DVDizzy Forum

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

Isn't that the same lady who wrote that script for Maleficent?

If so

Linda Woolverton should be locked up in a tower and banned from writing any more scripts for Disney movies. Does Disney think she is some kind of genius? Alice in Wonderland was big at the box office because of a combination of the brands of Disney and Johnny Depp, the use of 3D, effective marketing from Disney (they manage to get it right sometimes, surprisingly) and because Alice in Wonderland is a well-known story.

You guys know she did do the scripts for Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and their stage adaptations, right?

DisneyJedi wrote:You guys know she did do the scripts for Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and their stage adaptations, right?

And that way of thinking is exactly the reason why Disney continues to back this woman.

DisneyJedi, you should know animation is a collaborative effort. Just because she wrote the screenplay doesn't mean she wrote the final version of the film. Some of her ideas are in the film yes. But it was the animators, storyboard artists and musicians that made those films into classics, NOT Linda Woolverton.

Her Alice script however, while I'm sure rewritten a few times by her and other writers, is pretty much what's on screen. Because this is live action. And boy does it suck. Have you read the Maleficent script? It's filled with typos. And it's been confirmed it's hers.

I'm sorry, but I have no faith in her writing whatsoever.

I wonder why Tim Burton passed on doing the sequel when the first was such a hit ?

I recall Tim Burton saying he's not overtly fond of making sequels. Even Batman Returns, he only made because of contractual reasons and there's a reason it's so radically different from the first one in tone and style. Believe it or not, he doesn't strike me as a director who likes to repeat himself.

Plus, he only agreed to direct Alice in Wonderland on the condition that he could make Frankenweenie afterwards.

estefan wrote:I recall Tim Burton saying he's not overtly fond of making sequels. Even Batman Returns, he only made because of contractual reasons and there's a reason it's so radically different from the first one in tone and style. Believe it or not, he doesn't strike me as a director who likes to repeat himself.

...







Then maybe he should do something new for once

PatrickvD wrote:

estefan wrote:I recall Tim Burton saying he's not overtly fond of making sequels. Even Batman Returns, he only made because of contractual reasons and there's a reason it's so radically different from the first one in tone and style. Believe it or not, he doesn't strike me as a director who likes to repeat himself.

...







Then maybe he should do something new for once

My sentiments exactly.

Well I think it's a good think the Burton 'look' has been established, so it leaves the way clear for the new director to see if he can fix what Burton couldn't.

Though mind you, this will only work if all the cast are back, I don't want any replacements.

And also, I hope Alice hasn't become some sort of warrior or something, and is now 'super-tough', a la Elizabeth Swann. Not every girl in a sequel has to develop massive fighting skills Disney, ya know?!

Though if I'm gonna tear down Tim Burton, I have to give credit where it is due: Big Eyes will be phenomenal. While it will thematically share some ground with Ed Wood, it could be his most interesting and original film since Big Fish.

Besides, the cast consists of people he has never worked with:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1126590/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tnSG4zNoks[/youtube]

It is comfirmed that Helena Bonham Carter will reprise her role as the Red Queen, and Bobin's mini interview is interesting about what tone "Through the Looking Glass" could be.

http://screenrant.com/alice-wonderland-2-cast-director/

I'm glad Carter will be back. She was the only thing I liked about the first film.

I'm not seeing it in theaters or anything (but I didn't see the first film in theaters either...).

Disney's Divinity wrote:I'm glad Carter will be back. She was the only thing I liked about the first film.

I'm not seeing it in theaters or anything (but I didn't see the first film in theaters either...).

From the way Bobin has said about Carrol's books being satirical, I hope that the sequel goes to the wonderous nonsense of the books, unlike the first film which was all destiny and war and all that jazz.

I've been googling, and there seems to be no new information on this one? Nor much hype either, which is odd, considering the crazy success of the first … ?!

The only good things about the first movie were the March Hare (YOU'RE LATE FOR TEA!) and Alan Rickman as the caterpillar.

It's still not a good movie though.

I seem to be one of the few who thought it was a good film and better acted and written than 'Oz, the Great and Powerful'.

Old Fish Tale wrote:I seem to be one of the few who thought it was a good film and better acted and written than 'Oz, the Great and Powerful'.

Wait, you didn't mind Linda Woolverton's writing in that one? I thought it was okay, but nothing great.

It wasn't brilliant, but it wasn't bad either. Perhaps the actors made it sound better than it was.

Old Fish Tale wrote:I seem to be one of the few who thought it was a good film and better acted and written than 'Oz, the Great and Powerful'.

I think they're both bad in a lot of ways, but I prefer Alice in Wonderland. The visuals are nicer than those in Oz, imo, but they both only have one standout actor/character to me (Carter as the Red Queen, Rachel Weisz as the Witch of the East; I'd probably give Carter the edge, if I was forced to pick).