Movies > Tim Burton's AIW movie!!!

[NeVaR aSk]

Gr8t news!!! live action performance with some tech added... but Disney is involved i hope they mantain the book sequence at least.
see here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071116/film_nm/burton_dc

[ait_meijin]

Tim Burton's Alice! Wow! 0_0 That's soo curious! Thnx for the news! I'm in da lookin'-forward mode already @[email protected]

[The Queen of Hearts]

I was just looking at that article last night!!!! I hope it turns out well and to the book too!!!! I can't wait!!!!!

[mimiinwonderland]

Alright, even though I'm not a fan of Tim Burton (I have been "bashing" those who interpret the book as a gothic nightmare a bit too much,) I'll admit that I will see any adaption of AAiW, no matter who it was done by. In the article, it states the the films will be "3-D," so does that mean Computer Animated or 3-D Glasses (since it's done by Burton, we already know it will have an overload of CGI )

[molly_carroll]

YEH YEH YEH! I knew he couldn't resist. Poor predictable Tim.

Disney? I think we all know what that means......

UBER MERCHANDISE PUSH! Whoo!

[NeVaR aSk]

^ i don't know if by "whoo!" you mean Disney's involvement is a good thing. anyway... in my opinion is not. thats what i was afraid bout it . Disney main focus, as well as all the big names of the industry, is $$$ . they are not interested in the book sequences... their goal is to get audience as much as possible... i mean... thats business u know.
i hope they do justice to the book and doesn't turn like Disney AIW cartoon version that makes a mockery out of the book.
but no matter what i will see it cause this movie will be very eye candy and trippy. i know i will enjoy it even though there is going to be a high possibility that disney will in some way or the other "stomp" the book out

[ait_meijin]

Sad but true, NeVaRask. Tim Burton is our only hope, people... ToT

[Perceval]

The Narnia fans haven't been complaining about how Disney's handled those books, and that's a tough crowd to please. Not as tough as Tolkien fans, but close...

Now, if it were Dreamworks, I'd be worrying, given Spielberg's tendency to take titles and some character names for his film "adaptations", but not much else... Warner, meanwhile, is handing the Oz books to Todd McFarlane. Yeah, the Spawn guy.

Disney's pretty safe compared to the other potential studios doing this sort of thing.

[NeVaR aSk]

^ well...yea... a bit safer. but nah!!... i still have my doubts. lets hope they do justice to the main source... the book

[The Queen of Hearts]

The Narnia fans haven't been complaining about how Disney's handled those books, and that's a tough crowd to please. Not as tough as Tolkien fans, but close...

I complained and refuse to watch that version ever again!!!! The old live action was much more to the book, even though the battle scene wasn't as good. My family is sick of my "I won't see any re-makes" outlook. I mean come on, the new Freaky Friday and The Parent trap are horribile compared with the old!!! The Alice ones I will see though because I like to see the different interpetations and love the story so much.

[Countess D]

Tim Burton ruins another book... Oh, joy! This is what I've always been dreading; Burton couldn't make a good film to save his life and it seems like only creepy goth kids who like creepy and dreary stuff enjoy his movies. It doesn't matter if a film maker is talented or not; if he appeals to a large audience with bad taste, then there will continue to be a demand for his garbage.

[mimiinwonderland]

I was thinking about this last night, and I had a dream that the film was being filmed in my home"town" (if you can call it that, because most of it is wilderness, which I like.) Yeah, I know that doesn't make any sense, because it was a dream. Anyway, I got to give Tim Burton directions on the movie, and I told him that AAiW was "the best book ever," and he had a totally confused look on his face. Too bad it wasn't real, because then the movie wouldn't suck as much if I helped... just kidding!

I don't think Tim Burton is as dangerous as American McGee or Marilyn Manson, his dark filmmaking appears to be more of a stereotype. Although I have to disagree if you think that his version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was accurate, whole chapters were cut out, and let's not forget that RIDICULOUS father/son subplot! Oh, and that film had waaaaay too much CGI. I liked how in the 1999 TV movie version of AiW, they did the animals as ordinary humans with great make-up work or the muppets from the Jim Henson Creature Shop, I hope Tim Burton can come up with some clever ways to create the animals without using the computer. Oh, and Johnny Depp is already a lock at the Mad Hatter...

P.S. I wouldn't consider the 2005 movie version of tLtWatW a remake of the 1988 BBC miniseries, The Queen of Hearts. It's just another interpretation. You might as well say that any other "Alice" movie after 1903 film is a remake.

[The Queen of Hearts]

I guess that'd be true, I'm just not super fond of it. and I mainly meant for the ones where they have the movie for over twenty years and then they decide to modernize it, if they are continuously making the movies like with Alice and you can go down a list that has dates fairly close it for some reason doesn't bug me as much. I have no idea why.

[Perceval]

Well, I'm one of those annoying Tolkien fans who just won't get into the Rankin-Bass vs Bakshi vs Jackson debates because I liked all of them, even though I do think Bakshi's version hasn't aged all that well.

As for Alice, I think it a tribute to just how great a story this is that Hollywood keeps coming back to it. Here's a very nice video tribute to the many different film takes, summed up with the last word: "Timeless".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8YHQ_6H4JM

Alice has been so influential it's spawned a ton of works that are different stories with different characters, but all variations of Alice. Alice has become not just a great children's book, not even just a literary classic, but a modern myth. The best known of Alice's godchildren is, of course, Dorothy Gale of the Oz books. I realize that's a touchy subject with some, because the Oz books have added so much to the mythology that they're often associated with Alice. But, to me, that's just a tribute to how enduring the Alice story is, that even it's first great variation is so enduring. Here's a video tribute to how many different film takes that one has had, going back almost as far as the Alice films, saving the Big Two for last...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpT_x3vADE

Strangely enough, this is where I do get a bit Purist, one of those who champions 1985's Return to Oz for being closer to the books than the Judy Garland movie. Dorothy's a clever, resourceful girl who thinks her way out of her situations, not that little wimp from the MGM movie. The one thing that gives me a glimmer of hope for McFarlane's upcoming film is he brings that up, saying that Dorothy isn't this "helpless singing girl". Also, strangely enough, I think Tim Burton's style is more suited to the Oz books than Alice, given how much they influenced him, especially A Nightmare Before Christmas.

In the last couple of years, we've been seeing a lot of films heavily influenced by Alice, such as Pan's Labyrinth, Mirrormask, and Tideland. Pan's Labyrinth even has homages to Alice variations like Oz and Spirited Away. So, it's only proper, IMO, that the original be revisited, and Burton's one of the small handful of directors I trust to do it right.

I'm also aware that some would rather their favorite books never be filmed, at all. But... Would Alice be as enduring and as big an influence as it is without all those movies? I'd say not. Can anyone honestly say, today, that they first became aware of Alice by happening upon the books on someone's shelf? I doubt it. We all first became aware of these wonderful characters and books because of one or another adaptation, usually Disney's. All this new stuff coming out just introduces more people to the books, which is, IMO, a good thing. The more people wind up reading the books, the better. Give those kids who've only read Harry Potter something with more substance, something to really make them think and drive their imaginations. These kids are declaring the final Potter book as the greatest literary masterpiece ever, so you can tell those books are all they've ever read. I mean, those books are nice and all, but come on...

[molly_carroll]

Well, I'm one of those annoying Tolkien fans who just won't get into the Rankin-Bass vs Bakshi vs Jackson debates because I liked all of them, even though I do think Bakshi's version hasn't aged all that well.

As for Alice, I think it a tribute to just how great a story this is that Hollywood keeps coming back to it. Here's a very nice video tribute to the many different film takes, summed up with the last word: "Timeless".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8YHQ_6H4JM

Alice has been so influential it's spawned a ton of works that are different stories with different characters, but all variations of Alice. Alice has become not just a great children's book, not even just a literary classic, but a modern myth. The best known of Alice's godchildren is, of course, Dorothy Gale of the Oz books. I realize that's a touchy subject with some, because the Oz books have added so much to the mythology that they're often associated with Alice. But, to me, that's just a tribute to how enduring the Alice story is, that even it's first great variation is so enduring. Here's a video tribute to how many different film takes that one has had, going back almost as far as the Alice films, saving the Big Two for last...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpT_x3vADE

Strangely enough, this is where I do get a bit Purist, one of those who champions 1985's Return to Oz for being closer to the books than the Judy Garland movie. Dorothy's a clever, resourceful girl who thinks her way out of her situations, not that little wimp from the MGM movie. The one thing that gives me a glimmer of hope for McFarlane's upcoming film is he brings that up, saying that Dorothy isn't this "helpless singing girl". Also, strangely enough, I think Tim Burton's style is more suited to the Oz books than Alice, given how much they influenced him, especially A Nightmare Before Christmas.

In the last couple of years, we've been seeing a lot of films heavily influenced by Alice, such as Pan's Labyrinth, Mirrormask, and Tideland. Pan's Labyrinth even has homages to Alice variations like Oz and Spirited Away. So, it's only proper, IMO, that the original be revisited, and Burton's one of the small handful of directors I trust to do it right.

I'm also aware that some would rather their favorite books never be filmed, at all. But... Would Alice be as enduring and as big an influence as it is without all those movies? I'd say not. Can anyone honestly say, today, that they first became aware of Alice by happening upon the books on someone's shelf? I doubt it. We all first became aware of these wonderful characters and books because of one or another adaptation, usually Disney's. All this new stuff coming out just introduces more people to the books, which is, IMO, a good thing. The more people wind up reading the books, the better. Give those kids who've only read Harry Potter something with more substance, something to really make them think and drive their imaginations. These kids are declaring the final Potter book as the greatest literary masterpiece ever, so you can tell those books are all they've ever read. I mean, those books are nice and all, but come on...

So true.

Thanks for the link! I can't believe I haven't seen most of them! Must....find.....movies...!