Roger Rabbit: VISTA review up! (1 Viewer)

[BrettB]

What were "Friday the 13th" and "Nightmare on Elm Street" rated? Nevermind, I'll answer, they were rated R. I think it's safe to assume that a PG rated movie which features virtually every major animated character up to that time has younger viewers included in it's target audience.

 

[Bryan X]

This comparison really is apples to oranges. The modifications to WFRR removes content that was in the original theatrical release. Adding two words to the scroll of "A New Hope" ( what brilliant re-titling) is completely neutral.

But it's not apples to oranges. If you read through the posts, the general consensus of those against the changes in WFRR is that edititing a movie after its release is wrong.

So if you are going to say that deleting frames from a film is wrong because it changes the film, then you necessarily should say that adding frames to a film is wrong. Change is change.

I think what it really comes down to is that EVERYONE, including those angry at the changes in WFRR, has a personal threshold of what changes can be made to a film before it's unacceptable.

I have a feeling that all those complaining about the changes to WFRR have in their movie collection atleast one movie (and probably more) that is different than it's original theatrical release. So let's just call this what it is-- Some people think that the sequences deleted were really funny and are sad to see them gone. That's it. Nothing else. Don't make this into some grandiose crusade... that is unless you have NEVER bought any film that you knew was in ANY WAY different than it's theatrical release.

 

[Chris S]

But it's not apples to oranges. If you read through the posts, the general consensus of those against the changes in WFRR is that edititing a movie after its release is wrong.

Not just because they were removed, but because they were removed by the studio and not by Robert Zemeckis. If Lucas wants "A NEW HOPE" in the opening credits then that is fine. He is the director but I'll be darned if 20th Century Fox makes the addition. Director re-edits are apples, studio re-edits are oranges. They are two seperate things.

Chris S.

 

[Porfirio]

If the rating says "PG: Parental Guidance Suggested", then they are suggesting parental guidance. If a parent says "never-mind the rating", then they were warned and have no right to complain about the content of the movie.

I agree. Just because a movie is rated "PG" doesn't mean it's geared toward children. If that were the case, then Anchor Bay would have to go back and re-edit "The Beastmaster." (Note to Anchor Bay: Don't even think about it!!!) After all, it was rated "PG" AND it featured Tanya Roberts top-less!

 

[Bryan X]

Not just because they were removed, but because they were removed by the studio and not by Robert Zemeckis.

You may feel that way, but many of the posts I've read blasting the change don't seem to care who made the change.

Don't get me wrong. I respect those who choose not buy this DVD because of the changes. However, it just doesn't seem sincere when people make blanket statements like 'they won't buy this film because it is not the exact theatrical release' because I would venture to guess that those same people have bought altered movies in the past and will in the future. The difference is that they didn't mind the changes in the movies they purchased, but happen to be pi**ed that certain frames of WFRR were removed.

I also happen to wonder how much of an uproar (if any) there would be if these infamous scenes were still included in the film but some other innocuous item were slightly altered.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Just because a movie is rated "PG" doesn't mean it's geared toward children. If that were the case, then Anchor Bay would have to go back and re-edit "The Beastmaster." (Note to Anchor Bay: Don't even think about it!!!) After all, it was rated "PG" AND it featured Tanya Roberts top-less!

The "PG" of 1988 was a bit more inocuous than the "PG" of 1982 due to the existence of "PG-13". It wasn't around in 1982, which is why some pretty intense flicks - or those with nudity - occasionally landed "PG" ratings back then. I've never seen it, but I'd guess Beastmaster would've landed a "PG-13" in 1988. Roger earned a "PG" despite the existence of "PG-13", which puts it on the milder side of the rating.

Not that I disagree with the concept that Roger isn't a real kid-flick, but to compare its rating to one from the pre-"PG-13" era doesn't work...

 

[Porfirio]

The "PG" of 1988 was a bit more inocuous than the "PG" of 1982 due to the existence of "PG-13". It wasn't around in 1982, which is why some pretty intense flicks - or those with nudity - occasionally landed "PG" ratings back then. I've never seen it, but I'd guess Beastmaster would've landed a "PG-13" in 1988. Roger earned a "PG" despite the existence of "PG-13", which puts it on the milder side of the rating.

You're right. I was just using Beastmaster as an example. I guess it's my fault for not being clear on that. Anyway, the Touchstone brand was created so that Disney could release other type of films (films geared towards an older audience, despite their rating) aside from family oriented films. And if I remember correctly, wasn't "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" released as a Touchstone film?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And if I remember correctly, wasn't "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" released as a Touchstone film?

That it was, mainly because Disney wasn't eager to have their logo on such a racy flick!

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

I was just reading the "Interesting Facts" section of a page that someone linked to earlier:
http://www.animated-movies.net/WhoFr...gerRabbit.html

One of the facts states that:

Q: Speaking of hidden things, what's the deal on the Jessica Rabbit cels that show a bit more than others?

I can't officially confirm that, but if I had to guess, I would say that it was the animators continuing an age-old tradition. ... If you actually see the scene, there's nothing really risque-like about it. It's the equivalent of peeking under the skirt of your Barbie doll. ...

If this info is correct and you can't really even see anything on Jessica, why is that offensive? Porky Pig went around without pants all of the time, but you couldn't see anything, so nobody cared.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

What I find interesting about all of this is that nobody has posted any screen shots of the original film so that we can compare the original shots, and decide for ourselves what has been edited.

Also, from the screenshot that was posted, I do NOT think it is entirely obvious what the intention was. Jessica Rabbit has her left foot up in the air, almost two feet off the ground, and baby Herman is sort of brushing by her left foot, and if he was trying to get a cheap feel by sticking his finger up, then he might be feeling her ankle, or the air next to her ankle, but I don't see why that would be risque.

So I don't think it is clear that the Director, or even the Lead Animator knew that this gag was there, or what the gag really was intending to portray.

I think that his hand should have been left down at his side, becuase it just looks stupid to have his fist in the air like that. It would have looked even more stupid with his finger up near her ankle. I will still buy this DVD, but I am puzzled by Disney's version of this fix.

 

[Edwin-S]

Jessica Rabbit has her left foot up in the air, almost two feet off the ground, and baby Herman is sort of brushing by her left foot, and if he was trying to get a cheap feel by sticking his finger up, then he might be feeling her ankle, or the air next to her ankle, but I don't see why that would be risque.
------------------------------------------------------------

It's not Jessica Rabbit whose legs he is going between. It's some sort of production assistant. Secondly, if you look at the frame closely enough it is obvious that he (Baby Herman) is doing, or attempting to do, something lewd. The entire look on his face and the body language makes his intentions quite clear. The frame is taken just after he has gone under her legs and her skirt, forcing her to lift her leg in avoidance. Whether he succeeded in "copping a feel" is moot; it is enough that he tried to do so. The reason it now looks stupid for his arm to be upraised, is due to the scene being modified. It just proves that editing even a minor thing in an intended sequence can make the scene look incomplete.

 

[DaveRU]

Just received my R1 Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and I think you'll find the following screengrab interesting

Jessica Rabbit

 

[Nigel McN]

not working here.

 

[Mike Frezon]

It works for me, but its dark and I can't make much out. I can sort-of see that its Jessica in the center of the frame.

 

[DaveRU]

How about this brightened up image then:

Link

Perhaps I'm seeing things, but make up your own mind

 

[Jussi Tarvainen]

She's very clearly wearing panties in that pic.

 

[Jason Bovberg]

Just reviewed this title for DVD Talk, and I found an interesting easter egg: the original theatrical trailer in anamorphic widescreen, on Disc 1.

Most interesting of all is that it includes the uncensored Baby Herman shot.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=5849

 

[Chris S]

Looks like we have another case of rogue contributors, in this case the DVD producers, adding in things Disney has no knowlegde of .

Chris S.

 

[Paul.Mc]

I was just reading some of the DVD Savant columns from dvdtalk.com (sent there from the review above) and found this quote, which is interestingly applicable here to the discussion. (And I might add that I agree with Savant )

Now Savant has to get defensive. Why is this such a big deal? Why can't directors Coppola or Spielberg or Lucas, or Mort Flortt for that matter, rework their movies? It's not like anyone is censoring them. These are the original moviemakers.

Well, Apocalypse Now Redux is about repurposing, repackaging, and remarketing instead of moviemaking, and it's about screwing up film history. Every time Lucas retools Star Wars and changes 'details', movie history is changed. Do you know that because of cuts made right after release, generations of moviegoers actually think that Gary Cooper is fighting for the Franco side in the Spanish Civil War? Do you know that a short about a firehouse from 1905 has the credit for all kinds of editing innovations - which were done to the film in a 1920's revision? Do you know that it is believed that Dumbo once had several more scenes featuring the jive crows, that have disappeared, perhaps forever? Soon, E.T.'s sinister government agents will be changed for all time, into benign helpers of little boys and cute aliens everywhere. This is the kind of revisionism for which we used to condemn the Soviets.

"Aw, but these are just movies, lighten up, Glenn." Once upon a time, as a lowly production grunt, a big-time cameraman who hated, or didn't get, Taxi Driver, challenged me to defend it. I quoted Hud, where granpa says, "The landscape of the country changes depending on what men we look up to." I said I thought that it was the same with Scorsese's movie, which certainly shocked and sickened me, but nevertheless was a big dose of Truth, especially when compared to that feel-good Best-Picture crock Rocky. Yes, they're just movies, but if they're important, they become part of us. Pictures like Apocalypse Now and Taxi Driver are landmarks that say where and who we were, what we believed, and what our culture was capable of. And diluting them, as is happening more and more frequently, is rewriting & distorting history.

Savant frequently shows his impatience with DVD fans who scream about changes to relatively obscure movies, because the DVD companies are violating Art. I've always immediately conceded that they are 100% correct - the moment you start considering movies as pieces of Art ... artists revisit their paintings by repainting them if necessary, but they don't call back the masterpieces from the galleries and add new things to them.

Maybe the old moguls had a point when they routinely trashed trims and outs from their movies ... even though we'd give our eye teeth to see outtakes from them now.