Roger Rabbit Sequel?

Post by **Daniel** » May 1st, 2009, 12:59 pm

Darn, well it was worth a shot. Maybe it will turn up on Youtube eventually. It's not much, but it's worth a viewing.

Post by **OriginalGagBonkers** » May 5th, 2009, 3:28 pm

Despite that I am excited about this I am also a bit worried when Zemicks stated that "its a new idea". What if this idea doesnt surpass the first film? I would be angry if they have to put Roger in CG animation.

Post by **Ben** » May 5th, 2009, 7:03 pm

Roger and co will be CG, it's a given. There was a test done some time ago which blew everyone away. With mo-cap, Bobby Z will be looking to see how he can get Charlie Fleischer to really act out being a cartoon bunny.

As for the story...I was never sure Who Discovered Roger Rabbit was the strongest idea for a prequel sequel either, and whatever anyone comes up with it's never going to beat the original film.

Fact of life: any Roger follow-up will not be as good or groundbreaking as back in 1988. The best we can hope for is to enjoy what they serve us and hope it reaches the same heights and spirit, even if it's bound to disappoint.

Post by **Foxtale** » May 5th, 2009, 9:37 pm

Ben wrote: Fact of life: any Roger follow-up will not be as good or groundbreaking as back in 1988. The best we can hope for is to enjoy what they serve us and hope it reaches the same heights and spirit, even if it's bound to disappoint.

Excellent way of putting it. Hopefully those making it will keep that idea in mind.

Post by **Tyler_Legrand** » May 7th, 2009, 12:24 am

Ben wrote:Roger and co will be CG, it's a given. There was a test done some time ago which blew everyone away. With mo-cap, Bobby Z will be looking to see how he can get Charlie Fleischer to really act out being a cartoon bunny.

Yes, slightly disappointing, since I remember from "Behind the Ears" it was said that even back then they were wondering if computer technology could be used, along with the answer "Absolutely... not; once you've crossed that line, you've lost it, you're not there anymore."

Post by **ShyViolet** » July 24th, 2009, 12:15 am

Not sure if this was reported or not yet (apologies if so) but Zemeckis did mention something about Roger at Comic-Con:

http://www.totalfilm.com/news/comic-con ... r-rabbit-2

Post by **Ben** » July 26th, 2009, 6:20 pm

Can neither confirm or deny?

That means they're exploring possibilities!

Post by **Dusterian** » July 29th, 2009, 4:56 pm

I am so happy he will always keep them in 2-D!

Someone on that page suggested the 2-D characters meeting, and perhaps being unemployed by, 3-D characters. That's sounds like a pretty good idea to me, actually!

Post by **Tyler_Legrand** » July 30th, 2009, 10:43 pm

Not if it's set in the 1940s.

Post by **EricJ** » July 31st, 2009, 1:25 am

Dusterian wrote:I am so happy he will always keep them in 2-D!

Someone on that page suggested the 2-D characters meeting, and perhaps being unemployed by, 3-D characters. That's sounds like a pretty good idea to me, actually!

Actually, think RZ meant that new CGI technology since 1988 allows characters to express "3D depth" in OTHER ways than simply covering them with so much light-enhancement shine they look like they've been dipped in Chinese furniture lacquer...

Post by **Dusterian** » July 31st, 2009, 1:31 pm

Oh...well, I thought since cartoon characters can live forever...

HEY WAIT A MINUTE! They had characters that were made after the 40's in the original film, didn't they?!

I know for a fact they had Maleficent's 1959 goons in there, actually!

I do like the idea of keeping them 2-D but allowing more depth on top of them other than light and shadow.

Post by **Tyler_Legrand** » August 1st, 2009, 6:28 am

But it could also be assumed that cartoon characters had a life outside of films; i.e. they had other jobs before becoming actors.

There's also the problem of explaining where they came from in the first place.

Do they mate?

Post by **Ben** » August 1st, 2009, 10:49 am

No, they're just drawn that way.

Post by **Dusterian** » August 1st, 2009, 7:05 pm

Yea, well, then I don't know why they wear their after 1940's made costumes all the time...

The whole thing is a fantasy, do we know for sure it's set in the 1940's or just a place and time very similar to the 1940's?

Post by **Ben** » August 3rd, 2009, 11:29 am

Yes. Hollywood 1947.

And as for the clothes? It's obvious they're either off for the auditions, or that they wore their own for their respective movies.

Or else, gawd forbid, the filmmakers were simply using visual shorthand to make the few frames that some were visible work on screen. But then again, that would be a rediculous suggestion, wouldn't it?