ROTTEN TOMATOES: Zemeckis Says Roger Rabbit Sequel Is in the Works Comments

Zemeckis Says Roger Rabbit Sequel Is in the Works

by | November 02, 2009

Summary

There's still no telling whether it'll actually get made, but Robert Zemeckis is apparently serious about that "Roger Rabbit" sequel -- as he tells MTV, the original's writers are working on a script. Back to Article

(1-20 of 23 posts) | Reply

De4ective Detectiv3 writes:
on Nov 02 2009 04:44 AM

As much credit as I give Zemeckis for pulling off a movie that features both Warner Bros. and Disney cartoons side by side(never quite understood how that worked out, but I'm sure there was a lot of red tape involved), I still have to ask, where is there for them to possibly go with this thing? Maybe Roger Rabbit could get fined by the FCC or something for portraying smoking as cool to babies.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Nov 02 2009 05:06 AM

Ahhh Roger Rabbit... Gotta say, there's a special place in my heart for this one. It was the last movie I saw in the theater with my late father..

That said, I would have absolutely no interest in a sequel if it weren't for Zemickis' return. Can't wait to see where he takes the story.

But De4, you ask a good question on this one. Where?... Where will the story go?... But aside from the incredible feat of getting the WB and Disney characters together in one film, how the hell did he manage to do all that in a film with so much sexual subtext?! That's gotta be what blew me away the most about it as a kid, and still to this day. Pat-a-cake, anyone?..

(Reply to this)

Gordon Franklin Terry Sr writes:
on Nov 02 2009 05:26 AM

As soon as Steven Speilberg's bunny-rabbit movie HARVEY was announced, I think I mentioned HARVEY sounding like a "WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT 1.2" quasi-sequel.

a sequel to WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT is Tons More "accessible" and "audience-friendly" than putting together HARVEY. HARVEY sounds like it would come across as an insane, middle-aged man, talking to a invisible rabbit from AMERICAN MCGEE'S (horror video game) ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

Steven Speilberg is "The Best Director" alive today (in the sense that Speilberg's movies can communicate any emotion to an audience however linguistically or culturally diverse the audience is). And without a doubt HARVEY would/will be a great film . . . HARVEY is just a lot harder to comprehend than

WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT: RABBITS IN PARADISE
(in Technicolor-3D-Holo-Animation) 12.1 Channel Stereo
ha ha

(13 Speakers . . . too funny/and you'd need four different eyeballs to truely appreciate the holo-3D effects)

Like a state where technology has out-evolved the very humans the technology is designed to entertain. (there's a movie idea there: use it/pay me) ha ha
take care

(Reply to this)

Coolio D. writes:
on Nov 02 2009 06:39 AM

Will this movie go the route of using "3D ANIMATED CHARACTERS"?

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Nov 02 2009 07:38 AM

this is old news, i read about this a couple of years ago. until its written and shooting begins...it means nothing. i'm surprised The Princess Bride 2 hasn't been mentioned w/ all these old kiddie movies being talked about.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Nov 02 2009 07:45 AM

First off, at this point, Robert Zemeckis is a bad director, and I don't want him anywhere near Roger Rabbit. He has to earn everyone's respect again if he wants to start touching old favorites.

And secondly, Gimy, kiddie properties? Have you seen Roger Rabbit?

(Reply to this)

southfrisco writes:
on Nov 02 2009 09:04 AM

I sure hope Zemeckis is off his 3D kick because if he isn't, this is gonna be a....baaaaaaaaaaaad Woger Wabbit..

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Nov 02 2009 09:33 AM

In reply to this comment (#2557895)
He's a bad director now?... Sh.t, color me clueless. Beowulf, Cast Away, What Lies Beneath, Polar Express (a little on the underrated side), and the forthcoming Christmas Carol, which, at this point, at least looks like its gonna be good. Gotta respectfully disagree with you on that point.

Thing about Beowulf, one of my favorite Zemeckis titles, is that it reminds of a Zemeckis staple that goes all the way back to the, well, Back to the Future days, as well as the Roger Rabbit era. It's that if you like whatever the film from his catalogue in question, you notice that they each tend to never get old.

Ask me, there's something to be said for shelf-life.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Nov 02 2009 02:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#2557936)
Yeah, that's exactly my point. The last decent movie he made was Cast Away, and that film was far too muddied to be considered anything more. Should've been edited down a good deal. What Lies Beneath was a generic suspense thriller, I was yawning in the theater.

And then don't even get me started on the travesties that were Beowulf and Polar Express, both of which were not only outright bad movies in my opinion, but an affront to the medium of animation in general. His version of A Christmas Carol and remake of Yellow Submarine look to continue his inauspicious run of motion-capture CG movies (a medium I pray will die out, unless Avatar proves to be everything Cameron claims it will).

You have to go all the way back to Contact, 12 years, to find a Zemeckis film that was truly great. So, I reiterate, Zemeckis is a bad director now, and I haven't considered him the least bit relevant since Contact. There's just too big of a disparity between his Forrest Gump/Back to the Future Days and his Polar Express/Beowulf days.

I agree with you about shelf-life. I still love Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and don't see why that memory needs to be tarnished by a guy who's lost all of my respect for him.

(Reply to this)

Don't Tase Me Bro writes:
on Nov 02 2009 04:55 PM

Not worth watching if Jessica Rabbit doesn't get them 'out'.

(Reply to this)

August M. writes:
on Nov 02 2009 04:59 PM

TOON PLATOON IS FINALLY BEING MADE!!! THANK YOU!!!

(Reply to this)

AniMill writes:
on Nov 02 2009 07:37 PM

Where to start... the WHOLE point to Roger Rabbit was the 2D animation co-existing with the real world. The only enhancement made to the 2D characters was the addition of ILM's emboss and highlights (especially to Jessica's dress). To switch to 3D (and PLEELEELEEAZZE no 3D stroked into 2D) would completely ruin the wonder and artistry that was the hand-drawn animation. Roger Rabbit visits Pixar?!

Ahhhhh, now I see where it's going: instead of ToonTown they visit CGIcity to solve another murder - this time, its the murder of a famous 3D Rat at a bistro... committed by computer virus named Sid.

I think I just go and throw in Contact to cheer myself up a little...

(Reply to this)

Cutler to the rescue writes:
on Nov 02 2009 10:02 PM

What is wrong with Motion-capture? You sir are a complete and utter tool. Beowulf was bad not because of the CG but because they raped the story and turned it from an epic poem to a joke.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Nov 03 2009 05:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#2558029)
Too bad, mouse. Too bad. We're gonna have to agree to disagree. Truth be told, I don't care enough about any of the others to defend them but Beowulf at this point is probably the definition of underrated. A travesty? How so, and in what way? Please don't say from a visceral perspective... Please?..

And storywise, nothing wrong with the examination of a flawed hero in my book. But hey, that's me. I'm a sucker for the kind of story that Beowulf was and is.

As for Roger Rabbit, kind of silly to tell a guy to stay away from his own creation, no? If he's got a vision for revisiting that world all this time later, after two decades of turning it over in his mind, I say let's see what he's got up his sleeve.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Nov 03 2009 05:13 AM

In reply to this comment (#2558129)
"a complete and utter tool." Was that one for me, Cutler? If so, consider me floored by your profound argument.

Anyway, moving along...

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Nov 03 2009 06:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#2558184)
Have you read Beowulf? He's a Christ figure, the point of that story was to help the pagans handle the switch to Christianity better. Christ is NOT a flawed character. I don't mean that as some fanatic Christian, I mean it from a literary standpoint, he's incorruptible because he's the embodiment of God. He can be tempted, and he may have trouble resisting the temptations, but he never gives in. That's the whole point. That's the whole point of Beowulf's character. If you think you can make that story better, go right on ahead, but don't call it Beowulf, that's insulting.

And I'm not saying he has not right to go back to Roger Rabbit. On the contrary, he has every right. I just don't want him to because I honestly can't see it turning out well.

As for motion capture, it can be used well, but it hasn't. Zemeckis uses it in lieu of live action. The medium of animation allows for all sorts of surreal visual tricks, and yet Zemeckis makes his movies look as realistic as possible. Why not shoot live action? At least then your characters don't fall into the uncanny valley and look like creepy plastic dolls.

(Reply to this)

trgdr777 writes:
on Nov 03 2009 06:19 AM

Motion capture wouldn't work, and here's why:
The characters are supposed to be cartoons. Even if you decided to do it in CG you would have to actually animate it with key frames in order to maintain squash and stretch and the other little details that characterize cartoon movement

You could argue that the rotoscoping techniques they used are the hand drawn equivalent of motion capture, but there was actually very little rotoscoping in the film. It was just a part of the animation techniques used in the film mainly to make the 2D characters interact believably with the human actors. So even if they went the CG route (they shouldn't though), they'd only need to rely on full motion capture for certain scenes.

The animation in Roger Rabbit always looked very 3D anyway, so doing it in CG with motion capture would probably look less impressive.

(Reply to this)

Zack Crow writes:
on Nov 03 2009 11:12 AM

I trust Zemeckis and the original crew with this sequel. I'd just love to see the Roger Rabbit franchise come back, I thought it had some amazing characters. Anyone read the comic books? They're actually quite hilarious.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Nov 03 2009 11:39 AM

I'd just like to see some quality traditional animation again. I love Pixar as much as the next guy, but I miss The Lion King's, Alladin's and yes even Tarzan's. If Toy Story taught us nothing wasn't it that just because you have a new toy doesn't mean your old ones can't still be fun.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Nov 03 2009 12:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#2558206)
I think you hit the nail on the head. One way of incorporating CG that I'd be fine with is having the characters be prominent CG characters to begin with. Have them be Shrek, Woody, Sully, those Ice Age guys, whatever. At least then the use of CG would be justified and not just an arbitrary "update" of technology.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links