Would you be up for "Who Framed Roger Rabbit 2?"

[drc5145]

Filmmaker Robert Zemeckis may have spent three movies and several time periods with Marty McFly, but it sounds like he'd really like to hang out a bit more with old friend Roger Rabbit. Or maybe just his chesty 'toon wife.

When asked about the possibility of revisiting past films and characters, Zemeckis offered this to MTV: "I'll tell you what's been buzzing around in my head, now that we have the digital tools and performance capture, is I'm starting to think about ROGER RABBIT." Zemeckis also admits it would be a new idea, which would rule out the previously attempted prequel (which would've had Roger in WWII dealing with Nazis -- hilarious!).

The real question (evaded by Zemeckis) is exactly how the 21st technology he used on BEOWULF and THE POLAR EXPRESS (to often creepy effect) would be implemented -- would he bring Roger and supporting cast forward in time the age of countless computer-rendered characters? Or would he just use his high-tech toy box to imitate the old-school technique and period of the original? Let the speculation commence!

One of the things that makes the beloved WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT work so well and stand the test of time is the limitations of available mid-80s tech, which seamlessly featured hand-drawn 'toons interacting with humans. Is anything else just a cheat? And perhaps most importantly, will the animators figure out new ways to incorporate flashes of Jessica Rabbit nudity?

http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=26282

Considering he's not directing anything after A Christmas Carol, This is actually possible...Shit, I'm in if he's game for this

[BubbaStrangelove]

I think a good story would be to have the hand-drawn cartoons from the original living in the modern world and competing for jobs with the new CGI/motion capture characters. It would be a travesty and disgrace to remake those characters from the original using the new technology. The entire plot from the first movie depends on them being hand drawn since it takes place in the golden age ---- I just htink it would be really cool to have an older, in retirement Roger Rabbit and company coming back into the spotlight to show these new computer creations how it's done, where the original cast is handdrawn and the new characters are using new technology.

[drc5145]

Originally Posted by BubbaStrangelove

I think a good story would be to have the hand-drawn cartoons from the original living in the modern world and competing for jobs with the new CGI/motion capture characters. It would be a travesty and disgrace to remake those characters from the original using the new technology. The entire plot from the first movie depends on them being hand drawn since it takes place in the golden age ---- I just htink it would be really cool to have an older, in retirement Roger Rabbit and company coming back into the spotlight to show these new computer creations how it's done, where the original cast is handdrawn and the new characters are using new technology.

That is actually a really cool and perfect way to incorporate both the hand-drawn characters and the likely CGI chracters Zemeckis would bring in. One of the best aspects of Roger Rabbit, was that integration of Real and Hand-drawn characters. That, the utter goofiness and the amount of crossovers by characters in the film.

You've got to think guys like John Lasseter, who's been a huge proponent for a return to hand-drawn animation, would be down for a Sequel, if it used Hand-drawn characters. I imagine they'd have to talk to him if Zemeckis wanted to use Disney charcters for a ton of cameos.

I hope Zemeckis at least has a good amount of Hand-drawn characters here, considering the hard-on he's had for filming via Mo-Cap technology, which I haven't been a fan of.

[HeavyFknMetal]

I'm down

[rilocay]

I'm keen, but yeah it's appeal is definatly to be hand drawn (or atleast look like that even if it's cg - which would defy the point). The cg dudes can definatly be incorporated though, but to be honest, majority of those character's just suck compared to anything mid 90's and before. sigh. A sequel with Nazi's which i didn't know about, would have been quite amusing if it had been made though.

[Pentangeli]

I'd watch a sequel. I'm bored of Nazi villainy, so hopefully they go a different route. The villain in the first Roger was great, not for the underhand reference to Nazism, but Judge Doom's motive of oil. The villains today are: corrupt bank CEOs, excessively left-wing/liberal media propaganda, terrorists, and corrupt Western politicians. Enemies who hide in the shadows, without uniform, without being easily identified, and who try to turn the West into Sodom and Gomorrah part II. Nazism doesn't have any relevance to current problems. The enemy has changed, and for the most part they are often our own countrymen. It's about time films reflected this.

[JJFlamingo]

If Mickey, Donald, Bugs, and Daffy return (along with Fleischer and Kathleen Turner), I'll be there opening day...

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally Posted by Pentangeli

I'd watch a sequel. I'm bored of Nazi villainy, so hopefully they go a different route. The villain in the first Roger was great, not for the underhand reference to Nazism, but Judge Doom's motive of oil. The villains today are: corrupt bank CEOs, excessively left-wing/liberal media propaganda, terrorists, and corrupt Western politicians. Enemies who hide in the shadows, without uniform, without being easily identified, and who try to turn the West into Sodom and Gomorrah part II. Nazism doesn't have any relevance to current problems. The enemy has changed, and for the most part they are often our own countrymen. It's about time films reflected this.

Roger Rabbit was set in the 40s. I think the idea of having him fight Nazis is only meant as a throwback to the old Bugs cartoons.

[bigred760]

I like BubbaStrangelove's idea of the rivalry between hand drawn and CGI cartoons in the world. Maybe have Toontown in trouble of being taken over by CGIville or something.

[Badbird]

This would have been great around 1993. Now, not so much.

Do toons live forever? If so, Roger in a modern setting might be interesting.

[Grand_Marquis]

I think that's the implication from the fact that they "can't be killed" so-to-speak. It's an easy explanation for how characters like Mickey and Bugs can continue to exist almost a century after their debut and still look and act the way they did from day 1.

From a historical standpoint, though, there's just so much missing if we were to just skip from the 40s to modern day. For instance: UPA's abstract experimentations in the 50s revolutionized the way animation was done, which could've easily put Roger out of a job, and then Hanna Barbera et al went in and bastardized their methods for quick cash, sending animation into a denigrating spiral toward the kids show and saturday morning cartoon sectors – which, conversely, could've put Roger back on the market, in a mediocre episodic format. Though it probably would've proceeded to kick him out in the 90s in favor of some "extreme" Roger impersonator interested in doing a spin-off. That's just one tiny aspect of the animation roller coaster. And THEN there's the CG competition.

Essentially, there are a lot of story opportunities here. In fact, it's one of the reasons it so boggles my mind that a Roger Rabbit sequel can't seem to get off the ground.

[zombievictim]

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of my favorite films and I would absolutely love a sequel. I'd just be intrigued by how it's handled. Zemeckis hasn't exactly been putting out ace material lately..

[Powerslave]

Originally Posted by BubbaStrangelove

I think a good story would be to have the hand-drawn cartoons from the original living in the modern world and competing for jobs with the new CGI/motion capture characters. It would be a travesty and disgrace to remake those characters from the original using the new technology. The entire plot from the first movie depends on them being hand drawn since it takes place in the golden age ---- I just htink it would be really cool to have an older, in retirement Roger Rabbit and company coming back into the spotlight to show these new computer creations how it's done, where the original cast is handdrawn and the new characters are using new technology.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was planning on saying coming into this thread. Or something to that effect. Primarily because it's the best way I could think of to justify a sequel and not make it seem forced. Plus if they did it and stuck with the whole film noir angle, I think you could come up with some really interesting plot ideas.

But I do hope they'd get back Richard Williams as animation director, or someone of equal abilities (does such a person exist?), because incorporation both hand-drawn and CG characters into a live action world, or any other sort of interaction of what would essentially be three different realities, well that'd be a motherfucker of a thing to pull off, but if they could, I think they might even be able to match the first. It would almost be like an update of the same idea, almost more a companion piece than just a straight sequel. But they need someone like Williams, and probably at least a few other equally capable and innovative animators, on board if they plan on pulling it off.

On that note, Zemeckis worries me. His boner for cutting edge tech makes me wary of the guy going back and tampering with something as sacred as Roger Rabbit, which was made great partially because the hand-drawn animation worked so well and was so well-integrated into the story and the basic concept of the film. I hope he doesn't do something moronic like neglect the great old ways in favor of rabid application of mo-cap and CG.

So, I think that it could work only if everything fell into place perfectly, which is obviously a tall order, and that worries me. It's all or nothing. He'll either pull off another masterpiece or tarnish (only slightly, as the original will still be there and still be great, but tarnish nonetheless) an already established one.

[bflythe]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a sequel, however, I don't think it would be sucessful at all. It has been too long and I don't think Roger is a viable character anymore. If done right and marketed well, maybe but I still think it's a bad idea!

[drc5145]

Maybe he does have something up his sleeve with the whole "CGI vs. Handrawn" dealing...

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2009/04/29...-rabbit-movie/

In the video provided, after the Roger Rabbit revelation, he's asked whether he'd use the methods similar to last time or use totally new methods for a new one...

His response: "Yes and No."

Maybe he will use BOTH after all...hmm...

[NuclearMisfit]

Imagine what Jessica Rabbit would be like if they made the characters much older, liver spots, medical emergency bracelet and her voice would probably sound like she smoked a pack of cigarettes since she was 4.

absolutely, ticket sold.

[HoyleHaw]

Ten years ago I might've been up for it. But not now.

Bob Hoskins is a must, and the guy's in his late sixties.

People today seem much more interested in anime and the Cartoon Network, or Pixar.

Every Oscars it seems somebody's presenting with a cartoon on stage, so the novelty is gone.

Why they didn't ride the buzz of the original and make a sequel sooner I don't know. I was two or three when I went the the theater to see it, and Judge Doom scared me enough to remember that. One of my favorite ever movies. And at this point I can't see a sequel doing near as good as the original. Honestly, since "The Matrix," LOTR, "Sin City" and Zemeckis' motion-capture movies, is a new Roger Rabbit movie even an enticing proposition F/X-wise?

[APzombie]

i grew up with WFRR? and love the film, but i don't think another one is a good idea. Maybe if it was ten years ago like others said, but what really gets me is Zemeckis, i don't think he is fit for another WFRR film. The whole point of the film was that the cartoons of the era live side by side with people. CGI simply doesn't fit into the period, and its not even an aesthetic choice, it would simply be a plot hole. And there is no way in hell Zemeckis would simply stick to the original formula, he's become much too dependant on Computer effects since the mid nineties.

The only way it would make sense is if it takes place either today or at least in the 90's, and if thats the case than i definitely don't want another one.

[blknge89]

Better be safer than sorry

Tween this and a Pee Wee's Big Adventure 2 I'd love to see continuations as heart warming as their predisestors but that could only be because I never saw them in theaters with crowds of people I want some of that magic others older than I had, be alive in a theater with a classic unfolding.

It'd be great but I say no, , just leave it alone. It'd be funny to see it now go up and mock cgi movies now a days.

[drc5145]

Well this just opened up more ideas...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42950

The link provides a video in which Zemeckis, in an interview with MTV (again) he says the cartoon charachters would stay 2D, that he can't dimensionalize Roger or Jessica.

Originally Posted by Robert Zemeckis

I wouldn't use it for the cartoon characters, because I think they should stay two dimensional...I wouldn't dimensionalize Roger.

All the other characters they would have fun with would be magnificent in performance capture technology. It would be really fun.

It's still not certain how the Mo-Cap characters would factor into the film. I'm hoping it's along the line of what BubbaStrangeLove has and not just using Mo-Cap to replace humans like Bob Hoskins' character.

[cloneofkelso]

I would be very surprised if it wasn't over the top and cheesey.It's just been too long in between movies i don't think it will work.

[ThatGuy09]

Even though it's been a while, I'm up for it. It can't fail, considering that Zemeckis and the original's writers are on board, and it would be really funny if they included CGI characters in Toontown.