WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? will air on Cartoon Network tonight at 6pm, FYI.
I'm still amazed that Disney continues to use Roger Rabbit in their theme parkks and not phase him out. Just goes to show how much recognition Disney still has of the film's appeal.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
And they never made a sequel. Could never figure that one out. Although, I loved the shorts they use to put in front of movies back in the 90's. Wish they still did that.I just hope they don't do a CGI Roger Rabbit reboot in the near future.
'There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently'
-Robert Evans-
The sequel has yet to happen because of rights issues with the merchandise, I believe.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
You know...if they did it today, they have another dimension of animation to include (CGI). Roger Rabbit should stay hand-drawn, but all of the hand-drawn animated characters could meet the CGI characters.
Wall-E & Eve Woody & Buzz Shrek & Fiona Happy Feet Ice Age Kung Fu Panda
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
It's a brilliant film, but I'm not sure how much Disney still uses Roger in their theme parks. Aside from Car-tune Spin, which I couldn't see them simply tearing down.
I was referring to the costumed character. He still shows up for meet-and-greets and in the parades. Roger Rabbit was featured in the televised 2011 Christmas Day Parade.
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
I had no idea--I'm glad they kept him around. While I didn't think they lived up to the Roger Rabbit opening cartoon, I did like the idea of Disney making new shorts with Roger Rabbit a lot.
Well, Snow White only did one film, and they still use her in the parks...
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
love this movie... but holy jeebus did Doc Brown.. err I mean Christopher Lloyd scare the crap out of me as a kid! especially that sequence when he gets rolled over and its aftermath!! eeek!
Snow White is a known character to CHILDREN. Roger Rabbit is not. Because Disney continues to use him in the parks, they are obviously catering to the adults who remember the movie.
I wonder if they ever had Jessica Rabbit at the parks? Imagine all the dads in line for a photo...
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
'There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently'
-Robert Evans-
"Snow White is a known character to CHILDREN. Roger Rabbit is not. Because Disney continues to use him in the parks, they are obviously catering to the adults who remember the movie."
This makes no sense to me. How do the kids know about Snow White if they haven't watched the film? The same way they know Roger Rabbit from his ONE film.
Or Sleeping Beauty Or Cinderella Or any of the Disney characters.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Because Disney markets Snow White and all of the other known characters. They're on merchandise EVERYWHERE. Go to Wal-Mart or Target and go to the children's clothing department. I guarantee you there will be clothing with the Disney Princesses and Pixar's CARS. There is a lot more exposure to the "main" Disney characters from society. Parents can share any movie with their kids, yes, but I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that more children 6-12 in the U.S. have seen Disney's SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS than WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?
When a child goes to the Disney theme parks, they can name almost any character by name. I doubt they know who Roger Rabbit is.
(Roger Rabbit isn't the only less known character in the parks. They still have Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, and Brer Bear from SONG OF THE SOUTH in rotation. Etc.)
"The Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry. For the power of Tragedy, we may be sure, is felt even apart from representation and actors. Besides, the production of spectacular effects depends more on the art of the stage machinist than on that of the poet."
--Aristotle
I suspect a few do, but that's a fair enough point, and certainly it's not held up as even a modern Disney classic. One reason I suspect is the film itself is targeted more at adults than most Disney (I guess which is why it was a Touchstone release--at least I think it was). I remember when I saw it when it was in theatres, I was 7, and the whole "dip" thing terrified me.
For a while I think some Disney people felt that the company was trying to force Roger Rabbit into their pop culture canon too agressively (there were several attractions based on it in the planning stages, for example, like a runaway baby buggy ride, but that was also a time when Disney had some trouble finding modern hit movies to adapt to theme park rides befor they started having successful franchises again).
I know that the Song of the South characters were brought to Splash Mountain mainly beause Tony Baxter and his Imagineering teams had all of those animals from the closed America Sings attraction and realized that most of them could easily fit into a ride based on South, but it does still seem a little surprising to me that Disney greenlighted a huge ride all built around a film they want to hide--I would have expected them to at least release the animated sequences by now (I know the boycott on it isn't as major as some rumours say--probably around the same time that Rabbit came out, I saw the film with some friends at a repertory movie theatre which obviously got the print from *somewhere*)
Hoskins really deserves a lot of credit for how well the movie works. Can you imagine if they had cast a comedian in his role?
"The gods who nurse this universe think little of mortals' cares. They sit in crowds on exclusive clouds and laugh at our love affairs. I might have had a real romance if they'd given me a chance. I loved him, but he didn't love me. I wanted him, but he didn't want me. Then the gods had a spree and indulged in another whim. Now he loves me, but I don't love him." - Cole Porter
If they did a sequel with those characters mentioned above they would have to set the film 70 years later.
"I think Glee is way too sharp, smart, witty, clever and emotionally confronting for the masses." - Dave19 -
"What's next? Snow Black and the 7 Swaggers? Shasquirta and the Beast? 101 Weavematians?
Willis in Ghettoland?" - Dave19, in reference to the new ANNIE remake.
Roger is just not a huge character, but he is loved by many. That aren't really pushing him at all. He's just sort of there.
The adult humors in the film keeps it from being a true 'Disney' film.
But, his character IS a giant, fluffy bunny, so he makes for a great photo op in the parks.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
The film was indeed put out under Touchstone. It's not a real "Disney" film, despite Touchstone being a subsidiary. Besides, it also contains characters not of Disney's creation, which I'm sure makes Disney even more hesitant to try to really push Roger.
"I think Glee is way too sharp, smart, witty, clever and emotionally confronting for the masses." - Dave19 -
"What's next? Snow Black and the 7 Swaggers? Shasquirta and the Beast? 101 Weavematians?
Willis in Ghettoland?" - Dave19, in reference to the new ANNIE remake.
joined:5/12/03
Posted: 6/24/12 at 01:40pm
--Aristotle