Robert Zemeckis 'Buzzing' about a second Roger Rabbit Movie

[Baby Gonzo]

There was NOTHING wrong with Polar Express, I LOVE that movie!

But it would be HORRIBLE and not to mention downright creepy to see Roger Rabbit in that style.

 

[Fluffets]

I think live action cartoon croosovers are pretty good and I haven't seen this either in ages or ever but I HAVE seen looney tunes back in action and a sequel to that would be good too, or a movie that winds up both! It doesen't have to be cartoon cameos too I think because if you've seen Looney Tunes Back In action you'll notice many live action, famous monsters in the area 52 scene. Including robby the robot, robot monster and 2 daleks to name a few.So clebrity cameos would be good too, OOH ANOTHER IDEA! there could be a muppets cameo or something. OMG MORE IDEAS! Add in other classic and memorable characters too like Gremlins from the Gremlins movies! Any other thoughts?

 

[Fluffets]

But it would be HORRIBLE and not to mention downright creepy to see Roger Rabbit in that style.

True.

 

[Drtooth]

I think live action cartoon croosovers are pretty good and I haven't seen this either in ages or ever but I HAVE seen looney tunes back in action and a sequel to that would be good too, or a movie that winds up both! It doesen't have to be cartoon cameos too I think because if you've seen Looney Tunes Back In action you'll notice many live action, famous monsters in the area 52 scene. Including robby the robot, robot monster and 2 daleks to name a few.

Yeah, but what worked for Back in Action clearly won't work here. I must also add that Back in Action, while I think deep down it was a good movie was the wrong vehicle to gauge the popularity of the franchise. Look at all the garbage the Looney Tunes went through after that movie. I'm talking about that terrible Loonatics show and the horrendous lack of LT merchandise ever since (except for all those Hallmark cards and ornaments). Plus, the movie had the deep flaw of revolving around the 2 human characters a lot more than the cartoon characters... the same problem that the Bullwinkle film had. Seriously, I wanna know the name of the board member that said that Rocky and Bullwinkle need to be comic relief to a Mary Sue.

That said, I REALLY don't like how Polar Express came out... and I'm really hoping the crap about this Roger Rabbit film being CGI motion capture is the biggest rumor of them all.

I think this time around it would be a lot harder to get Mickey and the gang in (I'm really surprised they did it the first time).

I'm still confused about this... but isn't Roger Rabbit co-owned by Amblin and Disney? Hypothetically speaking, if they can clear up the Disney/Amblin stuff that really keeps this franchise underground, I don't think seeing Mickey, Goofy, and the like would be a problem. Bugs, Daffy, Betty Boop and all of those other ones would really be a problem. Of course, with Warner Brothers owning all the Hanna Barbera toons, hypothetically, if they can make that deal with WB, then there's no reason why Droopy and Tom and Jerry couldn't be in the film.

 

[frogboy4]

There was NOTHING wrong with Polar Express, I LOVE that movie!

The characters looked like dancing corpses to me. I always refer to Polar Express as the Christmas zombie movie.

I forget the term, but there is one for when computer generated models took so close to real, yet miss a few key details thus rendering them creepy and off putting. Aside from a few swooping camera shots, there is nothing I liked from Polar Express. Monster House on the other hand got closer to the mark. And that was supposed to be creepy.

Either way – Roger Rabbit should always be traditionally animated. That’s the foundation for the character’s appeal. However, a Judge Doom character could be motion captured. I just find the technology lazy when used for this type of entertainment. They should leave motion capture to video games for the most part.

I enjoyed reading the credits of Ratatouille where it states that no portion of the film was motion captured. It’s sad they even have to put that in. It is funny to think of a bunch of rodents running around with reference point balls stuck all over them, but the sad truth is that the entertainment community is filled with untalented people who try to slide by and fake it. In Zemekis’ case he’s a creative dude that has just given up in recent years.

 

[Drtooth]

I enjoyed reading the credits of Ratatouille where it states that no portion of the film was motion captured. It’s sad they even have to put that in. It is funny to think of a bunch of rodents running around with reference point balls stuck all over them, but the sad truth is that the entertainment community is filled with untalented people who try to slide by and fake it. In Zemekis’ case he’s a creative dude that has just given up in recent years.

Among other things, I feel that Pixar wants to right away say that everything they have done in CGI has been from scratch, without having to use any cost cutting/corner cutting moves like using motion capture, like other studios have started doing. It seems like they just want to stress the fact they're doing pure animation, and they're committed to it.

But with directors, it eventually happens... young wizkids turn into doddering old perfectionists that make films less and less magical for the sake of what they think is art or makes money. Look at Spielberg and what he did to ET.... sure the stuff that Lucas added to the original Star Wars trilogy was dodgy at best... but censoring the kid's foul talking, pasting a fake looking CGI ET over the more realistic puppet, and replacing guns with walkytalkys? Ridiculous.

 

[frogboy4]

Among other things, I feel that Pixar wants to right away say that everything they have done in CGI has been from scratch, without having to use any cost cutting/corner cutting moves like using motion capture, like other studios have started doing. It seems like they just want to stress the fact they're doing pure animation, and they're committed to it.

But with directors, it eventually happens... young wizkids turn into doddering old perfectionists that make films less and less magical for the sake of what they think is art or makes money. Look at Spielberg and what he did to ET.... sure the stuff that Lucas added to the original Star Wars trilogy was dodgy at best... but censoring the kid's foul talking, pasting a fake looking CGI ET over the more realistic puppet, and replacing guns with walkytalkys? Ridiculous.

Hey, tossing a walkytalky at someone would really, really...hurt.

 

[Fluffets]

The characters looked like dancing corpses to me. I always refer to Polar Express as the Christmas zombie movie.

I forget the term, but there is one for when computer generated models took so close to real, yet miss a few key details thus rendering them creepy and off putting. Aside from a few swooping camera shots, there is nothing I liked from Polar Express. Monster House on the other hand got closer to the mark. And that was supposed to be creepy.

Either way – Roger Rabbit should always be traditionally animated. That’s the foundation for the character’s appeal. However, a Judge Doom character could be motion captured. I just find the technology lazy when used for this type of entertainment. They should leave motion capture to video games for the most part.

I enjoyed reading the credits of Ratatouille where it states that no portion of the film was motion captured. It’s sad they even have to put that in. It is funny to think of a bunch of rodents running around with reference point balls stuck all over them, but the sad truth is that the entertainment community is filled with untalented people who try to slide by and fake it. In Zemekis’ case he’s a creative dude that has just given up in recent years.

Lolz xmas zombie movie! Thats a cracker!

But still I like pretty much anything cheesy if its xmas. Heck I'm probably the biggest fan of "Santa Claus Conquers The Martians" by a long shot! By the way I'd like to share this new link because the CGI is great and it features one of our faveourite frogs! (watch the very end) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEDMVNAPk4

 

[Drtooth]

I forget the term, but there is one for when computer generated models took so close to real, yet miss a few key details thus rendering them creepy and off putting.

Are you thinking of "Uncanny Valley," or is that just a term for robotics? I hate ultra-realistic looking CGI humans too. The stylization of humans in Monsters Vs Aliens and The Incredibles, and Up and others like them work, because they still look like cartoons. At the risk of over-speculating, I'd hate to see Roger look like some horrible cross bread between a toon rabbit and a real one, like Scooby Doo and Garfield came out.

I still say the chances of Roger Rabbit 2 are the same as Ghostbusters 3. But then again, we got Rocky 6 and Indiana Jones 4.....

 

[RedPiggy]

But Ghostbusters 3 is coming ... as a video game, but that's the best we're getting.