Disney/Pixar In General

wait but that's a Sony property. huh.

Doesn't look like Genndy is involved in the show at all (though I imagine he had his hands full with Samurai Jack), also, Nelvana is co-producing it....which, um, I guess I'd say there are worse Canadian animation companies, but they're also the same company that gave us Braceface and My Dad The Rockstar. To say nothing of how the animation even in that 15 second preview looks like an extremely choppy version of the Star vs. the Forces of Evil animation, except rendered in Flash, possibly with even less finesse than the Gravity Falls pilot. No, not even possibly, because that had some decent animation for just being a proof of concept.

Nelvana also did the Beetlejuice cartoon and Tales from the Cryptkeeper, among other things.

Did not see that coming, much less on Disney Channel. (More likely Disney XD.)

It at least kind of looks Genndy-ish art style wise. Didn't expect it to be Disney though.

edited 28th Apr '17 6:36:13 AM by Psi001

the video is not available in my country

booo

Hey, they also did the series based on the Cloudy movie and you know Lord & Miller don't have anything to do with that.

It seems this studio is producing cartoons based on SONY Animation films and they're shopping it around networks. It doesn't matter which network.

I guess we should keep an eye out for the inevitable Rio Surf's Up series on Nickelodeon, in that case.

Oh, whoops! I forgot. >_< Better make that Surf's Up, then.

edited 28th Apr '17 10:04:51 AM by kablammin45

That's Blue Sky Studios which is own by FOX, not Sony

And people thought the days of Disney cash cowing film franchises was over.

I don't think anyone actually believed that though

After Roy Disney canned the DTV sequels (and thus pilots for many TV series adaptations), some may have been hopeful at least.

Wary but hopeful.

edited 28th Apr '17 4:55:38 PM by Psi001

So Cartoon Network got Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, and Disney got Hotel Transylvania?

Interesting...

edited 28th Apr '17 6:04:45 PM by DingoWalley1

This cross-programming for movies and shows on cable happens all the time, and has for years and years.

edited 28th Apr '17 7:33:15 PM by kyun

I am not necessarily against it in principle...I am looking forward to the Big Hero 6 TV show after all....

I think most wouldn't be against it if Disney weren't famed for churning out very cheap cash in follow ups.

No one really minds their ceaseless Winnie the Pooh stuff for example, one thing they put consistent love and care into.

I found this article a couple of hours ago, and now I'm mad with longing for What Could Have Been.

It's annoying how Disney never approved for sequels that had potential and a passionate team on board, usually because they don't have a big enough face in them. Why not another Basil the Great Mouse Detective for example?

To compare Disney were all for Pinocchio and Aristocats Direct to Video sequels before Roy canned them, and they were wobbling whether to make one of Snow White or even a third Jungle Book.

I don't buy the whole sex appeal thing either. Sure Jessica is more obvious, but some of the Disney females (and some males) are blatantly sexualised and in a less cartoony manner than her.

edited 29th Apr '17 6:59:40 AM by Psi001

Y'know, he's absolutely right. If we wanted a sequel of a movie or video game, we really just wanted to do the same thing we just did.

When most of us want a sequel to Roger Rabbit, we probably want to know more about how toons work, and how they are made. But I think you can do that without continuing Roger Rabbit's story. I have my own idea where it takes place in the same universe but takes place in the present time and it has a new cast, almost like a Roger Rabbit spiritual successor.

edited 29th Apr '17 7:02:18 AM by DokemonStudios

Looney Tunes: Back in Action is probably as close to a Roger Rabbit spiritual successor as we're going to get. Hey, it's better than nothing.

I'll tell you one thing, though: I do not want to know more about how Toons work or where they come from. One of the many things that make the original so magical is that it's so straight-faced in pretending that Toons are real and normal, and that neither the audience nor the human characters need an explanation. I'd sure hate to find out Roger and Jessica are made of midichlorians.

If you've seen the script for that unmade, WWII-set prequel by Nat Mauldin that's been floating around the internet (it's a riot, by the way—it might've been an Even Better Prequel), you'll see that it avoids going into too much detail about the Toons as well. When teenage Roger asks his human foster parents what it means to be a Toon, they say something like, "Well, it means you're a little... different from most people." And that's all I need.

who wants a sequel to Roger Rabbit, I think it's fine on its own. Then again, I also felt the same way about The Incredibles, but apparently I'm the only person in the world who was fine with it only having one movie.

Also, if you want a Roger Rabbit sequel, there are later books in the original book series, most of which follow the movie rather than the original novel. (Though I might be misremembering and thinking of Forrest Gump instead on that last point.)

edited 29th Apr '17 8:58:36 AM by Odd1

No, you're right. The original book where Roger really is the murderer is stated to be All Just a Dream and the rest follow the movie.

I recall a series of old black-and-white cartoons (but not the title... Koko the Clown maybe?) in which a cartoonist's ink came alive into what we now call Toons. Though it didn't explain *how* we can assume the ink was magical or at least alchemical (hey if chemicals can reanimate people as zombies...) Anyway there's your explanation right there if its ever needed.

Believe me, I feel much the same...

I recall Disney once made a series of Roger Rabbit comics that took place after the film. Eddie Valiant wasn't in them - I can't recall why - and they replaced him with some other guy, whose name I don't remember and don't care to remember.

Well, I do. The idea behind Who Framed Roger Rabbit is too clever and too funny to toss out after a single outing. I don't get the sequelphobia.

I mean, sure, the books are pretty great, but some ideas are made to be brought to life by Visual Effects Of Awesome.

You may be thinking of Lucky from Bonkers.

edited 29th Apr '17 7:47:47 PM by ThriceCharming

I'm not talking about Bonkers. It was a definite sequel series to Roger Rabbit.