots of famous, non-Disney toons mixed in again, as that was naturally one of the high-points of the original film! I'd like to see them get some characters they haven't shown, like Popeye and Tom and Jerry. And if it's set in later years, some Hanna Barbera or whatever.

[Goliath]

I personally do not care for a Roger Rabbit sequel. I think it ended fine the way it did. Besides, making a sequel 20 years after the last film is never really a good idea.

I agree. Let them come up with something new. This current trend of making sequels to 20 year old films (Indiana Jones, Rambo, Rocky) really shows how lazy Hollywood is.

[Elladorine]

This current trend of making sequels to 20 year old films (Indiana Jones, Rambo, Rocky) really shows how lazy Hollywood is.

I'd say more "cautious" than "lazy." They figure that producing a film based on an already existing property is a better guarantee to make money than on something more new and/or unheard of.

How many films from Hollywood are actually original anyway? Whether the films are based on existing books, films, TV shows, even games . . . it's not always the case but films are typically built from existing material and not from scratch anyway.

[KubrickFan]

Right, they've been doing it for decades. A lot of the classics now were actually based off a play, novel or a preexisting movie. So good things can come from it, but over the years only the good films are remembered.

[Mickeyfan1990]

Thought I should give you some updates on the sequel!:

http://www.daemonsmovies.com/2009/07/25 ... 009-panel/

http://www.jewishjournal.com/geekheeb/i ... :06:22:27Z

http://toontownantics.blogspot.com/2009 ... nt-is.html

Again, looking foward to the sequel!

[supertalies]

Eddie Valiant isn't returning.
He was a really fun character. Maybe they could introduce a new detective. Maybe the one from the comics (Rick Flint?).

By the way, do toons actually age?

[blackcauldron85]

Aww, Bob needs to give himself more credit! How does he know he's too old if he doesn't try!!!

[Mickeyfan1990]

Big update!:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles ... tory.jhtml

"In the spring, and out of nowhere, Robert Zemeckis exclusively revealed to MTV News that new digital tools like performance-capture technology had him buzzing about finally making a sequel to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." But there's a big difference between being excited about a project and actually moving forward with it.

MTV News has now exclusively learned that Zemeckis is not only pumped to bring the flustered cartoon bunny back to the big screen after 20 years, but that he has commissioned a script. And guess who's writing it? Original scribes Jeffrey Price and Peter Seaman.
"There's a script that's being developed," he revealed, adding, "We've got the original writers that are working on it now — Seaman and Price."

There have been many false starts on another "Roger Rabbit" over the years, with potential sequels and prequels cropping up in rumors but never becoming realities — and for those who think only Zemeckis should helm the second "Roger" helping, that's a good thing. The director said he was never involved in any of those other ideas.

"I think there was a time right after the movie came out that the Disney regime at the time — it was a point in the life of the studio where if you made a successful movie they could no longer afford to hire you back," he laughed. "I guess there were some projects that I don't know anything about."

We learned a bunch more about the upcoming film, info we'll be rolling out in the next couple of days. Just how will Zemeckis employ those new digital tools as he marries cartoons with real people? Which characters from the past — Jessica Rabbit? Eddie Valiant? — will we see? As Zemeckis said with a smile at one point during the interview, "You're gonna have to wait!" "

Are you excited as I am?!

[estefan]

If Steven Spielberg and Richard Williams get involved with this, I would definitely be all over this.

[pap64]

I just hope that he uses 2D animation for the cartoon characters, instead of using CG mocap. I will be very angry and upset if this happens.

The beauty of Who Framed Roger Rabbit was how the 2D animation blended nearly perfectly with the live action, creating the illusion that cartoon characters COULD co-exist with us.

If they go with CG the illusion is destroyed. Not to mention that since the original movie took place in the golden era of cartoons (the 30s and 40s) having CG versions of classic cartoon characters would be weird.

[Mickeyfan1990]

I pretty, pretty sure the sequel will have the toon character in 2-D. It's a no-brainer if you play your cards right. While I think Steven Spielberg will be back as producer or executive producer, I'm not sure about Richard Williams. He's 76, after all. But I'm sure he'll be glad to participate with Zemeckis again, should he return.

[Margos]

I don't know... If this is done right, it could be one of the coolest things ever. Unfortunately, I think it could also go very, very wrong...
Oh well, best to just hope for the best and look forward to seeing the finished product!

[IagoZazu]

I think it would be stupid if they didn't make the toons hand-drawn, because that was what made Who framed Roger Rabbit awesome.

We'll have to wait and see what happens in order to know for sure.

[SpringHeelJack]

I posit: Mo-cap Jim Carrey as Eddie Valiant. Y/Y?

[Margos]

I know that if there is a sequel, I would like to see more interaction between Roger and Jessica. I find their relationship fascinating, and I think her character was part of what made the first movie so interesting (especially before we found out whether she was friend or foe). I just don't understand how there can be a sequel without Bob Hoskins! What could they possibly be doing with a sequel without Eddie!?

[IagoZazu]

Yeah, I don't know how they can pull it off if the original actors won't be in it. The human characters were just as important as the toons.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit was a pretty notable movie because of the mixing of animation and live-action, so I hope they follow through with a good enough sequel that won't be too radical in terms of different characters or plot. It will probably be different in some sense, but because this is supposed to be an animated/live-action mix with crossovers of all cartoons ever made, there is still a lot of potential. All they have to do is not mess it up.

[Mickeyfan1990]

Here's some news that will cause some people to riot.:

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/11/03/ex ... it-sequel/

"We now know that Robert Zemeckis is playing it old school in at least one respect when it comes to his "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" sequel: the script will be penned by original scribes Jeffrey Price and Peter Seaman

But with over two decades of moviemaking technology between the release of his first cartoon bunny film and the beginning of creative brainstorming for the second, the question is whether or not Zemeckis will also play it old school when it comes to the look of the film. Will it merge live-action with traditional animation? Or, building on his work on films like "A Christmas Carol" and "Beowulf," will the director introduce motion-capture and 3-D technology into the equation?

During a recent interview with MTV News' Josh Horowitz, Zemeckis made his clearest statement yet that he'll use mo-cap for the human actors and that the movie will be partly in 3-D.

"All the other characters that [the cartoons] would sort of have fun with would be magnificent in performance capture technology," he explained.

Inherent in this admission is the matter of 3-D technology. Starting with "The Polar Express" in 2004, all of Zemeckis' mo-cap movies have also been in three dimensions. So when the director talks about using performance-capture, he's also talking about making "Roger Rabbit" partly in 3-D. But he also ruled out using 3-D or mo-cap when it comes to the cartoons, including the title rabbit and his voluptuous beau, Jessica.

"I wouldn't use it for the cartoon characters, because I think they should stay two-dimensional because that's what — I wouldn't dimensonalize Roger," he said. "And I couldn't dimensonalize Jessica even if I wanted to because she doesn't have a nose. We wouldn't want to give her a nose."


Now THIS is something I don't want in the sequel. It's not needed. I guess Robert Zemeckis just can't stay away from mo-cap. Now, mo-cap to use some of the special effects, now that's different. Someone should start a petition for the sequel to be made but with no mo-cap (special effects accepted). Then again, by the time the sequel gets made, the mo-cap technology will be a little advanced to make people a little more realistic. I just hope this is just a scare tactic.

[Margos]

I have a baaad feeling about this....