It's official: Who Framed Roger Rabbit' Sequel Script is Complete - Polidicks

The only way I could see CGI being used is if the plot is about traditional 2D cartoons being moved aside for newer tech CGI. Shame Hoskins won't be returning due to his battle with Parkinson's, and after announcing his retirement in August :(

But would Warner Bros. allow the Loony Toons and such to be used? D:

It says so in the OP, the cartoons would still be 2D, it would just be filmed with a 3D camera.

[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;38699532]But would Warner Bros. allow the Loony Toons and such to be used? D:[/QUOTE] I hope Warner and Disney are happy to work together so we get something similar to this scene once more. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKjUtTC3e0Y[/media]

[QUOTE=Fangz;38696568]I thought the project was abandoned in 2006, there was even leaked artwork that they were going to have CGI for the cartoon characters. Here is what Roger Rabbit was going to look like from the art leak: [IMG]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/Starmenclock/roger_rabbit.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I see I'm not the only one the gets a boner from the first movie, Ithankyou :q:

[QUOTE=Reds;38699010]Because of the idiotic thing that the public does where it goes IT'S ANIMATED THEREFORE IT'S FOR KIDS/TERRIBLE. The stigma against 2d animation is annoying as hell.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure it's just because 3D animation is easier, cheaper and faster than 2D. In 2D animation you have to draw and animate the character in every single frame, in 3D you model the character once and animate every couple of frames since 3D doesn't require you to make a motion every frame, just first and last frame of the motion, the PC does the rest.

[QUOTE=Sonicdude;38698613]Originally Disney wanted a story abour Roger Rabbit finding his father who was actually Bugs Bunny. They planned to do the animation in 2D, but place CG over it. Here is the original test: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1QC2KMJndw[/media] Personally I think it lacks the same charm as the Richard Williams animation of the original. If they do a sequel I would love to see 2D return.[/QUOTE] Is that Jon Hamm?

Fffffff nooooo, it didn't [I]need[/I] a sequel. :(

I watched it for the first time a month or so ago. It's still pretty amazing.

At least it seems Zemeckis knows what the fans wants: original writers, hand-drawn 2d, periodmovie. Imagine 3d Roger beating himself up with an iPhone or some shit, that was my expectations when i first heard of a sequel but now im interested.

If they do this, they should use the same technique they used in Paperboy. That short was incredible.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;38700003]Pretty sure it's just because 3D animation is easier, cheaper and faster than 2D. In 2D animation you have to draw and animate the character in every single frame, in 3D you model the character once and animate every couple of frames since 3D doesn't require you to make a motion every frame, just first and last frame of the motion, the PC does the rest.[/QUOTE] Not to mention that computers can handle small details extremely well and quickly. Like the hair on Sully in Monsters, Inc. was done with a program which is able to figure out each hair is supposed to interact based on how he moves, makes contact, etc. That would be insane to do in 2D animation or even by hand in 3D. Not that I'm against 2D, because I would love to see 2D make a comeback in film.

[QUOTE=Sonicdude;38698613]Originally Disney wanted a story abour Roger Rabbit finding his father who was actually Bugs Bunny. They planned to do the animation in 2D, but place CG over it. Here is the original test: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1QC2KMJndw[/media] Personally I think it lacks the same charm as the Richard Williams animation of the original. If they do a sequel I would love to see 2D return.[/QUOTE] To be fair this is way better than a lot of CGI in live-actions these days but I would still prefer 2D drawings.

[QUOTE=Ryu-Gi;38698054]Cel-shaded, then? Like they did with the "Rocky and Bulwinkle" movie?[/QUOTE] like the disney short paperman [video=youtube;TZJLtujW6FY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY[/video]

[QUOTE=Wii60;38703253]like the disney short paperman [video=youtube;TZJLtujW6FY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY[/video][/QUOTE] Oh that's pretty; interesting tech behind it too.

this better be fucking great theres no way in hell i can count how many times i watched the original

Furries rejoice!!!!!!

Did anyone read the article? [quote] The filmmaker also added, “I would do all of the animation hand-drawn; 2D, but using 3D tools. [B]It wouldn’t be like Pixar 3D. It wouldn’t look like that … this would again be another period movie.[/B]”[/quote]

[QUOTE=lemonskunk;38703762]Furries rejoice!!!!!![/QUOTE] dont. just fuck off

[QUOTE=lemonskunk;38703762]Furries rejoice!!!!!![/QUOTE] Please don't bring the fandom into this.

I have to admit that he seems to be going into it with the right idea, but it's still a damn huge risk. If this gets botched, or even turns out mediocre to so-so, he's going to be [i]eaten alive[/i]. It'd basically be this [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwPkAUBr4Sc[/media] With him guest starring as the shoe.

I remember reading in the newspaper back in like 1990 that a Roger Rabbit sequel was being worked on. As long as it isn't suddenly all "hip and extreme", it might be alright. Fun Fact: Anyone remember the old show "Bonkers" back when there used to be the Disney Afternoon? Apparently, it was supposed to originally be a sort of spin off to Who Framed Roger Rabbit that focused on Toontown.

I hope Popeye's in it this time