MovieChat Forums > Rock-A-Doodle (1992) Discussion > Nice movie, loved it as a child, but: GI...

Nice movie, loved it as a child, but: GIGANTIC, GIANT PLOTHOLE

posted 17 years ago by lise_lotte
32 replies | jump to latest

I can`t understand why nobody asked the big question: what is the sense of this movie?
Most of the animated movies featuring animals fall in one of two categories:
1. Animals are anthromorphic, clothed (normally) and totally behave like humen and represent humen; no humen exist because animals are representing humen. Exapmple would be Disney`s "Robin Hood".
2. The animals are actual animals, but speak and behave more humanized than actual animals do. They live in jungles, farms or sea; they live on the streets or are some human`s pets. They are really supposed to be animals, although they are heavily romanticized and behave more child friendly. Example would be Disney`s Lion King, Lady And The Tramp, and most animated series featuring animals.
"Rock a doodle" is a really charming flick, don`t get me wrong, but even as a child, I saw how it didn`t made any sense at all. I mean, at the beginning, they are FARM ANIMALS! They might behave humanized, they even wear clothes, but they live on a farm, chicken`s lay eggs. The rooster cries in the morning. We can clearly see they are NOT supposed to be farmers or something represented by animals for whatever reason- they`re supposed to be farm animals! We know there are farmers, milking the cows, feeding the animals etc.
And then, they go to the city, no humen are present and all animals are totally anthromorphic, representing humen, rock stars, managers and stuff.
I`m speechless nobody, virtually NOBODY asked this, because it leaves the whole movie without sense.
Or maybe it`s so obvious only I fail to see the reason?

I`m not talking to myself- myself just won`t stop talking to I!

[–] Aerial87 14 years ago

When Edmond was turned into a cat, he wasn't really turned into a cat. He was dreaming. Which is why the animals were changed to be more human like. At least that was my interpretation of it. It is sad to say that I was actually forced to interpret this movie. I just loved it as a child and will always love it. Thinking too hard about it is just wrong! LOL

Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them. I don't give a *beep* how crazy they are!

[–] sportylikeatuna 11 years ago

Okay no I totally get what you're saying, but when the Duke turns Edmund into a cat, he brings Edmund into the world of the storybook he and his mom are reading. They are, obviously, connected, but it's like Toontown in Los Angeles in Who Framed Roger Rabbit: they have a profound impact on one another, but they follow different rules. When the Duke turned Edmund into a cat, it was so he could eat him, but he probably couldn't eat something that wasn't animated (compare it to a person trying to eat metal). He also pulled the rest of the room into the animated world of the storybook so he could affect his surroundings (turning giant and breaking through the ceiling as an intimidation technique or whatever). We also see that it's a different world when the floodwaters rise high enough to submerge the first floor of the house, and again at the end when all of the structural damage is gone without a trace. When he was returned to his non-animated, human form at the end of the movie, it's because Edmund the Kitty had been strangled to death, but back in the live-action world, Edmund the Human Boy was still alive. When the Duke turned him into a being that could exist in the animated world, he did not destroy the being that existed in the live-action world, so once Edmund the Kitty died, Edmund's consciousness was able to return to Edmund the Human Boy.

[–] Takeshi666 11 years ago

The plural of "human" isn't "humen".

Just pointing that out.