How would modern Disney handle this?

How would modern Disney handle this?

Attached: IMG_2377.jpg (1800x2700, 1.62M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VhmDrkKSfnI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

jessica rabbit replaced by gay love inferest

They would include Simpsons characters.

Attached: Disnee's Feed & Seed.jpg (300x300, 32K)

Tessa thompson as jessica rabbit

Poorly

Nope, she'd be a fucking tranny.

Attached: slaanesh.jpg (946x720, 165K)

>modern Disney
>an original story

>Mickey having to share a screen with Bugs Bunny
They wouldn't.

>Zemeckis thinks that the chances of Disney green-lighting the sequel are "slim". As he explained more in detail, "The current corporate Disney culture [the current studio management of The Walt Disney Company] has no interest in Roger, and they certainly don't like Jessica at all".[86] In December 2018, while promoting Welcome to Marwen, his lastest film, and given the 30th anniversary of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Zemeckis reiterated in an interview with Yahoo! Movies that though the sequel's script is "wonderful", Disney is still unlikely to ever produce it, and he doesn't see the possibility of producing it as an original film for the upcoming streaming service Disney+, as he feels that it doesn't make any sense as there is no "Princess" in it.[87]
They wouldn't make it, just like they won't make the sequel.

>they certainly don't like Jessica at all

Fucking idiots

Roger Rabbit was an adaptation of a book.

This shouldn't be surprising. Disney has fully embraced modern, social justice culture, and Jessica clearly flies in the face of all of that. Can you imagine what a Disney-produced, redesigned Jessica would look like in 2019?

>Jessica finds out she's a princess of a Toonsville
There saved the sequel . Chris Pratt plays Eddie Jr

DUDE THE CARTOONS ARE MINORITIES

i loved this movie as a kid

>doesn't make any sense as there is no "Princess" in it
Jeezus fuck

they wouldn't share. it would be Disney properties only. so mickey mouse and co, muppets, marvel, star wars, fox toons (simpsons and KotH).

a reminder of how much they own.

Would puppets be a seperate class to toons?

HAPPYTIME MURDERS crossover when?

Seeing how classic cartoons, CGI, modern animated primetime, Muppets, comic book characters, etc. all view each other could be interesting.

how did that even work?

In the book the 'toons were comic strip characters who made word ballons when they spoke, which they left laying everywhere.

They were comic characters in the book.

Traditional cartoons would be metaphors for "grumpy old white guys who refuse change" while CGI characters represent the diverse, hip, modern youth.
The equivalent to the Donald/Daffy and Mickey/Bugs scenes would be Woody and Buzz interacting with Shrek and Donkey.

>Eddie wouldn't be an alcoholic, that's for sure. Which means no redemptive arc for his character.
>No Jessica Rabbit because her tits are problematic
>they wouldn't use an original character like Rodger Rabbit, it would be Who Framed Elsa from the Hit Disney Movie Frozen
>all CGI, of course
>it wouldn't be a period piece, because Hollywood thinks kids can't relate to history
>Eddie would get beat up at the climax and a My Little Pony or something would fly in and say "I got this, cis-scum. The future is female."
Just another soulless property marketed to soulless assholes. Something like Wreck It Ralph 2.

>roger rabbit goes to AnimeTown

You know what I meant, even a book adaptation is too hard and takes too long for Disney.
It's reboots and sequels from here on out.

What a bunch of faggots.
Jessica Rabbit is unironically more complex and interesting than all of the Disney princesses, which is ironic considering that she’s also one of the most iconic ‘shameless fanservice’ characters ever put on screen.

>in the inevitable chase sequence, Roger Rabbit is revealed to be the driver of Truck-kun, being single handedly responsible for every isekaishit
youtube.com/watch?v=VhmDrkKSfnI

kino

This movie only exists because Spielberg threw his weight behind the project at the peak of his commercial and creative prowess. Disney and other studios were desperate as fuck to work with him and he acted as a buffer so Disney had no creative say in the project. Disney hated it and put it under Touchstone as its really an adult movie involving animation.

It would be cool if the villans for the next movie were the Cogs from toontown online.

Attached: 149163319-352-k926087.jpg (352x550, 31K)

>Seductive Jessica Rabbit trap
Hmm

Attached: ssys2yg28lq11.jpg (882x731, 66K)

>be a fucking millionaire
>have a film you want to make
>don't put your own money behind it
I'll never understand this. Indie film makers scrimp and save to fund their own small budget projects, like James Wan's first Saw movie. Then you've got the creator of Back to the Future crying that no one will give him money to play make believe.

Jessica Rabbit gets BLACKED

This is really sad when you think about it. Disney has been marketed to mostly girls with its princesses and now uses faux feminism to promote itself. And yet they can't write an interesting female character. Also checked

Badly
Do not give them ideas

Traditional animation is absurdly expensive and there aren't many studios left that know how to do it. It's a dying art.

>Traditional animation is absurdly expensive
It's actually cheaper, the work required is just harder. Animation budget went from 60-90 million to 110+ million after the move to CGI.

As someone whose done both traditional and computer animation, there’s another factor at play that explains why computer has replaced traditional.

Traditional animation is easier to teach and explain to someone who has never animated before, BUT the amount of time, dedication, and skill it takes to be truly good at traditional, hand drawn animation is daunting and overwhelming.
The people that worked on Disney Renaissance films were truly some of the greatest living draughtsman working in the entire world, but only because they lived and died by their craft. The kind of skill you need to pull of Tarzan quality film is very rare.

Computer animation appears more intimidating and complex from the get-go because of all of the different equipment and software used to make these films, but the bar for making passable or good computer animation is lower because everyone is still facing the same kind of limitations and walls that are just unavoidable on animation software regardless of experience. If someone makes bad computer animation, then it’s less to do with him being a bad artist and more to do with the fact that he just isn’t digging deeper into the software’s capabilities and features.

Best way to compare the two mediums is the longbow vs the crossbow/musket.

THAT DON'T RHYME WITH "WALLS"

Jessica rabbit is still culturally relevant ...at the very least chicks still dress up like her

Zemekis is rich but no way could he afford to do this on his own

Surprisingly based post

I still can't believe the japs haven't done an animation-live action crossover

Attached: 1447221705477.jpg (290x290, 37K)

After watching Welcome to Marwen maybe that's a good thing. I seriously need to make some webms out of that shitstain of a film. It is some top cringe.

Zemeckis refuses to make movies that don’t involve bloated and new computer graphics tech.
Even if he were rich, he’s still be burning holes in his pockets just to get a proof of concept going.

He probably doesn't own the IP completely.

Disney and Spielberg have a bizarre 50/50 ownership of the IP. This prevented a sequel from ever happening cause Spielberg got butthurt over Disney using the character as they saw fit and nixed all future shorts and sequels out of spite

>Tessa Fowler as Jessica Rabbit

Attached: 1512949306435.jpg (400x387, 74K)

imagine if the farmers from the simpsons showed up haha
that would be really weird and unexpected haha

You can see the cgi Roger rabbit test footage on YouTube. Despite missing the entire point of first movie it doesn't look bad (though it's basically Detective Pikachu at that point)

RIP in peace Eddie

Attached: Eddie-Valiant.jpg (417x239, 19K)

>movie is about Eddie's son (who is also a detective)
>takes place in scuzzy 1970s New York
>Roger rabbit needs help to find out who killed fritz the cat

judy hopps would make a cameo

Attached: wfrr.png (1809x977, 1.35M)

I like the idea of a Roger Rabbit sequel taking place in the (((current year))) and the villain is a studio exec who wants to buy all the cartoon IPs and rights across the entire country and turn them into CalArts abominations.

The protagonist/hero is a film historian and animation geek writing a book about the lost art of traditional hand drawn animation, and Roger is his go-to source for info.

You had plenty money 1922

Attached: leslie.jpg (300x300, 40K)

>"The current corporate Disney culture [the current studio management of The Walt Disney Company] has no interest in Roger, and they certainly don't like Jessica at all"
lol disney is fucking gay confirmed

Not gay.
Their board is filled with sagging old hags similar to Kathleen Kennedy.

I really like this idea, but just on the concept know it will never be made.