Ok, a lot of people hate the idea of modern day cartoon characters in a Roger Rabbit sequel, but I'd like to see Homer Simpson get into a fight with Peter Griffin!
Also, I'd like to see if they can figure out a way to put Spongebob in this.
@nuclearzeon Well, FOX is aimed more at 11+. FOX has Homer and Peter. Spongebob is from Nickelodeon, a branch of Universal. They are HUGE enemies. I mean, I know that Disney is fine with WB and other companies when it comes to Roger Rabbit. But, there is another thing. Betty Boop and others are half-owned by Universal, so that could end bad. Looney Tunes is not owned by Cartoon Network. Whatever you say, it's not. It's actually WB. CN could work in some occasions. They might even add Marvel...
There will be a roger rabbit two but the project has been left because it has been takin forever to make but it will be created and in 3d but then again we can look forward to bill and Ted 3
so hope they release this!! i watched the first one at least twice a night when i was younger got to the stage my parents taped over it so i cudnt watch it anymore lol i showed them when i bought it on dvd :P Love roger rabbit cant wait to see new one :) X
I saw this on another site. I hope it comes into fruition. It would be interesting to see how this would work without Speilberg or Hoskins getting involved.
I'm not a nostalgiafag, I'm all out for a sequel be it in 2-D or 3-D Roger Rabbit should not be left in the dust! Besides, people need to understand there is no evil force that ruins an original work after a sequel is made
@petrielover01 how will making a sequel ruin the first? As long as they use the same writers, everything will be fine. It's when the writers change that things go ass up
@Jill4ChrisRedfeild yeah, I'm not one of those automatic "sequal will ruin it" types. I'm more like "sequal COULD ruin it, if their not careful", but hearing the original writing staff was on it gave me the most hope. Honestly I hope they mostly realise that the original is pretty hard to top, and they don't TRY topping it, just make the best movie that goes with it. If it looks like they did that, they got my money.
@petrielover01 The first one will always be there, unchanged. If the sequel (should it ever come out; it's been in Hell for over 20 years) really does suck, you can still go back to the original and pretend it doesn't exist.
Oh please, everyone get over themselves. He looks great in 3D, and he's obviously a little cel-shaded to keep a bit of that cartoony look. The majority of you are just snobbishly rebelling against the trends, just for the sake of it.
I would like to see Roger Rabbit in 2D cause 3D is not the right move for this movie there are good films in 3D don't get me wrong but an 80's movie like Who Framed Roger The Directors you think would like to stay in there roots with the original Movie They could still have 3D animations in the movie like Disney and Pixar did in the Short film Day and Night
If they make a new Roger Rabbit film, and it IS in CGI/3-D I'm going to be so pissed. I'm so tired of CGI animation. I know it's extremely popular but there is not one classically hand-drawn film in the theaters today. I think the last big release was Princess & The Frog. Ugh.
AMAZING animation, but seriously -- why even bother doing this in 3D? Is it REALLY that much more cost effective when the animation is this...well...animated?
I'd hate to sully the original with sequel talk, but it might be interesting to see how Roger and traditional cell-animated 'Toons fared when the switch to CGI animation was made. Might parallel the switch from silent pictures to talkies. :-p
But that makes it a modern setting, and I can't envision Roger without the quasi-noir pastiche.
I agree. The CG here is pretty damn good, but every single animated movie now a days is in CG. It would be nice to see some 2D animation again. I think CG movies should be reserved for PIXAR. I'm getting tired of dreamworks putting out a shitty movie every 6 months.
I think that they should stick to 2D. While the CG animation in here is flawless, this movie was supposed to be the prequel and having 3D before 2D is kinda jarring.
Also, 2D has that retro feel, which suits the time period better.
Dear Mr Z, if you insist on making a sequel to WFRR then could you keep it like the above please. 3D will look poo-poo and everybody who liked the first film will hate it, no matter how well written it ends up being.
Actually, in most cases I would totally agree with you if I hadn't heard it Robert Zemeckis own mouth where he confirms that the Roger Rabbit sequel is being given serious thought, under the understanding that Steven Spielberg would likely produce and Zemeckis would direct. That was in the summer of 2010. So I'm not sure if those plans have been changed since.
Admittedly, it's not bad. But 3D is killing the already down-on-its-luck theatrical movie franchise. Instead of attracting more people to the theaters, it just makes the movie itself suck more. Making a 3D Roger Rabbit will KILL it's entire legacy!
You know, for CGI this actually looks pretty good! The reason people don't like CGI is because it rarely pulls off the magic that hand-drawn characters possess, not to mention many CGI cartoons these days, save Pixar, lack a good story. Now if they were all fun, wacky, and well-done like this, then we wouldn't have too much of a problem.
Holy God, I thought this was 2D just from the way it moved. I mean 2D is usually the only thing that can stretch and squash and still be recognizable but..
Iunno, personally? Seems a bit insulting to the original to have it in 3D. I'd still very much opt for 2D, if not for anything else, then for the spirit of things.
It's certainly impressive for 1998, but you can also see how it'd be damned expensive to do ninety minutes of this, and it might only look half as good in the end. It might be better these days now that Disney hasn't ostracized classical animation anymore, but BY GOD I hope Zemeckis gets over his performance-capture fetish before he tries it... or at least gets Weta Digital to do it now that ImageMovers has closed.
This was directed by Eric Goldberg which is why the CG looks so fun and cartoony. The animation in this clip was first done with traditional hand-drawn animation by Tom Bancroft , then CG animators Rob Bekhurs and Eric Guaglione used the hand-drawn animation as a basis for the CG version. This is just a small clip of a larger test that was directed by Eric Goldberg and made at Disney's Orlando FL animation studio in 1998 .
@joshbalog finally a disney 2d movie, 3d movies now are just a way of saying, you need these glasses to see the crap preseted to you, but now in 2d it is saying, enjoy the show
I think you aren't understanding the difference between 2D and 3D animation here. They aren't talking about 3D as in you put glasses on, they are talking about traditional 2D animation as opposed to the 3D CGI style most common today.
I have never seen 3D animation so fluent wiry. who ever animated this was very talented cause they really understood how Roger moved. The reason why it was pulled cause it got too expensive. first there is the live action sequence, then there is the CGI objects like tables, phones, guns and anything that the toons will move in the real world and then there is the 2D animation over that. before that they had to put real objects on strings and pulleys that were performed by puppeteers.
@joshbalog yeah, as it is there are only two moments in this where Rogers being CGI was even apparent to me. The first being when he leaps across the room, and the second being when he poses at the end.
It looks great, but I don't see how doing the toons in 3D has much to do with the world, as everything about their being is 2D (Ink & Paint club, all the gags centering around being drawn & painted, etc)
For once, Eisner made the right decision. Roger is supposed to be a classic cartoon character from the 1940s, so why would he be CGI? I know we've had classic toons like Popeye, Mickey Mouse and Wile Coyote given the computer treatment, but those are today. I would assume that Roger Rabbit 2 would logically take place in the '40s and '50s.
Interesting. It doesn't look bad, but it'd just be weird. I mean, he's famous for been a 2D character in the first movie. How would this make any sense if he were CGI?
@InvaderPet Definitely for the singing part but it was someone else when Roger talked. It's just a screen test, they wouldn't really get someone to do Roger's voice when they had Charles there for the singing.
True is 3D animation wasn't a failure. It got instead really expensive, since it required full interaction with the enviroment and actors, and even worse: given the result of the pre-eliminary tests (that aren't shown here) some objects had to be animated as well, for achieving that flawless interaction they were looking for.
This sequence is rather well done and the CGI-animated Roger looks fine, if not like the original, but still looks nice. But it seemed to be expensive as hell.
Es la segunda pelicula de Roger Rabbit pero en 3D
14295208 3 weeks ago
Ok, a lot of people hate the idea of modern day cartoon characters in a Roger Rabbit sequel, but I'd like to see Homer Simpson get into a fight with Peter Griffin!
Also, I'd like to see if they can figure out a way to put Spongebob in this.
nuclearzeon 1 month ago
@nuclearzeon Well, FOX is aimed more at 11+. FOX has Homer and Peter. Spongebob is from Nickelodeon, a branch of Universal. They are HUGE enemies. I mean, I know that Disney is fine with WB and other companies when it comes to Roger Rabbit. But, there is another thing. Betty Boop and others are half-owned by Universal, so that could end bad. Looney Tunes is not owned by Cartoon Network. Whatever you say, it's not. It's actually WB. CN could work in some occasions. They might even add Marvel...
rkyoho 1 month ago
allofmymoney.avi.png.gif.wmv.tiff.exe.mp3.jpg
FeminineCuttlefish 2 months ago
sequel please
jellyboy123 2 months ago
Whoa. The voice is pretty fail, compared to actual Roger. I'm glad they didn't use this, it would've been pretty weird.
tomboy0614 2 months ago
In The Who Framed Roger Rabbit Sequel, I would like to see Superted, Spotty, Texas Pete, Bulk and Skeleton.
jakedp100 2 months ago
my god, that is some smooth 2D-like animation for CG.
RawbThatPunk 3 months ago
There will be a roger rabbit two but the project has been left because it has been takin forever to make but it will be created and in 3d but then again we can look forward to bill and Ted 3
Rdubs007 4 months ago
Roger Rabbit friggin rocks!!! I want to see a sequel!!
MrSammyD91 4 months ago
so hope they release this!! i watched the first one at least twice a night when i was younger got to the stage my parents taped over it so i cudnt watch it anymore lol i showed them when i bought it on dvd :P Love roger rabbit cant wait to see new one :) X
highlandangel 4 months ago
i heard timon and pumbaa are gonna be in it, would be cool if they had more 90s Disney characters
juanjaquezable 5 months ago
@juanjaquezable Timon and Pummba weren't around in the '50s. The sequel is supposed to take place in the '50s.
Mavericker7 4 months ago
As long as they got Roger voiced by the same actor, Jessica Rabbit too, and maybe even good old Eddie Valiant returning, I want them to make this. :)
Deppaddicted 5 months ago
Sweet!
MDthornton83 5 months ago
i luv the test though
Chaos2ThaWorld1 6 months ago
If they are gonna make a new one, they HAVE to make the original characters 2D
Ch40sW4rl0ck 6 months ago
if they do number 2, i hope they do it with new cartoons
droctogonapus24 7 months ago
I would love to see a sequel. Roger Rabbit needs to live.
suckmonkey 7 months ago
This actually isn't all that bad!
Quiverwing2 7 months ago
I am not against 3D animation , but i don't like the way it puts classic 2D animation in the cold.
All i see now are 3D animations , apart from the one off Simpsons Movie a few years ago.
I wanna see another golden age of 2d animation before it goes forever in history.
I love the way 3D animations put a new world into a film.
But i also love 2D animations , showing that awesome cartoon world.
POWERCARTOON 7 months ago
Comment removed
POWERCARTOON 7 months ago
the animation looks good....Still don't see why they didn't produce the prequel
blueborg17 8 months ago
I saw this on another site. I hope it comes into fruition. It would be interesting to see how this would work without Speilberg or Hoskins getting involved.
Mavericker7 8 months ago
I'm not a nostalgiafag, I'm all out for a sequel be it in 2-D or 3-D Roger Rabbit should not be left in the dust! Besides, people need to understand there is no evil force that ruins an original work after a sequel is made
frostare 8 months ago
Comment removed
frostare 8 months ago
lol @ the 3D haters.
There's nothing wrong with 3D, it's the way you use it, and whoever did this had an amazing talent at 3D animation.
If you want to see bad 3D animation, look at Reboot. Though, CGI was pretty new at that time so I'd say it's excusable :P
weylin6 8 months ago
@weylin6 Heh, finally!
frostare 8 months ago
@exposed97 ANGHHHH! wrong answer
beatensenseless902 8 months ago
LOL
Chaos2ThaWorld1 8 months ago
WE HAVE TO STOP THEM FROM MAKING A SEQUEL!
THE FIRST ONE WILL BE RUINED!
petrielover01 9 months ago
@petrielover01 how will making a sequel ruin the first? As long as they use the same writers, everything will be fine. It's when the writers change that things go ass up
Jill4ChrisRedfeild 8 months ago
@Jill4ChrisRedfeild true dat. that's been one of the things keeping me hopeful.
battybuddy 7 months ago
@battybuddy I know what you mean. But Bob Huskins said that he'd be up for it if there's a sequel haha :)
Jill4ChrisRedfeild 7 months ago
Comment removed
battybuddy 7 months ago
@Jill4ChrisRedfeild yeah, I'm not one of those automatic "sequal will ruin it" types. I'm more like "sequal COULD ruin it, if their not careful", but hearing the original writing staff was on it gave me the most hope. Honestly I hope they mostly realise that the original is pretty hard to top, and they don't TRY topping it, just make the best movie that goes with it. If it looks like they did that, they got my money.
battybuddy 7 months ago
@petrielover01 The first one will always be there, unchanged. If the sequel (should it ever come out; it's been in Hell for over 20 years) really does suck, you can still go back to the original and pretend it doesn't exist.
SergeantLuke 8 months ago
Nice!
Barclay1987 9 months ago
FUCK THAT 3D I PREFER THE 2D ROGER RABBIT ON 2012 BEACUSE ITS DONE IN ORIGINAL DRAWING IN 1988. FUCK 3D NOW
MultiCARTOON 9 months ago
Who would turn down this pitch.
tannerpetero 9 months ago
not bad at all for late 90's CG
orastella 10 months ago 14
shouldn't have been CGI. lol
almostalyss 10 months ago
2d Animation RULES!
That's why they make sequel in 2d with live action.
POWERCARTOON 10 months ago
ugh it looks terribel.
Morphicc 11 months ago
@Morphicc you're terribel too.
robokill387 10 months ago
I don't understand how it didn't work, this scene seemed to flow remarkably and it really does look like Roger belonged in the 3D world.
Meh... there must've been something else about it that they didn't like.
TheFlailingWolf 11 months ago
I wouldn't call this CGI a failure by any means! I think I'd rather see this than motion capture!
The motion capture is awesome for making actors any age, but this seems more real to me than motion with 2D animation.
But 2D animation is badass!
mariobros2772 11 months ago
Oh please, everyone get over themselves. He looks great in 3D, and he's obviously a little cel-shaded to keep a bit of that cartoony look. The majority of you are just snobbishly rebelling against the trends, just for the sake of it.
VisceralMajesty 11 months ago
I would like to see Roger Rabbit in 2D cause 3D is not the right move for this movie there are good films in 3D don't get me wrong but an 80's movie like Who Framed Roger The Directors you think would like to stay in there roots with the original Movie They could still have 3D animations in the movie like Disney and Pixar did in the Short film Day and Night
LATINHOTIE 11 months ago
i hate it
FourWorlds1 11 months ago
was this from a DVD? laserdisc? where did it come from?
hemanshera777 11 months ago
If they make a new Roger Rabbit film, and it IS in CGI/3-D I'm going to be so pissed. I'm so tired of CGI animation. I know it's extremely popular but there is not one classically hand-drawn film in the theaters today. I think the last big release was Princess & The Frog. Ugh.
xRequiem666 11 months ago
@xRequiem666 things change. that's just the way the world works.
robokill387 10 months ago
AMAZING animation, but seriously -- why even bother doing this in 3D? Is it REALLY that much more cost effective when the animation is this...well...animated?
CorporalDanLives 11 months ago
I'd hate to sully the original with sequel talk, but it might be interesting to see how Roger and traditional cell-animated 'Toons fared when the switch to CGI animation was made. Might parallel the switch from silent pictures to talkies. :-p
But that makes it a modern setting, and I can't envision Roger without the quasi-noir pastiche.
Cinemastique 11 months ago
I agree. The CG here is pretty damn good, but every single animated movie now a days is in CG. It would be nice to see some 2D animation again. I think CG movies should be reserved for PIXAR. I'm getting tired of dreamworks putting out a shitty movie every 6 months.
xFL1PPYx 11 months ago
it looks like thouse new trix´s ads
deviroz 11 months ago
So Space Jam was probably made when this got shelved?
pinksquare 11 months ago
I think that they should stick to 2D. While the CG animation in here is flawless, this movie was supposed to be the prequel and having 3D before 2D is kinda jarring.
Also, 2D has that retro feel, which suits the time period better.
rachlouise3 11 months ago
hm...
nope.
it's VERY well done (and I mean VERY well done), but I feel that anything other than traditional 2D animation would kinda go against the whole idea...
no offense to the talented person who worked on this, but I feel 2D is better suited.
SonicSnail95 11 months ago
Thumbs up if crack brought you to where you are in life.
RoyalBlue43 11 months ago 4
Comment removed
machinesbreathe 11 months ago
@RoyalBlue43 You know what, I have to give you a thumbs-up, because crack (in a very, VERY indirect way) actually DID bring me to where I am in life.
MiketheCabbie 11 months ago
Thumbs up if Cracked.com brought you here!
JRod8885 11 months ago 14
cracked
basketballalonzo 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They're making a sequel in 2D so don't fret people!
Sheesh as if a little 3D would kill you.
frostare 11 months ago
Comment removed
frostare 11 months ago
3D looks stupid.
BunnyUnite 1 year ago
wow that looked amazing very smooth...i hope it does see light in some fututre
PuppetsonScraps 1 year ago
That was then and this is now. I know things will go much better now with RR2 finally getting off the ground.
happyfa5 1 year ago
wen i heard it was in 3d my heart sank THEN SHOT BACK UP WEN I SAW THIS I HOPE THIS BECOMES REALITY
Oneupgamer 1 year ago
They really should've made this sequel!
1claymate 1 year ago
Dear Mr Z, if you insist on making a sequel to WFRR then could you keep it like the above please. 3D will look poo-poo and everybody who liked the first film will hate it, no matter how well written it ends up being.
Cheers :)
Danbotology 1 year ago
lies they not making a roger rabbit 3d or 2 or anything like that.
do you know why? because Disney and Warner brothers don't get on there was a law case after the first one.
if there's going to be a number 2 there will be no Disney plus i bet they will sue because they co own roger rabbit franchise.
don't hold your breath.
jellyboy123 1 year ago
@jellyboy123
Actually, in most cases I would totally agree with you if I hadn't heard it Robert Zemeckis own mouth where he confirms that the Roger Rabbit sequel is being given serious thought, under the understanding that Steven Spielberg would likely produce and Zemeckis would direct. That was in the summer of 2010. So I'm not sure if those plans have been changed since.
UnsweetenedPineapple 1 year ago
Admittedly, it's not bad. But 3D is killing the already down-on-its-luck theatrical movie franchise. Instead of attracting more people to the theaters, it just makes the movie itself suck more. Making a 3D Roger Rabbit will KILL it's entire legacy!
Mcheetah 1 year ago
cool i want that 2 b on the sequel
Chaos2ThaWorld1 1 year ago
That's so interesting! Thanks. :D
Adler36 1 year ago
He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!! X)
ninjakio930 1 year ago
2D! 2D!
themodernage 1 year ago
This was directed by Eric Goldberg. Apparently the feature is going to have motion capture humans and keyframed CG characters.
Tanuki071973 1 year ago
They r still making Roger rabbit 2 go to imdb.com
sharky5921 1 year ago
SWEET JESUS HOW DID THEY DO THIS IN 1998????
RussellReyes 1 year ago
@RussellReyes man they did jurassic park in 93 and matrix in 99...
johnnyrais 1 year ago
That was AWESOME!!!!!!! It looks like the animation never changed after over 20 years. I LOVE IT!!!!
mysticanimation22 1 year ago
Wait. T_T THAT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL ROGER VOICE!!!!!!!!
IndianaJonesfans09 1 year ago
roger looks better in 2d
IndianaJonesfans09 1 year ago
You know, for CGI this actually looks pretty good! The reason people don't like CGI is because it rarely pulls off the magic that hand-drawn characters possess, not to mention many CGI cartoons these days, save Pixar, lack a good story. Now if they were all fun, wacky, and well-done like this, then we wouldn't have too much of a problem.
Pooleman96 1 year ago
Holy God, I thought this was 2D just from the way it moved. I mean 2D is usually the only thing that can stretch and squash and still be recognizable but..
Iunno, personally? Seems a bit insulting to the original to have it in 3D. I'd still very much opt for 2D, if not for anything else, then for the spirit of things.
superspongenova 1 year ago
It's certainly impressive for 1998, but you can also see how it'd be damned expensive to do ninety minutes of this, and it might only look half as good in the end. It might be better these days now that Disney hasn't ostracized classical animation anymore, but BY GOD I hope Zemeckis gets over his performance-capture fetish before he tries it... or at least gets Weta Digital to do it now that ImageMovers has closed.
UberMan5000 1 year ago
That's some really kick-ass animation! It should've been a nightmare to rig this thing.
hamiltonafjr 1 year ago
This was done around the same time Bug's Life was released. What . . . the . . . fuck.
elcid1984 1 year ago
It looks 2-d to me, that's real good shading
shonuxs 1 year ago
Remind me WHY no succeeding CG film had this much fluidity any more?!?!
werdnak84 1 year ago
@werdnak84 Horton does its just sped up way to fast. Watch that movie at 0.65x time and its a masterpiece.
thewritt 1 year ago
I'd love to see the full test.
siskavard 1 year ago
This was directed by Eric Goldberg which is why the CG looks so fun and cartoony. The animation in this clip was first done with traditional hand-drawn animation by Tom Bancroft , then CG animators Rob Bekhurs and Eric Guaglione used the hand-drawn animation as a basis for the CG version. This is just a small clip of a larger test that was directed by Eric Goldberg and made at Disney's Orlando FL animation studio in 1998 .
InklingStudio 1 year ago 18
@InklingStudio That's so interesting! Thanks. :D
Adler36 1 year ago
I hope the real sequel looks like this not have the cartoon characters in CGI
EdwinShy2 1 year ago
They are working on a sequel as we speak with the original writers. Robert Zemeckis said that Roger will be in 2D
joshbalog 1 year ago 51
@joshbalog Only Roger? I am disappoint...
xxZeroZonexx 1 year ago
@joshbalog I love in2D animation better love the drawing
MultiCARTOON 1 year ago
@joshbalog Link please.
shagoosty 11 months ago
@joshbalog finally a disney 2d movie, 3d movies now are just a way of saying, you need these glasses to see the crap preseted to you, but now in 2d it is saying, enjoy the show
MrDisneyguy 10 months ago
@MrDisneyguy
I think you aren't understanding the difference between 2D and 3D animation here. They aren't talking about 3D as in you put glasses on, they are talking about traditional 2D animation as opposed to the 3D CGI style most common today.
Draknfyre 9 months ago
@joshbalog Type in roger rabbit 2 and go on the second result 3D
hardasrock12 9 months ago
@joshbalog how did you find this out?
Deathr03 6 months ago
I have never seen 3D animation so fluent wiry. who ever animated this was very talented cause they really understood how Roger moved. The reason why it was pulled cause it got too expensive. first there is the live action sequence, then there is the CGI objects like tables, phones, guns and anything that the toons will move in the real world and then there is the 2D animation over that. before that they had to put real objects on strings and pulleys that were performed by puppeteers.
joshbalog 1 year ago 53
@joshbalog yeah, as it is there are only two moments in this where Rogers being CGI was even apparent to me. The first being when he leaps across the room, and the second being when he poses at the end.
battybuddy 7 months ago
Why not a Roger Rabbit stage musical for Broadway?
heine71 1 year ago
What the heck did I just watch?
jrmastic 1 year ago
It looks great, but I don't see how doing the toons in 3D has much to do with the world, as everything about their being is 2D (Ink & Paint club, all the gags centering around being drawn & painted, etc)
siskavard 1 year ago 3
For once, Eisner made the right decision. Roger is supposed to be a classic cartoon character from the 1940s, so why would he be CGI? I know we've had classic toons like Popeye, Mickey Mouse and Wile Coyote given the computer treatment, but those are today. I would assume that Roger Rabbit 2 would logically take place in the '40s and '50s.
ThatFellowCoat 1 year ago 3
Interesting. It doesn't look bad, but it'd just be weird. I mean, he's famous for been a 2D character in the first movie. How would this make any sense if he were CGI?
Sumshine904 1 year ago 2
No loss, being CG would have ruined it anyway.
M0nk3m4n 1 year ago 3
Was that Charles Fleicher doing Roger's voice?
InvaderPet 1 year ago
@InvaderPet Definitely for the singing part but it was someone else when Roger talked. It's just a screen test, they wouldn't really get someone to do Roger's voice when they had Charles there for the singing.
SegaMaster172 1 year ago
True is 3D animation wasn't a failure. It got instead really expensive, since it required full interaction with the enviroment and actors, and even worse: given the result of the pre-eliminary tests (that aren't shown here) some objects had to be animated as well, for achieving that flawless interaction they were looking for.
This sequence is rather well done and the CGI-animated Roger looks fine, if not like the original, but still looks nice. But it seemed to be expensive as hell.
BunnyfriendMX 1 year ago