Fantastic article, Jim! Roger Rabbit is my favorite movie, so anything I can find about it is always welcome. I had known about the funeral scene, but had no idea about the red car, the additional Donald and Daffy exchange, or the "What's that thing?" exhange. I could read articles like this forever!

Great article!  I've seen the pig face part on the DVD, but I don't remember anything else.  The movie would have been a lot longer if all these extra scenes had been inserted.  That's what DVDs are for, to show things that were taken out.  I think the movie works as it is, but I understand the "bad" transitioning.  I didn't know that it was originally supposed to be called "Who Shot Roger Rabbit"...I don't want Roger getting shot...but he's a toon...can toons die from a gun shot?

In the first "Who Shot?" draft, Foggy was supposed to be delivering -Roger's- speech.  (Roger had missed the bullet, and Eddie had to keep him out of sight until the case was over.)
And yes, it's a pretty LONG set of scenes that don't particularly get us anywhere except back where we started...It's fun to look them up, but there's usually one basic reason why deleted scenes are.
(And if the delete-transition "bothers" film buffs, it's because they're looking for logic and story continuity in a Robert Zemeckis film.)  :)

I'd read elsewhere about the pig-head scene. I'm glad it got cut because it didn't make a whole lot of sense. The toon funeral isn't a bad idea, but didn't really fit well with the film's storyline.

As for "Roger Rabbit" itself...I read the book it was based on "Who Shot Roger Rabbit?", and the film improved on it enormously IMO, yet...I do wish the style of the film had been less Tex Avery and more Chuck Jones. And I'll never forget, the character who got the biggest laugh during the screening I saw was Droopy (as the elevator boy). After all the frenetic action the audience had so far endured, Droopy's deadpan "What floor, sir?" brought the house down. Also, I didn't care for the dirty trick Bugs played on Eddie Valiant - in Bug's actual toons, he always had a reason to pull a trick on somebody. The arbitrary gag isn't Bug's style and came off as just plain mean. It's one of the mistakes that helped ruin "Back In Action", where Daffy got clobbered over and over again for no reason. In fact, what ALL the writers of follow-up spins on the Looney Tunes franchise (like "Tiny Toons") never understood is that the anvil, brick, pie, whatever, wasn't the gag. It was the *payoff* for the gag. IMO these writers never understood LT or just plain comedy. End of rant.

When I was in middle school in Granada Hills, CA some studio folks passed out flyers outside my school to have us come to a screening of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.  It went and was really excited.  The movie wasn't finished as when they get to Toon Town the movie went to black and white and some pencil drawings and it stopped kind of abruptly if I remember right.  I remember the pig head scene because when I saw the movie when it came out I remember thinking about why I never saw the pig head.  I don't remember a funeral scene though, so maybe it was a different cut of the film.  Thanks for the article Jim.  This film doesn't get the attention it deserves.

gigglesock said:
I do wish the style of the film had been less Tex Avery and more Chuck Jones. And I'll never forget, the character who got the biggest laugh during the screening I saw was Droopy (as the elevator boy). After all the frenetic action the audience had so far endured, Droopy's deadpan "What floor, sir?" brought the house down. Also, I didn't care for the dirty trick Bugs played on Eddie Valiant - in Bug's actual toons, he always had a reason to pull a trick on somebody. The arbitrary gag isn't Bug's style and came off as just plain mean. It's one of the mistakes that helped ruin "Back In Action"
----
That was my killer complaint against the movie (which, sorry, I hated):
A "salute to cartoons" made by attention-deficited next-generation baby-boomers who wishfully thought Tex Avery directed every cartoon ever made...Which -is- exactly what ruined "Back in Action"/"Space Jam", not to mention Spielberg's own "Tiny Toons".
(And I repeat, what real cartoon character from the 30's, 40's or 50's does Roger and his Baby Herman cartoons even vaguely RESEMBLE?--I give up!)

And if you'd read the book (at least, from before the movie came out), you know that Gary Wolf's original Toons were comic strip characters, and Jessica was Brenda Starr--Which made a heck of a lot more sense than trying to keep her in the story by pretending she was meant to be Tex Avery's Red Hot Riding Hood, which she, um...isn't.

Interesting article. I can see why those scenes were cut from the film, especially since they didn't advance the plot very much, but I still want to get that 15th anniversary edition for that toon funeral scene for all of those extra cameos (not to mention that exhange between Daffy and Donald later). I don't own the film myself, so I think it would be a good buy to get the film in its original cut. It's gotta be pretty depressing to not only have to cut completely shot scenes, but also completely animated, inked, and colored sequences.

I sort of agree with DerekJ and gigglesock about the film in some regards from what I remember of the picture...I don't think it was a total failure, or a bad movie, but I do have to admit that I mainly watch it for the toon cameos, the animation, the universe of toons existing right next to the universe of humans, more so than for the film's mainplot that revolves around Roger, Jessica, Baby Herman, and Valiant (although the characters all do have their moments).

And speaking of Roger, Jessica, and Baby Herman, I don't they're necessarily there to represent particular characters, but rather certain toon archetypes. Roger the crazy, antic-a-minute loon complete with catch phrases and signature sounds; Jessica the calm, collected, overly sexual damsel with a restricted-by-old-fashioned-society attitude; and Baby Herman sort of represents two archetypes: the innocent and vulnerable infant that gets everyone else into trouble by unwittingly wandering about (at least when he's on the silver screen), and the bizarre way that some toons have voices and attitudes that betray their appearances.

Again, Wolf's original book was about comic-strip characters:
Roger was the generic funny comic-strip animal, Jessica was the soap-opera Brenda Starr, the plot revolved around Roger trying to escape from a shady rights-ownership deal on his strip, and Baby Herman existed in some different form until the filmmakers wanted to "homage" Frank Tashlin's "Brother Brat".
Which explains why Roger, like Jessica and Herman, is being forced into somebody else's fanboy-homage shoes that don't quite fit, and we don't know what the heck he's supposed to be doing.

Spielberg, of course, went cuckoo for the cameo idea (and the "equal time" rule to keep piece between Warner and Disney rushes the characters through without time to establish themselves beyond showing up), but even the classic cameos seem to be too Tex-blinded to be who we "remember":
Never mind the "mean" new-generation Bugs, but Mickey not helpful either?--That's not our Mouse!  >:(

I haven't ever read the book that it was based on, but I really enjoyed Roger Rabbit.  I thought it was an interesting, fun, innovative film to watch.  And, also, I was of the age when it came out that I wanted to BE Jessica Rabbit.  I loved her scene in the Ink and Paint club.  However, I do agree that most of the toons do seem to be out of character, if only to enforce Valiant's hatred of toons.  That was the element of the movie that always felt slightly off to me - I didn't have a problem with Roger, Jessica, or Herman because they were "new" characters, so they didn't have to fit any mold.  It was the well-known, loved characters behaving in uncharacteristic ways that seemed strange.  Again, maybe my view is because I never read the book...anyone else really like this movie?

Well, part of that sheds some light as to how Eddie suspected R. K. Maroon of killing Marvin Acme.

Also, there was a slightly different version of the funeral that David Koeing was talking about, but I don't know if it's the same thing.

Ahhh, I see your point now, DerekJ. It was rather depressing to see Mickey just let Valiant fall and Bugs act so maliciously. And that "equal time" rule really did make things more complicated than they should have been. And now that I rewatch some the clips on YouTube, I realize that it really is a shame that everything had the spin of just one man's style and that the golden characters such as Mickey, Bugs, Daffy, Donald, etc., were merely there for one or two throw-in/throw-away gags, rather than supporting roles that could've appeared more and advanced the plot. Le sigh.

I'll be sure to check out the original book, though.

I just watched that Richard Williams featurette and it's interesting to me that he was told to draw with Disney articulation/skill, the Warner Brothers drawing style, and Tex Avery humor. "One thing that we haven't got in the film is that immensely subtle Disney animation like you have in Bambi. Like you don't have any of that. My goodness, when you have when Bambi's mother dies and Bambi's father says 'your mother can't be with you anymore,' that's HARD. But having a character go 'DAOING!' (gestures with his hands the Tex Avery motion of the eyes popping out of the head), and a strong leap in the air, and fly around the room, that's relatively easy. It doesn't require such good drawing and it doesn't require such good time. What seperates the men from the boys is when you have to do a subtle character."

I spent an entire year trying to persuade my friend that "Roger Rabbit" had a very dark sub-plot about segregation (i.e Ink and Paint Club as a sort of Cotton Club; Toontown as a segregated ghetto). Now I'll just show him this article and he can figure it out for himself.

"WFRR?" was one of my absolute favorite movies when it came out, and it still ranks up there.

I don't concentrate on "Well, this character is based on this archetype, and this character isn't acting the way he should act," and so on.  As a viewer now, I view it as a really smart film noir piece- not quite a parody, but almost a goof on the conventions.

Back when it came out, none of that mattered to me.  I just flat out enjoyed the flick.  I liked Roger Rabbit.  I still have the talking Roger Rabbit plush toy (although the voicebox has become quite faulty, as he basically speaks at double-speed).  I remember watching with great enthusiasm the Mickey's 60th Special, which prominently featured Roger Rabbit.  Sometimes, I wish we could have shows like that, or the MGM Grand Opening that had John Ritter running around the park, or the Muppets go to WDW special rebroadcast on the Disney Channel or something.

Heck, with Toon Disney and the Disney Channel skewing younger, I would mind seeing a Vault Disney channel pop up, featuring older material that people haven't seen in years (they could even include early Disney Channel stuff in the morning slots).

Of course, factors like all of the legal issues surrounding the Roger Rabbit character would probably get in the way...

Awesome article Jim. :-)

I knew of the pig-head sequence but have yet to hear of the cemetary scene.  If that was included along with the pig-head, then yes, how Valiant made the connection between Maroon and Acme would've made a bit more sense.  He just says "that's the connection" later in the film revolving around a business deal, but it doesn't explain really how he had even an inkling of such a deal.  Too bad there was no mention of that earlier draft(s) in the Vista release.

Anonymouse, several months ago I found an online petition advocating for another Disney Channel that shows classic Disney, both animated and live action. Here's the link:

http://www.petitiononline.com/oldisney/petition.html

I don't know how much good online petitions do against big companies like Disney, but I thought I'd relay you to the link anyway. I signed it myself. :)

PingBack from http://www.ogre.nu/wp/?p=1923

<i>Jeff Lange begins a two-part photo essay about Roger Rabbit, who was once one of the most visible characters at the Disney theme parks. Only to virtually drop from sight by the time the 1990s ended</i>