Roger Rabbit Must Appear on the "House of Mouse" TV show!

[disneyphilip]

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for a Roger Rabbit appearance on the "House of Mouse" TV show.

I hope (and I'm certain) that the show's production staff is still trying to get him in there somehow, even for at least only one episode or if they just have to resort to sneaking him into backgrounds/audience shots/crowd scenes!

I think a Roger Rabbit appearance on the House of Mouse series would be more agreeable than a new Roger Rabbit feature film (which I still think would be nice to see as well, though).

Besides, the HoM is located in Toontown. Roger is one of the first (if not the first) character that comes to mind when thinking of Toontown and you can't have a Toontown without Roger Rabbit.

However, Benny the Cab appeared in one episode. If they can get Benny, then they can somehow get Roger as well--they'll have to, even if they have to "sneak him in".

Cameos by Jessica, Baby Herman and Judge Doom's Weasel henchmen would be nice, too.

Besides, Roger still appears in Disney theme parks, resorts, merchandise and artwork from time-to-time. Why so? Any answers to this mystery?

Roger IS a "Disney" character, anyway (at least he's partially owned by Disney). Mktiggerman is wrong when he says he's not a Disney character. (No offense, Rob...if you're out there.)

Maybe (and hopefully) the "legal battles" will soon cease--these battles can't go on forever, you know! (Sometimes, I wish that Disney would just buy back or take back Steven Spielberg's interest in the Roger characters.)

They couldn't get the rights to use King Louie as the focus of an episode, even though King Louie DID appear in backgrounds/crowd scenes/audience shots in other episodes.

So, if King Louie can ONLY appear on the show as a mere non-talking "background" character, then I'm sure that they can at least do the same thing with Roger Rabbit (using his image and likeness, just not his voice)--that probably wouldn't be too much of a jump in legalities either. It'd at least be like drawing a mere picture or illustration of him.

In case some of you don't quite understand, there's a difference between a character just appearing in a background doing nothing and a character appearing in the foreground, talking and being "active".

If they can still at least use Roger's image and likeness (just not his voice) in other sources, then I'm sure that his image and likeness (just not his voice) can at least still be used in movies and TV shows (such as the "House of Mouse") as well.

Let's hope for the best here, everyone.

So long.

P.S.--Regarding King Louie...the episode that became "King Larry Swings In" was originally written as "King Louie Swings In", but it was changed when the wife of Louis Prima (the original voice of King Louie) came along, saying that he (Prima) partially created the character, so she felt that she should get some money.--this led to the HoM production staff changing that episode, taking out King Louie and "creating" his twin brother King Larry.

Also, the reason why I'm posting this message here on the "WDW News and Rumors" section, because I think this part of the Forum is used and read more often than the "Motion Pictures, TV, etc." one.

 

[bearboysnc]

Thats a pretty lame reason for posting in the wrong forum.

 

[MKCustodial]

Well, thank you for explaining that King Louie thing. I always thought that Disney gave more attention to Baloo than to him, and I never understood why.

As for Roger, Tiggerman is right, Disney doesn't own him, that's why they took him out of Spectromagic. Benny, Jessica and the others were created for the filme, that's why Benny appeared at HoM and Jessica is at PI. I also like Roger, and would like to see the legal battle over. If there's real interest in him, they might be able to solve. It took Spidey 10 years to get out of bureocratic limbo, but he managed, so I guess Roger can do it too.

On a side note, it'd be good if they could get some kind of a deal with Louie as well. I love King Louie!:sohappy:

 

[TURKEY]

Originally posted by disneyphilip


Also, the reason why I'm posting this message here on the "WDW News and Rumors" section, because I think this part of the Forum is used and read more often than the "Motion Pictures, TV, etc." one.

I didn't know about the King Louie thing, but I did know about Roger and I agree with Rob.

Don't be suprised to see this in the TV section or at least in the general discussion once Steve sees this here.

You seem to at least know your way around. Use some common sense and realize that threads get moved to where they belong. Save Steve the hassle and put threads in the right place.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

But Roger is going to be used...he is part of the Pop Century resort.

 

[disneyphilip]

Actually, I DID start this topic on the “Motion Pictures, Television, DVD and Video” section of this forum. Take a look.

Please go easy on me—I’m new to these boards, you know.

For the last time, Roger Rabbit is NOT, I repeat is NOT, 100% owned and copyrighted by Amblin Entertainment!!! The Walt Disney Company and Amblin DO own that character 50/50! Rob IS wrong (still no intentions of putting him down)!

Besides, if Roger was completely owned by Amblin, he wouldn’t have become part of the Disney family in the ways that he did or has.

Think about it.

Whenever Roger’s image and likeness appears anywhere, including on merchandise items such as the recent Disney character-infested “Celebrating 100 Years of Walt Disney’s Imagination” promotional artwork piece, they typically write “Copyright Disney/Amblin”—this indicates that Disney and Amblin share ownership of the character. If he was completely owned by Amblin, he wouldn’t have appeared on such an item (or even as a giant statue at the Pop Century Resort). I believe Disney has the rights to at least use his image and likeness (just not his voice) in any way they please, even with severe limitations (that must also indicate that he can make mere non-talking background cameos/appearances in movies and TV shows).

Amblin DIDN’T create Roger, neither did Disney—an author named Gary K. Wolf created him.

The film “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” is based on Gary’s first Roger novel “Who Censored Roger Rabbit”. Disney acquired the rights to the novel in the 1980s and decided to make a movie based on it. When the film was in development, Disney approached Spielberg and asked him to help make the film. Obviously, Spielberg agreed and Disney made a 50/50 deal with him, allowing him to own at least 50% of the character.

Therefore, with the rights to the book being acquired by Disney, Roger became a “Disney” property in the first place and Spielberg’s half can (and/or should, to some extent) be taken away. I still believe that the other Roger characters (Benny, Jessica, etc.), to at least some extent, are also co-owned by Disney and Amblin. I also think that Amblin and Gary Wolf had at least some involvement/influence in the creation of the other Roger characters.

Why was Roger was pulled from Spectromagic? It’s because he’s “half-owned” (NOT “completely-owned) by Amblin. The 2 studios just have a hard time getting along.

Also, remember the “difference between background appearances and ‘active’ appearances” bit I described.

I hope you all understand everything I just said. Maybe things can be cleared up in ways.

So long for now.

P.S.—In addition to the “House of Mouse”, I hope that Roger makes a cameo appearance in “Mickey’s Philharmagic”.

 

[MKCustodial]

Just a side note. Today I caught the King Larry episode. Now, I can't really say it for sure, since I saw it dubbed in Portuguese, but it seemed to me it WAS Louie, only renamed Larry. His movements, and the song, all reminded of Louie. The voice was similar, but that would be hard for me to confirm since his original Brazilian voice must have passed away by now.

 

[J.E.Smith]

And in the American one, he was voiced by Jim Cummings, who did Louie's voice in Talespin. (How come Kit and Rebecca don't appear in HoM?)

 

[mkt]

Originally posted by disneyphilip
For the last time, Roger Rabbit is NOT, I repeat is NOT, 100% owned and copyrighted by Amblin Entertainment!!! The Walt Disney Company and Amblin DO own that character 50/50! Rob IS wrong (still no intentions of putting him down)!

no.. I'm right.

I know I am on this one..

anyhoo. sorry it took so long for me to reply.. I need to look my name up more often in the seach feature