• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Roger Rabbit Sequel

was he modeled and animated.or was he painted and then scanned into the computer to match him better wit the live action footage?

Supposedly a little of both. Animators drew the footage, and used CG for shading, shadows, and all that there to make him look more 3 dimensional.
 
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/roger-rabbit-cg-test.html#comments

David Nethery says: 09/20/10 7:37am
I worked on this. This is only part of the test we did. The entire test was much longer. Here’s what I recall about it: Made at Disney Feature Animation Florida in 1998 , right after we had finished Mulan. Directed by Eric Goldberg, who also did the streamlined re-design of Roger. Traditional animators: Tom Bancroft (Roger), Barry Temple (Roger), Trey Finney (weasels). Assistant animators: David Nethery (supervising key assistant) , Sherrie Sinclair, James Harris, Teresa Quezada , Jason Peltz, Lon Smart. CG Animators: Eric Guaglione, Rob Bekhurs . There were traditional effects animators on it too, but I have unfortunately forgotten who … I may have a complete crew list somewhere buried in my boxes of “Disney junk” from those years. This section where Roger dances on the table and leaps across to the guy’s desk was traditionally animated by Tom Bancroft , then Rob Bekhurs used Tom’s animation as the basis for the CG version of Roger . (I think it was Rob , maybe Eric Guaglione ? I see Eric Guaglione’s name name on the clip above. Maybe Eric and/or Rob can chime in to correct my somewhat hazy recollection of the project ) What you’re seeing in the test above is the CG version. A fusion of Traditional and CG. Like I said , the entire test was longer . It was traditionally animated, cleaned -up , colored . Props like the weasels’ guns were CG (instead of the puppeteered live props as on the feature … which were a pain to cover up the rigging) . Another example: the tabletop that Roger dances on was animated as a CG element , rather than as a practical prop being jiggled around by stagehands underneath the set. Parts of the test were then re-animated in CG , using the traditional animation as a basis. I don’t remember if the whole thing was re-rendered in CG or if it was only this scene . The entire test that was done in traditional animation probably ran a minute-and-a-half. Sorry if I’ve left anyone’s name out. It seems like another lifetime ago …

tom bancroft says: 09/20/10 12:12pm
Dave Nethery, Doug Nichols and “john” gave all correct background on this project. It was directed by Eric Goldberg (from LA) but animated in the Florida studio. We had two seperate teams: one traditional and one CG. Two seperate tests completely. The CG test was a huge secret with a lot of us even in Disney unaware it was going on until it was finished. (My assumption is that Disney execs didn’t want us traditional guys thinking our days were numbered- HA, who thought that back in 98?) Eric G. did his version of Roger and even gave the scenes out with poses included. He put a lot of work into each scene, much like he does when he directs a commercial, its almost a pose test already. I was given the 2d version of this scene to animate BEFORE the CG animators. I heard that it was going to have a CG version of it done about half way through animating it (it took me about two weeks, if I remember right). So, I made sure I put in a lot of tough “smear drawings” that I knew they couldn’t do, just to see how they’d handle it. What “John” above says is correct: the CG version was a huge expensive deal. It took a big team of CG guys (headed by Eric Guaglione with most, if not all, of the “animation” done by the talented Rob Bekuhrs) MONTHS (maybe six?) to complete this one scene. It was like creating a new “model” of Roger for every pose/tween. You could never make a feature like that. It is almost an identical “tracing” of the 2d version I did. You can see my 2d version at the end of my companies animation reel at: http://www.funnypagesprod.com. BTW, the 2d version was a full 5-7 scenes long, not just this one shot. It had a mini story to it with the live action “detective guy” and a live action female with the weasels making an appearance also. The 2d test was designed to show that a 2D Roger would interact well (better than the original film) with CG props. In my 2d test, the magic hat (like it is here), tables, papers, etc. were all CG elements. It worked great, as you’d expect. It was an affordable way to do the sequel, not to make the characters CG also. There are many, many reasons the sequel didn’t get made, but I sure enjoyed working on this test.
 
Last edited:
Roger Rabbit Sequel Perplexes Bob Hoskins

21 hours ago

Although he has agreed to reprise his role in Robert Zemeckis’s planned sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Bob Hoskins has expressed his reservations about what he says is Zemeckis’s intention to use “performance capture” animation for the human characters. In an interview with today’s (Wednesday) London Daily Telegraph, Hoskins said, “The format they want to do is the same as we did for A Christmas Carol. The thing is, it looks like a cartoon, so how do you put a cartoon in the middle of a cartoon? I can’t figure out how they are going to do it.” Zemeckis himself has said that he plans to keep the cartoon characters 2D and the human ones 3D. “I couldn’t dimensionalize Jessica even if I wanted to because she doesn’t have a nose,” he remarked in an interview with MTV News last year. Otherwise, he has said little about the project, except that it is in the works and that the writers of the original Roger Rabbit have written a script. “I don’t know how it’s going to work out,” Hoskins told the Telegraph, noting that the charm of the original movie was in the way the cartoon characters seamlessly interacted with the humans. Zemeckis’s current scheme to turn both into cartoons, he remarked, seems “a bit soft.”
 
Roger Rabbit Sequel Perplexes Bob Hoskins

21 hours ago

Although he has agreed to reprise his role in Robert Zemeckis’s planned sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Bob Hoskins has expressed his reservations about what he says is Zemeckis’s intention to use “performance capture” animation for the human characters. In an interview with today’s (Wednesday) London Daily Telegraph, Hoskins said, “The format they want to do is the same as we did for A Christmas Carol. The thing is, it looks like a cartoon, so how do you put a cartoon in the middle of a cartoon? I can’t figure out how they are going to do it.” Zemeckis himself has said that he plans to keep the cartoon characters 2D and the human ones 3D. “I couldn’t dimensionalize Jessica even if I wanted to because she doesn’t have a nose,” he remarked in an interview with MTV News last year. Otherwise, he has said little about the project, except that it is in the works and that the writers of the original Roger Rabbit have written a script. “I don’t know how it’s going to work out,” Hoskins told the Telegraph, noting that the charm of the original movie was in the way the cartoon characters seamlessly interacted with the humans. Zemeckis’s current scheme to turn both into cartoons, he remarked, seems “a bit soft.”

Okay, now I'm a lot less enthused about this sequel. If done in the original style, but with improved animation techniques, that might have been interesting. Now they want the humans to be 3D CGI (like in Polar Express) and the cartoons to be in 2D animation, like in the original? Sorry, but that's gonna be crap. Like Hoskins said, part of the charm of the original was seeing the toons interact with real people. Take that element out of the sequel and you take away what is gonna draw in the audience you're looking to attract.
 
Yeah, the 3D humans thing is a disaster. That kind of ruins what made the original cool. Now we'll get cartoon people interacting with cartoons. Whoop-de-doo.
 
I thought Robert said it would be Live Action again? man, he'll use any excuse to not work on an actual set.
 
Robert is in a weird state in his career. I think he'll one day return to live action before he retires.
 
I don't think so. I wouldn't be surprised if he never made another live action film ever again. He just seems to be in love with this technology.
 
Roger Rabbit Sequel Perplexes Bob Hoskins

21 hours ago

Although he has agreed to reprise his role in Robert Zemeckis’s planned sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Bob Hoskins has expressed his reservations about what he says is Zemeckis’s intention to use “performance capture” animation for the human characters. In an interview with today’s (Wednesday) London Daily Telegraph, Hoskins said, “The format they want to do is the same as we did for A Christmas Carol. The thing is, it looks like a cartoon, so how do you put a cartoon in the middle of a cartoon? I can’t figure out how they are going to do it.” Zemeckis himself has said that he plans to keep the cartoon characters 2D and the human ones 3D. “I couldn’t dimensionalize Jessica even if I wanted to because she doesn’t have a nose,” he remarked in an interview with MTV News last year. Otherwise, he has said little about the project, except that it is in the works and that the writers of the original Roger Rabbit have written a script. “I don’t know how it’s going to work out,” Hoskins told the Telegraph, noting that the charm of the original movie was in the way the cartoon characters seamlessly interacted with the humans. Zemeckis’s current scheme to turn both into cartoons, he remarked, seems “a bit soft.”

i'm with Hoskins on this

the film has to be done with real humans and cartoon

having both be CGI-like will be stupid
 
I don't think so. I wouldn't be surprised if he never made another live action film ever again. He just seems to be in love with this technology.

The problem is that, nothing he has done has proven to break new ground in Hollywood. His movies as of late..came and went. Heck, James Cameron did more to motion capture than Robert has in the past decade with ONE MOVIE.
 
I thought Robert said it would be Live Action again? man, he'll use any excuse to not work on an actual set.
i think he was asked if the cartoon characters would be CGI aand he said that they would be 2D characters.

i dont think if he said that he would not use CGI humans.
 
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/roger-rabbit-cg-test.html#comments
UPDATE: Eric Goldberg, who directed this piece, writes in the comments:
Okay, time to put some things to rest. Rob, Dave, Tom Bancroft, and Eric Guaglione are all correct. It is indeed CGI, from 1998. I directed both pieces, the 2-D and the 3-D, with a view toward directing the animation in the sequel, being developed by Pocahontas producer Jim Pentecost. While time-consuming in 1998 to get this effect, it was, and still is, ground-breaking in my opinion. As we were completing the 2-D with CG props test, I said to Kathleen Gavin, who was heading up offbeat” projects at the time, “Well, everyone already knows the Roger gimmick of tone mattes. Why don’t we see if we can do Roger himself in CG? If we can animate something as fluid and eminently squashy-stretchy as Roger Rabbit, then we can animate anything in CG.” I was also interested in pursuing it to solve the dreaded “foot-float” problem you get when when roto-ing planted feet to an incrementally moving camera. In this case, Roger was tracked perfectly, the same way the dinos in Jurassic Park were tracked perfectly. Whether we would use the technique or not in the sequel, it was to prove that we could do Disney quality animation in CG, which no one had ever attempted before. The Florida team proved me right, in spades, and major kudos to them all. The next logical step for the studio was to see if we could achieve that kind of animation without pre-animating it as 2-D first. The result was Magic Lamp Theater, now a popular 3-D stereo attraction at Tokyo DisneySea. Again, expensive to do at the time, but this time I did detailed poses, while the CG guys really did the animation, supervised by Jason Ryan. Flash-forward 12 years later, and the tools to do this kind of work are most certainly available, without the need for special expense. While the Roger sequel never got made, there were plenty of other reasons for that decision as well, involving then-current studio politics. Also, the too-expensive budget that was being considered was based on the original techniques. Anyway, that’s the way I heared it, Johnny.
 
Robert Zemeckis Just Waiting For Go-Ahead On 'Roger Rabbit' Sequel

Robert Zemeckis Sets Up The 3D Roger Rabbit Sequel That’s Just Waiting For Disney’s Green Light
Brendon Connelly said:
I’ve never met a Robert Zemeckis film I don’t like, and many of them I love. I was prompted to recently revisit Who Framed Roger Rabbit by a friend who said the shine had gone off of it for him, at least a little.

I didn’t agree. I still loved it. It’s flawed, sure, but that’s love for you. And I’d certainly be more than happy for Zemeckis to get his long-planned sequel underway.

He’s recounted some details of what this sequel would entail in a new MTV interview:
It would be done just like the first one. It would look the same way, but we would present it in 3-D in its release. I would do all of the animation hand-drawn; 2-D, but using 3-D tools. It wouldn’t be like Pixar 3-D. It wouldn’t look like that… this would again be another period movie.
The script is in with Disney at the moment, with Zemeckis saying:
I’m happy with the script. It’s very good. It’s written by the original writers, and it’s good. [But Disney] is still thinking about it
Pull your finger out, Mickey, and while you’re at it, re-release the original in 3D. Zemeckis says that tests have been done, and they’re good:
The only one [of my film's I'd convert to 3D is] Roger Rabbit, because you could really pull the animation out as a separate element. It would be very spectacular 3-D. As far as converting, the Back to the Future films… I don’t see the point in that. But they did a test on Roger back in 2006, somewhere around then, and it looks really great.
And a re-release would prove Roger’s box-office pull, I’m sure.

In the meantime, plans are afoot for a Blu-ray release of the film in 2013 – I previously posted the trailer. Hopefully that will be a big seller too.

Zemeckis’ Flight is on release in the US now and is really rather good. The UK will get to see it in February.
 
I feel with Disney now focusing on the Lucasfilms and Marvel properties this will be on the back burner and we won't see it released for a while.
 
i'm actually looking forward to a sequel. have it be set in real time, 20 some years later which would make it set in the 1950s.
 
I'm not really sure how they could do it without Hoskins.
 
you mean the 60s WFRR was set in late 40s ;).

in that case, then yes the 60s. i haven't seen WFRR in years so i thought it was set in the mid to late 30s.

as for Bob Hoskins, i know he recently retired from acting, but perhaps he could have a small supportive/cameo role.
 
i'm actually looking forward to a sequel. have it be set in real time, 20 some years later which would make it set in the 1950s/1960s.

I agree, especially since it now looks like they're gonna do away with the motion capture part for the human characters. Back to basics, that's what Hollywood needs to do right now.

Now my question is, what is the plot going to be? We know the script has been written, yet we know nothing about the plot.

If the movie is gonna be called Who Framed Roger Rabbit II, then I'm guessing there will be some kind of mystery involved (possibly another murder). If that's the case, is Roger the one who's framed again? Or is someone else (Jessica perhaps)framed for a murder they didn't commit and Roger has to help solve the crime? Maybe it's Eddie Valient? Or perhaps his son?

And if it's not another (murder) mystery, then what exactly would the plot be? I certainly think the original plan of pitting Roger Rabbit against The Nazis was a bad idea. Roger is a comedic character, not an action hero. Unless all of the Nazis Roger meets are cartoon hyenas and weazels that he can make laugh to death, that would be the dumbest story idea ever.
 
Rob Minkoff interview: Mr Peabody & Sherman, Roger Rabbit 2

Simon Brew said:
But you broke the barrier between animation and live action very early. And now you've gone from animation, to live action, and back to animation. When you got past The Lion King, I would imagine that you had an array of options in front of you, probably more than you've had before or since. So why did you make the choices you did? What other options did you have?

I think I was interested in live action. I was actually developing the sequel to Roger Rabbit before I was doing The Lion King. I'd got my start as a director on the Roger Rabbit shorts. Jeffrey [Katzenberg] had said to me very early on that if they were going to do a sequel, he'd want me to direct the animation. So I was waiting for that to happen, and after I'd finished the second Roger Rabbit short, I got a call that they had the script of the Roger Rabbit sequel. Would I read it, then come in to discuss directing the whole movie. So I did that, got hired to do that, and worked on it for a year or so. Eventually they decided to shelve the project. I still hear rumours about it...

They keep coming around, yes.

It will come around. It definitely should come around, for sure.

So what was in the script you were working on?

The version... there were a couple of versions going around, and I don't think they'd make the one we were working on! That was one of the problems. I'd read the script and there were things about it that I'd like, and things about it that I didn't like....

Well, the first film itself was dark.

Very dark. This one was about Roger Rabbit trying to find his mother. That was the conceit, that somehow she'd gone to Hollywood, and he'd find her there. Then it turned into something like Sunset Boulevard! Anyway, we worked on that for a year, and they said it wasn't right, and didn't want to do it, and it got shelved. But I was in the conversation about doing live action already, and so Stuart Little for me seemed like a good opportunity.
 
So basically it's probably never going to happen, well that's probably for the best anyways.
 
I wouldn't say never. He said it should come around, meaning he thinks it will happen eventually.
 
Most sequels, you’re behind the eight-ball on them. When audiences clamor for a sequel, what they’re really doing is expressing their enthusiasm for the movie they just saw. And that means they’ll have a love-hate relationship with whatever comes next, because they want it to be the same movie, but different. If it’s too similar, they don’t like it. And if it’s too different, they really don’t like it. There’s nothing more difficult.
http://www.slashfilm.com/roger-rabbit-sequel/
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,262
Messages
22,074,088
Members
45,876
Latest member
kedenlewis
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"