Zemeckis Thinking About Roger Rabbit 2

[crackolette1]

Unless Zemeckis can deliver something truly mind-blowing (like, say, the long-awaited fanboy battle between Superman and Son Goku), I'm going to have to say pass on this.

[Maeve]

So, this'll be, what, like the 6,000th Roger Rabbit sequel to end up in development hell?

[ConcernedMom]

I don't mind sequels so much, but... there's a few films that need to be left alone.

[maria_giuashvili]

If he wants to spend the money on it, sure, why not?

[Katherine N]

I hope this never happens, for several reasons:

1.) Back in the late 80's, the first film was riding on a growing crest of renewed interest in the classic Looney Tunes (which culminated in Bugs Bunny's 50th birthday and the creation of Tiny Toons in 1990) and Disney animation (which began peaking with [b]The Little Mermaid in 1989). Today's kids have had little, if any, exposure to the classic Looney Tines shorts, and the Disney "prime" of the early-mid 90's is long past, so who will they be aiming this at, exactly? Even Enchanted used it's hand-drawn wraparound segments as shorthand for "musty" and "old-fashioned". If they do a new Roger Rabbit with computer-generated Toons, then what's really the point?

2.) The whole appeal in the first was seeing "cartooney" Toons interacting with live actors. Nowadays actors have to "act" with CGI creations every month of the year, thus the novelty factor of the original is long past.

3.) Mel Blanc was still alive back when the first was made, so he got to voice most of his classic LT characters again (sans Yosemite Sam). All apologies to Billy West and the other voice actors who have tried to fill Blanc's shoes since his death, but the Looney Tunes characters essentially died with him.

4.) The first film was strikingly adult for it's day, and still is. For it's PG rating, they got a lot of sexual innuendo and violence in there, as well as a plot that could have easilly been used for a "real" film noir picture like Chinatown. Would that fly today?

I say leave Roger Rabbit as it is.

[Anitaaaaaa]

I'm also in the camp that we don't need a sequel, especially with today's movie exec attitude that all films that are geared towards families have to be overloaded with fart jokes and gross out humor.

I'd rather not have a Roger Rabbit film where Baby Herman farts in Judge Doom's face for a (so-called) laugh.

[AliL]

I'd rather it be left alone as a modern classic. Bob Hoskins and Joanna Cassidy wouldn't really be the best choices for leads since they are in their 60's.

Rabbit, warts and all I see as this truly perfect creation. At this point, over 20 years later, I see in no way what could be done in a sequel.

I mean I think an animated series with Roger back in the day might've been cool. But they never got to that either. All we got was Bonkers which was originally meant to be a Roger Rabbit cartoon.

[All hat]

Why not do a straight adaptation of the book? The fans of the film are old enough now for that kind of plot. :evil:

[Lucky Mom of 2]

The original's a classic, but it was not without flaw. The original had about 3 endings and there was much too strong a Tex Avery flavor to it. And Roger himself could be a bit obnoxious at times. If the aim is to use new technology to expand upon the Toontown theme AND to correct the problems with characterization, then I'd favor a new Roger film. It could be a heck of a lot of fun.

[joey boi]

Well, it wouldn't fly for the families who'd actually go to see the film. Personally, I thought that the book had an interesting idea but an unappealing execution. Spielberg greatly improved upon it.