Who Ruined Roger Rabbit?

[Jumble Cashback]

Having watched 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' recently, for the first time in many years, I really noticed how much it doesn't quite work.  Firstly, is it a kids' film or a tongue in cheek film for animation buffs and the nostalgic.  It certainly doesn't work as a kids film, too many obscure jokes and sexual overtures (when Jessica Rabbit says "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" she might as well be sliding up and down on a big cartoon cock).  But it doesn't work for adults either, really.  Roger Rabbit's character is far too inane and infantile to be anything other than annoying and too much of the slapstick is given this really uncomfortable frenetic quality - zooming right up at you chaotically as if to say "remember Tom and Jerry?  This is that, but times a million!".  This may just be a sign of the times.  In the eighties there was a real fad for massively destructive slapstick (The Money Pit and things of that nature, although it sort of works in The Blues Brothers), but there's no excuse for Roger Rabbit's irritating as fuck personality.  I know that he's supposed to be annoying, but annoying characters should only annoy the characters around them, not the audience too - otherwise you get into Jar-Jar territory.  But at least he was just a supporting character.

I mostly blame Charles Fleischer.  He's a moron.  If you've watched the special features on the DVD, you'll know what I'm talking about.  He asked to wear a Roger Rabbit costume on set EVERY DAY for fuck's sake.  And not in a deadpan, eccentric way - in a wacky 'thith wiw be FWUNNY!' way.  He comes across as a complete fud.  Plus the special features suggest that it is, in fact designed purely for kids which just doesn't seem to make sense when you watch the movie.  It's a shame because it has so much promise as a film.  Some of the stuff with the Disney/Warner Brothers/MGM crossovers is pure bliss.  The fact that the film itself doesn't work MAKES ME ANGRY!

[Jemble Fred]

It's okay, don't get too worked up, that's just your personal opinion. It definitely works for most people who've seen it, of all ages. Obviously. If having adult references in a kid's film stopped it from 'working' there wouldn't be a 'working' kid's film made in the last 20-odd years. And Roger's not too annoying, he's annoying to the exact right degree for the character. It's a definite classic.

[Ignatius_S]

Agree with Jemble Fred - personally, I liked it as a kid and I liked it as a big kid.

[Jemble Fred]

I did definitely always think Roger was a twat, but then I always presumed that was sort of the point. Especially when it comes to Jessica, and the mystery of why she would ever marry him.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit was so ahead of its time it's insane. Shame they've never found a worthwhile way of following it up.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Pointing out that Roger Rabbit doesn't work seems like pointing out that films like Gremlins, Raiders of the Lost Ark Ghostbusters and Back to the Future don't work either. 

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

No, I've never got it at all. A bit like The Blues Brothers, I simply have no fucking idea what I'm supposed to be watching.

[TotalNightmare]

I've always considered WFRR the last great Hollywood 80s Blockbuster (before the 90s made it possible for a summer movie every month of the year) and I genuinely think its a proper Hollywood classic movie.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion (I recently read a review of Ghostbusters that stated it was a slow, plodding characterless comedy - oddly, in that instance too, the reviewer had ONLY JUST seen it for the first time, having missed it, somehow, on tv/dvd/its original release) but yours is vastly incorrect, misguided, foolish, poorly written... and I don't like your avatar...
;)
That is not obviously how I feel. In all fairness, I just never read anyone's opinion of the film that wasn't positive. So to read this boggles me. I think its as close to perfect a movie as it gets... and easily Zemeckis' best film (yes, more than BTTF)

[Jumble Cashback]

Pointing out that Roger Rabbit doesn't work seems like pointing out that films like Gremlins, Raiders of the Lost Ark Ghostbusters and Back to the Future don't work either.

Not quite what sure what your point is here.  Are you saying that some films are just great and you shouldn't criticise them, or that some films are for all ages and shouldn't be attacked on the grounds of being specifically one thing or the other?

[Jemble Fred]

Are you saying that some films are just great and you shouldn't criticise them

Well nobody would ever suggest such a thing on here, nothing is above reasoned criticism – but you're not making criticisms per se, are you, you're saying that the movie 'doesn't work' and is 'ruined', which are disprovable assertions. You must admit that when you say "It's a shame because it has so much promise as a film" you're being daft, because it is an established classic, like the movies Gonzo listed. It does actually work, as a whole package, even though there are no doubt elements which could be open to criticism.

I loathe The Inbetweeners, for instance, but it would be a bit pointless of me to suggest that the things I dislike about it are "a shame, because it has so much promise", because it's already a huge hit, and any problems I have with it clearly put me in the minority. Maybe the changes I'd make to it would make it less successful. You can dislike something which is a hit, but you have to admit that if it works, it works.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

disprovable assertions

Which you like a lot too, when it's something you feel strongly about!

[Dead kate moss]

I agree it doesn't 'work,' or is at least a big missed opportunity to be great. I don't know that it's a classic, or anyone that wanted to see it more than once. Jessica Rabbit is the best thing in it because she's hot, and though I don't think that's inappropriate for kids, Roger is just tooooo annoying - if they had captured any of Bugs or Daffy's charm it might be a different story. But I've only seen it once, as I say.

[Jumble Cashback]

That's a good point, Jemble.  I had spoken to friends about Roger Rabbit and, because they agreed with me, I just assumed that most people had felt that the film had faults that were difficult to pin down and which made it seem a bit awkward.  I guess this is not a commonly held opinion and therefore requires a little more elucidation.  I did offer some specific criticism though, as well as my broader statements.  It's true that most kids films have some adult jokes in them, but I felt like the whole tone of the film was geared towards an adult audience with the exception of some overly frenetic slapstick. 

A film like Back To The Future works because of its consistency.  It maintains a similar tone throughout, one which happens to be palatable to most age-groups.  What jars for me about WFRR is that there is too great a disparity between the levels of humour implemented.   It pinballs between sophisticated jokes about the industry and jokes that are not only aimed at children (that's okay), but that only a child would find amusing.  The type of eclectic homour works in things like the old Looney Tunes shorts because the slapstick has a greater level of finesse and sophistication (see, for example Daffy Duck's 'yoiks and away!' scene in Robin Hood Daffy) and because they are, after all, only about 7 minutes long.  In WFRR it's like the slapstick exists purely to pump adrenaline into the film and is, as a result far more overstated.   Plus there is the tendency to extend cartoon physics into the live action characters, mostly through Hoskins' character.  Now, I understand that the whole point of the film is to seamlessly integrate live action and traditional animation, but every time I see cartoon physics applied to live action it always comes off as very naff and laboured.

Also, the plot is pretty thin and the whole third act is basically one long scene; a protracted climax which begins to really drag after a while.  Now granted, this is just my opinion, but a lot of these things ruin the film for me.

What I said about the potential of the film was mainly regarding the fact that I feel they accomplished less than they could have with the resources at their disposal.  All of Disney, MGM and Warner Brothers' classic characters in one film and, to be fair the scenes that shine out are the ones with those characters (piano fight, anyone?), but it's all tied together with a paper-thin plot, some forced, hammy acting by Hoskins and a central character who, despite desperate efforts, fails to genuinely capture the humour of the characters he is supposed to evoke.

[Jemble Fred]

It's certainly true that Roger and Baby Herman never became the huge stars that they were lined up to be back in the 80s – maybe, even though the actual film's place in history is assured, it could be said to have failed as a franchise.

But then, considering the companies involved, it's still a wonder that we got as much as we did. Disney and Looney Tunes overlap once in a turquoise moon.

[Ignatius_S]

....but it's all tied together with a paper-thin plot, some forced, hammy acting by Hoskins and a central character who, despite desperate efforts, fails to genuinely capture the humour of the characters he is supposed to evoke.

I couldn't disagree more about the plot – it's a decent one for a detective story and combines element that I think are genuinely interesting. For example, the points about the rise of the freeway and the suburbanisation of the urban area being depicted did happen - and when I was older and had such knowledge about such things, I was genuinely knocked out that they had incorporated such things in a mainstream family flick.

I was also impressed by the efforts of the writers overall – for example (this is taken from Wikipedia and covers some of what I've said):

Chinatown influenced the storyline. The subplot involving "Cloverleaf" was the planned story for the third chapter of a Chinatown trilogy (the trilogy was abandoned following the failure of 1990's The Two Jakes). [1] Price and Seaman said that "the Red Car plot, suburb expansion, urban and political corruption really did happen," Price stated. "In Los Angeles, during the 1940s, car and tire companies teamed up against the Pacific Electric Railway system and bought them out of business. Where the freeway runs in Los Angeles is where the Red Car used to be."[5] In Wolf's novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, the Toons were comic strip characters rather than movie stars.[1]

I also disagree what you say with the main performances. Hoskins turns in a good pastiche of the archetypal gumshoe with a past and Fleisher is perfect as Roger to me, but each to their own.

[SavageHedgehog]

For what it's worth Chuck Jones didn't like it either, and in particular couldn't stand the main character. You're both wrong though.

Seriously, I don't get why you don't think it works as a kid's film just because there's bit kids wont really get; kids love tonnes of films where they don't get every little thing. And it depends on the kid; I first saw it when I was 10, and while I probably didn't get every sexual innuendo, I knew enough about old cartoons and post-War America to appreciate it in a way a lot of adults probably didn't.

[Blumf]

Hey, at least it's not Cool World

[confettiinmyhair]

After hearing Hollywood talk of a Top Gun 2, there could well be a Roger Rabbit remake. Christina Hendricks as Jessica?

[Harpo Speaks]

I also disagree what you say with the main performances. Hoskins turns in a good pastiche of the archetypal gumshoe with a past

I always found the scene where Valiant describes how his brother was killed genuinely moving. And when he screams at Roger to get out of his brother's chair.

[Lt Plonker]

For what it's worth Chuck Jones didn't like it either, and in particular couldn't stand the main character.

Frank Thomas too. Richard Williams recalls, in his Animation Survival Kit, receiving a phone call from Thomas (one of Disney's Nine Old Men) saying that he wished that the rabbit had been killed because he was so thoroughly annoying. Williams, in retrospect,  felt that they missed a huge opportunity for real pathos and empathy in the scene where he's flicking through the photos of Jessica playing patty cake. You can sort of see what he's saying; he is a tad relentless and overbearing at times.

Still a corker of a film though.

[Lt Plonker]

After hearing Hollywood talk of a Top Gun 2, there could well be a Roger Rabbit remake. Christina Hendricks as Jessica?

Nnngh.

[Harpo Speaks]

Plus it includes a nice summation of the importance of comedy timing during the handcuffs business:

VALIANT: [Through gritted-teeth] You mean you could've taken these cuffs off at any time?

ROGER: Not just any time...only when it was funny.

[Tiny Poster]

I think Robert Zemeckis is actually interested in making a WFRR sequel, but in 3D and with motion capture and CGI for the human characters.

As for the film "not having a consistent tone", well, it's perfectly consistent with the films and cartoons it's in homage to. I used to love Pepe Le Pew etc as a kid, and that was all rape humour, sight gags, bad French accents and puns.

[Buchstansangur]

I think Robert Zemeckis is actually interested in making a WFRR sequel, but in 3D and with motion capture and CGI for the human characters.

That's precisely what I would do if I wanted to make a film carried by the amusing contrast between cartoon characters and their human counterparts. If I was a fucking moron.

I watched Who Framed a million times as a kid. There's very little that I didn't get, and none of it affected my understanding or enjoyment of the film.

80s kids did understand things like freeways being a new thing, vaudeville slapstick, drunken washouts and the power of sexy women over men.

Specific things I didn't understand:

* The name of the Ink and Paint Club. I thought they were referring to an animation studio because I wasn't familiar with seedy club names. I didn't realise that the club they were in was called that.
* "Shave and a haircut", but then I didn't understand that until fairly recently anyway. More of a cultural divide than anything (if they had said "eye-diddly-eye-di, eat brown bread" I might have got it). I grasped the idea of Roger being unable to resist it and Bob Hoskins finding this ridiculous though.

"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way" isn't confusing to a child! (I was confused at first, because I thought she said "I"m not bad, I'm just strong that way". I remember the day it clicked).

[Jemble Fred]

The man's remaking Yellow Submarine. You can hardly expect either good taste or worthwhile ideas from him.

[Jumble Cashback]

You're kidding.  Really?  Of all the films that there is literally NO POINT in remaking...  For a guy so firm in his stance on not revisiting Back To The Future, he's doing a lot of pointless franchise work.  He'll probably change his mind and make Back To The Future: Redemption in 2015.

[Jemble Fred]

You're kidding.  Really?  Of all the films that there is literally NO POINT in remaking...

Well it's all going to be 3D and CGI and have Peter Serafinowicz in it and so on. If he was taking the design of Yellow Submarine and constructing a whole new movie, with a new plot (or even better, a modified version of Up Against It), using different songs throughout, he would be my all-time hero. As it is, he's a dick.

[Harpo Speaks]

Specific things I didn't understand:

I never got the 'Harvey' reference until much later as it wasn't a film I was aware of. The Prostate/Probate gag went over my head too.

[Icehaven]

I love WFRR, but agree about it being an odd mix of Kid's film/adult film. I'd have been 9 when I first saw it, and even though I loved it I didn't get quite a lot of the references/dialogue, and Toontown terrified me, in fact it's one of the first times I can remember clearly recognising that there can be a dark, threatening level to something ostensibly happy and light and bright. The bit when Judge Doom is run over is horrible too, the way he screams. I also didn't get the 'Pattycake' stuff until I was older either. I still enjoyed it when I last saw it a few years ago but I suppose that's nostalgia. If I saw it for the first time now I'd probably think it wasn't that great (see also Goonies, Lost Boys, Labyrinth)
Drop Dead Fred is another one that suffered from no one being able to tell if it was a kids or adults film. From a short distance it looks like it's for kids; it's about an imaginary friend, Rik Mayall's dressed up like a cartoon caracter, there's a kid in it a lot, there's lots of slapstick, special effects and poo jokes, but it was 15 rated, and it's not for children at all really, there's a fair amount of bad language and a lot of obvious sexual references, and the plot (woman in her 20s having semi nervous breakdown as her marriage falls apart and she moves back in with her bullying mother) is completely aimed at adults, of very little interest to children. If you take the angle that Drop Dead Fred is completely in her head too it's even less for kids. Difficult to call it a teen film either as there's no teenagers in it, although I was about 12/13 when I saw it (and I only wanted to because I loved Rik Mayall to death at the time) and I loved it, still do, but I can see why it didn't do so well. I was horrified to hear it's being remade with Russell Fucking Brand too, what a crock of shit that's going to be.

[Cerys]

It's WHAT?!  Oh, for fuck's fucking sake.  Someone hand me an axe.

[Icehaven]

It's WHAT?!  Oh, for fuck's fucking sake.  Someone hand me an axe.

I know. Apart from the obvious fact the THERE'S NO NEED TO REMAKE IT, it's apparently going to be ''darker than the original, in the vein of Beetlejuice''. Not with Russell 'Fucking' Brand it isn't! It'll be about as dark as a Cilit Bang advert and a million percent even more annoying.