Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Trivia section

"Trivia" sections are very bad form for wikipedia articles (you would never see one in a real encyclopedia!). This one has become an enormous dumping ground for random facts about the film. All of this info is good and should simply be intergrated into the article in the apropriate places. If this can be done, this article might have a chance of being featured. --The_stuart 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The R.K. Maroon cartoons in which Roger appears are billed as Baby Herman and Roger Rabbit cartoons (or simply referred to as Baby Herman cartoons). Although Roger is arguably the focal point of each cartoon, he does not receive star billing. Many 1930s/1940s cartoon series featured a comic secondary character in support of a cute main character, often resulting in the secondary character outshadowing the first (for example, Mickey Mouse and his co-stars Donald Duck and Goofy, Gandy Goose and Sourpuss, Andy Panda and Woody Woodpecker, Tweety and Sylvester, Porky Pig and Daffy Duck, etc.

Moved most of the trivia into the article, these two peices of "trivia" are kind of allusive however, don't know where they could go. --The_stuart 19:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If I removed any links, it was unintentional. there was an edit collision at the time I had made major changes, and I thought I had repaired what was done while I was doing my edit. It wasn't intentional, and there's no need to be nasty about it. -- Zoe

I'm sorry if I sounded nasty, that was meant to be said with a wink and a smile. ;) The times on the history made it pretty clear that there was an edit conflict. --Brion

The actual name of this movie is Who Framed Roger Rabbit -- without the question mark. It should be put under a separate entry and a redirect used for the entry with the question mark...though I'm reluctant to do that, because it would erase the history of the previous contributors to the article. Modemac

[edit] "Toons?"

In Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the animated characters are referred to throughout as toons. However, before seeing "Roger Rabbit" I had personally never heard them called that before. The cartoons were called "cartoons," and I don't think there was a generic name for the characters in the cartoons. Was toons a piece of movie industry jargon?

When a theme park was opening some WB-cartoon-themed section, I saw some promotional piece about it in which a "mother" says "When I was a kid I always loved the toons" and I wondered whether she a) got it from Roger Rabbit, b) was reading a script (I think that section of the theme park was called "Toon Town" or something of the sort) or c) really called them toons when she was a kid. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the term was invented for the novel, but I'm not sure. (For what it's worth, all the other examples of "toon" that come easily to mind - Tiny Toon Adventures, for instance - post-date the movie. On the other hand, there is Looney Tunes, which is a near miss.) --Paul A 04:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looney Tunes doesn't share the etymology, unfortunately. It, along with Merrie Melodies, was based off of Disney's Silly Symphonies. 68.33.67.116 06:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
There was/is an old RPG called Toon.Wandering Star 19:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I removed this:

The Golden Era of cartoons, which this film attempts to emulate and laud, is best described as a form on manic escapism meant for the entire spectrum of movie-going audiences. Specifically, cartoons avoided the two big topics that dominate the rest of fiction: sex and death. Who Framed Roger Rabbit flirts with sexual attraction (as unsubtly as Jessica Rabbit's breasts are large) and does what no cartoon from the Golden Era would ever have done: killed a character.

By having Judge Doom kill a defenseless, childlike cartoon boot, it moved the film awdwardly out of escapism into realism. This presents a similar problem to that which caused Kindergarten Cop to flop at the box office -- a final product that was neither meant wholly for children nor adults. If the movie was meant for audiences of all ages, then why kill a character onscreen? If the movie was not meant for audiences of all ages, why go to the expense of including so many copyrighted cartoon characters? Young children may find the execution scene too disturbing, and adult fans of Golden Era cartoons may find this scene to stand in complete opposition to why they enjoyed those cartoons in the first place.

As such, the film remains a classic on technical grounds, but it is not as universally popular as one would expect given that its supporting cast includes Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Original critical reviews of films are not to be listed here. --b. Touch 18:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You removed this because Wiki is not a soapbox? So *any* article with criticism in it may have that criticism removed? How about the criticism of Forrest Gump? How about the criticism of political figures? Shall we purge all articles of information that even lists subjective opinion?

If you will note, there what I wrote was *not* a review, but a summary of criticism toward the movie. As such, I'm putting it back. --User:Proteus71 19:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Articles are to be written in a neutral point of view. Your addition was subjective almost to the point of one-sidedness. Also, the words are your opinion; a good number of critics and consumers dislike Roger Rabbit for a number of reasons (among other things, a weak third act, underdeveloped characters, supefulously moving characters), but your addition doesn't even touch upon any of those; it's just about what YOU want to say. (Again) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This article is not about YOUR opinion, or mine, or anyone else's. Now, if you want to write a section on the critical perception of Roger Rabbit, go research, quote, and cite professional reviews of the film, and give general audience consensus from both sides of the coin. Otherwise, the section will be removed. As for the criticism of Forrest Gump, it's also POV unless it can be attributed to (more than one, to make the statement "some" true) published reviews of the film. The policy on political figures is not to criticise from one political side or the other.--b. Touch 21:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The main problem is: it's just YOUR critcism written from your point of view. Presenting critcism of the film is fine, but it cannot be your own singular personal opinion. This is an encyclopedia).

Moreover, the facts you're using to support your critcism are incorrect. Sex and death were prevalent themes of Golden Age cartoons. The pre-1934 Betty Boop cartoons, Tex Avery's Red Hot Riding Hood, and frequent gags and situations in Looney Tunes all show blatant and obvious eferences to sexual attraction, sexual intercourse, lust, and indecency. And violence was the mainstay of American animation until the television era. Popeye the Sailor, Tom and Jerry, Looney Tunes, Merrie Melodies, pre-1948 Woody Woodpecker, and Road Runner cartoons all feature overwhelming amounts of violence, to the point where most of those shorts were heavily edited for television. And although in many cases, characters have died and come back, been flattened, etc., there are many, many cartoons where characters actually die: Chuck Jones' 1951 Drip-along Daffy has plenty of on-screen murders in its first two minutes.

The point you bring up about the juxtaposed tone is a valid one; it just needs to be presented in an unpointed way. I revised it (and shortened it, so that it does not read as a rant or a personal opinion), and added the other major criticisms of the film as well. In a format like this, criticism can be kept; the Forrest Gump criticism is similar to this, except that it still needs attribution. Were it to be peer-reviewed, that would be the first thing that would need to change. --b. Touch 21:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "Plot" summary says, "There he speaks to R.K. Maroon, who gets shot in the confrontation." Is that an especially bad place to be shot? DSatz 02:33, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How much?

The film cost $70 million in the article's first paragraph and then only $50 million in the Significance section. Which one is it? RodC 22:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused by the same thing, Rod, and that's why I've added the Contradictory template to the top of the article. --Kistaro Windrider 09:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
One possible explanation is that the actual costs to make the film were $50 million, but the overall budget was $70 million when you add in things like advertising the film. I have no idea if this is true, but it's one possible explanation. Qutezuce 09:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical Error

In the trivia section, fourth point:

The credits go on for nearly ten minutes, a record at the time the movie was made.

I don't understand this. It either says that when the credits go for nearly ten minutes, it records the time the movie made or a record is played 10 minutes into the movie. Oh heck, I know I'm wrong.

Someone fix it plz.-TKGB

"Record", in this case, refers to the "longest period of time", as in "record time". Then again, if that isn't clear, perhaps we need to clarify the meaning of the word "record"? --Deathphoenix 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Judge Doom had a 1 July 2005 Vote for deletion, resulting in merge to this article. Text was:

Judge Doom is an evil character from the Who Framed Roger Rabbit movie who seeks to take over Toontown. He has access to a supply of chemicals that can destroy toons. After several encounters, the heroes of the story discover that Judge Doom is himself a Toon. He is also responsible for killing the detective character's brother. In the end, Doom is destroyed by his own chemical.

-- Jonel | Speak 03:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The will

I put in how Marvin Acme's will was found. When Roger first went to Eddie's apartment, he told Eddie he had written Jessica a love letter ("How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. One-one thousand! Two-one thousand! Three-one thousand!...") on a sheet of blank paper he found at Acme's warehouse. As it turned out, Acme wrote the will on that very sheet of paper in "disappearing reappearing ink", and the will reappeared at the end of the film. --Kitch 18:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

He didn't find it at Acme's warehouse. Roger states specifically in the scene at Eddie's office/apartment that he found it in his wife's dressing room. --Corvun 08:50, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
As well, the pictures that Eddie took of Jessica and Acme in her dressing room showed his will in his jacket pocket. One can assume this means that Acme left the will in Jessica's dressing room that evening. SkittlzAnKomboz (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backtracking editing of final cut

There is one thing that I am so tired of in the world or DVD releases. And that is, going back and re-editing what made it to the screen so, as not to offend audience members. So a fictious baby looking character made a lurid expression. So What. If people can't handle it, don't watch it.

We have entered an age where people just take whiteout to what has already been produced which did nothing to harm someone. To be honest, I never really noticed Baby Herman making anything more than lurid remarks.

Once a movie has been made and completed, that's it. All should be as is, unless it is merely to remove some elements not meant to be in the original shot in the first place.

I want my original versions back for all films ruined by this.


From what I've heard, I think it's mentioned in the DVD commentary, is that in the begining of the movie where Baby Herman walks under the woman while storming off the set. Supposedly for a few frames, he's making an obscene gesture which is left in the VHS edition but cut out of the DVD.

Peter Tangney 18:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it!

Should there not be a paragraph in this article describing the General Motors streetcar conspiracy in Los Angeles and the significance this plays in the plot of the film (and in L.A. lore)?

Never having lived in LA, I'd never heard of this conspiracy. Doom's mention of the Red Car is so brief and generally overshadowed by his plot to destroy ToonTown that I don't think it's worth adding more than a brief sentence or two linking to the article mentioned.
I disagree. The entire "Cloverfield Industries" subplot is a thinly-veiled reference to the above-mentioned streetcar conspiracy, with Cloverfield standing in for the real-life National City Lines.
I agree that the article should mention this reference somewhere, this is exactly the type of info that makes wikipedia so interesting and useful, especially for people researching hidden or subtle references in films and books. --Fluxaviator 02:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned; just that it probably doesn't deserve a substantial paragraph. I feel that this conspiracy is little-known outside the LA area. -DynSkeet (talk) 11:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cloverfield Industries or Cloverleaf Industries?

In the film, the real-life role of NCL is filled by the fictional "Cloverfield Industries,"

IIRC, it was "Cloverleaf Industries", and Google seems to agree [1] [2]. Then again, its been years since I have seen this movie, so can someone confirm this? --Bletch 19:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Leaf", not "field" --FuriousFreddy 23:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Cloverleaf, most probably as in a typical shape of highway interchanges. Corrected "field" in the article. TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the anachronisms

By the movie's own internal logic, are the toons who appeared in it, though they hadn't in the real world been created until after 1947, reall anachronisms? Couldn't they very easily be toons who hadn't found work yet? --Corvun 08:41, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. 70.54.125.178 12:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Keep in mind this cartoon pretends that toons are real, so trying to re-apply reality by looking for anachronisms amounts to "original research". Wahkeenah 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toons/Coons

It seems fairly obvious to me that toons is a fairly clear reference to coons, a derogatory term for African American. Here is why: 1. Toons, just like coons, is a derogatory term. 2. They live in Toon Town, and ghettos used to be called Coon Towns. 3. The movie takes place in '40s LA, where the term Coon was most popular. 4. Just listen to how they sound. 5. The movie alludes to and satirizes many other things, why not this one? 6. Despite someone's recomendation that I check google for a better discussion on the topic, there is no evidence that this is not the case. 7. It fits the plot, context, and themes of the movie.

By someone, do you mean me? Yes, I did drop you a line. While there weren't many mentions (which proves its un-notability, and Wikipedia has a policy against original research), the top two, which mentioned toon town/coon town stated specifically that this was not the case. If you dispute this, I encourage you to search for "who framed roger rabbit" toons coons, or find a reference. I was honestly editing the page with the reference before I realized that it said the one who thought that was asinine for thinking so. I agree the similarities are striking, but without confirmation from someone directly involved with the project, we cannot post it here, due to our policies. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask. -Mysekurity (have you seen this?) 08:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding a notice about "some falsely believe that 'toons comes from the derogatory term for blacks in the 1940s, coons." Or something of that nature. It doesn't quite fit in with the prose as-is, but I'll add it to a later part, then later re-incorperate it in. Any thoughts? -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 03:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Unless someone very notable writes an article or speech about this subject, "some believe" comments here are non-notable, IMO. Also, I never once got the toon-coon thing. At the risk of sounding a little unsensitive myself, I think that toon-coon thing is a litte over-sensitive. "Toon" isn't something derogatory: people that love Toons use that term as well, and no Toon seems to take the term as an insult. Therefore, there seems to be no "canonical" evidence that Toon is analgous to "Coon". --Deathphoenix 14:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
When I first heard Eddie Valiant say "toons" with a disgusted note in his voice, I immediately associated it with the way I heard hundreds of people during my childhood say "coons" whenever they observed the behavior of African Americans. To me, it is obvious.Lestrade 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Dude, he HATED toons then, so it was ment as offensive

I think it should be noted that in the Ink and Paint Club scene with Donald and Daffy's dueling pianos, there is a an obvious African-American durogatory term. It's not "coon" though. After Daffy calls Donald "dispicable", Donald, a white duck, calls Daffy, a black duck, a "gosh darn stubborn n****r."
Valiant's several references to Toons' behavior as typical or predictable also is reminiscent of the racial stereotype.Lestrade 02:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Oscar nominations

At the end of the Critical Reception section, the article says it was nominated for four additional Oscars it didn't win, then lists three. Is it three or four, and if the latter, which one is missing from the list? PurplePlatypus 21:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 220.239.53.31 added discrepancies section: questionable!

This is apparent original research, and needs to be covered by published sources. Question (ahem): Are there any print articles dealing with the minutiae of the film entitled “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”....? Please look at the code to the discrepancies section by editing it. I’ve placed some hidden comments on the section there.

The "discrepancies" are the purview of imdb, not necessarily wikipedia.

Schweiwikist 11:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] followup

here's code for that user's talk page, from the template for no orig research . . . ought it be placed there? This is an anon user with a long edit history.

Hello, 220.239.53.31, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as those in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing!

What is the sroce for "Playing pattycake is roughly equivalent to having sex in the Toon world, meaning that Jessica is indeed being unfaithful to Roger.)?12.145.73.51 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bugs and Mickey-- really the same number of lines in joint scene?

From the article:

A contract was signed between Disney and Warner stating that their respective icons, Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny, would each receive exactly the same amount of screen time. This is why the script had Bugs, Mickey, and Eddie together in one scene falling from a skyscraper; in this scene, the mouse and the rabbit speak the same exact number of words of dialogue, as per the contract. OK-- but I wrote down the dialogue from the scene to the best of my recollection, and from what I gathered, Bugs said 33 words, and Mickey only 18. ekedolphin 10:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Was hoping somebody might ask about this. The "equal time" contract sounds a bit like urban legend. Exaggeration. But note this, if you have DVD access to the film, during Eddie’s big fall (450 stories): Mickey enters the shot with his goggles on; as he removes the goggles, Bugs enters. Bugs never removes his goggles, the viewer can see the wabbit’s eyes just fine. Sixty-four million dollar question: Why are Mickey’s goggles reflective?? One point beyond this, though: I recall it was an issue of the relative proportions of mouse and hare, owing to the difference in real life. Consider how out-of-scale Mickey Mouse and Pluto (his dog) are. And imagine a meeting between MM, Sylvester, and Hippety Hopper . . . the mind boggles: Mickey to Sylvester: “Uh... who are you calling a, heh heh, giant mouse?” Sylvester: “I know, I know!! (Thhhaketh...)” --Schweiwikist 16:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Um....what? --The_stuart 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Mickey and Bugs, at least in their skydiving scene, do not have the same ammount of dialogue. Mickey has one more line than Bugs, though Bugs speaks a greater number of individual words (32 vs Mickey's 19.) Mickey also enters the scene about a second before Bugs does. Do they have another scene together that I'm forgetting? If not, the whole "equal time" thing is false. -- Mayy 03:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Bugs can also be seen for a split second before Valiant leaves Maroon Cartoon Studios, right before the cut to the street.RicJac 14:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed: the "other discrepancies" section

This section was someone's long personal report/analyisis of the film, and, as originalk research, should not be here. --FuriousFreddy 23:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piano Duel

It sounds to me like Donald is saying "Gosh darn stupid nigger."Lestrade 21:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, upon listening to the DVD version(which could very well be different from the Laserdisc and original theatrical feature) very, very closely, I was able to make out something akin to "Dawgone stubborn little... I'll geh-geh [typical incoherent-but-angry Donald noise]". But that's just me. --Joseph Collins 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censored text

I restored some text that had been censored by an anonymous IP address. (Ibaranoff24 09:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] This is probably too convoluted to be included anywhere, but ...

...there is a connection between Chinatown and Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Chinatown was about the Los Angeles Water Department (later the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) and a disguised story of the California Water Wars and the Owens Valley project. Its inferior sequel, The Two Jakes, was a story about natural gas in L.A. The Two Jakes was so poorly received that the story about L.A. freeway development in the late 40s that was supposed to complete the trilogy, Cloverleaf, was never made. Roger Rabbit is probably about the closest thing to Cloverleaf that ever became part of popular culture. Chinatown and Roger Rabbit are the two main pop culture stories referring to massive corruption in Los Angeles; without them the general U.S. public would never have heard of the Water Wars or the GM streetcar conspiracy. Rlquall 00:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] shave and a haircut

Can somebody give an explanation about the "shave and a haircut" tric.--Pixel ;-) 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was a kid, it was a little jingle that was sung to the rhythm of five knocks. 1.Shave 2.and 3.a 4.hair 5.cut. These were always followed by two more knocks: 1.Two 2.bits. In the old days, two bits was slang for twenty-five cents. In the film, RR cannot resist finishing the jingle. Judge Doom knows that Toons are completely predictable. He taps out the first five words of the jingle and leaves the last two words unspoken. Roger, as a Toon, must necessarily yell out "Two bits!" and thereby reveal himself. By the way, in tapping out the jingle, Judge Doom, in one case, only taps four times. This is immediately noticeable to anyone who is familiar with the old "Shave and a haircut, two bits."Lestrade 22:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Am I the only person who thinks the (long and tedious) section on "anachronisms" and so-called errors seems, well, silly and obsessive? Especially in regard to an animated film? (ok, a partially animated one). I have to wonder whether the author watches every cartoon this way, jumping up from his chair and shouting "wrong! Anachronism!" Much of the humor and resonance of cartoons is due to just this sort of insouciant mixing of references; it would make as much sense to list the anatomical peculiarities of cartoon animals as "errors", or to point out that "rabbits don't talk."

No, Anonymous Editor, you are not the only person. But, in this wide world there are other persons who derive pleasure from thinking about Who Framed Roger Rabbit and discussing their reactions to what they see in the film.Lestrade 12:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Who butchered the plot summary?

Too long, and too overly detailed. The older version was bad enough, but this is excruciating. I'm going to find an older version and replace the text.Gnrlotto 04:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was apparently the one who "butchered" the plot summary - I was actually trying to clean it up, but apparently having a lot of run-on sentences and past/present-tense disagreements is preferable to well-formed prose. Sorry, I'll keep that in mind for future reference. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, pardner. No need to get your leather chaps in a tussle. I think the line about pattycake is fine as is--as I've said about a bajillion times--so your asking me is out of place. Secondly, the butchering of the plot summary occured when the article went from a scant, but very readable five paragraphs or so to an overwhelmingly long thing with all sorts of details (i.e., "Judge Doom discovers Roger's hiding spot by tapping out 'shave and a hair cut' with his cane. Roger, unable to resist"...) That's too long. This is a summary, not a blow-by-blow, scene-by-scene breakdown of every event in the movie. Synopsis. Not "retelling." Synopsis.Gnrlotto
See, I have an issue with short synopses on encyclopedic websites. Just like with the video games section, where the movement seems to be toward distilling articles to just very basic descriptions about the games, I see distilling the plot summary to just a few paragraphs as a bad thing. It's very difficult to convey what makes the movie (or game) memorable and noteworthy in only a few paragraphs - I mean, what is someone going to get out of a description at the level of "This is a movie where a cartoon character interacts with humans and a detective tries to clear the Toon's name"? Some of the details that were called out in the longer, more detailed plot description are things that people will find interesting, and will give them a reason to go see the movie if they haven't already.
I guess I'm just in favor of longer, more detailed plot descriptions than short summaries because it allows people to read more if they so desire. But (and forgive my continued irritation on this issue), I seem to be in somewhat of a minority in that respect, at least here on WP. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia has table of content, would it be possible to have both a summary and a synopsis (wich are not the same I think) ? The summary could be one or two paragraphs describing in wide brush stroke the plot of the film and the synopsis a more detailled description. A warning similar to the spoilers could be issued: Warning: this section is a detailled description of a film, and contain more than x paragraphs... Please excuse my english, my first language is french. Boris Crépeau 07:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Other articles with similar content usually just call it "Plot" or "Story" when it exceeds the 'simple synopsis' threshold. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Playing Pattycake

What is the sroce for "Playing pattycake is roughly equivalent to having sex in the Toon world, meaning that Jessica is indeed being unfaithful to Roger."?12.145.73.51 19:45, 29 December 20--Iamstillhiro1112 13:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)06 (UTC)

I would assume from the movie. You know, 'cause people have eyes and brains and all to interpret.Gnrlotto 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I must be naive, I did not take it that way. Witch is why I thought to remove the Pattycake = Sex line. Then you add your post, I was thinking we were thing some of the same things. Seems I was wrong. I felt that I should not change things on a page that had a rich discussion page, with out asking / talking about them there. I was hoping some one could point out that this came from DVD commentary or one of the Books on “Who Framed Rodger Rabbit”. I’m just a IP address (doing this on spare time at work) so will bow to a named Wiki editor. And if older version removes this so much the better.12.145.73.51 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The film has Eddie taking what he thinks are dirty pictures, then revealing them to Roger who acts and is commiserated with by Eddie and Maroon like a man who just found out his wife is a floozy. And Acme clearly got off on the whole "Pat-a-Cake" thing. What other interpretation is there?Gnrlotto 03:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So a “lap dance” is also the same as having sex. And as you revert to a “better” form of the plot summary you will keep this bit of “information” that seems to make a mountain of a mole hill. Much as I have by asking this question. Thank you for the revert. 12.145.73.51 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about a lap dance? When Roger, Maroon, and Valiant are discussing it, these are the phrases they use:

Maroon: Take comfort son. You're not the first man whose wife played patty cake on him.

Roger: No... not my Jessica! Not patty cake. This is impossible. I don't believe it. It can't be. It just can't be. Jessica's my wife! It's absolutely impossible!Jessica's the light of my life, the apple of my eye, the cream in my cofee.

Valiant: You better start drinking it black, cause Acme's taking the cream now.

Maroon: Hard to believe. Marvin Acme's been my friend and neighbour for 30 years. Who would have thought he was a sugar daddy?

The implication is pretty hard to miss unless one is being purposefully obtuse. Gnrlotto 12:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

But unless one can be purposefully obtuse and still get it, then it is original research. Val42 04:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The implication is there in the film. Denying it doesn't change it, and making it part of the article doesn't make it original research. By that standard any "thing" on Wikipedia that is summarized by a not previously published synopsis is "original research."Gnrlotto 05:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Go look at the first and last episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation. The implication is certainly there that the trial in the last episode is the continuation of the trial in the first episode. I even had better in-context dialogue to back me up than you do here. The best I was able to get was that these segments of the trial "may" have been contiguous from the view of "Q".
Now the dialog that you've cited has certain implications. But you don't even have any visual or dialog that says "sex". They needed something that adults would equate with the human equivalent of sex but would also not be so obvious as to increase the MPAA rating. So we're stuck with an implication that can't be equated with sex in the context of Wikipedia.
But given the context of the toonworld, and having all indications that 'toons are created "the usual way", by someone drawing them, the 'toons have no reasons (or ability?) for sex. They may very well have taken what they heard from the humans they work with about "playing pattycake" (not knowing what it really means) and taken it literally. 'Toons then back-defined playing pattycake as the ultimate betrayal in a 'toon marriage. In the 'toon meaning of this idiom, it literally means playing pattycake but with all of the feelings of betrayal that "playing pattycake" would have in the human world. Val42 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a little more to go on that equates this scene with a sexual encounter: Remember Jessica saying "I have a headache"? Classic line used to say "I'm not in the mood". Also, when they actually start playing patty-cake, Jessica's reaction is clearly similar to that of a typical porn actress. These, IMO, go pretty well beyond reasonable doubt for the implications of the scene. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Again with the implications. Go read my previous post of January 6th (two paragraphs ago) and substitute "playing pattycake" with "I have a headache" and "I'm not in the mood" in the appropriate places. You can put in the components of the implication, but you can't jump to your conclusion unless you can find a primary source to reference. Val42 04:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no question that playing pattycake is seen by Toons as being an intimate activity. That was apparent when I saw the film in the theater. Anything beyond that is reading things into it. I think that's what you're saying also. Wahkeenah 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I get what it means. Not to be rude, but do you have an actual point that you're driving at? I'm hearing a lot of words that agree with me, but say nothing else.

No one said anything about the line saying "Sex." This is the line that the other user sees as questionable: "had been playing pattycake together (literally) — this is tantamount to infidelity in the eyes of a Toon." What better way do you have of phrasing it? :)Gnrlotto 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. The current wording [3] where we say it is considered infidelity is best. Claiming it is akin to a sexual encounter is unfounded. Infidelity in a relationship does not have to involve sex as the article on infidelity it self says. It depends on culture and person. It is probably intended that patty cake is akin to a sexual encounter but the reader can draw their own conclusions about that when we say it is akin to infidelity Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(continued from original response in "Who butchered the plot summary?") Anyway, would "it is strongly implied that playing pattycake is akin to a sexual encounter in the eyes of a Toon" qualify as not "original research" for this article? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
From when I was a kid I figured that patty-cake was a fetish, a kind of sex. I totally don't get any lap dance reference.--Iamstillhiro1112 13:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's basically a joke. This movie is largely a comedy. Wahkeenah 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Released Roger Rabbit?

I think that we should have a section on releases for this film onto VHS, Laserdisk/laserdisc, and DVD. It would at least help people that are reading this and trying to figure out if this was released to a home video video format... Should it be after "Legacy" or "Anachronisms" or...? I'd like to hear the thoughts of my fellow wikipedians.

I have a partial list right here if anyone wants it:

Sources: I have the VHS and DVD versions. if anyone can help me on the laserdisk release date, that would be greatly appreciated, and would rule! :)

RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think there was a DVD release earlier than 2003. According to the 2001 edition of Leonard Maltin's movie guide. --Jnelson09 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan's quote.

I remember that this movie was notable in that its title character was actually spoken by Ronald Reagan during George Bush's 1988 Presidential campaign. Something like "If he's [Michael Dukakis] Kennedy then I'm Roger Rabbit". I can't find reference to the quote here or on Wikiquote. Does anybody remember the exact circumstances? Lurlock 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is/was Kathleen Turner uncredited?

We all know that Jessica Rabbit was voiced by Kathleen Turner, but why is she uncredited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.244.247 (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

"By the time the 1970s ended and the 1980s began, many filmgoers were now wanting to see more R-rated, raunchy, adult-oriented films." Ummm, no they weren't. Heavy Metal and Ralph Bakshi's later films were not box-office hits. --Modemac 21:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anatomy of a toon

ChrisP2K5, of course I've seen the movie. I pulled it out of my DVD library and watched the section in question. While we don't know how toons are created "in universe", the weasel in question isn't wearing pants. I'll let your edit stand, as it is now. But watch out for those who like cutting down plot summaries. — Val42 05:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Hoskins and mental illness

I'm not sure if I should mention this, so any advice is appreciated. According to a Horrible Histories-type book it says that Bob Hoskins had mental illness as a result of this - should I include this, or not per WP:BLP.

It could make the article more interesting, but at the same time I'm not sure if it's worth inclusion. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It should not. Unless such a claim is confirmed in multiple sources, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all, and if true it belongs to Bob Haskins article, not here. Collectonian (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly advise against putting it anywhere on Wikipedia unless several reliable sources (and this book doesn't sound like one from the description) concur on the matter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If anyone else finds sources about this, then they could add it in. I'll leave it out, per the consensus above, but if anyone finds some sources regarding this, then it could be added in - I'll cross-post this to Talk:Bob Hoskins as well. --Solumeiras (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did Roger Rabbit revitalize animation?

Y'know at the time, animation, classical animation like this had really died out. This movie was really the first movie that really brought it back. And then the Disney corporation went on to do, uh, movies like The Lion King, stuff like that, were they utilized the talent that had been assembled for this picture. - Jeffrey Smart, screenwriter of Roger Rabbit.

Does anyone have more on this?MartinSFSA (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Short cartoon that preceded the main movie in cinemas

I recall seeing a very, very, very funny short cartoon that preceded the main movie when I saw WFRR in the cinema, but this doesn't seem to be on the DVD I bought. This hilarious extra isn't referenced in the article. Does anyone know more about this? I suppose I could just be confusing the scene at the start of the movie as a seperate cartoon, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't that. I remember the rest of the audience, my friend and me laughing histerically at this and would love to know more about it and if it's possible to get hold of it still. Sorry if this isn't the best place or way to ask this! Zctyp18 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you remember what was going on in the cartoon? any details? and which characters were in the precartoon? if any. Dureo (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, no! It was so long ago! I just remember it being very fast-paced and funny; possibly with different characters from the main film. Zctyp18 (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Anachronistic toons

The listing of cartoon characters appearing in the film tags some as being anachronisms, because they had not yet been created in 1947. An explanation is given that the intention was entertainment rather than animation history. I have also seen a quote--sadly, I forget who from--ragarding the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, who appear in the film but whose first short wasn't released until 1948. The point was that, in the Roger Rabbit universe, these characters are real "people", and that they existed before the release of their first films, just as human stars do. So--in the context of this film--the appearance of these characters is not anachronistic...it's just that the toons in question haven't yet had their Big Break. PurpleChez (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)