DVDizzy Forum

Super Aurora wrote: The Alice in Disney's animated one was enjoyable and had personality. Hell even the live action kid's show one they use to on the Disney channel had one. Your point is moot.

I can only remember the Queen from the TV show (that feels so long ago), but I've always found the animated Alice to be an engaging character. If the character were plain, she wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining as she is. The only characters who top her are the Queen and Cheshire Cat, of course imo.

PatrickvD wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: The Alice in Disney's animated one was enjoyable and had personality.

Not really. She was plain and annoying. Just as she was in the books.

Yes really.

He personality was perfect in the context of the story and interaction to the wacky colorful characters. She like the straight man to the wacky comedian. If her personality was like the mad hatter, the chemistry interaction would fall flat.

It's why I like fucking Alice in Wonderland so much (Whoa that did not come out right....LOL)


So in conclusion, I'm always right.

Not surprised but this is totally needless.

Terrible movie.

I think it'll drop massively in gross. No more 3D luck.

“The Muppets” director James Bobin is in early talks with Disney to helm its sequel to “Alice in Wonderland.”

Bobin is currently lensing the Mouse House’s “The Muppets … Again!”

Linda Woolverton is penning the script for the sequel to Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland,” the 2010 hit that starred Mia Wasikowska as Alice and Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. The 3D film went on to earn $1 billion worldwide and scored Oscars for art direction and costume design. Working title is “Into the Looking Glass.”

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/james ... 200490138/

Eh...I enjoyed the first film for what it was (basically Alice in Narnia), but when I think of what it could've been, it falls far short of its potential. I don't blame Burton as much as I do Linda Woolverton. Outside of a couple of scenes I felt were misdirected, Burton (and the actors) did what they could with the material given and actually elevated it somewhat. However, that screenplay really dragged a quality production down. Woolverton does not understand Carroll at all. Her vision of "Underland" is far too straight-laced, and her few attempts at being quirky just come across as odd, not clever or witty. If you're essentially going to turn Wonderland into Narnia (and ironically enough, Narnia's got far more humor than this thing did), that's fine, but make sure it becomes a fully realized world. It's okay if Wonderland comes across as a series of locales rather than some dense universe because it's meant to be a dream, anyway, but if you're going to start hanging fantasy tropes on it, you better be prepared to come up with your own set of rules for this universe. Wonderland's not meant to have rules, so either you do it the way Carroll did it, or you go all-out in making your own fantasy dreamscape loosely inspired by him. Woolverton did neither. Watching Alice in Wonderland shows how valuable Disney's feature animation story team are as she also worked on Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, and neither of those suffer from Alice's problems. Burton's frequent screenwriting collaborator John August was working on his own Alice treatment around the same time and was forced to put it away because of this one. I wish Disney had gone with his.

Since Burton's Alice was basically Spielberg's Hook, a sequel seems redundant since it's already one. However, I'm intrigued by James Bobin as the director. He's brilliant at handling comedy and knows when to inject heart as well. I would hope under his care, he can tap into the wit and whimsy of the books. That said, the fact that Woolverton's back for this doesn't give me much confidence. I wish they had gotten Bobin to direct AND write, then I would be far more intrigued and optimistic. For now, I'm just reservedly curious.

More Alice in Woolvertonland? Well, Kelvin hit the nail on the head already, so all I shall add is this rather fitting image:

Once Disney sees how awful Maleficent turns out, they might get rid of her.

Because that film is going to stink horribly. And Through The Looking Glass? Please just don't do this.

I personally didn't hate the first one, but i thought i needed more...just like i felt with oz
so im pretty glad that this production is moving on in the direction of looking-glass.

WonderNeverOz wrote:I personally didn't hate the first one, but i thought i needed more...just like i felt with oz
so im pretty glad that this production is moving on in the direction of looking-glass.

I enjoyed the first one also. I thought it was entertaining. However one thing that annoyed me is how they referred to all the characters in other names than The Mad Hatter. It was confusing for me to keep track and half the time I couldn't understand the pronunciation of their "True" names

I'm looking forward to the Alice Sequel

EDIT - Also if Maleficent is anything like that god awful script that was leaked, I hope it bombs

As the look of Alice has been established by Burton, it would be lovely for James Bobin to come in and inject something more to it....heart maybe? Humour for sure. None of these will happen with Linda at the helm of scriptwriter that's for sure.

WonderNeverOz wrote:so im pretty glad that this production is moving on in the direction of looking-glass.

Me too. The fact that the sequel is based on the original book sequel makes me feel at ease at bit.

disneyboy20022 wrote:I'm looking forward to the Alice Sequel

Just as long as they don't push any romance between Alice and the Mad Hatter, as the first movie allegedly intended.

Eugh, was hoping we could have a blockbuster Disney movie with Johnny not being in it...obviously not

Are any of the cast locked in for a sequel if one is made? Or was that not in their contract?

If they were, it wouldn't hold up today I believe. Contracts only last so long.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni55927406/

Not confirmed, but has now been officially mentioned. . . . He's baaaaaaaaack.

Alice.. Oz, am I the only one here that hated both with a passion.. Both stories fall flat from start to finish. Not worth the time that went into making it. Furthermore, visually I hated them even more!! Especially the travisty that is Oz. It's like no one really cared to explore it. That being said.. I'm not the target audience since I myself lack knowledge on both story properties.. The books were plain horrid i.m.o, and the movies didn't prove me wrong..

Goodness, you think the Alice books are horrid ? How so ? I can't comment on Oz as I have never read the original stories, but I can't see you not liking Alice ?

Each to his own though I suppose.

I hope Bobin can put some much needed humour and wit into the film, something the books have plentiful but are sadly lacking in the film.

REINIER wrote: The books were plain horrid i.m.o, and the movies didn't prove me wrong..

Wow... Aren't you just a little ray of sunshine.

I only have one question. Did you even READ the books?

There's about one thing I can think of that bugged me in Alice In Wonderland. These other names, like the Mad Hatter had a differ name like it was his nick name, same with The Red Queen, Cheshire Cat, The Door Mouse etc. Was that in the books?

No, those "other names" were not in the book. They were made up by Linda Voolverton.