The True Story Behind Who Framed Roger Rabbit

The True Story Behind Who Framed Roger Rabbit

There are a lot of movies that proudly claim to be based on a true story. 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is not one of those movies, but it does faithfully retell the story of events that took place in 1940s Los Angeles.

Read Full Article

This movie in part (a large part due to the blend of toons and reality) is why I chose never to let go of the kid in me. Wonderful film, though the adult themes really hammered home when I was old enough to get them and it was somewhat depressing in places.
Still holds up today.

In shock news liberals blame big business for demise of trams not the facts that cars are more convenient than trams. Its rather odd that trams disappeared in the 40s and 50s in most cities in the developed the world. Did GM lobby in London, Paris, Glasgow, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Birmingham, Bristol and Bath. Wild stab in the dark here, but seeing trams vanished at the same time cars became mass market in many cities, could it be because people used the most convenient form of transport.

albino boo:
In shock news liberals blame big business for demise of trams not the facts that cars are more convenient than trams. Its rather odd that trams disappeared in the 40s and 50s in most cities in the developed the world. Did GM lobby in London, Paris, Glasgow, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Birmingham, Bristol and Bath. Wild stab in the dark here, but seeing trams vanished at the same time cars became mass market in many cities, could it be because people used the most convenient form of transport.

In the UK we had Dr Richard Beeching (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts) that destroyed the UK rail system by shutting down feeder stations on the assumption that people would drive to there nearest mainline station and pay for parking rather than drive directly to work which shockingly (sarcasm overload) did not happen.

P-89 Scorpion:

albino boo:
In shock news liberals blame big business for demise of trams not the facts that cars are more convenient than trams. Its rather odd that trams disappeared in the 40s and 50s in most cities in the developed the world. Did GM lobby in London, Paris, Glasgow, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Birmingham, Bristol and Bath. Wild stab in the dark here, but seeing trams vanished at the same time cars became mass market in many cities, could it be because people used the most convenient form of transport.

In the UK we had Dr Richard Beeching (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts) that destroyed the UK rail system by shutting down feeder stations on the assumption that people would drive to there nearest mainline station and pay for parking rather than drive directly to work which shockingly (sarcasm overload) did not happen.

Small but important fact the cities I mentioned had trams lines that closed which was 10 years before Beeching. Furthermore many of the line that were closed had never made money in their entire existence, which was why they were closed and sod all to do with driving to the main line station. Many lines were built before WW1 as speculative ventures with the expectation of increased traffic. However during WW1 many lorries were needed by the army and postwar these were sold off cheap and converted into buses. These buses offered cheaper fares than the speculative lines, which meant they never reached the targeted traffic. With the growth of car use after WW2 these lines were just to expensive for the taxpayer to keep open when no one was using them.

A giant, evil corporation that cares about nothing but profits made life worse for everyone except itself by buying the congress and never faced any consequences for that?

I'm shocked, shocked.

Well, not that shocked.

I always assumed it was based on Chinatown.

albino boo:

P-89 Scorpion:

albino boo:
In shock news liberals blame big business for demise of trams not the facts that cars are more convenient than trams. Its rather odd that trams disappeared in the 40s and 50s in most cities in the developed the world. Did GM lobby in London, Paris, Glasgow, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Birmingham, Bristol and Bath. Wild stab in the dark here, but seeing trams vanished at the same time cars became mass market in many cities, could it be because people used the most convenient form of transport.

In the UK we had Dr Richard Beeching (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts) that destroyed the UK rail system by shutting down feeder stations on the assumption that people would drive to there nearest mainline station and pay for parking rather than drive directly to work which shockingly (sarcasm overload) did not happen.

Small but important fact the cities I mentioned had trams lines that closed which was 10 years before Beeching. Furthermore many of the line that were closed had never made money in their entire existence, which was why they were closed and sod all to do with driving to the main line station. Many lines were built before WW1 as speculative ventures with the expectation of increased traffic. However during WW1 many lorries were needed by the army and postwar these were sold off cheap and converted into buses. These buses offered cheaper fares than the speculative lines, which meant they never reached the targeted traffic. With the growth of car use after WW2 these lines were just to expensive for the taxpayer to keep open when no one was using them.

London and Paris have an underground rail system. I note you don't mention Manchester, because of course Manchester still uses trams. Dublin, while outside the UK, has recently increased investment in the Luas. The rail networks in the UK are also experimenting with renationalisation, while protests and debates are occurring over a price hike in bus fares.
The growth of car use had nothing to do with convenience, and everything to do with marketing. A car is not more convenient for city work. Never has been. Cities typically have strong public transport and so people can always reach their place of work. The only people this leaves out are rural communities. Citydwellers also have to deal with parking and congestion and fuel expenses.

Anyway, plenty of people were still using the lines. However, it was cheaper to cut the public transport and cater to the more affluent drivers. Because that's how economic history works.

The idea that light electric rail would EVER be able to maintain transportation for the current LA population is laughable. L.A. is effectively the transportation version of Field of Dreams. it was built, they came. Now they're there, and thinking some form of light electric rail system would be adequate transportation is fucking nuts.

Imperioratorex Caprae:
This movie in part (a large part due to the blend of toons and reality) is why I chose never to let go of the kid in me. Wonderful film, though the adult themes really hammered home when I was old enough to get them and it was somewhat depressing in places.
Still holds up today.

I agree! It is a deeper variation of what the old Warner Brothers cartoons did: weave in a layer of humor aimed squarely at adults that would fly over the heads of kids. Animaniacs also did this (but was a bit more obvious most of the time, especially with the "goodnight everybody" cue).

09philj:
I always assumed it was based on Chinatown.

It was, actually! Were you aware that the central plot of Chinatown was also based on real events?

Some great conversations in here. As ravenshrike pointed out, Pandora's box has already been opened, and the idea of pulling off a transportation about-face seems far fetched. But as I see it, the only way to undo decades of short-sighted greed, based policy is to stop blindly supporting the current infrastructure simply because it is the only one we know. Seeing the problem as inevitable is part of the problem. LA is in a pretty deep hole, but reintroducing more electric options to the daily commute would be a big step in the right direction.

Fortunately, light rail is starting to make a serious impact in certain mid-sized cities across the country. Many cities in Europe and Asia are a few decades ahead of us in that respect, but better late than never.

Trams are outdated, by this point there is no sense in creating shared road space with vehicles, because trams are subject to the same laws of traffic as private vehicles, while trying to maintain a consistent schedule. Dedicated light rail systems (on the ground, underneath and/or elevated) are the best way to present a network of travel that doesn't interfere with the preexisting road infrastructure, but rather offers a reliable alternative for the daily commute of many. This infrastructure already exists in the biggest cities in America, but there are so many communities either just starting out with light rail, or just depending entirely on their freeways for lack of any other option.

Youtube has a great documentary about the LA situation called "Taken for a Ride" It's about 30 years old, but well made, in my opinon.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here