Alice in Wonderland.... | Page 3 | WrestleZone Forums

Alice in Wonderland....

First and Foremost, Sweeny Todd was badass. The only musical I've ever enjoyed, well besides South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.

I didn't like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a giant, steamy pile of chocolate shit.

And Alice in Wonderland rocked my socks, pretty damn good movie.
 
Disney destroyed Alice in Wonderland back in the 1930's, Burton's version couldn't possibly be worse.

I have no idea how you could even phatom saying such a thing. Walt Disney was always a huge fan of Alice dating back to the The Alice Comedies, which played a huge role in starting his success in Hollywood. Was any of his versions as good as the book? No of course not but isn't that always the case, the book is always better then the movie. With Alice there are too many interesting characters in both Wonderland and Looking Glass that if you include all of them in the same animated movie, it will drag on for ever. Since his target audience was kids, Disney couldn't afford to that cuz what kid would watch the whole thing. Disney destroyed Alice? Not even close. In fact its the complete opposite. Disney's animated movie is to a alot of people their first expereince with Alice. How many people do you know that read the book first before seeing the animated movie? I can't name one. It just doesn't happen like that. Plus remember too that a vast majority of Disney's movies such as, Snow White, Cinderella and Aladin to name a few were also based on books or fairy tales. Hell Aladin doesn't even come close to matching the book the story came, 1001 Nights. But once again, the idea was to make an animated movie for children to enjoy. Were all these stories destroyed as well? Based on your comment they must of been cuz what could possibly be the difference? In actualality, Disney's movies are the ultimate marketing tools for these books since often times when children grow up and realize the movies were based on books, they go and read them.

Now as far as Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is concerned:

When one is watching this movie and starts to compare it to either the books or the animated movie, they are making a huge mistake. This movie is no way shape or form a remake, unlike Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This movie is more like Hook, a continuation of the story. With that said, here a few things that make this version a perfect compliment to the stories we fell in love with.

Emotional Connection with the Characters in Wonderland The Mad Hatter is the perfect example of this. In the books, the Hatter is the one character that Carrol really wanted people to relate to. In both Wonderland and Looking Glass Hatter is a victim of the justice system. He is charged with murdering time, hence why its always 6 o'clock, tea time in Wonderland and found guilty of a crime without even being charged in Looking Glass He is the one who has all the right to be pissed off at the Red Queen's reign over Wonderland (talking about Burton's version) and Depp plays that role perfectly. Sure it is easy to look at this role and compare to many others Depp as played but in need to fully understand the character of the Hatter in order to appreciate Depp's performance.

The use of the "Jabberwocky" poem and "The Looking Glass" Theme I loved the fact that Burton used "Jabberwocky" as the main theme of his version. The poem is perhaps the most famous of all that Carrol put into the stories for its nonsense but at the same time played a very liitle role in Looking Glass Add to it that Burton also used the chess theme from Looking Glass and its the perfect combo. I heard someone complain about how they didn't like the movie was based on a battle. That is just stupid to say cuz why else would Alice go back to Wonderland. How do you top the first time around? Just like Peter Pan in Hook she needed a reason to go back.

The "real" Alice debate I like how Burton has the characters of Wonderland question if she is indeed the original Alice cuz to me that his way of paying tribute to the fact that it took two Alices to help Carrol create Looking Glass Liddel, and another one whom he met while in London.

References to Wonderland Painting the roses red. "Why is a raven like a writing desk?" are just a few of the examples of how Burton references Wonderland in the story, not to mention the Red Queen who is also a mixtue of the Queen of Hearts.

Expansion of the mystery of Lewis Carrol Carrol's relationship with Alice Liddel has always been questioned. Was he a pedaphile? We don't know for sure but if you use that theory, Burton's version is even more entertaining. Alice turns down a marriage proposal. This is in reference to a supposed proposal to Liddel by Carrol. Also look at the fight sequence with the Jabberwocky, when Alice screams, "Off with your head." One could look at that as Alice finally fighting off her molester with the Jabberwocky really being Carrol especially since at the end of the movie there is a Wizard of Oz theme with people in Alice's real life being represented by characters in Wonderland. The Jabberwocky was suppose to mean death for Alice, much like how marriage would be. So Carrol is both the man who proposes and the Jabberwocky, the two characters that Alice distaste the most. But then again Carrols and Alice's relationship will forever be fully unknown, hence we will never know if this theory is correct. You know what? That's just fine by me because that has always been apart of lore of Wonderland and Looking Glass, trying to find hidden meanings. Burton's version does a terrific job in continuing that tradition!!!!!
 
I have no idea how you could even phatom saying such a thing. Walt Disney was always a huge fan of Alice dating back to the The Alice Comedies, which played a huge role in starting his success in Hollywood. Was any of his versions as good as the book? No of course not but isn't that always the case, the book is always better then the movie. With Alice there are too many interesting characters in both Wonderland and Looking Glass that if you include all of them in the same animated movie, it will drag on for ever. Since his target audience was kids, Disney couldn't afford to that cuz what kid would watch the whole thing. Disney destroyed Alice? Not even close. In fact its the complete opposite. Disney's animated movie is to a alot of people their first expereince with Alice. How many people do you know that read the book first before seeing the animated movie? I can't name one. It just doesn't happen like that. Plus remember too that a vast majority of Disney's movies such as, Snow White, Cinderella and Aladin to name a few were also based on books or fairy tales. Hell Aladin doesn't even come close to matching the book the story came, 1001 Nights. But once again, the idea was to make an animated movie for children to enjoy. Were all these stories destroyed as well? Based on your comment they must of been cuz what could possibly be the difference? In actualality, Disney's movies are the ultimate marketing tools for these books since often times when children grow up and realize the movies were based on books, they go and read them.

Now as far as Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is concerned:

When one is watching this movie and starts to compare it to either the books or the animated movie, they are making a huge mistake. This movie is no way shape or form a remake, unlike Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This movie is more like Hook, a continuation of the story. With that said, here a few things that make this version a perfect compliment to the stories we fell in love with.

Emotional Connection with the Characters in Wonderland The Mad Hatter is the perfect example of this. In the books, the Hatter is the one character that Carrol really wanted people to relate to. In both Wonderland and Looking Glass Hatter is a victim of the justice system. He is charged with murdering time, hence why its always 6 o'clock, tea time in Wonderland and found guilty of a crime without even being charged in Looking Glass He is the one who has all the right to be pissed off at the Red Queen's reign over Wonderland (talking about Burton's version) and Depp plays that role perfectly. Sure it is easy to look at this role and compare to many others Depp as played but in need to fully understand the character of the Hatter in order to appreciate Depp's performance.

The use of the "Jabberwocky" poem and "The Looking Glass" Theme I loved the fact that Burton used "Jabberwocky" as the main theme of his version. The poem is perhaps the most famous of all that Carrol put into the stories for its nonsense but at the same time played a very liitle role in Looking Glass Add to it that Burton also used the chess theme from Looking Glass and its the perfect combo. I heard someone complain about how they didn't like the movie was based on a battle. That is just stupid to say cuz why else would Alice go back to Wonderland. How do you top the first time around? Just like Peter Pan in Hook she needed a reason to go back.

The "real" Alice debate I like how Burton has the characters of Wonderland question if she is indeed the original Alice cuz to me that his way of paying tribute to the fact that it took two Alices to help Carrol create Looking Glass Liddel, and another one whom he met while in London.

References to Wonderland Painting the roses red. "Why is a raven like a writing desk?" are just a few of the examples of how Burton references Wonderland in the story, not to mention the Red Queen who is also a mixtue of the Queen of Hearts.

Expansion of the mystery of Lewis Carrol Carrol's relationship with Alice Liddel has always been questioned. Was he a pedaphile? We don't know for sure but if you use that theory, Burton's version is even more entertaining. Alice turns down a marriage proposal. This is in reference to a supposed proposal to Liddel by Carrol. Also look at the fight sequence with the Jabberwocky, when Alice screams, "Off with your head." One could look at that as Alice finally fighting off her molester with the Jabberwocky really being Carrol especially since at the end of the movie there is a Wizard of Oz theme with people in Alice's real life being represented by characters in Wonderland. The Jabberwocky was suppose to mean death for Alice, much like how marriage would be. So Carrol is both the man who proposes and the Jabberwocky, the two characters that Alice distaste the most. But then again Carrols and Alice's relationship will forever be fully unknown, hence we will never know if this theory is correct. You know what? That's just fine by me because that has always been apart of lore of Wonderland and Looking Glass, trying to find hidden meanings. Burton's version does a terrific job in continuing that tradition!!!!!

?
 
I have no idea how you could even phatom saying such a thing.

The Disney version is most certainly a simplefied, watered down version in comparison to the novel. Of the many themes the book covers, the Disney film only really explores the despair of not being able to find autonomy within society.

I guess that's fine though, Walt Disney definitely wouldn't have marketed a film towards children with the themes of death, losing our childhood innocence to puberty, conformity within societies norm, and the fact that "wonderland" seldomely exists within adult society.
 
Wonka was supposed to be both over-the-top and comical, and mildly disturbing. He pulled it off very well. However, Wilder's Wonka was too loveable and that's the one everyone remembered. Therefore, Depp's Wonka gets hated upon.

I'm not very good at telling between good and bad when it comes to movie, so I enjoy Depp's work.


Have you forgotten that fucking tunnel scene from the original? I think one of my favourite parts of the original is how they never mention that insane scene again after it happens..

Saw Alice in Wonderland, it was ok, but thats it. For all the hype, I was fairly let down, I dont mind Burton (one of my favourite movie scenes is the Ed Wood / Orson Welles encounter) but this movie just had nothing special to it.

From the get go you knew what was going to happen, and though it was in 3D I was never really impressed, I didnt hate it though, it was just ok.

Though when Alice returned to answer the proposal from the ranga, the way she talked to every single character from the first 10 minutes of the movie, teaching them all lifelessons was quite annoying..
 
Yeah... so I'm not reading this. My theory is that Lewis Carroll is revolving in his grave as we speak, and that this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I would have legitimately have walked out were it not for the fact that I didn't feel like walking out.

I don't have a clue where to begin regarding my objections to this film, but I suspect that the most convincing manner to present my views would be to randomly at everybody until they give in. I might factor some numbers and bold text into the equation, if only because I haven't had a good wrestling debate for months and am getting withdrawal symptoms.

Problem 1: The writing.

I suspect I'm going to use a great deal of synonyms for 'shit' in this post, so I'll keep this one simple. The writing was unequivocally appalling. This is what happens when you put directors in charge of film scripts. Alice In Wonderland is a novel with a tremendously stylised tone, and the film utterly failed to capture this. The only character who sounded anything like its wonderland equivalent was the cat (who like most characters not played by Jonny Depp was in the film for no reason). Every other character they failed with, and the only times that the dialogue was in-keeping with the style of the novel was when the text was being directly quoted.

To summarise. Fucking terrible.

Problem 2: The Hatter

Sorry... what exactly is this character for?
Shut the fuck up. I was being rhetorical.
Most of the characters in this film serve no real purpose beyond making people who've read the books cry, but at lest their appearances are kept reasonably Spartan. Noticeably more time is dedicated to having Alice's dress fall off that is given to Tweedle Dee/Dumb or the Cat; yet the mad hatter gets truly insane levels of screen time despite being entirely gratuatious to the plot.

I kit you not; give me thirty minutes with the film real (and teach me how to not make it explode) and let me cut out all the scenes with the Mad Hatter that could be removed from the plot without anyone noticing. You'll end up with a film half the length. The problem with Jonny Depp is that he wants to steal each and every show that he's in; and as such the film becomes less Alice In Wonderland and more Jonny Depp *********ing over his own theatrical skill.

Not my idea of a good time.

Problem 3: Alice doing it for herself.

I have no problem with Alice being a strong character; that's fine. What I take issue with is this 20 year old girl randomly displaying an intimate knowledge of far eastern trade at the end of the movie. That was possibly the most cringe worthy ending I've ever seen, and when it was happening I literally resorted to head-butting my girlfriend in the face out of rage.

Whilst I'm on the subject of women not being in the kitchen; what the fuck was up with the door mouse?

Problem 4 (I think): You're fucking kidding me right?

Seriously; is my memory deceiving me or did this Disney rendition of ALICE IN WONDERLAND actually include a scene where Alice, dressed in full plate armour, jumps in the air, issues a snappy one liner, and CUTS THE HEAD OFF OF A DRAGON WITH A MAGIC SWORD?

Seriously; what the hell? I was expecting her to turn to the camera once she landed and go "Yippie-kay-yay mother fucker!" or something similarly ridiculous. People call it Alice in Wonderland meets Lord of the Rings. I call it a steaming pile of shit meets another steaming pile of shit, then gets subjected to an extremely large comity asking the question 'how can we make this classic story relevant to today's kids?' I fully expect 'Alice's Adventures in Hogwarts' to be released early next year.

Problem 5: Pope.

He wasn't in this film. Next.

Problem 6: It just wasn't very good.

I'm serious. Take away each and every problem that I've listed above and you still end up with a film with very little to credit it. The script: bad. The cinematography: mediocre at best. The acting: mediocre if you like Jonny Depp, very poor if not.
I honestly cannot see what the film has going for it in any department. All the resources clearly went towards acquiring a cast and director with a strong enough reputation to sell the film, and nobody took any time to actually LOOK AT THE FUCKING SCRIPT.

I give this film no thumbs up, because raking films like that is fucking lame. But even if it wasn't, this film still wouldn't get any.
 
My best friend still wants to see it despite the poor reception, I guess I will be going to criticise to the max. We both know that Johnny Depp will be lacklustre if anything.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top