What a sad state of affairs it is when Producers' backend deals and studio politics puts up an insurmountable obsticle in the place of what could trully be a great work of film. I love WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, and the idea that this petty bullshit is what stands in the way... just chaps my hide. Why these people just come to the table and say... "Hey, I want my grandkids to see this movie, so here's what I'm going to do..." and then lower their damn take and help make this movie feasible... well... it's just beyond me. Eisner, chill dude... the past is past. Jeffrey, Steven... dudes, ya have enough in yer coffers, give the rabbit a break. And that goes for the rest of ya guyz... Here's Junior with the inside candy coated look at the whole train wreck...
Hi-ho, Harry -
J.M. here with a tasy dish of rabbit stew concerning the REAL reason why a second ROGER RABBIT film will never be made.
While bopping around the Cinescape website last week I chanced on a short interview with producer Frank Marshall who claimed that rising animation costs had permanently torpedoed the practicality of doing a sequel. Now given the bazillions of semolians to be reaped in merchandise, tee-shirts, books, burger joint tie-ins and other venues, that statement seemed like a load of succotash. Figuring that Roger is a known, and well-liked character there would be built-in interest to see him in another flick, and even considering the inflated SPFX budget, the film would kill at the box office. There's no way the producers wouldn't make back what they spent on it in three weeks, tops. I smelled a rat (and not the type that wears little short red pants) so I took my trusty halogen flashlight in hand and set out for the seamy side of Toontown to learn the truth.
I met my contact in a dingy milk bar down in Avery Alley. He was a foul-mouthed little jamoke who stank of cheap cigars and unchanged diapers. Puffing bitterly on an El Skunko Especial, my contact said he was royally pissed-off because he hadn't been working since the early 90's and was really counting on this picture for some fast cash to pay off his horseracing debts. When I asked the greasy tyke what the skinny was with the rabbit sequel going south, he chalked it all up to what I had suspected all along, a virtual Lake Mead of residual bad blood between Dreamworks and Disney. Twelve years ago, the Amblin' and Disney guys each owned an equal piece of Roger and Co. and were working on the feature and subsequent shorts more or less in a friendly spirit of cooperation. Oh sure, there were some flaps here and there, such as the Disney crew throwing a snit and saying no when Amblin' wanted to use a Roger short in front of ARACHNIPHOBIA, but basically they were all content to share even-Steven in the bunny and his bounty.
Then came the big Disney/Katzenberg split of '94. Under the original agreement, neither Disney nor Spielberg could make a Roger cartoon without the involvement of the other, and with Jeffrey switching sides, the Mouse House was loathe to make a deal with their new rivals in the toon game. My contact speculated that the "costs" referred to in the Cinescape article are not production expenses at all but the rich backend deals (whopping profits from the flick's initial release as well as video, TV, licensing, etc.) which are still in place for all the big-name mogul talent. The last thing Disney wants to do is write a couple of fat checks for Steven and Jeffrey for their profit participation in a ROGER sequel, and that is exactly what they'd have to do. Also, that would mean Jeffrey would once again have creative input into Disney animation, which would most likely tick off Mr. Eisner no end. Neither party is willing to give in to the other, and so we have the Toontown version of the Mexican stand-off. My pint-sized stoolie shrugged sadly and said with so many people getting such big cuts, the movie probably wouldn't be cost-effective at that. And with the usual Hollywood legal wrangling going on for years after the fact to figure out who did and didn't get what bonus, perk, royalty, etc., another ROGER flick would be a guaranteed money loser, regardless of how much it raked in. I tossed down a few semolians to settle the tab, thanked the little bum for his time and cracked him a good one with my flashlight as he grabbed for my ass on the way out. Ugh. Toons.
Anxious to learn more about the ROGER we'd never see, I left Toontown and slinked down to the Hollywood office of the Valiant and Valiant Detective Agency. Luckily for me the proprietor was out getting plowed, and with a quick twist of a hairpin, I was in and sneeking a peek at his files. What I turned up was an undated copy of an uncredited script, by all accounts from other sources who have seen it, one of the last drafts written of the proposed ROGER prequel. As it has a snowball's chance in you-know-where of getting made, I won't do the Spoiler thingee here. Besides, there's no point in recounting the story as much of it was similar to CATS DON'T DANCE (a rags-to-riches Hollywood song n' dance tale) with liberal dashes of THE JERK and STEWART LITTLE thrown in for flavor. Basically, Roger is a toon rabbit adopted by a human family on a midwestern farm. He puts an act together with his human "brother" and they hit the road to take Hollywood by storm. Once they get to the big town the brother becomes a star and forgets Roger, who is relegated to the company of toons. There is a happy reunion of course, and the big novelty this time seemed to be the mixing in of classic film stars (Gable, Bogart, etc.) the way toon guest stars were used in the first film. Whether these would be contemporary actors recreating the classic stars or the stars themselves digitally colorized and processed in (a'la DEAD MEN DON'T WEAR PLAID) was not clear from the script, but given some of the ligitimate concernes over cost (and there probably were scads) the latter seems most likely.
And that's the way the bunny bounces.
Junior Mintz
