Looks like we (may) get a Roger Rabbit sequel

[Brandon Panther]

http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=237906

At least Zemeckis is interested in keeping the character in hand-drawn animation.

[kaseykockroach]

By the same guy who's now doing that Christmas Carol Jim Carrey flick, Polar Express, and Beowulf?
Noooooo thanks. :bugs2:

[Mac]

There was a time when I'd have been really excited about this, but it's long since passed. I have to agree with Kasey and say that I don't trust Zemeckis to make a good movie any more. This is a film that would be hard to do right anyway. Animation styles have changed, voice actors have died. A lot of things would be 'off'.

Disney has a tremendous pool of talent to draw from and should invest more money into developing things that are fresh and new instead of constantly mining existing properties. But what do I know?

[Mr. Semaj]

The mere fact that Bob Hoskins won't be reprising his role as Eddie Valiant should be their cure to just forget the whole thing.

Not everything needs a sequel.

[Wings]

Disney has a tremendous pool of talent to draw from and should invest more money into developing things that are fresh and new instead of constantly mining existing properties. But what do I know?

Probably more than most Disney executives.
Roger Rabbit had short term value, its nice to see a huge cartoon crossover but its worn out its welcome. Quite frankly, I think were better off having executive decisions be done by penguins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZmx0jml1jk) these days.

[cartoonfan4ever]

Quite frankly, I think were better off having executive decisions be done by penguins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZmx0jml1jk) these days.

After viewing that video, I have to agree. :D

[tristar]

Not everything needs a sequel.
Exactly!

[tristar]

Please Hollywood, forget about making this and say no to Zemeckis.

[jonmayo15]

And please forget about the Yellow Submarine remake while you're at it!

[nickramer]

While I wouldn't mind another cross-over with the mouse and the rabbit, I think it's a little late to do sequel now.

[HassanChop!]

If we want to preserve the memory of this academy award winning masterpiece, the worst thing we could do is give it a sequel. Is Charles Fleisher still alive?

[Matt the Y]

If we want to preserve the memory of this academy award winning masterpiece, the worst thing we could do is give it a sequel. Is Charles Fleisher still alive?

He was in the Adam Sandler/Seth Rogen vehicle, "Funny People", this last summer (and delivered the memorable line [WARNING: OBSCENE LANGUAGE!!!!!], "**** death! **** it in the ***** with a Chinese monkey!!!!!") so, yes, he is alive and still acting (regardless of what kinds of films he appears in nowadays).

[The "Chase"]

Seeing as if this movie is actually going somewhere, and complaining about it will do nothing, well, I said it over at Toon Zone, I'll say it again: If this movie turns out to be GOOD, I'm eating a lot of hats.

[HassanChop!]

I think this could possibly be an opprotunity to see characters that didnt appear in the first film, i.e. Rocky and Bullwinkle, Tom and Jerry, ect. I'm not quite sure how this would fare in theaters, though. Based on the flops of The Rocky & Bullwinkle Movie and Looney Tunes: Back in Action, i don't think todays audience is interested in live action/animation movies anymore.

[Jack G.]

I wish they'd leave the thing alone.

I don't think WFRR is a great film (it's a pretty good one), but technically it was amazing.

It was great to see many classic cartoon characters on the screen together.

[Bugsy-Kun]

It was a time where WFRR was a cult film in my head. It's because you can see Disney, Warner, Fleischer and Lantz characters together in the same picture and along included the best stars of my era. But times goes on, and i think now this movie having some bad influences into fanfic writers when it comes to crossovers. It's why a sequel (or a mocap) of Roger Rabbit is a bad idea. Zemekis needs to do something much instructive than make unappealing movies who come nowhere. And they should rid of crossovers. It's a bad idea these days and the last Looney Tunes movie proved that it goes wrong.

[Brandon Panther]

http://news.toonzone.net/articles/31731/zemeckis-suggests-use-of-performance-capture-in-roger-rabbit-sequel

Later, Zemeckis will decide to re-cast the part of Eddie Valient with Tom Hanks.

[ThePeterNetwork]

No. Just... no. Everybody knows performance capture animation doesn't work. It didn't work out in Polar Express or Beowulf, and judging from the reviews I'm hearing for Disney's A Christmas Carol, it's not working there either. Zemeckis needs to get out of this obsession with performance capture animation and get going with real film making.

Oh, and I wouldn't want to see a Roger Rabbit sequel either. It was fine when the original was first shown in theaters even though the premise was rather questionable (nearly every cartoon character co-existing in the real world with a whodunit noir story as its main plot?), but a sequel with the technology we have now as opposed to the technology we had then would lose some of the flavor that made the original unique.

[jonmayo15]

http://news.toonzone.net/articles/31731/zemeckis-suggests-use-of-performance-capture-in-roger-rabbit-sequel

Later, Zemeckis will decide to re-cast the part of Eddie Valient with Tom Hanks.
What is with Zemeckis and his freakin' mo-cap?

[nickramer]

Who does Robert think he is?

Mr. Toad?

[tristar]

Has Mo-Cap ever looked decent?!?!

It looked bad in the 60s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVUfV0oNKqc), and it looks even worse today in CGI.

As Peter said, why not create an actual film? (Or actual animation, for that matter?)

[Bugsy-Kun]

It looked bad in the 60s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVUfV0oNKqc), and it looks even worse today in CGI.


Gee, this technology don't aged well with the abuse of CGI. I mean, that's not because it worked in the 60's than it can worked now.

I don't want to see a Roger Rabbit mocap or a crossover story like in the 80's anymore. I want a actual animated feature, fresh of our era with their own ideas. Not from others animated features!

[tristar]

I want also a actual animated feature, fresh of our era with their own ideas. Not from others animated features!My thoughts exactly!! Can anyone think of a totally original idea that Hollywood has come up within the past 10 years?!:confused:

[Bugsy-Kun]

And the fact that Hollywood blame the indepedent animated films nominated to the Oscars (Persepolis, Waltz with Bashir) to features done by Pixar.

[Mr. Semaj]

Combining motion-capture with traditional animation won't have the same effect as putting animated characters in live action. Zemeckis needs to get over his motion-capture fetish.

Also, how would a sequel EVER live up to the original's milestone of the first official crossover between two iconic characters?

:mickey: :bugs2:

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Zemeckis... also commented that "[a]ll the other characters... would be magnificent in performance capture technology".

No. Just... no. Everybody knows performance capture animation doesn't work.

What is with Zemeckis and his freakin' mo-cap?

Has Mo-Cap ever looked decent?!?!

As Peter said, why not create an actual film? (Or actual animation, for that matter?)
I agree. What the hell happened to Zemekis? Why this obsession with lifeless mo-cap mannequins masquerading as real actors? Is he now too lazy to actually shoot real live action on film?

The Roger Rabbit sequel has the air of desperation about it. Too much time has passed between the original and now. The original actors are all too old to play their parts, and Zemekis's idea of replacing them with motion capture CGI puppets is just idiotic. What's next, a forth sequel to Back to the Future, using motion capture to replace Michael J. Fox? (Wait a minute, that could work!)

[J. B. Warner]

My thoughts exactly!! Can anyone think of a totally original idea that Hollywood has come up within the past 10 years?!:confused:

Lilo and Stitch?

On topic, I'm just so tired of Robert Zemeckis at this point. He clings to mo-cap the way Jeffrey Katzenberg clings to the Shrek franchise, long after the audience has lost interest in it.

[CartoonCrazy]

Some things are better left alone, Hollywood.

[Bugsy-Kun]

I reading a article about his last movie yesterday and i will agree with this article. Zemeckis makes too pression to the special effects and the motion capture than make hearts and souls to a timeless story. And by the way, which kid at our era really know Roger Rabbit? That's not anymore a good idea to bring back a character 20 years later after the original film premiere. I was lucky to know him when it comes to theaters in summer 1988, (I having 3 years at this time) but bring back today with the technology is a fatal madness. Guess if we should make remakes or mo-caps from Casablanca or The Africa Queen? :shame::ysam:

[Mac]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who doesn't like the motion capture aesthetic. I was watching a review on TV that said how far motion capture has come (Polar Express was criticised, but Christmas Carol was praised), but all the clips of CC I saw still looked pretty sick to me. It just looks stiff, creepy, floaty and unnatural to me, but plenty of people don't have a problem with it and even find it impressive. I think if a Roger Rabbit sequel has 2d animation (that matches the quality of the first) combined with mo cap humans then the cartoon characters will really show up what zombies mocap creates!

How many more mocap movies we see will probably depend on how big a hit or flop Christmas Carol is. Some people are already calling it a flop, but I think Disney just made a mistake and released the damn thing four weeks too early. If it's still in cinemas at Christmas time many people will probably want to go see it then.

[Brandon Panther]

I saw the new Christmas Carol movie last night. It's not bad, but my issue with most modern straight adaptations of the classic story is the obvious constant struggle to top all previous adaptations (which will NEVER happen. The 1951 film is still the best one IMO, in part because we really do see Scrooge's transformation more gradually, than in most other versions).

I had a lot of faith in this film, especially when Jim Carrey claimed in an interview that this movie will stick closer to the book than previous adaptations. True there are some details in the book, that were carried over to this film (Jacob Marley never looking directly at Scrooge's face, and Scrooge "snuffing" out the Ghost of Christmas Past to name a couple) there are still a few things skipped over. We never see the reason why Scrooge is bitter towards his nephew. The 1951 film explaned this, and I believe it was in the original story (I haven't read the book in SO LONG).

In place of scenes that were skipped over, we got long weird-donkey sequences that could have easily been dropped. There a really long sequence where Scrooge gets shrunk (wha?) and is chased through the city by a group of ghostly horses. This goes on about 3 minutes, but it feels like forever. The four words to best describe it: BIG LIPPED ALLIGATOR MOMENT

Way too many kooky camera angels, giving it that pretentious "Citizen Kane" feeling (as another poster commented).

Overall, the movie isn't bad. BUT... the mo-cap thing is pointless. And it's clear throughout. If they had just put old make-up on Jim Carrey, the movie might have been no different. CGI isn't needed to make films look spectacular.

[jlppr]

i think they should just leave roger rabbit alone especially zemeckis. i really enjoyed the polar express and i do want to see a christmas carol. i personally have no problem with that type of animation. but i really wouldn't want to see a classic film like roger rabbit be brought back for a sequel in different style of animation. personally i don't think it needs a sequel, i just happened to watch the movie 2 days ago. this movie does not need a sequel. Toontown was saved. story ended.

[tristar]

i think they should just leave roger rabbit alone especially zemeckis. i really enjoyed the polar express and i do want to see a christmas carol. i personally have no problem with that type of animation. but i really wouldn't want to see a classic film like roger rabbit be brought back for a sequel in different style of animation. personally i don't think it needs a sequel, i just happened to watch the movie 2 days ago. this movie does not need a sequel. Toontown was saved. story ended.Right, right, I totally forgot about the fact that there is no room to elaborate on the plot! Sequels today usually just add something totally unnecessary and undesired to the existing storyline.

[PudgieDParrot]

...But I am sure if they (the writers) think hard enough, they'll come up with a decent and entertaining storyline. Let's just give them a chance.

[OriginalGagBonkers]

I heard about this somewhere else on the internet, but I got alot to say about this. First off Robert is making a big and I mean BIG risk here....I remember seeing Roger for the first time as a child and enjoyed it...But now its been years since I seen the film, but now I am beginning to think that Zemeckis has lost his mind and is going to ruin a great movie that is beyond great to people who enjoyed this movie. Along with it being legendary voice actor Mel Blanc's last project before he passed on.


While I was in high-school I joked with a few friends of mine that I had an idea for a second Roger but it was just a joke. So I am not having any high hopes for this movie, even Zemeckis is planning to use mocap in this movie on the humans. Big risk there, either he's going to get a hit or just a big slap of criticism. But hell I personally think Zemeckis should just make a live-action movie and just get a ORIGINAL damn idea for once.

[tristar]

Mo-cap looks ugly, period.
I don't know what the hell Zemeckis is thinking.

Zemeckis should:
1) Come up with his own ideas and leave pre-existing stories alone.
2) Get over this whole mo-cap obsession, and start making actual movies.
3) Listen to the fans, the critics and the general public.

BTW, what are his mo-cap films going to leave behind? A pixilated mess of weak plots and poorly executed ideas, I presume.

[trondmm]

What's next, a forth sequel to Back to the Future, using motion capture to replace Michael J. Fox?

Wait. What? There's been a third sequel to Back to the Future? I must have missed that.