Topic: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (Read 36611 times)

est · « **Reply #50 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 04:53 »

What is that true?

If so, that is even more shit. It's not "Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland" it is "Time Burton's non-canon fucking Alice in Wonderland fan-fiction (The Movie)"

est · « **Reply #51 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 04:56 »

Quote

Alice, now 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. She runs off, following the white rabbit into a hole and ending up in Wonderland, a place she visited 10 years before yet doesn't remember. Wonderland was a peaceful kingdom until the Red Queen overthrew her sister. The creatures of Wonderland, ready to revolt, wait for Alice to help them.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

rynne · « **Reply #52 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 05:21 »

Burton's film : Alice in Wonderland :: Return to Oz : The Wizard of Oz

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #53 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 06:19 »

Any idea what this thing will be rated? I'm assuming PG-13 but I guess I keep thinking of American McGee's Alice and how violent that 'un was. I wouldn't really put it past Burton to go that route considering how gruesome Sweeney Todd was.

Ozymandias · « **Reply #54 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 09:23 »

Quote from: est on 25 Jun 2009, 04:53

What is that true?

If so, that is even more shit. It's not "Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland" it is "Time Burton's non-canon fucking Alice in Wonderland fan-fiction (The Movie)"

Man, I ain't get why people have to get the shits up in their ass about "canon" and balls.

I mean, take all the damn complaining about the new Star Trek- Gene Roddenberry died two seasons into TNG. If we honestly just give a shit about the original author's work, then the best parts of TNG, all of DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, and all 4 TNG movies are non-canon. We're only considering that stuff canon because it's owned by the production company that produced the other stuf. Whoopty-balls-do.

Hell, the expanded universe of Star Wars, which Lucas has explicitly said "nah, that shit ain't canon", is better than 66% the fucking canon.

If something is good, it's good whether it's canon or not. Just like Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, honestly, I can't be arsed to give a damn because it looks enjoyable.

Sox · « **Reply #55 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 10:55 »

Yep, you're right. Canoncity makes no difference to whether or not something is good or bad. It's a pretty crucial distinction to make for continuity though, which is something I think is important in a series or franchise. I understand why fans try to distinguish canon from non-canon because the canon is somewhat connected to the consistency of a franchise as a whole. Sure, you can judge each part seperately if it's an independent piece, but within a canon it's far more likely to be judged as part of a series, whether that's fair or not.

For the record, I don't think anybody has criticised the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes because of it's non-canon status, but rather because it looks likely to be a terrible movie.

NeverQuiteGoth · « **Reply #56 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 18:10 »

Quote from: TheFuriousWombat on 25 Jun 2009, 06:19

Any idea what this thing will be rated? I'm assuming PG-13 but I guess I keep thinking of American McGee's Alice and how violent that 'un was. I wouldn't really put it past Burton to go that route considering how gruesome Sweeney Todd was.

That's what I'm hoping for.

est · « **Reply #57 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 19:44 »

My main complaint was that the title should be changed. It's not the same story, it is entirely different. It should have a different name to reflect that.

est · « **Reply #58 on:** 25 Jun 2009, 19:44 »

and fuck yeah, most of the Star Wars UE stuff is about a brazilian times better than the original movies.

Cartilage Head · « **Reply #59 on:** 27 Jul 2009, 21:28 »

The trailer is out.

It looks pretty stupid.

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #60 on:** 27 Jul 2009, 21:51 »

My co-worker was hoping for something like American McGee's Alice. No such luck it looks like.

MrBlu · « **Reply #61 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 01:48 »

Why is it that a Macabre CGI Alice movie hasn't been made, American McGee style?

David_Dovey · « **Reply #62 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 06:56 »

Because people are dicks

KvP · « **Reply #63 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 16:00 »

Yeah it looks pretty dull. I guess some people have made comparisons to 300, but this one seems to be even more CGI-intensive. The only non-touched characters I saw were Depp and the Alice actress.

The sequence where she drank from the bottle and shrunk was pretty nice-looking, I'd say.

If they were going to do a dark Alice I'd rather they get somebody like Chris Cunningham for it.

Ikrik · « **Reply #64 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 17:14 »

I have never, in my life, been turned off by a movie trailer so quickly. I can now say that, without a doubt, that I have absolutely no interest in the film. The CG stuff looks terrible, especially for the people. I don't even know what to think about any of it. I'm fine with having a crazy Alice that's bright and colourful....I think the story has a lot of potential....but I think that Tim Burton is going to horribly mangle this film. The part that killed me the most though....seeing the first name come up in big gold letters:

Johnny Depp.

And then the last bit of the trailer was all about Depp. I really wish that they would just get a room and get it on. Burton and Depp really NEED to stop making movies together, they suck. Corpsebride tried too hard to be Nightmare and failed to be interesting, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was heinous, and Sweeney Todd was unwatchable the second time. Depp is a good actor but when he teams up with Burton it's all about Depp playing these silly cardboard characters, he reminds me of a Lucky Charms marshmallow.

TheFuriousWombat · « **Reply #65 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 20:57 »

Man....this looks awful. I didn't have high hopes before but I had some. Now...nothing. I began losing what little hope I had with the 'falling down the rabbit hole' animation but the second that absurd, garish, tacky Cheshire Cat popped up on the screen, they had lost me completely. Depp is not at all a bad actor. It's too bad that in this, however, he looks ridiculous and idiotic. I really don't know what to make of this at all. The only thing that stands out: how bad the CG looks. Sorry Tim, I don't see how this 'un won't be a dud.

JD · « **Reply #66 on:** 28 Jul 2009, 21:12 »

Eh, I'll wait to see more before I say it's bad.

Tom · « **Reply #67 on:** 30 Jul 2009, 19:37 »

I'm not surprised really. Still,it doesn't ruin my opinion regarding Carrol's novel and later sequel.

Mr. Doctor · « **Reply #68 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 04:05 »

I love Alice In Wonderland... So I really hope that they will follow the books.

Eris · « **Reply #69 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 04:07 »

Uhm, dude, it's a sequel set 10 years after the books. I don't think they can really "follow" them that closely.

est · « **Reply #70 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 04:31 »

Quote from: Cartilage Head on 27 Jul 2009, 21:28

The trailer is out.

It looks pretty stupid.

Mr. Doctor · « **Reply #71 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 05:50 »

Quote from: Eris on 31 Jul 2009, 04:07

Uhm, dude, it's a sequel set 10 years after the books. I don't think they can really "follow" them that closely.

You can always hope.

Be My Head · « **Reply #72 on:** 31 Jul 2009, 19:31 »

The Cheshire cat looks like a douche in the trailer

/wrists

If you want CGI goodness go see motherfucking TRON

DarkAvenger · « **Reply #73 on:** 01 Aug 2009, 01:42 »

I am mainly confused as to why Tim Burton is giving Depp top billing for this. It's Alice in Wonderland, not "Lets Watch Johnny Depp and I Ruin Something!"

scarred · « **Reply #74 on:** 01 Aug 2009, 03:19 »

Quote from: Cartilage Head on 27 Jul 2009, 21:28

The trailer is out.

It looks pretty stupid.

PINTsized · « **Reply #75 on:** 02 Aug 2009, 15:33 »

Quote from: scarred on 22 Jun 2009, 21:49

A Tim Burton movie starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter? IMAGINE THAT.

Depp was best in fear and loathing, never again to shien that bright and thsi is gonna suck

knives · « **Reply #76 on:** 02 Aug 2009, 20:06 »

He was a bit of a cartoon in Las Vegas. He was much better in Ed Wood and Dead Man.

Lines · « **Reply #77 on:** 04 Aug 2009, 12:35 »

You know, I am less terrified of Depp's makeup when he's moving. I'm also less terrified of the movie now that I've seen the trailer. However, it doesn't look very good and I'm still on the fence as whether or not I actually want to see this. I think maybe it's one of those movies that will be rented on dvd, watched with a lot of people, and only when ridiculously drunk. It's really the only way I think it'd be good.

Lines · « **Reply #78 on:** 06 Mar 2010, 19:42 »

I don't feel like making a new topic for this, but I'm going to eat the words of my post above and say that this movie was actually kind of fun! This is the first movie I've seen in 3D, and while it was not fun to wear 3D glasses over my own, it was a rather enjoyable experience and added quite a bit to the film. And really, I think this movie is kind of turning Burton's work around, because I think this is another good step out of the funk he's been in. Very colorful, interesting, well done scenery in the world, it was a good move to make it a sequel, and the characters were fun. It's definitely better than what I was expecting and really was fun to watch.

Jimmy the Squid · « **Reply #79 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 01:04 »

I was reading a review for this today and it looks pretty cool. It got 4/5 from one of the Sydney papers and it's sounding pretty good.

A couple of the quotes

Quote

No one is better than Burton at interpreting and embellishing the more provocative children's fantasy writers. And if his version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory proved he and Roald Dahl were made for one another, then he and Lewis Carroll are a match made in, well, Wonderland

Quote

And then there's Johnny Depp, whose Mad Hatter, a soulful union of gallantry, wit, sadness and big-heartedness, elevates the film to the point of being truly and poignantly memorable.

JD · « **Reply #80 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 01:06 »

I'll probably see this within the week.

Johnny C · « **Reply #81 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 01:08 »

Quote from: Jimmy the Squid on 07 Mar 2010, 01:04

Quote
if his version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory proved he and Roald Dahl were made for one another, then he and Lewis Carroll are a match made in, well, Wonderland

how convenient of them to fashion this into a syllogism for me

scarred · « **Reply #82 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 01:25 »

Quote from: Linds on 06 Mar 2010, 19:42

it was not fun to wear 3D glasses over my own

This was my one and only beef with Coraline.

contributing to topic: No desire to see this movie but I'll probably end up watching it on netflix instant someday

JD · « **Reply #83 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 01:43 »

I don't mind wearing glasses over my own. You whiners

scarred · « **Reply #84 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 01:45 »

I am ok with it if they are like the big ray-bans that they gave out at sasquatch but the 3D glasses are tight-fitting and poopy

Jimmy the Squid · « **Reply #85 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 03:41 »

I've never had a problem wearing the 3D glasses over my own glasses. Maybe it's because my glasses are only half rims and I don't have to deal with big stupid clunky frames (see Fashion Thread for further spectacle-hate).

Lines · « **Reply #86 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 07:27 »

I wear my sunglasses over my glasses, but my sunglasses are huge and 3D glasses aren't. I think if they were a little bigger, it would have been fine.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #87 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 09:34 »

Quote from: Jimmy the Squid on 07 Mar 2010, 01:04

It got 4/5 from one of the Sydney papers and it's sounding pretty good.

On the other hand

Quote

Worse still, for a guy who made his career on unique and highly original tales, his recent efforts are all remakes.

Which brings us down the rabbit hole to Wonderland and lands us squarely in the blander latter half of Burton's career, with few wonders to rave about at all.

Quote

the demented tea party pals led by The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), whose pale face, hypnotic eyes and gap-teeth resemble Madonna after midnight.

Quote

But it comes with a flat, formulaic and traditional story where everyone wonders if this is the same Alice who visited them before, and if she's "the one" to defeat the evil Red Queen (a scene-stealing, bobble-headed Helena Bonham Carter) and slay her nasty Jabberwocky.

As if to compensate for the lack of story, Burton has beefed up the Hatter's role, giving Depp time to shine with a twisty climactic dance that mimics moves by Michael Jackson. More wacky visual set pieces like these would have made Alice a lot more fun.

But I'm not surprised. It was shot in just 40 days against green screens, with another year in post-production adding the visuals, colours, CG characters and voices. Burton was rushing to finish it just two weeks before its premiere, and it shows, for the whole film feels rushed, incomplete and underwhelming.

Perhaps he wanted a dark, adult twist but Disney wanted it more kid-friendly? As such, its mash of loopy colourful characters and heady adult themes puts this Alice in Wonderland in the no-man's land between something too adult for kids and too juvenile for adults.

Thomas Edison · « **Reply #88 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 10:33 »

Yeah, it was a nice, but it needed more razamataz, y'know?

maxusy3k · « **Reply #89 on:** 07 Mar 2010, 10:49 »

That's what she said!

Aurjay · « **Reply #90 on:** 09 Mar 2010, 17:36 »

watched it over the weekend and was left unfulfilled. No idea why but i had high hopes for this movie. It just failed for me, utter disappointment. The 3d seemed contrived and did nothing for the story. Actually the coolest 3d effects were in the cat food commercial before the movie even started. The plot was not even close to what i had expected. Very much like some critic stated it was like Tim Burton made Alice to suit the Hot Topic crowd. Mad hatter was annoying and overplayed, Wasn't sure if Johnny Depp thought itd be cool to channel Jack Sparrow for the role but it wasn't. Basically not my cup of tea...

rynne · « **Reply #91 on:** 12 Mar 2010, 08:13 »

Quote from: Aurjay on 09 Mar 2010, 17:36

Tim Burton made Alice to suit the Hot Topic crowd.

Hot Topic agrees with your assessment!

Mr. Doctor · « **Reply #92 on:** 13 Mar 2010, 03:15 »

Damn, that sucks so bad...

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (Read 36611 times)

PINTsized