Robert Zemeckis's "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" was the first movie that I saw in the theaters (and I was only four years old, so I didn't even understand the plot). I later saw the short "Tummy Trouble", and then "Trail Mix-Up". Watching all these, one would get the idea that Roger was always intended as a whimsical, accident-prone character inhabiting a completely batty world.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I recently bought a copy of Gary Wolf's "Who Censored Roger Rabbit", the book on which Zemeckis's 1988 movie is based. The book is in fact quite dark. I suspect that while preparing the movie, they realized that it would be hard for people to take the idea of cartoon characters (called toons in the book and movie) coexisting with humans seriously, so they made it more slapstick.
So yes, Roger's mishaps while babysitting Baby Herman in the forest are a far cry from the original dark story. Silly, but nothing else. Zemeckis's movie was really good, but how many spin-offs did they want? I'd kinda like to see a movie version of "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" that follows the novel's original tone. I assume that it's possible.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I recently bought a copy of Gary Wolf's "Who Censored Roger Rabbit", the book on which Zemeckis's 1988 movie is based. The book is in fact quite dark. I suspect that while preparing the movie, they realized that it would be hard for people to take the idea of cartoon characters (called toons in the book and movie) coexisting with humans seriously, so they made it more slapstick.
So yes, Roger's mishaps while babysitting Baby Herman in the forest are a far cry from the original dark story. Silly, but nothing else. Zemeckis's movie was really good, but how many spin-offs did they want? I'd kinda like to see a movie version of "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" that follows the novel's original tone. I assume that it's possible.