Thread 151202943

The copyright for Roger Rabbit has been reverted back to its initial author, Gary K. Wolf.

“I now have back the rights to all my characters, all my books. I can, basically, do my own Roger Rabbit projects.”
https://www.imnotbad.com/2025/11/roger-rabbit-copyright-reverts-to.html

>>151202943 (OP)
Based

roger owes me sex

The movie would of been better if they actually kept Jessica Rabbit as a villain like originally intended (she's a villain in the OG book)

>>151202943 (OP)
First question: Does this mean Disney can't rape Roger Rabbit with a 2nd super woke movie?
Second question: What's the lore here? Was this some long winded legal battle that nobody was talking about?

>>151202943 (OP)
Frankly I'm shocked the guy is still alive. Better get to work soon Gary, Death ain't getting any slower.

>>151203013
Disney just gave him the copyright back with no hesitation
>“I expected that this would be a contentious process. Who knows what was going to happen? But, it was not. It was very civil, very courteous, very straightforward.”
>Wolf went on to say, “Disney was always top-notch for me. They treated me very well. They always accommodated me in whatever I wanted to do.”
>The rights quietly reverted around a year ago, and in that time Wolf and his team have been putting together elements to create a movie or series that can match that of the 1988 film. With various possibilities, there are certain things Wolf is focused on.

>>151203090
>Disney actually playing nice and willingly giving up a copyright
Now I've seen everything.

>>151203161

They probably didn't care that much over the IP

>>151203161
>>151203180
This. This is how you know they have no faith in the brand, fucking DISNEY would never willingly relinquish anything they had plans for. Chip and Dale is their live action animation hybrid brand now I guess, safer that way, maybe. Or could be they just figure the creator would let them use it anyways. It just isn't believable.

>>151202943 (OP)
Good for him.

I mean he still doesn't have the copyright for all the good things the movie added so what's the point
He can whore it out to Illumination I guess

>>151203161
(Narrator voice): "Meanwhile, in Hell, also known as [insert celebrity you don't like here]'s vacation home..."

>>151203250

He should make/kickstart a more faithful comic book adaptation

>>151203271
He himself prefers the movie to what he wrote
Who the fucks wants anything from the original author when the movie already squeezed anything worth from the book and made it way better?

>>151203013
They already did it with the Rescue Rangers movie, which was almost enough of a pure cinematic shitpost for me to actually like it. Almost

>>151203180
I guess they just silently cancelled the sequel after Bob Hoskins died and now they've lost interest.

>>151203271
IICR, he later retconed his own book with what Disney added, so he doesn't hate what they did. But a more faithful adaptation could be interesting, as it's more adult I think.

>151203161
It isn't really as noteworthy as it seems. Under US copyright, anyone that licenses out their works can reclaim the rights after 35 years simply by formally requesting it several years in advance of that point. Disney isn't fighting it because it's something they agreed to from the very start.

Sigh.
/co/, he doesn't own the visuals. He's been allowed to write his own books (and he has) all along. They're... okay. First one had one of the worst mystery resolutions I've ever come across, but also had the novel idea of a noir-pastiche using Toontown characters instead of Tinseltown celebrities.
But he doesn't own Disney's designs for Roger and Jessica. If he does end up doing something, it'll be new designs.
And the magic of the movie relied upon a LOT of people that weren't him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm rooting for him, just... temper your expectations. We're still figuring out what this means. Pretty much everyone was shocked when it turned out there WAS a legal way for him to get back the rights just due to Disney not doing anything with them. There's no plans yet, not even concepts of a plan.

>>151203466
I fucked up my reply. Fixing it.
>>151203161

>>151203006
>she's a villain in the OG book
No, she's really not.
Big spoilers but.
It turns out the whole mess is because Roger had unwittingly been using a genie's wishes, but it was an evil genie that liked fucking with people. So when Roger wished that a girl he liked loved him back the genie had her become Roger's loving wife... for a few years. Roger hadn't specified that it should last. So one day Jessica stopped loving him and went 'wtf am I doing?' and walked out the door. And since Roger didn't know he'd ever gotten a wish, he was left with his jaw on the floor because one day she'd been deeply in love with him and the next she was going 'ew, no.' Leading Roger to be convinced someone was blackmailing her or something. And anon, if the resolution to your mystery is "a magical genie is responsible for everything" you haven't written a very good mystery.

>>151203479
>just... temper your expectations
You clearly don't understand how things work around here. Your expectations are supposed to be deliberately unreachable so you're guaranteed to have something to complain about.

>>151203348
There's some parts of what he wrote that'd be interesting to see done faithfully (it'd be awesome if we ever got Jessica's twin sister in there as Eddie's secretary-protege like in the sequel), but he treats each book like a self-contained thing for a reason. The core concept is brilliant, and he does amusing "noir monologue" patter. The stories and characters though... eh.

>>151203006
>>151203595
Everyone is an asshole in the original book, that's more interesting than the movie version, I know a lot of people like Judge Doom, but he was always too generic of a bad guy IMO
the Weasels outshined him

>>151203728
>but he was always too generic of a bad guy
Remember me, anon? When I trolled your thread... I posted JUST!!! LIKE!!!! THIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS!!!!!

>>151203348
I mean if I were a writer made rich and famous by an unfaithful movie adaptation I wouldn't hate it either.

Hating the movies for what they did to your work is a luxury for the writers who are already famous or have a steady second job.

>>151203728
>Everyone is an asshole in the original book, that's more interesting than the movie version,

I disagree. I really want to stress that I think he did a great job substituting "Toontown" for "Tinseltown" and writing a parody of the typical LA Noir books/movies. He did good noir monologue. But I don't think "it turns out EVERYONE is an asshole" makes for as good a story, and the twist that explained Jessica's sudden change in personality was straight-up-dogshit. He has talent, but the Disney movie was on a whole other level because (1) there was a phenomenal team of people there to turn his ideas into a movie, including rewriting some of the stuff that just didn't work very well, and (2) they were able to bring in all kinds of "real" cartoons as cameos.

>>151202943 (OP)
>>151203161
Roger Rabbit has been a legal headache for Disney, and they do not like Jessica Rabbit's design to entertain modern audiences. I am not surprised.

>>151202943 (OP)
Does he own the Movie designs?

>>151203161
They still own the movie and characters in it, they just don’t care about holding onto the IP

>>151204348
No. He had enough goodwill that he got away with using "movie Roger" on the cover of his sequel book (which was somewhat enjoyable, and had Eddie eventually sleeping with Jessica's brainy novelist almost-identical* twin sister), but after that the covers had Roger off screen (including the audiobook cover for P-P-P-Plugged). The novel focused on young Jessica used a version of the movie design but so stylized it wasn't flagrantly the Disney one.

(*Almost identical because she sometimes wears glasses. Oh, and she's 6 inches tall. That's her on Eddie's shoulder on the cover)

>>151202987
spbp

>>151203013
>>151203161
He explains it in the video. Short answer is, Disney cannot do shit about it legally.
There is a stipulation in the 1976 Copyright Act in which, unless it is work for hire, you can request copyrights you handed off to a third party to return to you after 35 years over a 5 year period if you time your termination letter correctly. This is in place so the value of a copyright can be full realized and not have the creator just be ripped off. He says it is having to send it down to the exact day for you to be able to get it. This was largely unknown until the screenwriter for Friday the 13th successfully pulled it off infamously. But it is ironclad.
Disney's only strategy to say nothing and hope he would not be aware of this or do nothing about it so they could keep it, but he did so they lost it.
At the very least, Disney cannot use the name Roger Rabbit or any of the character names any further so effectively they cannot do any projects with them anymore. The designs and the film rights (based off how much he worked on that) are in a grey area which no one is being clear on, as some say that he does have it based on the ownership of originating novels and some say Disney have them. He is up to work with them in the future if they wanted to however.
This is also why you have not see any Roger Rabbit merch the last few years. They cannot use the name Roger Rabbit on it.

>>151204509
>>151204562
>The designs and the film rights (based off how much he worked on that) are in a grey area which no one is being clear on, as some say that he does have it based on the ownership of originating novels and some say Disney have them.
Yeah. This just isn't the cover of a man confident he has the rights to use Jessica's movie design.

>>151202943 (OP)
>Any sequels that we do have to at least match the the quality of the original [1988] movie
Not in today's economy, old timer.

The 1988 film was one of the most expensive movies ever created. It was expensive & time consuming drawing every single frame on cels. Granted the IP can go digital, but it's still is gonna be hell expensive. In 1988, the film costs $50.6 million. In 2025 money, it would cost $140 million. It just not gonna happen.

>>151204562
well that explains why comics cartoons and spec scripts are all work for hire

>>151204562
>There is a stipulation in the 1976 Copyright Act in which, unless it is work for hire, you can request copyrights you handed off to a third party to return to you after 35 years over a 5 year period if you time your termination letter correctly. This is in place so the value of a copyright can be full realized and not have the creator just be ripped off.

This is what a lot of people didn't know about it--The 1976 act extended copyright, but it also gave creators that benefit to reclaim their stuff made from 1976 onwards.

Wes Craven's estate got back the rights to Nightmare on Elm Street.
I think Gale Anne Hurd was still trying to get the back the rights to Terminator
Victor Miller won back the rights to the first film's screenplay and characters.

This article from 2019 mentioned a lot of stuff going on:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/real-life-terminator-major-studios-face-sweeping-loss-iconic-80s-film-franchise-rights-1244737/

>More works that could change hands: Gary K. Wolf is looking to terminate Disney’s rights to the book that became Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The heirs of Beetlejuice screenwriter Michael McDowell aim to do the same for the script to the 1988 Warner Bros. film. The family of novelist Roderick Thorp is terminating Fox’s grip on Nothing Lasts Forever, aka Die Hard. Other works subject to termination include Predator and Nightmare on Elm Street, with authors like Stephen King and David Mamet also on the warpath.

This might be the true reason why you're seeing sequels to 80s/90s stuff.

Reminder Wolf is 84 years old, 85 in January. He does not have so much time left, maybe a decade at most to get anything out.
I do not believe he has any kids. Which is going to be the real interesting question for this character and series going forward is what happens to the rights when he dies and who gets them.

>>151204779
>Victor Miller won back the rights to the first film's screenplay and characters.

I forgot to say this was for Friday the 13th

>>151204509
>he got away with using
He got permission from Disney to use the movie characters it has a review from Michael Eisner on it, so it's not like they didn't know...

>>151204779
>I think Gale Anne Hurd was still trying to get the back the rights to Terminator
I think James Cameron got some rights back, but he ultimately sold them off to StudioCanal.

>>151204789
Bluth is 88, they should team up

>>151204789
If there is nobody left to claim ownership then the IP will become an orphaned work. It is almost like public domain, but there is still the risk of somebody who can sue you.

>>151204846
"Got away with" was poor choice of words. He had more goodwill at the time because it was fresh off the movie, and even though his stuff was in a VERY different tone Disney was still going "sure Gary sure." The goodwill wasn't there for later books. Not saying there was BAD will either. He still was using the version of Roger based on Disney's movie (to whom the first novel was "just a very bad dream"), so he felt confident he had the rights to do that. But the honeymoon period was clearly over by the time we got to "Wacked" and "Xerious Business."

>>151204509
What is interesting is he isn't just getting rights to Who Censored, he has ownership of P-P-P-Plugged as part of this too, where the personalities are just about the same as in the film. And he specifically mentions that

>>151203013
>woke
STFU retard

>>151204066
This

Now Disney can say "We'd LOVE to do more with Roger and the gang BUT we don't have the rights anymore!" and they are sitting on so much IP that doesn't have the legal baggage that Roger always had."

I feel they can make up a new design for Roger, if he is a white rabbit people will accept it and they bypass that headache of ownership of the film designs
Same as Jessica, as long as she is a white redhead.
I would prefer it because I think the disney canon is perfect and should never be touched further and this prevents it being so

>>151204972
Well he worked on the movie to an extent, didn't he? He'd have some legs to stand on with a claim that movie Roger was something he had a say in, so he should be allowed use that personality. And as bad as Disney is (and they can be really really really bad) I doubt they'd go the same route as the dickheads at the Conan Doyle estate that go "aha, we're suing you because you used a PERSONALITY of Sherlock Holmes that belongs to us even though the character doesn't!" It just looks tacky and desperate, even by Disney standards.

>>151205037
>if he is a white rabbit
Ah. Well, Wolf is PROBABLY allowed have Roger be white. But in the original book he was brown. There's dialogue that calls attention to the fact.

>>151205188
>killer cream pies

>>151202943 (OP)
Cool. Disney wasnt doing anything cool with him anyway. More properties need to be reverted away from corpos.

Thought it was a real shame that Disney passed on his idea for an animated adaption of “The Stooge” with Roger and Mickey

>>151202943 (OP)
I hope he collaborates with a good writer to make another movie. It's good to know he wants to do stuff with Jessica and doesn't think she's "too hot" for modern audiences.

>>151205188
>>151205251
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BzcscF3p7JU

>>151204973
You sound upset anon, you feeling alright?

>>151203013
>Does this mean Disney can't rape Roger Rabbit with a 2nd super woke movie?
This sentence is so inherently fucktarded you need to die for typing it.

>>151205843
>Roger owned by Wolf even if he might need a redesign
>Mickey variants are public domain
HE CAN MAKE THIS NOW

>>151203161
People can change

>>151203013

Disney was never going to make another movie. "Theres no princess in it".

>Adapt "Who P-p-p-plugged Roger Rabbit"
>Baby Herman canonically fucks women, both real and toon
>Eddie sleeps with Jessica's 6-inch sister
>Eddie's sister is married to a McGruff the Crime Dog pastiche, and has several human-toon-hybrid children
>"Just the saddest/sleeziest stripper toon possible" is a key character. She's vaguely Cuban and her customers are cartoon bugs, like louses and cockroaches
>"Is Jessica cheating on Roger with Clark Gable" is an important plot point. She's not. She might be cheating on him with Baby Herman though? Hmmm...
>The production of Gone with the Wind is front and center, complete with the rebel flags and uniforms.

>>151205251
>Murder Fight Cock

Oh, right, they also hate Jessica.

https://www.slashfilm.com/547953/roger-rabbit-sequel/

>the current corporate Disney culture has no interest in Roger, and they certainly don't like Jessica at all

>>151207019
Give the rights to Warner Bros and make it canon that Roger and Jessica are Lola Bunny's parents.

>>151206982
>Kirk Engiman manages to get more porn than Jessica, by being a pastiche of every smooth-as-fuck 30s-40s movie star, a huge handsome horse-man, mysterious in a vaguely-evil way, and having so much style that everything he owns is onyx-black

I actually do wonder if the Jessica revamp to the Disneyland ride actually was an unannounced way to have an outfit design Wolf would not have control over, given the red dress is something specified by him in the book, and they hid it under the confides of being woke
This saga started in 2019 so they were very well aware of the 5 year process transfer of copyright happening when they made this change

>>151207031
They deserve a better kid than The Unfunny Looney Tune.

>>151207079
They never liked her design, its too sexy for their family friendly image.

>>151207079
No, they just wanted to cover up Jessica. These are not 10-steps-ahead 4-D-Chess players.

>>151207099
>They never liked her design
Well that's just not true. There WAS a time when they liked it just fine.
Then they got hollowed out from within.

>>151207099
>They never liked her design
wasn’t she the main feature for Pleasure Island?

>>151207099
They still were making merch with this dress even past this reopening. They did not care about the dress or her being sexy, more the damsel arching in bondage role she was playing
This was a 2 birds with 1 stone thing knowing they were losing the copyright by 2025 and getting rid of the thing people were being pissy about

>>151202987
Jessica, pls.

>>151205188
Yeah, he's so obsessed with milking off the popularity of the movies that the first book isn't canon to the rest of the books and the movie is, the first book just being explained away as a crazy dream.

So does this mean they're going to get rid of the ride at Disneyland? Or is the going to be like the Kong/King Kong ordeal where Disney can use Movie Roger and Book Roger is considered a completely different character legally?

>>151207083
It makes sense. She inherits being a rabbit from her dad and being a hot woman from her mom. Maybe Bunny is just her stage name.

>>151207227

Wouldn't surprise me if they scrap it.

>>151207227
They planned to get rid of it for a Donald Duck ride slightly before Covid ended the project and they went with the slight Jessica revamp.
Answer is very likely they return in the next few years to replace it, though they likely are not forced to at this time (probably just paying some right fees for the Roger/Jessica names if they have to for anything)

>>151207367

If they don't have to pay anymore fees thats even more of an incentive to replace it.

>>151207243
Lola is a Looney Tune that isn't funny. She was shoved in by the marketing people because they wanted to sell T-Shirts and felt a female character was needed, then they nixed all attempts to make a character that was funny.

Jessica was funny, an over-the-top pastiche of dangerous-lady types from noir movies, who dealt with people getting handsy with mouse-traps and who used an amusing well-placed mallet or frying pan instead of being "good at sports" (something which isn't funny).

"I hit him on the head with a frying pan and put him in the trunk... so he wouldn't get hurt." > "Don't call me doll."

Lola was funny in The Looney Tunes Show.

>>151207443
Yeah, so how did she get into cartoons if she didn't have mad connections?

>>151207224
Well it'd be hard to do it any other way, since Roger is dead at the end of the first novel. For that matter he's dead about 1/6 of the way into the first novel. Disney found something to do with the basic concept that didn't require Roger dying, bit of a no-brainer to keep the series going using that as a starting place.

>>151207486
>Bugs Bunny is horny for you
Yeah that is all the connections you need

>>151202943 (OP)
Thats cool but Wolf barely had anything to do with Roger's success

>>151202943 (OP)
Now we will never get that Marvel's Who Framed Roger Rabbit omnibus

>>151207705
>The core concept wasn't important
Ok kiddo.

>>151207792
Ideas are diamond dozen

>>151207825
I'm assuming this is one of those "pretending to be stupid" things. Don't see the point, myself.

But before Wolf, nobody had come up with the frankly amazing idea of taking an "L.A. Noir"-style Detective story and swapping out flesh-and-blood movie stars for Cartoon characters. And what's more, he had a solid proof-of-concept, a novel showing how you could tell a story using that idea.
It's very easy to go "well I could've done that" after someone else had an idea. It's also very easy to say "my idea's just as good" while not bothering to turn your idea into anything. He came up with something original, then he made it into a book that was able to catch Disney's eye.

>>151207773
I was really hoping that Dynamite (I know, I know...) would get the Roger Rabbit license when they started doing Disney books a few years ago and do an omnibus, but alas...

Obligatory designs based on the book

>>151207227
>>151207263
>>151207367
Theme park rights are a whole different beast. Remember that Disney owned the theme park rights for Alien and The Wizard of Oz just to have them in a single scene in The Great Movie Ride. If you listen to Wolf's video interview about this, he says that part of his deal when he sold the original rights was to get a lifetime pass to Disneyland (and he goes quite often), so I'd be willing to bet he'd be more than open to another deal with Disney to keep the ride open.

>>151207996

>part of his deal when he sold the original rights was to get a lifetime pass to Disneyland (and he goes quite often)

Clever

>>151204702
>He felt for the Inflation meme

Nigga, people had money back then, and they weren't expensive as today,

>>151208020
Paul Reubens had a similar arrangement for doing the voice of Rex on the original Star Tours.

>>151208020
In the video he says that was the hardest part of negotiating for them because their legal team was against it, but they eventually caved.

>>151207123
She was, they also put out tons of merch of her through the 90's and up to around the late 00's including shirts and statues; I think a decent amount even had her posed bending over. Them shying away from her has solely been due to the loud anti-hot women types from the last 10-15 years.

>>151207227
They'll keep it how it is for a while. They already covered Jessica up, and the ride still pulls massive crowds, and more importantly, pulls in people paying for Lightning Lane. They'd need further approvals from Amblin, and now Wolf, if they wanted to do changes; but upkeep and maintenance should be no issue. So between that, and the other stuff they're juggling with DCA and trying to get a third gate running, it's probably safe for 5-7 years, at the bare minimum.

>>151207914
>I'm assuming this is one of those "pretending to be stupid" things. Don't see the point, myself.
People ONLY care about Roger rabbit because of the Disney movie and the use of animation / live action which has nothing to do with the book which is largely different

>>151207939
I was hoping Fantagraphics would put out a collection since they do "Old marvel" comics and "Disney" comics so it makes sense to do a collection of Roger Rabbit
I remember liking the series well enough though I haven't read them in years

>>151207773
Shame
It is like how they tried rushing out a Brer Rabbit comic collection before the ban hammer was coming down but they were too late

>>151208425
The Disney movie that would not exist without the book, and which only worked because the ideas were good ones.
And please stop pretending that Disney movies are automatically beloved and the ideas behind them don't matter. We have pleeeeeeeeeeenty of evidence to the contrary.

>>151207019
>slashfilm

Not clicking

>>151202943 (OP)
>I can, basically, do my own Roger Rabbit projects
Is he going to?

>>151207996
Disney gets no benefit keeping a 30 year old ride if they cannot sell Roger Rabbit shit nor make any projects (which they were never going to but still).
They can negotiate with him and he wants to work with them but what purpose is there promoting a franchise that is officially over and never took off they do not own vs something they do?

>>151202943 (OP)
I actually read "Who Censored Roger Rabbit" and they only used the main character's name
It's set in the world of newspaper comic strips and spoilers, Roger only pretended to have been killed
It's in the shortlist of "movies better than the book they were based on"

>>151208942
I mean, his most recent book in the series he wrote in 2022, so probably.

>>151207792
You didn't read the book, I did
Shut the fuck up kid

>>151208980
>but what purpose is there promoting a franchise that is officially over and never took off they do not own vs something they do?
Simple, prestige, something Disney is painfully lacking these days. Roger Rabbit is still evidently talked about even decades later, to the point where they crowbarred in a cameo in that godawful Rescue Rangers movie a few years back. Roger Rabbits appeal comes from the fact that, unlike every other Disney property, it has yet to be sullied with sequels or live action remakes. It stands alone as a perfect, untouchable film, which inadvertently makes Disney look better by reminding people it still exists.

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney "surrendering" the license back to the owner is part of building that mystique. They know they have good relations with him, so if they want to make quick merch deals it'll go off without a hitch. But in terms of following the film up with anything substantial this is might just be insurance to block any future CEO from getting funny ideas.

>>151209109
It's also a property that's only interesting when other companies' IP cross with it, a thing that will never happen again.

>>151202943 (OP)
Yeah but, his stuff is not what made it poplar in the first place. He did not exactly invent the modern media depiction of the character and media that people love the most.

>>151202943 (OP)
What does this mean for the Roger Rabbit ride at California Adventures?

Disney is the kind of company that would close it than ever pay a royalty.

>>151203013
>>151203090
>>151203161
Disney really cannot do much with the property anyway since Spielberg owns half of the movie rights and there is too much bad blood going back to 1993 over that. They are never going to make any Roger Rabbit cartoons or movies ever again.

>>151203479
A book is a weird way to want to depict a story about Looney Tunes type characters anyway. It could never really be more than mediocre.

>>151209334
Also this

>>151209101
>You didn't read the book
You tire me. Oh, how you tire me.
Did you even get the reference when you read the book?

>>151207367
>nu Duck Tales
barf