This being the place I've posted besides the Warner Bros. section, here's something I'd like to discuss because it has been in development for a while--a sequel to one of my favorite films due to the brilliant mix of live-action and animation with cameos of classic cartoons characters such as Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Since the guy who plays Eddie Valiant Bob Hoskins has recently announced he's retiring from acting due to him having Parkinson's disease, and it's got me wondering how they are going to do a sequel without him. My question for you guys is--how would you do a sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? What time period should it be placed in? Which classic cartoon characters would you like to see again and which new ones should be used for the sequel(kindof depends on time period and which companies Disney is friendly with. )? How would you write this with the inclusion of Eddie Valiant? Have fun guys!
Scrap it, and leave the original RR as a stand-alone classic.
The original Who Framed Roger Rabbit? told a finite story which was effectively wrapped up. It doesn't call for a sequel, and was such an achievement that any follow-up to it would/will be a disappointment, especially if Robert Zimeckis plans to employ his mo-cap zombies in the pircture. So I'd just leave well enough alone.
Well, apparently the author disagrees with you there. There IS a sequel to Roger Rabbit, entitled " Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit?"- I've read both of them. Of course, there are significant differences from the novel to the first film and I doubt the second novel would make a very good film without even more drastic changes.
Have to agree with the others. Usually nowadays I'm not much against people at least trying to make sequels, but WFRR should best be left alone now that Hoskins is out of the picture.
Zemeckis actually waits too long for a sequel to be made, there was supposed to be a sequel for "Forrest Gump" called "Gump and Co.", but the author of "Forrest Gump" never gave Zemeckis the green light...or something like that.
But when is the follow-up Roger Rabbit book set in, the 40's?
-------------------------
Thank God for kids who love obscure things-Lee Hazelwood (1929-2007)
My question for you guys is--how would you do a sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? What time period should it be placed in? Which classic cartoon characters would you like to see again and which new ones should be used for the sequel(kindof depends on time period and which companies Disney is friendly with. )?
Well, I would set the sequel in either 1964 or 1972 where Roger takes over Eddie's detective buisness after he moves to New York to start a different detective buisness. I don't how to set the story, but I would add Rick Flint from the comics and Bonkers D. Bobcat since he and Roger make a perfect duo, and have Lisa Sterbakov voice Jessica (she did it pretty good in Robot Chicken).
I mean, with today's films getting sequels and making comebacks, I'm surprised Roger hasn't gotten one. That film should get a sequel, not Finding Nemo. And it can be perfect if done right.
I mean, with today's films getting sequels and making comebacks, I'm surprised Roger hasn't gotten one. That film should get a sequel, not Finding Nemo. And it can be perfect if done right.
A Roger Rabbit sequel has been in development for some time now, though I personally don't think they should bother.
As Kris pointed out, the book the movie was based on, Who Censored Roger Rabbit? did get a sequel, Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit?, but the book and the movie were noticeably different animals.
The story of Roger getting framed for the murder of Marvin Acme and Eddie's trauma over his brother being killed by a Toon and Judge Doom and the near destruction of Toontown was effectively tied up in the first movie, what's left to say? Really, what can they possibly do in a sequel to such a groundbreaking film that wouldn't just come off as a cheap cash-grab? Why does Roger Rabbit need a sequel? So we can get more cartoon cameos? Granted, the original script did feature some decent cameos which didn't make it into the film: Tom & Jerry were supposed to appear in RR, but Disney couldn't secure the rights to use them in time, and there was a deleted scene in the first film featuring Mighty Mouse grieving at Marvin Acme's funeral and Superman comforting him that ended up on the cutting room floor, but cameos alone isn't a good reason to make a 2nd movie, since none of them had any effect on the plot; the story of RR could've easily been told without any cartoon cameos.
Unless the story of RR2 is really going to blow doors and not just come off like a "we're only doing this for the money!" cheapquel, I really think Who Framed Roger Rabbit? should be left as a stand-alone classic.
I agree with you that Finding Nemo doesn't need a sequel either. Again, the original film told a finite story which was effectively wrapped up. Is Marlin going to lose his son and embark on the journey of a lifetime again?? I'd rather Pixar not have a repeat of Cars 2, which, let's face it, was nothing more than a cheap cash-grab.
Because the only person that I can see filling-in the shoes for Edward Valiant is...Dan Aykroyd, of all people (I dunno why, but I can see him as a detective).
-------------------------
Thank God for kids who love obscure things-Lee Hazelwood (1929-2007)
I agree... leave well enough alone. WFRR was satisfactorily wrapped up the first time around.
I'm still fuming about how someone had the audacity to make a sequel (although. thankfully, only direct-to-video) to Bob Clark's "A Christmas Story".
I never watched the movie, but I saw a trailer for it on YouTube and was appalled by what I saw.
The role of "the old man" that was so deftly portrayed by the late, great Darrin McGavin had been taken over by Daniel (Marv from "Home Alone") Stern.
Ralphie was now a horny teenager and some scenes loked like they were more appropriate for Clark's earlier film, "Porky's".
Getting back on topic, I think it would be a mistake to set a WFRR sequel in the 60's or 70's; when the theatrical animated cartoon had begun dying a slow, painful death.
-------------------------
"I'd like to cover you with furs and automobiles!"
(This post was edited by zavkram on Feb 5, 2013, 8:20 AM)
But when is the follow-up Roger Rabbit book set in, the 40's?
It's set in the 1930's. The making of Gone With The Wind is a major plot point, and Clark Gable is one of the main characters in the novel.
Apparently Eddie had not yet met Dolores, because in the novel he gets romantically involved with Jessica's sister Joellyn, who looks just like Jessica...except she's only a few inches tall. In one chapter she actually slips down the front of Eddie's pants!
The author's explanation for the drastic differences between the original novel and the movie was that the events of the original novel were all a dream that Jessica had. She wakes up to find Roger very much alive...and just getting out of the shower.
(This post was edited by BobbyBickert on Feb 6, 2013, 8:32 PM)
)? How would you write this with the inclusion of Eddie Valiant? Have fun guys! 
