Roger Rabbit vs. Pete's Dragon
... refers to such releases as in “Roger Rabbit” style. However long before Valiant and Roger redefined the form, all the major studios had made excursions into the format. In fact, both Disney and Warner’s first animations mixed live action with simple animation (A History, 1998). I think that both Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Pete’s Dragon, along with earlier hybrid movies, like, Max Fleischer’s Inkwell series, Star Wars, King Kong, Little Shop of Horrors, all added to the popularity and desire for films of this nature. Even though this type of movies are made once every few years, or so, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit is the kind of movie that gets made once in a blue moon, because it represents an immense challenge to the filmmakers” (Roger Ebert). There is a lot of good information and comments from people regarding why Who Framed Roger Rabbit was better than Pete’s Dragon, but I tend to somewhat disagree with some of these comments. I thought that although Who Framed Roger Rabbit had better quality filmmaking and animation, Pete’s Dragon was a better quality film than Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The amount of characters and the variety of scenes in which they participated in, as well as the fact that Valiant can appear in an entirely toon background makes Who Framed Roger Rabbit a much more technologically advanced film. In the films, Roger looks more real when he is on scene than Elliot (the dragon) does. Unlike Roger Rabbit, Elliot looks out of place in almost every scene he is in; and Even though Pete does cast a shadow on Elliot in some of the scenes, Elliot doesn’t really seem to fit into the context...