Movie: Alice in Wonderland

[The Chancellor]

Disney rights + Tim Burton = Dark Disney goodness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjMkNrX60mA

and the wiki on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_i...and_(2010_film)


Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter seems a little obvious. It's the kind of role he could pull off in his sleep. In fact, that's sort of my problem with this production. The entire thing seems too obvious. It's retreading so much well-worn territory that I feel like I've already seen Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I can only hope it surprises me, because I'm such a fan of the story and everyone involved.

I do have to say though, that is an awesome art and look over all.

[Ryllharu]

I wasn't too happy with the way the preview looked, way too much Mad Hatter for the books, but then I found out it is supposed to take place when Alice is 19. I still get the feeling that there is going to be a disproportionate amount of Johnny Depp in this, as if he'll be on screen half of the time despite being a minor (but memorable) character in the novels.

I'll see it, but I'd much prefer this had been an adaptation of American McGee's Alice. She was around 19 years old in that one as well...

[XanBcoo]

I wasn't too happy with the way the preview looked, way too much Mad Hatter for the books, but then I found out it is supposed to take place when Alice is 19. I still get the feeling that there is going to be a disproportionate amount of Johnny Depp in this, as if he'll be on screen half of the time despite being a minor (but memorable) character in the novels.

You're so right. That trailer was basically "Mad Hatter: A Johnny Depp Story" starring Johnny Depp.

I mean, I know you've got to expect Depp with every mention of Burton's name, but this trailer felt like it was treading into parody territory.

I feel like I've already seen Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.

This is a pretty astute observation which really sums up my feelings about this movie.

[The Chancellor]

This is a pretty astute observation which really sums up my feelings about this movie.

I just hope it will be as dark as it deserves. There were tons of issues I had w/Charlie & the Chocolate Factory...the original is much better imho. Its time for a better interpretation of Alice than some of the ones past. Plus from what I've seen, there's a lot to take in even by today's CGI standards.

[NarutoAngel221]

I havent seen this one yet but probably my niece is going to watch this one since she likes alice in the wonderland and I wanna see the chocolate house or house made of real cookies and chocolates.

[XanBcoo]

I havent seen this one yet

Unless you live in the future, no one will have expected you to.

[darkshadow]

You can never doubt the possibility that someone has a flux capacitator. >_>

[Sapphire]

To be honest as the days go by I find myself more and more annoyed with the rampant use of obvious CGI. It's like no one cares if things look real anymore as long as someone can do it. That takes away from the experience for me. That's why I'll probably wait till the DVD release for this one comes out, and then I'll only watch for the parts with Johnny Depp.

Also lol @ Mad Hatter: A Johnny Depp story

[samsonlonghair]

I wish Burton would just do original movies. His remakes are never as good as his originals. Let's compare:

Originals
Beetlejuice
Edward Scissorhands
Nightmare Before Christmas (produced not directed)
Ed Wood
Mars Attacks
Big Fish
Corpse Bride
Sweeney Todd

Remakes
Planet of the Apes
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

One category is arguably all good movies. The other category is stinkers. I purposefully neglected Sleepy Hollow because it's based loosely on the Washington Irving story and bares little resemblance to any previous movie based on Sleepy Hollow. I neglected the two Batman Flicks he directed because they're based partly on comics and partly on the 1949 Batman serial, and there had never previously been an Batman movie like 1989 Batman.

[Ryllharu]

I wish Burton would just do original movies. His remakes are never as good as his originals. Let's compare:

Originals
Sweeney Todd

Remake as well I am afraid.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084747/
There's a number of versions of the story, in either musical or otherwise. This one was a TV version of the musical.

Here's a non-musical version, starring Ben Kingsley.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147582/

And lastly, the original (1936). Non-musical as well.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028331/

[The Chancellor]

I wish Burton would just do original movies. His remakes are never as good as his originals. Let's compare:

Originals
Beetlejuice
Edward Scissorhands
Nightmare Before Christmas (produced not directed)
Ed Wood
Mars Attacks
Big Fish
Corpse Bride
Sweeney Todd

Remakes
Planet of the Apes
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Yeah his originals are far better than the remakes he's done. You can see his hand in it easier too.

[samsonlonghair]

That was a play. A play broadcast on TV is still a play. The play is based on a "penny dreadful" paperback short horror story. Big Fish was based on a book of tall tales. Mars Attacks was based on a series of trading cards. These are still original movies. All modern movies are based on something. Be it a book, play, or comic, very few modern screenplays are original works.

I just don't like it when Burton remakes movies.

[Ryllharu]

So, just as a clarification, you neglect 1989 Batman because it's based on the comics and the serial, but a musical based on a play where both versions were subsquently filmed and occasionally televised gets a pass as "original"?

Seems a little inconsistent.