Who Censored Roger Rabbit? by Gary Wolf

Apart from character names and the fact that cartoons interact with humans, the novel that would ultimately become the basis for the 1988 hit film WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT could be two entirely different stories. And neither of them are bad. Just different.

I don't blame the filmmakers for going in a different direction than what Gary Wolf originally set up. In the original story comic strip and comic book characters interact with human beings. The 'toons dialogue would appear as "speech balloons" over the characters heads. Also the novel takes place in contemporary times (1980 around the time the novel was written) whereas the film takes place during the golden age of animation of the 1940s.

Given the medium the filmmakers were working with, it seems understandable to me that they would prefer to have the story centered around animated cartoons rather than comic strips. Given the rich history of film animation and the fact that animation creates the illusion of movement, it just seems like the logical choice.

That and it was just the right time for something like that. By 1988 animation had really hit rock bottom. Most of the classic characters had almost been forgotten and replaced by cheap television animation with the only purpose of selling toys. There was a big controversy over that at the time, but that's a conversation for another day.

When Roger Rabbit hit the theatres it caused a stir. But in a good way. Suddenly people saw animation. Really good animation!! And suddenly all these great characters that were long since forgotten were suddenly being remembered again.

It kind of sparked the whole animation revival of the early 1990s.

So naturally when Roger Rabbit was finally released on DVD, I had to get a copy. I first saw it in the theatres. The thing is, not only was it really well made, but the story and the acting was really good too.

Sometimes that's the problem with a blockbuster. Its like a sandwich made on really nice bread. But there's nothing but mustard in between. And as Chico Marx once said, "Mustard's no good without roast beef."

And this movie had roast beef to spare.

But with all that said, I finally got around to reading the novel. Which I am actually enjoying. I wasn't sure how I would take to it. But its interesting. To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing a film of this version of Roger Rabbit.

However, I'm not sure if it would have had the lasting effect that the movie version had. Another example of just at the right place at the right time. And I'll be the first to say I hope they don't make a sequel. It'll never capture the magic quite like the original.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

It's been at least 15 or 16 years since I've sat down and watched Who Framed Roger Rabbit all the way through. Not because I thought it was a bad film. I was blown away when I first saw it in the theaters back in 1988. However, I think a combination of watching my old VHS copy to death as well as the inevitable onslaught of Who Framed Roger Rabbit merchandise and subsequent theatrical shorts released by Disney that paled in comparison to the original wore me out for a while.

Over the years I've watched snippets. Either on television or when they would show (repeatedly) on Cartoon Network. But I hadn't sat down and watched it all the way though since I was a gawky teen. Years before I would become a gawky adult.

Until a couple nights ago. I had bought it on DVD a year or so back but haven't made the time to sit down and watch it.

I feel the movie has aged pretty good. Sometimes movies don't age very well because either the story or the humor is stuck in a certain time period or the special effects become extremely dated. Roger Rabbit still impresses me. The combination of live action and animation was not only innovative for it's time but I find it innovative even now.

It wasn't the first movie to do this. There had been several before it. However, it was really the first film to combine the two and make it believable. The attention to detail right down to the filmmakers going to great lengths to make it looks as though the actors were looking right at the animated characters.

A lot of films made either before or after Roger Rabbit, it's obvious the actors were not even looking at the characters. And to this date I don't think a film has surpassed what the filmmakers achieved with Roger Rabbit.

My least favorite artist/animator on the planet Ralph Bakshi attempted a more grittier and adult live action/animation called Cool World about a couple years later in 1990 was met to a very poor reception.

While an audience found the innuendo's of Jessica Rabbit playing "Pattycake" with Toontown's human owner Marvin Acme to be cute (because that's pretty much all they were doing), audiences and critics seemed less than enthused about the idea of human's and toons having relations.

Or perhaps they were less than enthused about the thought of having relations with Kim Basinger either in human or toon form. Who knows.

Although, truth be told, the original novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit by Gary K. Wolf which the film was based on was pretty dark and less than family friendly.

With cartoons almost completely done on the computer nowadays, I really see a film like Roger Rabbit being done nowadays. Sure, you can still do a live action/animated film with computer. And probably quicker than Roger Rabbit was produced (three years of production).

But I feel it loses that warm and quality you can only get from drawn animation and hand painted cels.

I'll be honest with you all. I hope they don't make a sequel to Roger Rabbit. There are some films that were just the right movie for the right time. I feel that Roger Rabbit is one of those movies. And if they were to try and recapture that magic, it would just come off a little paler than the original.