PDA

View Full Version : Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland-Delightfully Alarming Screenshots!



Kitty Pryde
06-22-2009, 07:46 PM
I think I had only heard vague rumors about this before, but yeah. Tim Burton. Alice in Wonderland. Click here now. (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=56475) I gotta say, I love the Disney animated version and the 1985 version (with Ringo Starr as the Mock Turtle), but this new one just looks so, so right. It's a "reboot" of the original apparently. Also Alan Rickman is playing the Caterpillar and that is very pleasing. And Matt Lucas! Christopher Lee! Helena Bonhma Carter! Johnny Depp!

*at this point my rant devolves into fangirlish squeeing. just go look at the pics already!*

Are there any other Alice in Wonderland fans out there?


http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jezebel/2009/06/deppALICE.jpg

roonil_wazlib
06-22-2009, 07:49 PM
I'm giggling like a schoolgirl right now. I hope people don't think the receptionist's gone off her rocker.

I don't care what anyone says, this looks beautiful!

fairy86
06-22-2009, 07:51 PM
Oh, I'm so excited. Not only am I a HUGE Alice in Wonderland fan, but I'm all for any film pairing Johnny and Helena!

Millicent M'Lady
06-22-2009, 08:01 PM
So excited! How beautiful do those still images look?

maestrowork
06-22-2009, 08:03 PM
I won't see this.

I remember as a little boy, my parents took me to see the Disney version, but we ended up watching a British life-action movie of Alice in Wonderland, and I was traumatized. The absurdity and weird characters and all that terrified me.

This one is going to give me nightmares all over again.

katiemac
06-22-2009, 08:21 PM
This one is going to be visually stunning if nothing else. Great cast, too.

maestrowork
06-22-2009, 08:28 PM
This one is going to be visually stunning if nothing else. Great cast, too.

True, but somehow Willy Wonka was a disappointment despite the superb visuals and cast. Sometimes style over substance is not a good thing.

Vincent
06-22-2009, 08:40 PM
Cool.

Celia Cyanide
06-22-2009, 08:40 PM
So the Red & White Queen are in this? They are going to have Through The Looking Glass characters, too?

I am excited. After 3 failed attempts to do a darker update of Alice In Wonderland, I think Tim Burton might by the first one to succeed.

I love Alice. I have my own Alice dress. :)

fairy86
06-22-2009, 08:42 PM
So the Red & White Queen are in this? They are going to have Through The Looking Glass characters, too?

I am excited. After 3 failed attempts to do a darker update of Alice In Wonderland, I think Tim Burton might by the first one to succeed.

I love Alice. I have my own Alice dress. :)

I've dressed up as Alice characters for Halloween for the past couple years. This year I'll be the Mad Hatter. :D

katiemac
06-22-2009, 08:45 PM
So the Red & White Queen are in this? They are going to have Through The Looking Glass characters, too?

I am excited. After 3 failed attempts to do a darker update of Alice In Wonderland, I think Tim Burton might by the first one to succeed.

I love Alice. I have my own Alice dress. :)

Red Queen = Helena Bonham Carter.
White Queen = Anne Hathaway

Good lord - not to mention Stephen Fry AND Alan Rickman.

Calla Lily
06-22-2009, 09:26 PM
Devil's advocate here: I am RUNNING away from this. I love everything Alice. I have several different editions, including an original facsimilie of Alice's Adventures Under Ground. I can quote entire passages verbatim.

I like Burton. Nightmare before Christmas, Batman, a few others. Great dark vision and humor.

But.

I'm petrified Burton will do to Alice what he did to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and from these stills, the film looks like it's headed that way. Perhaps I'm one of the few who don't think Alice is all that dark. Surreal, perhaps, because Carroll was an odd bird, but he was entertaining children with humor and fantasy. Not (IMO) trying to scare the hell out of them. Same with Tenniel's illustrations. The stills seem fairly faithful to Tenniel, but the costumes/makeup have an "evil" aura. Is that supposed to be blood on the Hatter's fingers?

Like I said, this is just me, and I think I'm in the minority. I haven't found an Alice movie I liked yet, so that's part of it. I think Carroll, like HP Lovecraft, reads much better than he films.

Kitty Pryde
06-22-2009, 09:32 PM
Is that supposed to be blood on the Hatter's fingers?


I'm gonna take a wild guess and say he's suffering the effects of mercury poisoning (cause he's a hatter? and he's mad? from all the mercury?), but I could be wrong.

The USA Today article DID say it was for little kids.

Calla Lily
06-22-2009, 09:35 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say he's suffering the effects of mercury poisoning (cause he's a hatter? and he's mad? from all the mercury?), but I could be wrong.

The USA Today article DID say it was for little kids.

Interesting. Does mercury poisoning cause discolored skin? Must look that up.

I love to be scared in the movies--loved it from age 5. I think I've lost touch with what little kids can deal with, fright-wise. *suddenly feels much older than actual age*

Vincent
06-22-2009, 09:37 PM
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say he's suffering the effects of mercury poisoning (cause he's a hatter? and he's mad? from all the mercury?), but I could be wrong.

The USA Today article DID say it was for little kids.
I think it's just his natural skin tone showing through all that lead-based makeup.

Kitty Pryde
06-22-2009, 09:39 PM
Interesting. Does mercury poisoning cause discolored skin? Must look that up.



It can cause skin to turn pink, rashes, and skin peeling off. And delightful madness!

Celia Cyanide
06-22-2009, 09:41 PM
Red Queen = Helena Bonham Carter.
White Queen = Anne Hathaway

So this means that it is based on both books?

Calla Lily
06-22-2009, 09:41 PM
It can cause skin to turn pink, rashes, and skin peeling off. And delightful madness!

Thanks. :) *wonders how to fit that in a novel*

Celia Cyanide
06-22-2009, 09:43 PM
Wait a minute...I just saw the cast list on IMDB, and it has The Knave Of Hearts listed, but not the Queen Of Hearts. WTF????

Kitty Pryde
06-22-2009, 09:43 PM
So this means that it is based on both books?

It's a 'reboot'. Ish.


...almost like a sequel to the original story:

The traditional tale has been freshened with a blast of girl power, courtesy of writer Linda Woolverton (Beauty and the Beast). Alice, 17, attends a party at a Victorian estate only to find she is about to be proposed to in front of hundreds of snooty society types. Off she runs, following a white rabbit into a hole and ending up in Wonderland, a place she visited 10 years before yet doesn't remember.

Calla Lily
06-22-2009, 09:44 PM
It's a 'reboot'. Ish.

:cry: Um, Alice was already a strong gal. Did they *read* the originals?

Sorry. I'll just start ranting if I keep this up.

Kitty Pryde
06-22-2009, 09:51 PM
:cry: Um, Alice was already a strong gal. Did they *read* the originals?

Sorry. I'll just start ranting if I keep this up.

Well, to be fair, I would bet a lot of money that neither Tim Burton nor the writer of the screenplay would use the phrase "freshened with a blast of girl power". That's just goofy newspaper fluffery, don't judge the movie!

Celia Cyanide
06-22-2009, 09:52 PM
Heck, it doesn't bother me...I'm just glad Marilyn Manson's plan to do an Alice movie has been thwarted.

Williebee
06-22-2009, 10:04 PM
So the Red & White Queen are in this? They are going to have Through The Looking Glass characters, too?

I am excited. After 3 failed attempts to do a darker update of Alice In Wonderland, I think Tim Burton might by the first one to succeed.

I love Alice. I have my own Alice dress. :)

Ahem.... You KNOW what this means, right?

:)

Celia Cyanide
06-22-2009, 10:05 PM
Ahem.... You KNOW what this means, right?

:)

I have to change my avatar AGAIN????

katiemac
06-22-2009, 10:51 PM
Wait a minute...I just saw the cast list on IMDB, and it has The Knave Of Hearts listed, but not the Queen Of Hearts. WTF????

I thought Red Queen = Queen of Hearts? At any rate, if it's not the same character, it looks like the Red Queen IS the Queen of Hearts for the story's sake -- Bonham Carter's wardrobe/makeup suggests it.

Calla Lily
06-22-2009, 10:53 PM
I thought Red Queen = Queen of Hearts? At any rate, if it's not the same character, it looks like the Red Queen IS the Queen of Hearts for the story's sake -- Bonham Carter's wardrobe/makeup suggests it.

The Queen of Hearts is in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (playing card motif). The Red Queen is in Through the Looking-Glass and what Alice Found There (chess motif).

Celia Cyanide
06-22-2009, 10:58 PM
The Queen of Hearts is in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (playing card motif). The Red Queen is in Through the Looking-Glass and what Alice Found There (chess motif).

Not to be an ass, but why does everyone thing the Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen are the same character? If they were, what would the White Queen be? There is no white suit in playing cards.

If they are going to consider the Red Queen and Queen of hearts to be the same, I am officially looking forward to this a little less.

Kitty Pryde
06-22-2009, 11:02 PM
Not to be an ass, but why does everyone thing the Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen are the same character? If they were, what would the White Queen be? There is no white suit in playing cards.

If they are going to consider the Red Queen and Queen of hearts to be the same, I am officially looking forward to this a little less.

Yah, everyone mixes them up. Personally I am big Red Queen fan and I despise the Queen of Hearts. What a biotch. Wikipedia sez:


She is commonly mistaken for the Queen of Hearts in the story's prequel, Alice in Wonderland, but in reality shares none of her characteristics other than being a queen. Indeed, Carroll, in his lifetime, made the distinction of the two Queens by saying: "I pictured to myself the Queen of Hearts as a sort of embodiment of ungovernable passion - a blind and aimless Fury. The Red Queen I pictured as a Fury, but of another type; her passion must be cold and calm - she must be formal and strict, yet not unkindly; pedantic to the 10th degree, the concentrated essence of all governesses!"


The 1951 animated film Alice in Wonderland perpetuates the long-standing confusion between the Red Queen and the Queen of Hearts. In the film, the Queen of Hearts delivers several of the Red Queen's statements, the most notable being based on her "all the ways about here belong to me". Both characters say this to suggest importance and possible arrogance, but in the Red Queen's case it has a double meaning since her status as a Chess-queen means that she can move in any direction she desires.


In both American McGee's Alice and Tim Burton's upcoming film adaptation of the books, the characters are also combined, leading to further popular misconception.

katiemac
06-22-2009, 11:05 PM
Not to be an ass, but why does everyone thing the Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen are the same character? If they were, what would the White Queen be? There is no white suit in playing cards.

If they are going to consider the Red Queen and Queen of hearts to be the same, I am officially looking forward to this a little less.

I've actually never read the books, so all I know are the Alice movies/cartoons I've seen before. I used to watch a live-action Alice show when I was younger, but I don't think they had a Red or White Queen. I actually didn't know there was a Red/White Queen until I saw the casting info for this movie. So, not knowing any better, I just assumed Queen of Hearts, especially since she has hearts in her marketing images. I'm guessing most people who haven't read the books are in the same boat as me!

Calla Lily
06-22-2009, 11:18 PM
katie, they're terrific books, filled with wordplay, puns, and memorable characters. I recommend an edition that has an appendix (or something) with the original poetry Carroll lampooned throughout the books. Kids had to memorize some sappy stuff back then!

maestrowork
06-22-2009, 11:36 PM
The USA Today article DID say it was for little kids.

If I were a little kid, I would be traumatized by this Mad Hatter. I'm still traumatized by that British film. I agree that surreal and fantastical is fine, but sinister would be a bit too much for young kids.

Toothpaste
06-23-2009, 12:52 AM
Read the books. Seriously. They are fantastic.

I am, you could say, a bit of a fan of these books. I've even played The White Queen (and yes, the Red Queen is not the Queen of Hearts - the first book is about playing cards, the second one about chess). As such, I have written my opinion of this film and these images at length here (http://www.hardcorenerdity.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2239098%3ABlogPost%3A60310) (there is also a link within that article to one I wrote after the first images were made available to us. It details how I feel about people constantly feeling a need to drastically change the story in order to put it onto to film . . . needless to say, I don't think highly of it).

mscelina
06-23-2009, 12:57 AM
Considering the condition Carroll was in when he wrote the Alice stories, I'm okay with the appearance of the characters in Burton's film version. Although I hold a warm, fuzzy place in my heart for the original Willy Wonka, Burton's version was much closer to the original book and Depp's Willy Wonka much closer to the original character than Gene Wilder's. However, I didn't really think the second film was that kid friendly--at least not for kids under the age of ten. I'm with maestro in a way; I think these characters might appear to be a bit too sinister for the really young children in the audience.

But as an adult, I'm all for it. I can't wait.

Smileycat
06-23-2009, 01:19 AM
I think I had only heard vague rumors about this before, but yeah. Tim Burton. Alice in Wonderland. Click here now. (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=56475) I gotta say, I love the Disney animated version and the 1985 version (with Ringo Starr as the Mock Turtle), but this new one just looks so, so right. It's a "reboot" of the original apparently. Also Alan Rickman is playing the Caterpillar and that is very pleasing. And Matt Lucas! Christopher Lee! Helena Bonhma Carter! Johnny Depp!

*at this point my rant devolves into fangirlish squeeing. just go look at the pics already!*

Are there any other Alice in Wonderland fans out there?


http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jezebel/2009/06/deppALICE.jpg


What a beautiful Mad Hatter he makes!

KTC
06-23-2009, 01:20 AM
oh goodness goodness me. i can't wait. i can't wait. i'm late. i can't wait!

KTC
06-23-2009, 01:24 AM
How do I look?

Leah_Michelle
06-23-2009, 02:12 AM
I heard about this a while ago.
If anyone could make a well done darker Alice, it's Tim Burton.
I'm glad that it is the Through the Looking Glass version. For my senior project, me and some friends put on Alice in Wonderland play with a lot of original characters from Through the Looking Glass. It was a pretty big hit at our school :)

Pamster
06-23-2009, 04:33 AM
Is the mad hatter Johnny Depp? I saw a story on TMZ (http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/22/elijah-wood-is-the-mad-hatter/)about it being Elijah Wood. Which actor is that? Hard to tell with all that makeup on...

katiemac
06-23-2009, 07:00 AM
Is the mad hatter Johnny Depp? I saw a story on TMZ (http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/22/elijah-wood-is-the-mad-hatter/)about it being Elijah Wood. Which actor is that? Hard to tell with all that makeup on...

Johnny Depp.

som1luvsmi
06-23-2009, 07:08 AM
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jezebel/2009/06/deppALICE.jpg


Is the mad hatter Johnny Depp? I saw a story on TMZ (http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/22/elijah-wood-is-the-mad-hatter/)about it being Elijah Wood. Which actor is that? Hard to tell with all that makeup on...


Johnny Depp.

But look at the gap in his teeth. It's exactly the same as Elijah Wood's, as is the shape of his nose and face.

Does Johnny Depp have a gap in his teeth? All the pics I could find with him smiling didn't look like it.

But IMDB says it's Johnny.

Weird.

ETA: The TMZ piece is just comparing the two.

maestrowork
06-23-2009, 07:34 AM
It's Johnny Depp. Wood doesn't have cheekbones like those, I don't think.

BenPanced
06-23-2009, 08:09 AM
I just...I can't...:scared: I'm another that loves a good scare now and then, but this is too disturbing. Have fun!

blacbird
06-23-2009, 09:20 AM
Just to settle the issue: It's Jack Nicholson. Trust me on this.

caw

Delhomeboy
06-23-2009, 05:23 PM
Okay, I'm a bit confused...people keep saying read the "books". I thought there was only one?

Calla Lily
06-23-2009, 05:26 PM
Okay, I'm a bit confused...people keep saying read the "books". I thought there was only one?

The first is Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.
The second is Through the Looking-Glass and what Alice Found There.

Toothpaste
06-23-2009, 05:27 PM
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

and

Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There.

ETA: lol, cross posted with callalily!

Calla Lily
06-23-2009, 05:31 PM
:D, Toothpaste. You'll understand that I have a reason for knowing all about the Alice books, of course.

(My RL first name is Alice, gang. :))

maestrowork
06-23-2009, 05:32 PM
IIRC, they did make a movie or miniseries of Looking Glass that was more true to the books, and it was quite disturbing (and not very kid-friendly).

jst5150
06-23-2009, 05:32 PM
Another profundly beautiful interpretation from Burton (I'm a BIG fan of Sleepy Hollow). However, weren't we expecting Tim Burton to do this? This is in his wheelhouse. Humpty Dumpty would be in his wheelhouse, too. So would some sort of take on Hansel and Gretel. Apparently, however, Willy Wonka was not.

What would make news would be, say, a Tim Burton Terminator sequel. Or, Tim Burton does an Animal House remake. Or the Tim Burton buddy cop film. I know -- not in his wheelhouse. But I'm all for Tim Burton's Lethal Weapon 5 with Johnny Deep replacing Joe Pesci. Soon. :)

maestrowork
06-23-2009, 05:34 PM
A Tim Burton romantic comedy would be the bomb.

jst5150
06-23-2009, 05:35 PM
A Tim Burton romantic comedy would be the bomb.
Tim Burton's Hope Floats ... on Blood.

Calla Lily
06-23-2009, 05:38 PM
Tim Burton's Made of Honor--and Body Parts.

maestrowork
06-23-2009, 05:53 PM
I sure hope Tim Burton hasn't become a parody of himself.

jst5150
06-23-2009, 06:48 PM
Tim Burton's Weekend at Bernie's

maestrowork
06-23-2009, 06:52 PM
Tim Burton's Superbad, and Knocked Up.

Tim Burton's He's Just Not That Into You.

jst5150
06-23-2009, 06:55 PM
Tim Burton's Bowling for Columbine in claymation

maestrowork
06-23-2009, 06:59 PM
Tim Burton's Sex and the City with mannequins.

BenPanced
06-23-2009, 07:36 PM
Tim Burton Presents My Big Fat Greek Wedding by the Brothers Quay.

CaroGirl
06-23-2009, 08:39 PM
If I were a little kid, I would be traumatized by this Mad Hatter. I'm still traumatized by that British film. I agree that surreal and fantastical is fine, but sinister would be a bit too much for young kids.
Tim Burton can do surreal without sinister. What about Edward Scissorhands? It's whimsical and surreal and overall just a whole lot of fun. One thing it's not is sinister.

That said, the Mad Hatter image is pretty creepy. Then again, it's only a still. A still shot of Edward Scissorhands would probably look creepy too.

jst5150
06-23-2009, 09:05 PM
Tim Burton's Sex and the City with mannequins.
Those weren't mannequins on the show? :)

I think my favorite analogy of SITC was, "Hey what was the name of that show about those three hookers and their mom?"

Kathleen42
06-23-2009, 09:24 PM
I'm petrified Burton will do to Alice what he did to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and from these stills, the film looks like it's headed that way. Perhaps I'm one of the few who don't think Alice is all that dark. Surreal, perhaps, because Carroll was an odd bird, but he was entertaining children with humor and fantasy. Not (IMO) trying to scare the hell out of them. Same with Tenniel's illustrations. The stills seem fairly faithful to Tenniel, but the costumes/makeup have an "evil" aura. Is that supposed to be blood on the Hatter's fingers?



See that just gets me all excited. But I love American MGees Alice. I don't think the source is all that dark but I think it has wonderful twisty possibilities.

Kathleen42
06-23-2009, 09:27 PM
Okay, I'm a bit confused...people keep saying read the "books". I thought there was only one?

There are two though they are often published in a collected volume.

Celia Cyanide
06-23-2009, 09:36 PM
Tim Burton's Sex and the City with mannequins.

There's a Kim Catrall joke in there somewhere...

Chasing the Horizon
06-24-2009, 02:23 AM
katie, they're terrific books, filled with wordplay, puns, and memorable characters. I recommend an edition that has an appendix (or something) with the original poetry Carroll lampooned throughout the books. Kids had to memorize some sappy stuff back then!
The version I have is called The Annotated Alice, with introduction and notes by Martin Gardner. It has the full original texts of Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, along with notes on the various references and all the original songs and poems Carroll altered and made fun of.

I'm definitely going to see this. It has Johnny Depp and a talking caterpillar, that's good enough for me, lol. I don't think it looks creepy at all, though it may be completely weird and absurd. I'm not a purist concerning what they discard, change, or combine from the original text. I just want to be amused by the finished product.

ad_lucem
06-24-2009, 03:25 AM
Oh, I'm so excited. Not only am I a HUGE Alice in Wonderland fan, but I'm all for any film pairing Johnny and Helena!


I'll have to second that emotion! :D

jodiodi
06-24-2009, 06:46 PM
I read both books as a kid multiple times. I've always loved them and they're among my all-time favorites. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of reading the Alice books on the porch overlooking the lake in our backyard at our cabin in the woods.

I think the Mad Hatter was intended to be creepy. He came across that way in the book, imho.

I also played the Alice game. It was nice and creepy too. And the books gave rise to one of my favorite old songs: White Rabbit by Jefferson Airplane.

Calla Lily
07-23-2009, 04:53 AM
Bumping because I just saw the trailer.

:mad::Hammer::e2tomato:

Disney, PLEASE stop screwing with the classics! (Yeah, I know. Pigs will fly.)

katiemac
07-23-2009, 05:48 AM
Bumping because I just saw the trailer.

:mad::Hammer::e2tomato:

Disney, PLEASE stop screwing with the classics! (Yeah, I know. Pigs will fly.)

Oooh I didn't know the trailer was out. Off to find it ...

ETA: Found it here (http://www.musingcontinuum.com/2009/07/23/tim-burtons-alice-in-wonderland-teaser-trailer/). And I am definitely seeing this.

maestrowork
07-23-2009, 11:49 AM
I'll be at the panel and then interviewing Tim Burton later Thursday. ;) Will report back.

maxmordon
07-24-2009, 07:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtjrlMKDCwY

I had high hopes... until I saw the sneak peak "sighs"

Wavy_Blue
07-24-2009, 07:59 AM
Bumping because I just saw the trailer.

:mad::Hammer::e2tomato:

Disney, PLEASE stop screwing with the classics! (Yeah, I know. Pigs will fly.)

An interpretation is not 'screwing' with classics.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

CoriSCapnSkip
07-24-2009, 09:34 AM
Are there any other Alice in Wonderland fans out there?

I've been a lifelong Alice fan. Our children's theater did Alice last year and I just got back from a different children's theater production (different theater and different adaptation) of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass in which my niece appeared. Just before I left, I had been putting an arrangement in my garden inspired by the TV production of Alice done about ten years ago. Unfortunately, the second show, which my niece was actually in, was pretty well spoiled by a nutcase sociopath going off on me when I (politely, I thought!) asked his friend to move so my brother-in-law could have a seat. My family, except for bil, had sat through the whole first performance in one row, then these people showed up between shows. His friend was all alone at the end of the row my family filled the rest of, so it wasn't as if I was asking him to move out of a seat he'd been in for long or away from his friends. His friend can't have been sitting there more than ten minutes--and when I asked him for the seat so my bil could sit by his son he was as horrible as I have ever seen any adult or most children behave in public. :rant: I went into such profound shock my heart was racing. I spent half the show with my hands pressed to my chest, kinda like watching on drugs, wondering if this would spoil Alice for me forever. So I really hope I can go see this new film in the theater and no one gives me any attitude and maybe I can begin to recover. :e2cry:

Caramia
07-24-2009, 01:33 PM
Ooh, then I expect maestrowork got a brief glimpse of the star himself :)

I have been looking forward to this for awhile. It's one of the very few films I learned of way before it was widely talked about. Think I was looking up Alan Rickman (I know, not exactly the most common celebrity crush but I can't help it, the man makes my knees weak) and saw he was cast in it, they didn't even have the full cast set yet, so I watched patiently and smiled broader and broader for each one I learned of.

While it may not be done perfectly to everyone's taste, I adore that it is being done by respected folks and will breed new life into a classic story. Maybe inspire some folks that have not been exposed to the written versions, to read them. I can think of tons of stories I'd love to see redone because the first film versions were so lacking.

Nothing against Wizard of Oz, it is a huge success but the story version had silver shoes! Red was done because silver didn't show up right on the film. We could have the silver ones these days.

Calla Lily
07-24-2009, 03:36 PM
An interpretation is not 'screwing' with classics.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

My opinionated opinion. Nothing more. Based on what they did with The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and how they sanitized Sleeping Beauty.

Not a Disney fan. How'd you guess? :D

KTC
07-24-2009, 03:41 PM
I can't wait. I don't give a shit about the integrity of the classics, as it were. I love to see new interpretations...and I think this one looks interesting to me. I'm not foo foo enough to be insulted by seeing something through new eyes.

RonjaCecilie
07-24-2009, 03:59 PM
I just have to say it...

Tim Burton's Harry Potter And THe Philosopher's Stone

I don't know why, but it sound like something he might do.

Calla Lily
07-24-2009, 04:03 PM
KTC, I swear, that's the first time I've ever been called "foo foo". :roll: I'm a hard-nosed, cynical broad. :D

Like I said, it's my opinion. I love the Alice books, can quote huge chunks of them, and while I also love many of Burton's films, his tendency to create 3D nightmares is the polar opposite of how I've always seen the books.

Exir
07-25-2009, 03:08 AM
Tim Burton is awesome with surreal imagery. Storytelling, not so much.

Forbidden Snowflake
07-25-2009, 04:29 AM
Uhm, am I the only one that can't wait?

maestrowork
07-31-2009, 10:45 PM
Gorgeous HD production stills of Alice in Wonderland:

http://media-file.net/6/aliceinwonderland/

Keleiter
08-01-2009, 09:08 AM
Uhm, am I the only one that can't wait?

You're definitely not the only one who can't wait. I love Alice and I am so excited about seeing Burton's adaptation of it!
The stills look stunning!

clonedbeef
08-04-2009, 02:12 AM
This will be visually amazing. CGI, stop motion, and live action...great combo.

If March 5th + mush can happen I would be very happy ;).

Exir
08-04-2009, 02:49 AM
Eeek... The Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen are NOT THE SAME PERSON!!!!

Wavy_Blue
03-06-2010, 10:41 AM
Well, I saw it. Since I hadn't heard very good things, I went in with low expectations, and I was pleasantly surprised.

Visually it was stunning. The Cheshire Cat (coolest Cheshire Cat ever!) and the Red Queen were very well done (and very well acted, in my opinion; I usually don't care that much for Helena Bonham Carter, but she did a terrific job). The beginning of the film felt a bit disjointed, and it was a lot more...epic? than I thought it would be. Honestly, it reminded me a lot of The Chronicles of Narnia. A lot a lot. I didn't feel that it would necessarily have been a better film had it followed the book exactly; the take was refreshing, while still holding the original in high regard. Also, since the bulk of the plot was based on the Jabberwocky, I was quite pleased. The Jabberwocky is definitely my favorite part of the Alice books. I felt like the Hatter was a bit overplayed (and his wtf dance scene at the end was odd) but the main actress really held her own.

Anyone else? Thoughts?

Toothpaste
03-06-2010, 11:00 AM
I saw it. Didn't like it, but I'm very particular about Alice in Wonderland. To me the true heart of the books is not the fantastical imagery (which was obviously all Burton was interested in) but the absurdity, satire and word play. You know, the stuff Carroll actually wrote?

You can read my full review here (http://www.hardcorenerdity.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2239098%3ABlogPost%3A95909).

Miss T
03-07-2010, 01:16 AM
I saw it. I don't mind a new plot, but I feel that it had... too much plot, almost? Half the point of the books is their pointlessness, and this was way too focused from the beginning.

Helena Bonhma Carter was delicious, though (and even though it's incorrect, it is pretty common for them to combine the Red Queen and the Queen of Hearts in films), the whole thing was lovely, and I still have to see it in 3D. So.

Uncarved
03-07-2010, 01:45 AM
I've said it wayyyy too many times...if I can't actually HAVE Depp, can I at least live and play inside of Tim Burton's mind?

BenPanced
03-07-2010, 04:12 AM
I sure hope Tim Burton hasn't become a parody of himself.
Tim Burton's secret formula. (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1929453)

Smileycat
03-08-2010, 12:55 AM
My favorite all-time book, BECAUSE of the strangeness, is Alice in Wonderland/Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Saw the movie yesterday - not quite what I expected. The actress who plays the older Alice is stellar. Loved the story.

Helena was absolutely wonderful, too, as was Depp and Glover.

Toothpaste
03-08-2010, 01:10 AM
But what makes Alice in Wonderland strange is the absurdity, which Burton utterly did away with, creating an explanation behind everything (nothing kills absurdity more than giving it a context). What also makes Alice in Wonderland strange is the fantastic word play. Again, which Burton chose to leave out.

It was a superficial rendering of the books at best, okay to look at (though in my mind far too overproduced) but lacking the heart and soul of what made the books unique.

As I wrote in my review (http://www.hardcorenerdity.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2239098%3ABlogPost%3A95909):


No longer is the Caterpillar a strange creature constantly asking Alice who she is, not really listening to the answer and then launching into poetry. No, now he genuinely wants to know who she is, and helps her discover her true self. No longer is the Queen of Hearts just crazy. No, now she is suffering from neglected child syndrome and the anger of her younger sister being given the crown over her. What made the tea party the highlight of the books, the strange questions, theories on time, yet more absurd poetry and constantly changing seats, has been totally done away with in favour of a manic demonstration of CRAZY with food being thrown about and china being dashed to pieces. . .

To give these creatures context, to give the world a history, takes away from the magic of Carroll’s work. Heck showing us the geography of the world alone does this as well. In the books you never quite know where you are, or how you wound up where you did. In the film it’s just a fantastical world like any other, with its own set of rules. In the book, there are no rules. This isn’t Narnia. That’s another story. Lovely, but not this one. . .

So there you have it. Despite some fine acting and interesting moments, despite visuals that at times (when not too overproduced) are quite stunning, this film lacks what made these books so unique, that made us love them, that made us want to adapt them to stage and screen to begin with. It lacks the absurdity. The play. The magic. The . . . well . . . let me put it another way. In the movie, this magical strange world Alice finds at the bottom of the rabbit hole? It’s called Underland. No, Mr. Burton. It’s Wonderland. And that makes all the difference.

Calla Lily
03-08-2010, 01:34 AM
Toothpaste, thank you for that excellent review. You confirmed all my fears. :(

Miss T
03-08-2010, 10:34 AM
It's not necessarily bad, though-- I thought it was good as a movie, it just wasn't really Wonderland.

It's like all the filmmakers were the Duchess trying to find morals and assign meanings to and in everything.

Albedo
03-08-2010, 10:43 AM
This movie was thoroughly whelming. The voicework was good and some of the character designs charming. But the CGI and especially the 3D work was unimpressive, and I think the plot was misconceived. Toothpaste covered the story's problems well.

Not a movie I would have enjoyed paying for. Luckily it was gratis. I learned not to give Tim Burton money a while ago.

Smileycat
03-08-2010, 07:50 PM
But what makes Alice in Wonderland strange is the absurdity, which Burton utterly did away with, creating an explanation behind everything (nothing kills absurdity more than giving it a context). What also makes Alice in Wonderland strange is the fantastic word play. Again, which Burton chose to leave out.

It was a superficial rendering of the books at best, okay to look at (though in my mind far too overproduced) but lacking the heart and soul of what made the books unique.

As I wrote in my review (http://www.hardcorenerdity.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2239098%3ABlogPost%3A95909):

Hey, Toothpaste. I like the books for their strangeness, as I said. The movie is not quite what I was expecting (strangeness and the originality found in the books), BUT I still liked it. Burton tried to do something different here, by turning it into a personal quest for a young lady who is always told by others what is expected of her. She embarks on a twisted journey (she still drinks and eats to change size, so THAT's fun, etc.), and eventually discovers she can chose what she wants to be in life. She can fight monsters, doesn't have to marry, doesn't have to wear corsets or stockings, etc. I think Tim Burton is a genius.

I think you may not have understood his point.

Miss T
03-09-2010, 02:02 AM
I think Toothpaste's point is that it's not supposed to be Tim Burton's point. It's supposed to be Lewis Carrol's point.

Again: The Duchess and her moral-finding!

kuwisdelu
03-09-2010, 02:12 AM
I enjoyed it.

I do agree it wasn't Lewis Carroll, which is a shame. I still enjoyed it, but in a way it fills like a missed opportunity. Fun nonetheless, though. :)

Toothpaste
03-09-2010, 04:20 AM
I think you may not have understood his point.

Uh. No. I got his point. It was hardly a subtle nuanced one, pretty hard to miss.

But as Miss T so articulately put it, it wasn't his point to make. If that's the film he wanted to direct, then he could very well have created his own fantasy world, his own heroine coming of age story, but he superimposed his vision onto the Alice in Wonderland books and did away with all the aspects of Alice that makes it unique and worth repeated attempts to bring it to the big screen. To quote myself again:


I have always maintained that Alice in Wonderland serves as a Rorschach test to directors. So many interpretations of the book seem to totally stray from the source material both in content and spirit and instead use the story as a starting place for an imposed vision. It’s understandable, after all Alice in Wonderland allows for our imaginations to go wild, the descriptions and characters created by Lewis Carroll are exciting, wonderful, hilarious and dark. We all have our own version of Wonderland in our minds.

There is nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is taking an existing work and thinking that what makes it magical are these images that we created. Of not realizing the heart and soul of the story has less to do with our interpretation and more with the words that evoked our imagination in the first place. It is hubris indeed to suggest that our interpretation is of greater significance than what the creator that inspired it put on the page.

Toothpaste
03-09-2010, 04:29 AM
I should further add that there were moments I enjoyed in the film. But the thing is, I really want to someday see a brilliant live screen adaptation of Alice in Wonderland that gets it right. I had high hopes for this production early on, and then as I saw the trailers and read the plot synopsis my hopes diminished. Upon seeing the film, they were dashed. Evidently my search for a fabulous film version of Alice in Wonderland goes on . . . someday though . . . someday . . .

Fulk
03-09-2010, 05:59 AM
I also didn't think much of Alice in Wonderland, as much as I would have liked to. To me, nearly the entire film felt disjointed, up until the battle. Character development felt extremely hollow, except perhaps for Alice. I'm not saying I hated it, but it did let me down. And I was actually surprised--Burton didn't seem to turn Wonderland into a hellish nightmare-world.

Smileycat
03-09-2010, 05:51 PM
I think Toothpaste's point is that it's not supposed to be Tim Burton's point. It's supposed to be Lewis Carrol's point.

Again: The Duchess and her moral-finding!


Hi, Miss T. I can understand purists who feel that way, but so many novels these days are not strictly followed when made into movies, so why should this one be? As I said, this is my all time favorite book, and I care about it.

If we all followed what is said by others, wouldn't our creativity be suspect? I am not saying Toothpaste's IS, you understand, just that we should allow creative people the freedom to do their thing. Of course, you don't have to appreciate it, but this is a business where it is best to truly be creative.

If you don't want a book changed when it's made into a movie, don't go see it, because they ALL have differences, every single one I've seen, anyway.

Smileycat
03-09-2010, 06:03 PM
Uh. No. I got his point. It was hardly a subtle nuanced one, pretty hard to miss.

But as Miss T so articulately put it, it wasn't his point to make. If that's the film he wanted to direct, then he could very well have created his own fantasy world, his own heroine coming of age story, but he superimposed his vision onto the Alice in Wonderland books and did away with all the aspects of Alice that makes it unique and worth repeated attempts to bring it to the big screen. To quote myself again:

Hi, Toothpaste. Oh dear. I understood you. My point is that (see my reply to Miss T) that creative people are always messing about with novels. That's what they do.

He still had most of the various characters, but took away the hallucinogenics.

Smileycat
03-09-2010, 06:05 PM
I should further add that there were moments I enjoyed in the film. But the thing is, I really want to someday see a brilliant live screen adaptation of Alice in Wonderland that gets it right. I had high hopes for this production early on, and then as I saw the trailers and read the plot synopsis my hopes diminished. Upon seeing the film, they were dashed. Evidently my search for a fabulous film version of Alice in Wonderland goes on . . . someday though . . . someday . . .

Burton never announced he was making Alice as per depicted in the novels, though. One tip off? Making the Madhatter a focal point! That was a big tipoff right there.

Smileycat
03-09-2010, 06:07 PM
I also didn't think much of Alice in Wonderland, as much as I would have liked to. To me, nearly the entire film felt disjointed, up until the battle. Character development felt extremely hollow, except perhaps for Alice. I'm not saying I hated it, but it did let me down. And I was actually surprised--Burton didn't seem to turn Wonderland into a hellish nightmare-world.

I sort of agree. Only I wouldn't say the character development was extremely hollow. Alice, however, who is the star of the show, was wonderful. Totally agree with that.

Toothpaste
03-10-2010, 07:54 AM
Hi, Toothpaste. Oh dear. I understood you. My point is that (see my reply to Miss T) that creative people are always messing about with novels. That's what they do.

He still had most of the various characters, but took away the hallucinogenics.

Fine. If that's what they always do, that's what they always do. I approved of Peter Jackson's interpretation of LOTR which strayed at times quite far from the books. Because, you see, he understood what was at the heart of them. I just don't think Burton interpreted the Alice books well. You did. That's cool. We have different opinions.

I would argue though there are more important things in Alice in Wonderland than simply the dramatis personae. And that is my inherent issue with the film. Interpret the book, fine, it tends to be necessary in adapting something to the screen. But don't get rid of essentially everything that makes Alice in Wonderland Alice in Wonderland. Just because a character is called the Mad Hatter doesn't make him remotely the Mad Hatter.

I stick by my point. There has got to be a reason a director chooses a certain book to turn into a film. Obviously for Burton it was one that was all about how things looked, and a supposed interest in the strangeness (though I've already explained how I feel he did away with it entirely). He was not interested in what, to me, makes the book truly unique. The word play, the absurdity, the satire and the characters. I'm sorry, but there were maybe one or two characters that were true to the author's original vision.

But I've made my point a few times, and we both seemed determined to convince the other of our opinion. Fact is, we are simply not going to agree on this. And that's cool, man, that's cool! :)

Smileycat
03-11-2010, 12:08 AM
Fine. If that's what they always do, that's what they always do. I approved of Peter Jackson's interpretation of LOTR which strayed at times quite far from the books. Because, you see, he understood what was at the heart of them. I just don't think Burton interpreted the Alice books well. You did. That's cool. We have different opinions.

I would argue though there are more important things in Alice in Wonderland than simply the dramatis personae. And that is my inherent issue with the film. Interpret the book, fine, it tends to be necessary in adapting something to the screen. But don't get rid of essentially everything that makes Alice in Wonderland Alice in Wonderland. Just because a character is called the Mad Hatter doesn't make him remotely the Mad Hatter.

I stick by my point. There has got to be a reason a director chooses a certain book to turn into a film. Obviously for Burton it was one that was all about how things looked, and a supposed interest in the strangeness (though I've already explained how I feel he did away with it entirely). He was not interested in what, to me, makes the book truly unique. The word play, the absurdity, the satire and the characters. I'm sorry, but there were maybe one or two characters that were true to the author's original vision.

But I've made my point a few times, and we both seemed determined to convince the other of our opinion. Fact is, we are simply not going to agree on this. And that's cool, man, that's cool! :)


Hi, Toothpaste. I'm glad you're not upset. However, I do not think the movie was Burton's interpretation of the book at all. He's no dummy. I think he decided to use it as a way to make political and social statements. He used it in order to make his points - freedom for women in several ways (like being against planned marriages and categorization of what women should do in life, etc.), bucking the government's way of looking at and accepting things (via characters with added body parts to please the queen - big noses, etc.). That he did this using a very popular book is commendable, as it was his way of bringing these issues to a vast movie-going audience. Maybe now some of them will reconsider their acceptance of child rape/marriages, preventing females from holding untraditional jobs in many countries, etc. I think what he did here was a wonderful thing.

If he had not moralized the book as he did in his movie, I suppose I would be on your side, maybe. :tongue

P.S. I loved Jackson's LOTR trilogy, too. :Hug2:

jodiodi
03-11-2010, 09:07 AM
Saw it.

Enjoyed it.

Not exactly the books on film, but it was a good matinee.

Plus, loads of popcorn with the Golden-Elixer-O-Doom!

Plot Device
03-13-2010, 01:40 AM
Just got back from the movies with my two little charges.

Wow.

I was very worried about bringing the little tikes to this movie since Tim Burton can be so disturbingly wierd. I discussed it with the kids' mom, and she said "Go ahead and bring them." But if it had been up to me,I wouldn't have done it. But this movie was just wonderful. No regrets on my part in taking the kids to see it.




Now as for my own reaction to the film, it gets a little personal from here onward in this post..........


Burton has always indulged himself with cinematically exploring two huge pet obsessions of his in every film he's ever done. 1) A bizare preoccupation with traumatic and bloody death, with an extra bonus if a death involves dismemberment, 2) An equally bizarre preocupation with "forced" marraiges, especially when either the bride or the groom isn't even of the same species as his/her betrothed. This film was no different. It scored huge on both counts.

While I will not get into the EXTREME departure this film made from the tone and intended satire of Lewis Carol's classic, I will instead focus upon two things that my spidey sense zeroed in upon (in other words, two things my writer's soul sensed via sheer intuition). Perhaps I am biased. Perhaps I am seeing only what I want to see. Perhaps this entire post of mine will prove to be one great big Rorschach test, revealing the dark corners of my soul that I usually prefer to hide from everyone else. But I want to make this post regardless of how subjective and intimate it is.

First, I sensed this whole thing was Tim Burton making a very personal statement and directing it at one person in particular (I believe he was directing it at fellow director Peter Jackson). I sensed Burton was saying: "Yo! Peter Jackson! Yeah you, Mr. Kiwi with the Oscar on his mantle! Luved the trilogy! Hated your treatment of that one scene where Eowyn slew the Witch King! Lemmie show you how that one scene SHOULD have been done, so come watch this Alice movie I just made. As for the rest of that trilogy thing you did -- totally cool, dude! Awesome treatment of one of my fav books in the world! But you completely dissed Eowyn, and I'll just never forgive you for that! So my therapist recommended I work out my anger toward you by doing this movie. 'Kay, man? Just sayin'. Eowyn rocks so she deserved better. Stay beautiful, bro."

Second, I learned how to play cards when I was about 4. Then I learned to play chess when I was about 6. And as a young child I always fantasized that the Queen on the chess board looked down upon her husband the King, because she was so strong and he was so weak (and maybe she was having some fun on the side with either the Knight or the Rook). And I also fantasized that the Queen in the deck of cards was secretly cheating on her husband the King with the Jack (as for the Ace, he never struck me as a human being because the Ace has no human face, in spite of how powerful he is -- and yes, I always believed the Ace was male -- call me silly, I know I certainly do). And then that whole nursery rhyme about the tarts (which I learned about the age of 4) just added to these bizzare Kindergarten-style anthropomorphic conceptons of mine about cards and chess:

"The Queen of Hearts
Made some tarts
All on a summer's day.

The Knave of Hearts
He stole those tarts
And took them clean away."

And then when I saw this movie today, Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton ..... all of the above just got "confirmed" in me. So it seems I am not the only one who conceived of the same dynamics between the Jack, the Queen, and the King (and then toss in the Knight and/or the Rook as well if you wish).













And the idea that I think in a similar vein as Tim Burton both electrifies me and terrifies me all at the same time.











.

Perks
03-15-2010, 01:35 AM
I just saw it and thought it was brilliant. I'm utterly confused by the negative reviews I've seen. I thought it was brilliant titles to credits.

kuwisdelu
03-15-2010, 01:40 AM
I enjoyed that it could have adequately been subtitled "A Film about Johnny Depp's Hat."

Actually, that's true about many films with him...... :D

Toothpaste
03-15-2010, 02:39 AM
I just saw it and thought it was brilliant. I'm utterly confused by the negative reviews I've seen. I thought it was brilliant titles to credits.


Did you read this thread (beginning at post 85)? There's a lot of explanation as to why some of us didn't enjoy the film. I know I personally went into great detail about it. You don't need to agree, but hopefully when you read what we said, you can at least understand our perspective and be a little less confused. In short I think the divide is between people who like Alice in Wonderland because it's Alice in Wonderland, vs people who enjoy Tim Burton and his aesthetic choices and not minding him imposing a vision onto the story which has nothing to do with with the original intention of the books (I would like to point out that neither side is more right or anything, it's just something I've observed).

At any rate, not everyone likes the same movies, so I never really feel like it can be a matter of debate over which opinion is more right because you can't really change someone's mind, "Oh you're right, I actually do love this movie." There is no right or wrong, but hopefully people can at least respect and understand each other's opinion.

Perks
03-15-2010, 02:44 AM
Actually, I meant the professional reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes. I confess, I haven't read the five pages of posts here, because I just got back!

No, I would never try to change anyone's mind, but I still don't understand how anyone could not like it. For our family, it was as near flawless as it gets, but that's extremely subjective and why they make all flavors.

Perks
03-15-2010, 02:47 AM
In short I think the divide is between people who like Alice in Wonderland because it's Alice in Wonderland, vs people who enjoy Tim Burton and his aesthetic choices...
I think I fall into a third category - Tim Burton is usually way too weird for me. This and 'Big Fish' are the only two Burton films I like.

But I don't have any attachment at all to the story of Alice in Wonderland, although I have a lifelong devotion to Jabberwocky.

I certainly don't mean to disrespect anyone's opinion of a film. If that's even possible.

HelloKiddo
03-15-2010, 02:47 AM
I saw the film. I thought it was good but the plot is so overdone. It was the same plot as the recent SyFy movie. What is up with this "Alice as an adult" trend? Why does nobody want Alice to be a child? I think I know why, actually, but I don't like it. I think the film would have been better had Alice been 7 years old.

I agree that the Cheshire Cat was the best I've ever seen him.

And why did they have to make the Mad hatter so gross looking?

Toothpaste
03-15-2010, 03:06 AM
but I still don't understand how anyone could not like it. For our family, it was as near flawless as it gets, but that's extremely subjective and why they make all flavors.

Well if you get a chance, check out the thread. Or if that's a bit too much I wrote a very detailed review (http://www.hardcorenerdity.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2239098%3ABlogPost%3A95909) about my opinions on the subject. Maybe that might help with the understanding.

But basically if you have no attachment to Alice in Wonderland then I can understand why you could enjoy the film. It's the people like me who adore those books, who have been waiting for forever to see someone get them right on the big screen, that are probably the most frustrated with this film.

That and also probably really big cinephiles. The fact is that most major film lovers (I'm talking those who study film and eat sleep drink film) are starting to find Burton's work a little boring and lacking in originality. I'm not entirely in that camp, but I do find at least in this movie the production values seriously over produced.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, but when someone says they don't understand something I like to help if I can!

HelloKiddo
03-15-2010, 03:20 AM
It's the people like me who adore those books, who have been waiting for forever to see someone get them right on the big screen

I still consider Disney's 1950s cartoon version as the gold standard. The finest I've ever seen AIW!

jodiodi
03-15-2010, 03:45 AM
But basically if you have no attachment to Alice in Wonderland then I can understand why you could enjoy the film. It's the people like me who adore those books, who have been waiting for forever to see someone get them right on the big screen, that are probably the most frustrated with this film.

Actually, I adored the books but I didn't really have much of a negative opinion of the movie. I didn't hate it, didn't love it. It was, as I've said earlier, OK and a good matinee with the bonus of popcorn.

Perks
03-15-2010, 03:52 AM
The quote of the day, for me, comes from my eleven year old. We all loved the film and she said, "It was great. I was worried. I thought it would be weirder."

How could it possibly be any weirder? Lol!

Smileycat
03-15-2010, 11:24 AM
I like reading other opinions. Thanks for posting them.

Miss T
03-28-2010, 05:01 AM
So it turns out this movie is so much better if you mentally disconnect it from anything remotely Lewis Carrol, decide ahead of time that Anne Hathaway is major creep, a watch it as the (very pretty but not quite Wonderland, and with head-bangingly contrived structure, but ah well) tale of a girl and her animus.

Smileycat
03-28-2010, 01:12 PM
So it turns out this movie is so much better if you mentally disconnect it from anything remotely Lewis Carrol, decide ahead of time that Anne Hathaway is major creep, a watch it as the (very pretty but not quite Wonderland, and with head-bangingly contrived structure, but ah well) tale of a girl and her animus.

LOL. No, but you have to be unrealistic to some degree if you think someone is going to make the movie match the book. Nobody does that, Miss Tara. I think I gave Tim Burton too much credit for making this a women's lib type story, because he didn't write it, after all.

maxmordon
04-03-2010, 07:43 AM
So, I saw it last Monday and, well, I have to agree with Toothpaste here: Tim Burton simply didn't get the book, in fact, it seems more like Tim only looked at the illustrations and half remembered memories of the Disney movies.

Disconnecting the plot to the book? No, it doesn't work. Since then you have a clichè-ridden, half-assed, gothy Narnia ripoff. It simply doesn't work.

blacbird
04-03-2010, 08:19 AM
Tim Burton simply didn't get the book

He almost never does. Nor gives a rat's about it. I haven't seen Burton's Alice, nor even read much about it in reviews, so I'm not commenting as a critic of the film itself, but more as a critic of Tim Burton. Burton doesn't make movies, he makes Burtons. No other director of major films today is anywhere near as iconoclastic. And Alice is hardly the first Burton which has been criticized on this basis (Sleepy Hollow comes to mind quickly).

He's a high-roller as a director, and he's managed to make enough Burtons that people go to watch that he can (so far) get away with it. Not all are big successes (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which I did see, and hated, comes to mind quickly).

What he hasn't yet done, as far as I can tell, compared to other high-roller directors like Stanley Kubrick and Robert Altman, is make an undisputed masterpiece. I get the sense from this discussion that his Alice isn't one, either.

caw

Smileycat
04-03-2010, 05:58 PM
Hi, all. Maybe all this grumbling and complaining about how the book lost the heart of the book and doesn't follow it very much makes some of you feel better, but it is a waste of time in my opinion.

I agree that Tim Burton did not make the movie based on the Carroll book. He based his movie on the screenplay (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/), written by Linda Woolverton.

If Burton had really cared about making a movie based on the book, the studio or Burton would have hired a screenwriter to write an exacting screenplay or would have written it himself, which he did not. That's the way things are done in Hollywood.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but when they make movies, they do not open up a book and say, "You people in the hedgehog suits - get over there and curl up in a ball, like it says in the book. We're filming Chapter 8! Prepare to take part in the croquet game. Queen - get ready to be furious and yell, "Off with his head" several times," or something like it. They do not make movies from books. They make them from screenplays. Someone making a movie from a screenplay might change it a little, but usually follows it fairly closely.

Movies are not made exactly as written in novels because some scenes would be 1) too expensive to make, 2) impossible to make, 3) not absolutely necessary, 4) as well as other reasons.

My best to you all.

blacbird
04-04-2010, 12:41 AM
Movies are not made exactly as written in novels because some scenes would be 1) too expensive to make, 2) impossible to make, 3) not absolutely necessary, 4) as well as other reasons.

Which can also include the book may not be all that great, but still have a good nucleus of stuff on which a better movie can be based (e.g., Forrest Gump).

caw

Smileycat
04-04-2010, 02:23 AM
Which can also include the book may not be all that great, but still have a good nucleus of stuff on which a better movie can be based (e.g., Forrest Gump).

caw

Ca-caw! That's true, but obviously not the intention of the screenwriter. Right?

She just used Alice to say what she wanted to say - give a real moral (or two) to the story.

maxmordon
04-04-2010, 04:18 AM
Ca-caw! That's true, but obviously not the intention of the screenwriter. Right?

She just used Alice to say what she wanted to say - give a real moral (or two) to the story.

And that moral was... not said before many, many times in far better ways?

jodiodi
04-04-2010, 04:21 AM
Pretty much all morals have been said before in many different ways. There are only a few original story lines. All else are just variations on the themes.

KTC
04-07-2010, 06:06 AM
oh my god. i meant to see it earlier, but i was in mexico when it came out.


oh my god. beautiful. i can't wait to get it on dvd. amazing amazing movie. loved it loved it.

that is my world...and i was happy to be in it for a couple of hours. le sigh.

Smileycat
04-09-2010, 01:57 AM
And that moral was... not said before many, many times in far better ways?


Well, I think the lessons are easy to understand in this movie - they're not cloudy at all. Some movies have a tendency to pile crap up so high the morals (if any) get lost.

Morals:

Don't try to make your daughter do something she doesn't want, namely 1)let your daughters choose their sexuality and partners - don't pimp them out and protect them from rape (I'm sort of adding that in, since it was implied); 2) let your children choose their own careers and destiny.

However, I don't think the big gripe in this thread is about who showed the morals better, but that Tim Burton didn't make Carroll's book, which, of course, he didn't, since it was made from a screenplay.