Finally! 'Roger Rabbit' Sequel in the Works [Archive]

View Full Version : Finally! 'Roger Rabbit' Sequel in the Works

lavallelee

11-03-2009, 10:55 AM

http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2009/11/02/who-framed-roger-rabbit-sequel-news/

fter more than 20 years of false starts, half-baked rumors and fledgling attempts at finding ways to improve on the special effects that made it seem so hyperactively revolutionary, the long-awaited sequel to 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' may be getting in toon sooner than later.

Director Robert Zemeckis, in a video interview with MTV News, revealed that Jeffrey Price and Peter Seaman, penners of the original screenplay, are currently crafting a script for a new, noir-ish, Hollywood-idolizing caper.

Zemeckis was characteristically vague about details on the project, of course, but did allow that advances in technology have made the possibility of a sequel more appealing than in the past. Still, he pointed out, excitement may be one thing, getting optics worthy of the frenetic 'Rabbit' trail is another.

Possibly the most widely discussed effort to transform 'Rabbit' from a hare-raising farce into a real franchise was 'Who Discovered Roger Rabbit?,' commissioned by then Disney chairman Michael Eisner over 10 years ago. The idea came to naught but the movie's popularity has never waned -- it was the second-highest grossing film of 1988.

So, Jessica Rabbit, get your makeup on -- and get into those skintights, too. Time to turn on the toons. The rest of us, too.

Lavalle Note: I just hope if they end up doing this. Make it 2d. NO CGI, PLEASE!!!! It would be cool to have some more Roger Rabbit. :)

WillW

11-03-2009, 11:33 AM

I wanna really pray that it would be 2d but some how I just know it'll be a 3d thing.

dartzy

11-03-2009, 01:02 PM

Isn't that kinda a oxymoron??? Roger Rabbit which centers around the history and the nostalgia of 2d animation to be made 3d?? Please 2d....please please please....

DNethery

11-03-2009, 01:59 PM

If Bob Z does it now it will be CG , mo-cap.

But why ? Who (besides animation fans) even remember Roger Rabbit or would want to see a sequel ?

The time for the sequel was in 1990 to 1995 when there was still some interest level generated by the original film.

I think they missed the opportunity.

jeremyhopkins

11-03-2009, 06:05 PM

Lavalle Note: I just hope if they end up doing this. Make it 2d. NO CGI, PLEASE!!!! It would be cool to have some more Roger Rabbit.
Did you see Eric's cg tests? They look great and it feels very close to original. While I agree with you that I prefer hand drawn characters to remain hand drawn, if there ever was a movie that would make sense, at least from a technical point of view, to be cg, it would be Roger Rabbit. Though, if it was done in mo-cap, it would most likely lose the feel and appeal of the original animation.

lavallelee

11-03-2009, 07:22 PM

I hope they don't do cgi. There is too much of it, most of it is garbage. We need to return to 2d animated features.

I will not see it if it is 3d. :p

jeremyhopkins

11-03-2009, 07:52 PM

I hope they don't do cgi. There is too much of it, most of it is garbage. We need to return to 2d animated features.
Sigh... Lavalle, you probably already know what I think of that attitude but you're free to believe in whatever you like.

Anyways, I wasn't able to find the moving 3d tests but Steve posted this on the TAG Blog (http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/rober-rabbit-deux.html):
CG Roger:
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd10/tagblog/roger_rabbit.jpg
Original:
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Features/FeaturesImages/RogerRabbit5.jpg

Granted the cg work was done a few years ago now so I'd be interested in seeing how it would look today.

lavallelee

11-03-2009, 08:45 PM

Sorry jeremy i know your stance is neutral on 2d and 3d.

But I will forever and always be on 2d's side.

It would look just silly 3d...

Moneyguns

11-03-2009, 10:40 PM

I will not see it if it is 3d. :p

It couldn't be that bad.:)

wolfsymphony

11-04-2009, 02:12 AM

Oh please be 2D, although I hve a feeling with the way things are going it will probably be 3D. 3D for gods sake WHYYYYYY. The whole thing that made Roger Rabbit what it is is because it was 2D mixed with live action.. don't you dare ruin what it is! 2D 2D 2D!

jeremyhopkins

11-04-2009, 03:27 AM

Sorry jeremy i know your stance is neutral on 2d and 3d.
No, I appreciate different opinions. Guess my hope is that we can respectful conversation that doesn't dump on the work of other artists who work in other mediums especially since some of those artists are brilliant hand drawn animators as well.
The most powerful thing you can do is vote with your dollar. If you don't like something, don't see it - as you mentioned earlier.

arif

11-04-2009, 05:29 AM

dartzy

11-04-2009, 06:34 AM

Did you see Eric's cg tests? They look great and it feels very close to original.

Are these available to view anywhere?

jeremyhopkins

11-04-2009, 07:44 AM

ohho..is it a debate between 2d and 3d ??..well...to be honest, i am not against on 3d..but..i will stand by 2d...and most of the very good film of 3d...all 2d genius people behind there..like brad bird... Jhon lesssester..and even mighy animator like GLEN KEANE...who is now doing Rapunzel..which is 3d....
Is Richard Willams directing this film ???i dont know...he got his OSCAR for the original Roger rabbit........
No, I didn't mean to start another 2d vs 3d vs any other medium thread. I appreciate that people have such passion for hand drawn animation. My only suggestion is not to allow our passion to discredit another person's work. Discussing the issues is one thing but if we can avoid just dumping on someone, well, I think it would be much more constructive. So many other animation sites seem to have the same problem with cynical comments so maybe it's just part of the internet age.

The problems with making roger cg are fairly evident by the side by side comparisons of both versions. Though perhaps a hand drawn roger with a mix of toon shaded props would work. Hearing Nik talk about the problems cleaning up a prop bag on the original roger rabbit makes me think that there are better places for animators/clean up artists to be spending their time.

Originally Posted by jeremyhopkins
Did you see Eric's cg tests? They look great and it feels very close to original.

Are these available to view anywhere?

No sorry, it was just the screenshot I was thinking of and looking at it now, I don't think it's that close to matching the look of the original. Perhaps I confused the animation with that of the Genie that Eric directed for Tokyo Disney.

jtq3

11-04-2009, 10:09 AM

Why would it look silly in 3D? That doesn't make any sense at all. The original feature did all it could to imitate 3D in the rendering of the characters. Is 2D your boyfriend? 2D is a great guy but, 3D has a job and drives a better car.:)

lavallelee

11-04-2009, 11:59 AM

I have been mean to 3d I will admit.

But I am not alone in talking about how 3d is overrated. Sure some of the artists who do 3d have talent. But not all, many of those talented 3d artists have had to leave 2d to work for 3d because that is all that is produced. So they were 2d guys before they were 3d.

I do enjoy all Pixar films, and a few other 3d movies. New 2d movies is a dream of mine. To see us return to 2d features, and traditional animation.

Most of all Don is teaching us traditional animation. I think we are the future of 2d, we should stop caring about which is better, and just care about improving our skills.

My plan and dream is to produce 2d animations, which are quality stories, quality animation and epic artwork.

When i first saw Toy Story in 1995 in theaters (8th grade), I told myself that is what I wanted to do when I grew up. I have tried 3d, seen and met many 3d artists. Respect the art.

2d and 3d, is like politics to me. One half is democrats, one half is republicans. The independents are the ones who do stop motion. :)

All i know is that if they make a new roger rabbit, they would be foolish to just make it 3d. Mix all 3, live action, 3d and 2d.

I don't want to fuel the fire, I just want to state my opinion.

iceberg210

11-04-2009, 01:47 PM

No offense to the idea of having 3D animation, it can and has been done well, (ie UP, etc) but to me I'd find something just odd about having the sequel to Roger Rabbit be a 3D affair.

Roger Rabbit in some ways, in my opinion, started what has become known as the Disney Renaissance, because it showed to the people at Disney that if you make good quality animation people will see it and you can make money with it (if marketed correctly). And this I believe more than anything else helped propel Disney out of the funk that it had gotten itself into after losing Bluth and his crew. It seems to me that it would be quite an odd tribute to such a movie as Roger Rabbit to not do it in 2d, this the movie that in many ways saved Disney 2D animation.

The other thing I find interesting is the talk I've heard that this will be a sequel, as there was a prequel script written and ready to go in the early 90's. I'm surprised that no one has tried to just pick that up again and run with it. If the work is done already, why not go with it.

Perhaps it was lost or is still tied up in all the red tape the studios seem to love to throw on the Roger Rabbit franchise.

Regardless animation is animation, and any new animation is good news.

zanekohler

11-04-2009, 02:11 PM

This is what was reported on aint it cool news (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42950)
From Zemeckis
"I wouldn't use it for the cartoon characters, because I think they should stay two dimensional...I wouldn't dimensionalize Roger.
[EDIT]
All the other characters they would have fun with would be magnificent in performance capture technology. It would be really fun. "

So sounds like Roger and the toons will be 2d. What he means for "other" characters..who knows?

lavallelee

11-04-2009, 02:29 PM

zanekohler

11-04-2009, 02:32 PM

Wasn't the problem with another Roger Rabbit movie that different companies owned different characters. Like disney owned Jessica Rabbit and Benny the Cab. Then Steven Spielburg owned Roger and the Baby Herman, and they couldn't come to an understanding so another movie was not made?

I did hear something about that years ago. I recall and interview they were amazed they got all of them in the first place.

I would bet with Zemeckis having a deal with Disney now he can work that partnership. Also He and Spielberg are good friends so I am sure he can get what ever he needs from him. All speculation on my part of course.

jtq3

11-04-2009, 03:12 PM

Disney and Amblin Entertainment are part owners of the characters created especially for the film (Roger, Jessica, Benny). The rest of the characters are owned by their respective creators (the studios) or whomever purchased the rights from the creators (Turner comes to mind). I think issues of balance of screen time for different properties, agreement on script and representation of properties from multiple sources and revenue sharing between multiple studios make a film like WFRR (or it's sequel) very challenging to sort out and ultimately impede the creative development process.
Feature films are very expensive to produce and the studios will have to weigh the benefits to making the investment. Studios rely heavily on the licensing, dvd and home entertainment businesses to help make up for the expense of producing the film. No one will embark on the endeavor if it is assured they will lose money. Well, very few studios would do such a thing.

DNethery

11-04-2009, 07:23 PM

Sigh... Lavalle, you probably already know what I think of that attitude but you're free to believe in whatever you like.

Anyways, I wasn't able to find the moving 3d tests but Steve posted this on the TAG Blog (http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/rober-rabbit-deux.html):
CG Roger:
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd10/tagblog/roger_rabbit.jpg
Original:
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Features/FeaturesImages/RogerRabbit5.jpg

Granted the cg work was done a few years ago now so I'd be interested in seeing how it would look today.

That second image is not an actual frame grab from the original film. It's a marketing still painted by Ron Dias.

The RR sequel tests that Eric directed were animated traditionally on paper by Tom Bancroft and Barry Temple (with one shot of the weasels animated by Trey Finney) at the Disney Orlando studio in late 1998 or early '99 . I know this because I was the Clean-Up Lead Key in charge of cleaning up the roughs. There were several scenes animated and cleaned-up traditionally, then one of those scenes was chosen to be reanimated in CG by animator Rob Bekuhrs matching Tom Bancroft's hand-drawn poses frame-by-frame with a distortable, "breakable" cartoony CG rig (a then radical idea which Eric was advocate of , which has since found acceptance ). I believe the test was to see if it was feasible for the animation to be rough animated traditionally by hand , then "cleaned-up" in CG. We did both traditional and the CG test for a side by side comparison to show to the suits at Disney and Amblin. (the live-action for the RR 2 tests we worked on was directed by Frank Marshall) The top image above is Tom Bancroft's drawing, reinterpreted in CG by Rob Bekuhrs and of course shaded and lit as a CG model.

This is not a lot different in principle than the method used by Tim Watts and David Stoten to make their stop motion film "The Big Story" , where they did a complete rough 2D pencil test first, then used the hand-drawn animation as a guide for posing the stop-motion puppets to get more fluid movement from the puppets.

YiIY8SNHed8

izy2ittIe7A

DNethery

11-04-2009, 07:35 PM

Though perhaps a hand drawn roger with a mix of toon shaded props would work. Hearing Nik talk about the problems cleaning up a prop bag on the original roger rabbit makes me think that there are better places for animators/clean up artists to be spending their time.

That is also what we were experimenting with on the RR sequel project.

Both the 'toon props and the "real" props (guns, etc.) for the RR sequel test project were done in CG , instead of being drawn or live props on set being controlled by wires, motion-control rigs, and puppeteers as on the original Roger Rabbit film.

And yeah, that's a perfect use for CG. Props are arduous , mind-numbing things to hand-draw, turning in perspective and matching frame to frame with live action. And when the props were puppeteered on set it led to some very awkward moments trying to cover up the rigs that were holding the props (that's why for example when Roger is breaking plates over his head his arm is so stiff . The arm had to be drawn over the mechanical robot arm they had on set holding the plates. Or when Roger is drinking the whisky in Maroon's office : same thing . His arm is really stiff and clunky looking because the robot arm had to be covered up by the animation.

jeremyhopkins

11-04-2009, 08:51 PM

Thanks for sharing David. So considering that cg image is 10 years old, it's amazing for what was being done at the time. The genie work was really nice too so drawing out a scene, at least for the time, made a big difference! If the sequel manages to get off the ground, it'll be interesting to see what direction they take.

This is not a lot different in principle than the method used by Tim Watts and David Stoten to make their stop motion film "The Big Story" , where they did a complete rough 2D pencil test first, then used the hand-drawn animation as a guide for posing the stop-motion puppets to get more fluid movement from the puppets.

Wow, I missed this short but after seeing this sequence, I'm loving it. Great to see how the mediums influence each other in a positive way.

arif

11-05-2009, 05:57 AM

Wow, I missed this short but after seeing this sequence, I'm loving it. Great to see how the mediums influence each other in a positive way.

yea....Jason Rayan does exactly same thing..he uses Digicel flip book for his rough animation then he polish it on MAYA....

Demon Lizardman

11-14-2009, 03:36 PM

Ye gads, I am looking forward to this, even if it's not in 2d. I really hope for judge doom to be in this one or a darker more cool villain.

jtq3

11-17-2009, 08:19 PM

http://ryanastamendi.blogspot.com/2009/11/jessica-rabbit.html
Hey guys,
check out my friend Ryan's blog. By day he is an artist on our team, by night he is a world class photographer. He has been working on a series of Disney characters and in my opinion, this Jessica Rabbit is the best yet.
JOHN

wolfsymphony

11-17-2009, 08:38 PM

AaronMocksing

11-26-2009, 10:22 PM

In my opinion as far as a sequel goes, the story will probably the least difficult to do; there a lot of opportunities to take it both shortly after the first film, maybe during the rise of television, and even a modern setting with Eddie's relatives or replacements in the modern era solving issues. Toons are timeless, they need not age, so Roger could probably be like "wtf you're not Eddie at all!" or something and get used to the coming of age. That'll be what'll interest me the most and I hop Bob can get his team to come up with something good. I'm optimistic, he might just do that or stick to a simple and hardhitting noir detective story.

As far as animation goes, I'm with the majority in keeping it as it was originally. That's what made the first film great. If they can get more characters from cartoons we didn't see the first time, that would be epic... and call me crazy: Warren T. Cat and Edmond from Rock-a-Doodle in cameos. XD

ManWithGoodTaste

12-17-2009, 01:43 AM

Does Roger Rabbit need a sequel???