Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
  1. #16

    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,605

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    Partially copied from my post in the other Roger Rabbit thread.

    I really hope this happens, and that they use hand-drawn animation for the Toons. It wouldn't be the same if they tried to use CGI.


    Just for fun, here's a concept I made up for a Roger Rabbit sequel that would allow them to use both:


    "Who Cloned Roger Rabbit"

    It’s 2004. Toontown is now divided between hand-drawn Toons and CGI Toons (with stop-motion Toons perhaps caught somewhere in the middle.) The plot would revolve around a conspiracy within Maroon Cartoon Studios to dip hand-drawn Toontown off the face of the Earth and replace the toons with new CGI versions - the title referring to Roger’s “hip, edgy” prototype CGI clone, who could either turn out to be a good guy or an evil digital drone, or possibly a Jekyll/Hyde thing between the two - with a counter-conspiracy by hand-drawn Toon extremists to delete the CGI toons. Freddie Valiant is a senior VP at Maroon who has little interest in Toons beyond their profitability, but he’s reluctantly roped into investigating the goings-on by his aging Private Eye grandfather Eddie .



    I agree about the scaryness of Polar Express. There was the creepy "technically sort of realistic but failing to capture the feel of reality" animation, but the main problem was that the vacuum left by the lack of plot was filled with well-intentioned but heavy-handed moralizing. Excuse me, I think I'll go walk on top of a moving train, because so long as I believe in him, Santa Claus will never let me fall off!

    I liked Beowulf much better, but yeah, there were moments when I totally bought it, and moments when I was totally aware I was watching motion capture.
    "Happy Working Song" parody for DCA remodel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-TYESfNTP8&feature=plcp

    Retro Rant Review of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" (comedy review of direct-to-video
    Disney sequel):
    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/user/animagus.../1/q1j7FU8QXu0
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/user/animagus.../0/sasNTMDRBLU

    Retro Rant Review of "Home on the Range" (comedy review of Disney movie):
    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7mC-...feature=relmfu
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoUie...feature=relmfu
    Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Vea...feature=relmfu


    Visit my site: http://www.vividgroovy.com



    Pratfall the albatross superheroine visits the Carthay Circle Theatre.

  2. #17

    • Waiting Since 1992
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Springfield, MO....unfortunately.
    Posts
    526

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueSkyDriveBy View Post
    If someone other than Kathleen Turner voices Jessica, forget it.

    No Kathleen, no go.

    Oh my gosh, I don't agree! Have you HEARD her lately??? She's from the town I'm living in right now and she does a series of radio commercials for this children's hotline and GAAAAAH, SCARY! She voice sounds like this horrible old lady smoker/foreign man and it's so deep! I'm sure they'd get somebody else......right??
    Last edited by SaraNoH; 05-12-2009 at 06:27 AM.

  3. #18

    • VFX Artist & Dark Lord
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    160

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    As a visual effects artists & animator (not to mention a huge Roger Rabbit fan) I gotta weigh in on this one.

    Other than Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies and the title character in Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong, I am not a fan of motion capture when it comes down to animated main characters in feature films. I have yet to see a mocap animated feature that I've enjoyed. I found Polar Express to be soulless and nearly unwatchable. Monster House was unnerving because the characters looked all toonish, but the art direction and virtual cinematography was far too realistic, just never coming together for me. And Beowolf was downright boring. I've seen more interesting cinematics in video games.

    So I personally am concerned that motion capture animation is even being brought up for discussion in regards to a Roger Rabbit sequel. As much as I deal in high tech computer imagery for a living, the best VFX supervisors and animation directors know when the situation calls for old school methods.

    A new Roger Rabbit film should, in my humble opinion, feature hand-drawn animated characters just as the orginal did. Yes, it was an elaborate process back in the 1980s because not only was it necessary draw & animate the characters, but you had to do the same for the highlights and the shadows which were each animated seperately. Today we can do all the inking, painting, highlighting, and shadowing in the computer.

    If a new Roger Rabbit film gets made and the powers-that-be insist upon CGI for the animated characters then I hope they go with actual animated characters (think Pixar) rather than mocap. Something gets lost in the mocap process. Compare a mocap film like Polar Express, Monster House, or Beowolf to the hand animated (for lack of a better term) work done by Pixar or Dreamworks. It begins to remind me of the difference between the Fleischer Brothers' rotoscoped animation in Gulliver's Travels and the hand drawn animation in Disney's Snow White.

    And I have yet to see 3D animation rendered with toon shaders (i.e. - a process to give it a cartoon look) that actually feels like a 2D cartoon. Something still doesn't quite feel right about it. During my tenure at Industrial Light & Magic I worked on the effects for Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle. As much fun as we had on that project, the whole time I was working on it I wished that Rocky & Bullwinkle had been hand drawn and composited in like Roger Robbit.

    So I'm skeptical of a new Roger Rabbit film with 3D animated characters, and absolutely leery of a new movie that utilizes motion capture techniques.

    Now...having said that...I hope they make a new Roger Rabbit film, I hope it's good, and I hope it has the same wonderful look, feel, and heart of the original. I love Roger and would gladly welcome him back.

  4. #19

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bloody miles away
    Posts
    6,904

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    Looney Tunes Back in Action recently showed that the traditional method can still be used and look good. Of course it also performed poorly at the box office....
    WDW - 1987 & 1991
    DLP - 1996, 2004, 2006 & 2007
    DLR - October 2011





  5. #20

    • MiceChat Round-Up Crew
    • It's knittingknurse now.
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Anacortes, WA
    Posts
    8,618
    Blog Entries
    82

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Andrew Nelson View Post
    Monster House was unnerving because the characters looked all toonish, but the art direction and virtual cinematography was far too realistic, just never coming together for me.
    Monster House had some funny anatomy jokes though. I thought that movie while the style was weird... the story and writing were good. "It's a girl house?!" was one of my favorite lines in the movie (it was in reference to the uvula/hanging thing in the back of our throats).

    My big fear is Zemeckis... he likes technology a little too much and wants to push that as far as he can. Even in Forest Gump, which is essentially a simple story about a simple man, he ODed on technology. And sure it's great to explore what the computer geniuses are doing and try new things, sometimes with certain characters we as the audience don't want to see that. It's kinda' like when your mom has a famous meatloaf recipe that everyone loves and craves, and then starts experiment and the meatloaf isn't the same... sometimes you want the plain meatloaf, the comfort meatloaf and Roger Rabbit is the classic meatloaf, you don't mess with it ingredients, but you can make more... Make sense?

    And Alvin and the Chipmunks was one of the worst movies ever.

  6. #21

    • MiceChat Moderator
    • Starcruiser.. crash crash
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles & Orange County
    Posts
    21,533

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Andrew Nelson View Post
    As a visual effects artists & animator (not to mention a huge Roger Rabbit fan) I gotta weigh in on this one.

    Other than Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies and the title character in Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong, I am not a fan of motion capture when it comes down to animated main characters in feature films. I have yet to see a mocap animated feature that I've enjoyed. I found Polar Express to be soulless and nearly unwatchable. Monster House was unnerving because the characters looked all toonish, but the art direction and virtual cinematography was far too realistic, just never coming together for me. And Beowolf was downright boring. I've seen more interesting cinematics in video games.

    So I personally am concerned that motion capture animation is even being brought up for discussion in regards to a Roger Rabbit sequel. As much as I deal in high tech computer imagery for a living, the best VFX supervisors and animation directors know when the situation calls for old school methods.

    A new Roger Rabbit film should, in my humble opinion, feature hand-drawn animated characters just as the orginal did. Yes, it was an elaborate process back in the 1980s because not only was it necessary draw & animate the characters, but you had to do the same for the highlights and the shadows which were each animated seperately. Today we can do all the inking, painting, highlighting, and shadowing in the computer.

    If a new Roger Rabbit film gets made and the powers-that-be insist upon CGI for the animated characters then I hope they go with actual animated characters (think Pixar) rather than mocap. Something gets lost in the mocap process. Compare a mocap film like Polar Express, Monster House, or Beowolf to the hand animated (for lack of a better term) work done by Pixar or Dreamworks. It begins to remind me of the difference between the Fleischer Brothers' rotoscoped animation in Gulliver's Travels and the hand drawn animation in Disney's Snow White.

    And I have yet to see 3D animation rendered with toon shaders (i.e. - a process to give it a cartoon look) that actually feels like a 2D cartoon. Something still doesn't quite feel right about it. During my tenure at Industrial Light & Magic I worked on the effects for Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle. As much fun as we had on that project, the whole time I was working on it I wished that Rocky & Bullwinkle had been hand drawn and composited in like Roger Robbit.

    So I'm skeptical of a new Roger Rabbit film with 3D animated characters, and absolutely leery of a new movie that utilizes motion capture techniques.

    Now...having said that...I hope they make a new Roger Rabbit film, I hope it's good, and I hope it has the same wonderful look, feel, and heart of the original. I love Roger and would gladly welcome him back.

    Great comparisons, although I enjoyed the story of Monster House (not something I enjoyed about Polar Express).

    Mocap is like definitely akin to rotoscoping. It's NOT animation! The animation in Anastasia BUGGED me because a lot of it felt rotoscoped. (was it? someone who knows can tell me).

    Mocap for live action is different, like Gollum for example. You need that realistic movement in a live action film. But when it's all mocap trying to be live action, I guess I just don't see the 'why' of it. Yah, maybe it's easier to do it that way, but it doesn't resonate as well with me.

    Roger is a toon. And I'm afraid that they'll go the CG route as disney has done with Mickey and the gang (see Philharmagic)


    Visit my mice chat toy shop!
    http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

    Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
    http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

  7. #22

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bloody miles away
    Posts
    6,904

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    Athough I was skeptical when Disney started to CGI Mickey and friends, I have to admit to being a bit of a convert. I thought it worked well in Twice Upon a Christmas and MIckey Mouse Clubhouse could not exist without it.
    However, CGI for Roger Rabbit would be just wrong. It simply defeats the object and goes against the whole point of the characters. These are 'classic toons'. If they were CG'ed would they them be threatened with a computer virus instead of dip?

    And as for rotoscoping please remember that Disney used it (to quite obvious effect in some parts of Cinderella) and that it was used for certain scenes with Jessica in WFRR (and again you tend to be able to tell which ones). It is a branch of animation that I have never approved of although with Jessica it was sometimes necessary so that the actress could interact and then be drawn over (such as the business with Marvin Acme during her song)
    WDW - 1987 & 1991
    DLP - 1996, 2004, 2006 & 2007
    DLR - October 2011





  8. #23

    • MiceChat Moderator
    • Starcruiser.. crash crash
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles & Orange County
    Posts
    21,533

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    But in the case of Roger Rabbit, rotoscoping Jessica was a necessary evil with their technological capabilities. But it also made for a more convincing performance for the animators to add on top of.


    Visit my mice chat toy shop!
    http://micechat.com/forums/merchandi...oy-shoppe.html

    Track Disney Animation Presence in the Theme Parks Worldwide!
    http://micechat.com/forums/disneylan...ired-them.html

  9. #24

    • Senior Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bloody miles away
    Posts
    6,904

    Re: Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coheteboy View Post
    But in the case of Roger Rabbit, rotoscoping Jessica was a necessary evil with their technological capabilities. But it also made for a more convincing performance for the animators to add on top of.
    Agreed my ewok friend but it also meant that her waistline changed dramatically from scene to scene. Today's technology would mean that all props and interaction could be CG'ed - not a bad thing really as long as the characters were traditionally created ala LT:BIA.
    WDW - 1987 & 1991
    DLP - 1996, 2004, 2006 & 2007
    DLR - October 2011





Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. [Question] I saw Roger Rabbit at WDW today!
    By TDLFAN in forum Walt Disney World Resort
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 04:29 PM
  2. We Met Roger Rabbit!
    By Witches of Morva in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-19-2008, 02:10 PM
  3. Roger Rabbit Sequel Finally Coming?
    By Indiana Joel in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 11:01 AM
  4. Roger Rabbit
    By Anakin in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 10:21 AM
  5. Roger Rabbit???
    By princedalton in forum Disneyland Resort
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 07:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •