Alice Remake by Tim Burton

Quote :

BLOCKBUSTER film studio Disney is to shoot a multi-million pound new version of Alice in Wonderland in Plymouth.

Internationally acclaimed director Tim Burton will put his own unique stamp on the classic tale – and it is being heavily rumoured that Hollywood heart-throb Johnny Depp will star as the Mad Hatter.

More...

Well, it's got to be better than the RHPS remake right?

I'm nervous with new Tim Burton movies- they're extremely hit and miss lately.

I wonder if he'll have cameos by certain obvious Alice "fans"

I'm not sure about this. I dislike the Alice tales, but it is Tim Burton...

Well I for one am Uber-Excited. I'd been hearing rumours of this in the works for over a year now, so I'm glad to have them affirmed!!

I love Alice in Wonderland and Tim Burton, so this'll definently be on my 'movies I absolutly must see at all costs' list. I'd love to see Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, I'm sure he'd be perfect for the part!



Marilyn Manson is supposed to have worked on, or is working on an Alice movie too. Though I think his movie is supposed to be more about the life of Lewis Carrol....

Sort of like how Finding Neverland was about the life of Barrie? That could be cool. I'm a fan of Mr. Dodgeson. I'm very apprehensive, though. I don't doubt it will be a good movie, I just wonder if it will have anything to do with Alice in Wonderland. In the same light, I expect the esteemed Mr. Depp will play the role scripted for him to perfection, and wonder if it will bear a resemblance to the Mad Hatter beyond the wardrobe and setting.

I've found that the writing style of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass both is so integral to the story that it usually goes one way or the other. The one way is to get the story right, which makes it hopelessly boring for anyone but a diehard fan (like myself). I love the old version with Fiona Fullerton, but I would have hated it if I hadn't read the book first. The other way is to get the general feeling of it right and make up a plot completely out of thin air as Disney did with their "masterpiece." (Seriously, how many "master" pieces can one studio have? "This vase is my life's work! And so is this book! And dancing is my life's work, too!!")

I imagine Tim would go the latter route. "Screw the text, let's have a movie about Wonderland; I've got some good ideas for a plot."

Either way, I bet I'll see it.

Well, it should be very interesting in the very least. I'm assuming it is going to be a darker version of the story.

Trailer's out Looks pretty good I think.

Looks like a little spinning frisbee in the middle of a black screen.


(fuckyeahwonderland.tumblr.com ??)

Yep. Still spinning.

...


Hmm... there's a little red blurb in the bottom left that says "unsupported format." Wonder if that's a problem.

...


Tried googling it. No good, just old news.

...


It's not asking to do something with a plug-in, so I don't THINK the problem's on my end.

...


Yeah, I'm guessing this is going to load some time after the movie comes out.

I was able to see it just fine Gomez (i use firefox). Sometimes that makes a difference.


It looks pretty freaking cool. But this is one of my fave books of all time.

I'm a militant proponent and user of FireFox as well. It's all I ever use, unless I come up against one of those annoying things that only acknowledges Microsoft Internet Exploder.

I try again...

Spin... spin... spin...

wooooo....



Yep. It's a frisbee, alright.

You can see the real one at imdb now too.

Hmm... still guardedly optimistic. Hatter does look interesting. Looks like Hatter Madigan grafted into the American McGee's Alice universe, which could be fun. I do appreciate portraying Wonderland for the dangerous place it is, but hope he doesn't overplay it too much.

I'll definitely be seeing it.

Okay, now I'm not so sure.

Steve Greydanus is about the only reviewer I trust (movies are largely a matter of taste - he and I have the same taste), and he thoroughly despised it.

http://decentfilms.com/reviews/aliceinwonderland2010

He hated it for it's questionable moral outlook (yet another reinforcement of the "war of the sexes"), it's triteness, and for it's outright contempt of Carroll. I imagine I'll likely feel the same on all counts.

That and I don't have much money. I think I'll save it for the next good movie to come down. I'll check this out when it hits the dollar movie rentals.

Gomez wrote:

Okay, now I'm not so sure.

Steve Greydanus is about the only reviewer I trust (movies are largely a matter of taste - he and I have the same taste), and he thoroughly despised it.

http://decentfilms.com/reviews/aliceinwonderland2010

He hated it for it's questionable moral outlook (yet another reinforcement of the "war of the sexes"), it's triteness, and for it's outright contempt of Carroll. I imagine I'll likely feel the same on all counts.

That and I don't have much money. I think I'll save it for the next good movie to come down. I'll check this out when it hits the dollar movie rentals.

Did he actually see the film? Or just pick up a copy of the script and decide it was too much about 'vive la femme' and get his knickers in a bunch because the film's called Alice in Wonderland but the Jabberwock is in the second one.

It's rare I read something and don't think 'to each his own' but I read this and all I could think was 'what a douche'. Apparently he didn't get the memo about it being a kids film. Or the one about it not being the film of the book but an entirely different story altogether. And who wrote the rule about if you grow/get smaller your clothes do too? The only thing I agree with him about is that Stephen Fry's rendition of the Cheshire Cat was indeed absolutely perfect and every bit as smug as the cat in Coraline.

To me it sounds like a review that would have been 'wha-wha it's not like the book' if they hadn't said that right form the beginning.

I loved this movie so much I saw it twice in two days. How it can be a 'war on the sexes' when actually it's the Hatter who saves the day and gives Alice the strength to realise her own potential I don't know. Perhaps he should have stuck to something he understood instead of reading too much into a PG movie.

I've not really felt the urge to go and see it, so I'm not speaking from the perspective of someone who's seen the film, but I do agree with Taraiha's assessment of that review.
I think it was probably the smug attitude more than anything that made me want to throw rocks at my monitor.

Okay, I'm not exactly going to come charging to Steve's defense here. I haven't seen the film, so for all I know he could be 100% wrong. Nonetheless, there are a couple things going on here I felt I had to address.

Quote :

Did he actually see the film? Or just pick up a copy of the script

This I found a very interesting sort of a statement. To me a movie is a story and the story is in the script. How well the actors and editors and effects wizards and all portray that story can do much to enhance or damage how that story is received, but for my money, the play's the thing! I watch movies to see a story - to see what the author had to say, same as a book. If I love the script, I can forgive a lot of bad portrayal (as in The Land of Faraway; not a single actor in the whole debacle, but what a neat story), and if I hate it, no amount of billion-dollar wizardry will salvage it (Batman... meh... Batman Returns... even 'meh'er). I understand that some people watch movies just to see shiny pictures, but me, I go to see the plot (the script) unfold.

Quote :

Apparently he didn't get the memo about it being a kids film. Or the one about it not being the film of the book but an entirely different story altogether.

Okay. First up, make no mistake, I have no issue with sequels that take liberties (I absolutely adore Hook from beginning to end), nor have I a problem with putting a new spin on Wonderland (American McGee's 'Alice' was pure genius, loved it), nor with casting the story in an entirely different light (Jan Svankmayer's 'Alice' is just breathtaking). What I have a problem with is someone hijacking someone else's story to prove a point, especially if I liked the original story, and the point they're trying to prove has nothing to do with the spirit of the story they're superimposing it onto.
The best (worst?) example of that scenario I've ever seen was Irwin Allen's version of Alice in Wonderland, wherein he kept the story pretty much the same, left the characters in their roles (with huge names portraying them), reproduced Tenniel's illustrations magnificently on the screen, and used all of this beauty and wonder to tell ... a story about how being a child sucks and you're not worth anything until you grow up? Really?? Seriously??? WTF???? Lewis Carroll would have stormed out of the movie and chucked a molotov cocktail at the theatre on his way out. That's what I'm talking about. Now note, that's an extreme example - I'm not saying that this movie is going completely against the grain (and again, I have yet to see it), but from all sources, it seems to be telling a story totally irrelevant to the story it's piggybacking on. I say if you're going to tell a new story, tell a new story. If you're going to piggyback it onto an existing one, tie it in and hook it on (like Hook, like A.M.'s Alice, like Peter Pan in Scarlet). Again, if they actually did that, then I apologize, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry, but seriously, does the "Alice" in the movie seem to plausibly be the same Alice?

Quote :

And who wrote the rule about if you grow/get smaller your clothes do too?

Um... versions of Alice I'm familiar with:

Novel by Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgeson) - clothes changed with her
Black and white silent film from the 30's or something - clothes changed with her
Color animated movie by Walt Disney - clothes changed with her
Brittish production starring Fiona Fullerton - clothes changed with her
Irwin Allen mess - clothes changed with her
Jan Svankmayer's psychedelic craziness - um... kinda complicated... the environment kind of shifted...
Random animated goodness I got for a buck at WalMart - clothes changed with her
Russian version I found on YouTube - clothes changed with her
American McGee's Alice - clothes changed with her
Hallmark 1999 version - clothes changed with her

So I guess the best possible answer to this question is:
Everyone! (except maybe the x-rated thing, I haven't seen that)

This is the first I've heard of her getting naked by size-shifting. Why would you do that? Other than for sex appeal... in a PG13 kids movie... hmm...

To recap, no I haven't seen the movie, so I'm talking out my ass. I know that. But it sounds to me like what I've heard and what's been said here just reinforces my impression that they're telling a story that has nothing to do with any version of Alice, but are trying to pretend that it does. If this movie constitutes her "return" to Wonder.... excuse me, "Under"land, then where was the first visit? What was that? Clearly not the one Carroll described, and apparently not the one Disney did, either... or anyone else... I think the problem is that I'm too close to the matter. I'm a die-hard Alice fan and I don't think I'd be able to stop thinking about Alice in Wonderland long enough to enjoy this movie. That's probably a flaw with me, not the movie, but for whatever reason, I'm pretty sure I'd hate it. It's probably just me.

Scripts are just that. Scripts. Stories that are meant to be viewed by watching them being acted out. If they were meant to be read as stories, they'd be books.

Just because 'everyone' has interpreted the way her clothes grow and shrink with her doesn't mean it has to be that way for every single adaptation ever. If that were the case, no one would ever 'remake' anything because they wouldn't be able to change anything. 'Everyone' has always made the Cheshire cat purple and pink. Doesn't mean he always has to be. That's the magic of fantasy. There are no rules. Things change.

Considering you haven't actually seen the film, what 'point' is it that you think they were trying to prove by 'hijacking' Alice in Wonderland? The premise of the movie was 'What might happen if Alice went back 15 years later, having forgotten she ever went there in the first place and thought it was all a dream?' How is that 'hijacking' the story instead of 'making a sequel'? It's a new story. Just like Hook with Peter forgetting all about Neverland and going back as an adult.

No, you wouldn't enjoy the film. B]ecause you've already decided you won't based on a review by someone who, from what I can tell, did exactly the same.

In most of the versions I've seen the cat's actually gray, but whatever.

Quote :

Considering you haven't actually seen the film, what 'point' is it that you think they were trying to prove by 'hijacking' Alice in Wonderland?

Judging from trailers I've watched and reviews I've read (yes, I've read several), I suspect the point of the movie is somewhere between
"Even though you're just a woman, that doesn't mean you have to be worthless." (the moral of Mulan, Monsters vs. Aliens, Pocahontas, and... well, just about every other modern Disney movie)
and "Boy, Victorian society sucks."

This I surmise from her being forced into a mold (married off, being told what to wear, etc.), then being a rebel (not dressing properly, running away, etc.), and in her rebellion against her bone-head, out-of-touch parents (a Disney tradition) and against boring, oppressive, stupid society in general (a more recent Disney tradition), she unlocks the key to her potential. A dubious if promising moral the first dozen times we heard it.

Have I misinterpreted that the point? Because that's the bulk of the reason I don't think I'd like it. If I'm wrong about that, I could be wrong about the movie altogether.

Quote :

No, you wouldn't enjoy the film. Because you've already decided you won't based on a review by someone who, from what I can tell, did exactly the same.

Although I'll grant this is possible, it usually doesn't happen to me. I'm often surprised by a good movie I heard was bad - or disappointed by a movie I heard was good. I try to enjoy things on their own merit and set expectations aside. If I do see Alice in "Underland," I'll try to do just that - put away my expectations and go along for the ride. Still and all, those expectations are that the premise is overdone, and this movie's most promising feature - it's connection to very nearly my favorite book of all time - is tenuous at best.

When and if I see it, I'll do my best to set any thought of Alice out of my mind and enjoy my favorite actor (Depp) and my favorite director (Burton) having fun with a silly "kids' movie." It's been a winning combination in the past, and I don't doubt this film has to have a lot going for it. I just don't think it's going to be as good as I was hoping, and that's kind of disappointing.

And again, I think the problem's more with me than with the movie. I LOVE the Victorian era. I LOVE Alice in Wonderland. I LOVE tradition. I don't think I'd like a movie that seems to be belittling at least two out of the three.

...and I think I still might have a sore spot from recently reading Frank Beddor's interesting but ultimately disappointing Looking Glass Wars.

Actually the fact that she's female makes very little difference. The 'moral', if you insist on having because it's Disney so there must be one, is that nothing is impossible, including if you want, to throw off the constraints of society and not get married and instead go into business like your father did. Or becoming the champion of a queen in a fantasy land and saving her country from the treacherous queen of hearts by killing a monster. Or that in order to know which path to take you have to have decided where you want to go.

Yes, a trite and dubious moral indeed, to believe in yourself and other worlds and not have other people or society determine what you should or shouldn't do unless it's what you want too. God forbid anyone should unlock their own potential

Lewis Carroll would be turning is his grave.

Although, as I remember it, that was the 'moral' of the original story.

Quote :

“There is no use trying; one can't believe impossible things." (Alice)

"I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Queen

this movie rocks. This girl who works at Vons looks just like the actress who plays Alice. I told her, "you look like the actress in Alice" she took it as a compliment. She seems really sweet.