Alice in Wonderland
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:29 am
What do you think of the film adaptations of Alice in Wonderland? Do you think they are as good as the book?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:02 am
I read the book while on college almost 16 years ago, but I remember it to be like a psicodelic trip full of images and never ending references. The movie is an adaptiion to another audience but still has those strange images and sequences.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:34 am
I think everyone has their own opinion of alice, people seem to love it or hate it, i personally love it. Is it true that Walt publicly apoligised for alice?
Re: Alice in Wonderland
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:45 am
As good as the book? noashaleena wrote:What do you think of the film adaptations of Alice in Wonderland? Do you think they are as good as the book?
But I do love the WD interpretation.
As I have mentioned in other threads, I am a story purist much of the time and the mashing of the two books together has always slightly bothered me. I think that each book could have made an astounding movie on its own.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:10 pm
Yeah... books still a lot better but in the other hand Adaptations like this encourage some people to read the original history, Disney have been always adapting the tales for their releases, I think we have to had this in mind when we see this movies and not expect the original content.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:53 pm
I personally love this film, it's just wacky. I have that wacky kind of humor in me. Anything with the Cheshire Cat is funny with me.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:59 pm
You guys knew I'd come across this thread eventually. 
The Disney animated version of Alice in Wonderland was my first introduction to the story. I didn't read the book until I was about 7 (I was around 3 or 4 when I first saw the Disney movie). As much as I adore the book, I can't help but like the film a bit better. I like how it takes the best parts of both novels and leaves off the duller parts (like Humpty Dumpty). I also think the visual gags and eye candy work in the film's favor because the book is filled with puns and wordplay. On film, you'd just have the characters sitting there reciting random things (which can actually be done well as seen by the 1985 Alice miniseries). The visual aspect helps moves things along and make you feel like something's actually happening rather than just lengthy (though witty) conversations ala the book. Giving Alice the incentive to chase the White Rabbit through the first half of the film then try to get home in the second makes sense. In the book, Alice doesn't seem to give a crap about the White Rabbit or her home; she just wings it. I also think the film ends stronger than the book does. In the latter, Alice is merely a witness at the trial, the cards fall on her and...she wakes up. In the former, Alice is actually the accused, which works better dramatically, and there's this big chase where every character you've met makes one final appearance in a sort of nutty curtain call. Yes, the Disney movie takes a lot of liberties, but everyone knows Disney likes to morph classic stories into different entities that they can call their own. The only films Disney's done that have been faithful to the source material were Peter Pan (though it only followed the book events-wise, not dialogue-wise) and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (which captured both book events and dialogue faithfully). Alice in Wonderland's perhaps one of those movies that need to be seen as what they are rather than what they stemmed from. When looked on in that regard, no one can deny how creative the innovative the film is.
The Disney animated version of Alice in Wonderland was my first introduction to the story. I didn't read the book until I was about 7 (I was around 3 or 4 when I first saw the Disney movie). As much as I adore the book, I can't help but like the film a bit better. I like how it takes the best parts of both novels and leaves off the duller parts (like Humpty Dumpty). I also think the visual gags and eye candy work in the film's favor because the book is filled with puns and wordplay. On film, you'd just have the characters sitting there reciting random things (which can actually be done well as seen by the 1985 Alice miniseries). The visual aspect helps moves things along and make you feel like something's actually happening rather than just lengthy (though witty) conversations ala the book. Giving Alice the incentive to chase the White Rabbit through the first half of the film then try to get home in the second makes sense. In the book, Alice doesn't seem to give a crap about the White Rabbit or her home; she just wings it. I also think the film ends stronger than the book does. In the latter, Alice is merely a witness at the trial, the cards fall on her and...she wakes up. In the former, Alice is actually the accused, which works better dramatically, and there's this big chase where every character you've met makes one final appearance in a sort of nutty curtain call. Yes, the Disney movie takes a lot of liberties, but everyone knows Disney likes to morph classic stories into different entities that they can call their own. The only films Disney's done that have been faithful to the source material were Peter Pan (though it only followed the book events-wise, not dialogue-wise) and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (which captured both book events and dialogue faithfully). Alice in Wonderland's perhaps one of those movies that need to be seen as what they are rather than what they stemmed from. When looked on in that regard, no one can deny how creative the innovative the film is.