Never said you were, so please don't insinuate i was insulting you :).

Originally Posted by Roachi

Never said you were, so please don't insinuate i was insulting you :).

Come on now, I meant it in a much more jokey way than that! :XD If I were to insinuate anything I would have used a more serious word, I'm sure. ;)

Edit: I shall further edit previous post for more clarification. :D I think the misunderstanding arose from lack of facial expression, I've been trying to cut down on my emoticons, so sometimes things coem across a tad more bleakly than they were intended.

As someone who has never read the book, I have to say that I enjoyed the movie.

I don't know what the critics said, I refuse to read any of that opinionated garbage and form my own ideas from what I saw.

As a movie it was enjoyable and interesting. I liked the view from the older Alice and the look of the movie was quite musical. It was also quite amusing and the Hatter was very funny. The end felt a little off too me, but overall not bad. I will definitely watch this again when it comes out on DVD.

I'd also like to read the book at some point now.

I agree with the end. What was with that weird dance? xDD

Honestly I'm gonna watch the movie without any mind to the books, 'cause I twist the books all the time since I like coming up with my own versions of the story. The only thing that's annoying me is how much they're bigging up Depp in this movie when Alice in the main character/heroine.

But I'm looking forwards to seeing it anyways XD I love anything Alice in Wonderland, and me and my friends are going to dress up, which shall be really fun.

And Stephen Fry is the Cheshire Cat! That's just bloody awesome!

Originally Posted by Huffie

It's not about a girl on a drug trip! :gonk: It was written by a clergyman for a seven year old girl!
Sorry, it bothers me when people say things like that. :( Keep in mind that Alice was a real little girl! I think Mr Dodgson would be rather disturbed to hear people talk about his books in such a way.

Although having said that, I'm feeling less and less convinced that I'll like this movie... apparantly it's more style than substance, and it isn't at all true to the characters or feeling/tone of the books. I am sad. :(

Haha, I don't really believe Tim burton's movie was supposed to be modelled after the books in anyway...Or else it would have greatly emphasized "based on the book written by so and so" ...
But no...
So why would you be disappointed?
It's not like He was trying to bring a book to life... the general story maybe. But not the actually writings of the man that first wrote it.

I think you should just go in there to watch the movie with the knowledge that it ISN'T based on the books... So you won't be disappointed? Ya?
....It's silly to get angry over this, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Roachi

I agree with the end. What was with that weird dance? xDD

OMG, the dance was just.... what? :gonk: It was amusing though, but kinda weird.

Futterwacken....

@ AkihitoKage: The media had all this talk about it being more about the Hatter, but the story is definitely told from Alice's perspective and more about her than him. I would simply say that the Hatter is the most developed character after Alice.

Originally Posted by l ll L i r e ll l

Haha, I don't really believe Tim burton's movie was supposed to be modelled after the books in anyway...Or else it would have greatly emphasized "based on the book written by so and so" ...
But no...
So why would you be disappointed?
It's not like He was trying to bring a book to life... the general story maybe. But not the actually writings of the man that first wrote it.

I think you should just go in there to watch the movie with the knowledge that it ISN'T based on the books... So you won't be disappointed? Ya?
....It's silly to get angry over this, I'd say.

Aww, come now, let's have a nice hug. :hug:
I hope I hadn't offended you or anything, I think agree my original post was a tad harsh, I wasn't sure if I should delete it or not because I don't want to upset anyone, but at the same time it would rather seem like I was trying to cover my tracks.:XD What do you think though?

It is actually meant to be based on the books, all Alice in Wonderland movies are, and Tim Burton apparantly doesn't like the first Disney movie anyhow, but this movie takes place years after, I think that's why it doesn't mention the books. :yes: you see?

I'm only a little disappointed because I feel the screenwriter has really misunderstood the themes of the book, especially by making Alice the opposite of all Victorian expectations of young ladies (which I've read in an interview with her). But I'm sure it's an alright movie, I just don't think I could bear watching it, at least not for a while, because Alice in Wonderland is really a book close to my heart. I guess I was really expecting too much out of this film, I have a deviantART journal entry from May 30th last year where, to quote;
"I am looking forward to Burton's Alice film though! Stephen Fry playing the Cheshire Cat? :D YESPLZ. And you know, Tim Burton really hates the Disney one too! Which is really a good sign that the movie will be pretty damn good."
:lol:

There are parts that I think sound quite good though, don't get me wrong! I like the fact that they've included the Jabberwock, and it looks as if they've modeled that whole part on the illustrations by Tenniel. (you see, that's another part pointing to the book. ;)) I also think a lot of the visuals are very interesting, the enlarged heads (as also done in my favourite 1999 TV adaptation) were a really great idea because, again, it seems an echo of Tenniel in there. I was also tremendously pleased when I first saw the trailer and saw there was no PINK AND PURPLE CHESHIRE CAT! :mrgreen:

I suppose I really ought to see it just to form my own opinion (and for Stephen Fry factor!) but I can't afford to go to the cinema anyway. :cry:

Originally Posted by Sho-Shonojo

OMG, the dance was just.... what? :gonk: It was amusing though, but kinda weird.

Futterwacken....

@ AkihitoKage: The media had all this talk about it being more about the Hatter, but the story is definitely told from Alice's perspective and more about her than him. I would simply say that the Hatter is the most developed character after Alice.

Lol fudderwack xD. It kinda reminded me of Micheal Jackson. LOL
The funniest part had to be ...

SPOILER ALERT!!

"We're not taking orders from you anymore, bloody big head".

Bwahahahahahhaaha xD

Originally Posted by Huffie

Aww, come now, let's have a nice hug. :hug:
I hope I hadn't offended you or anything, I think agree my original post was a tad harsh, I wasn't sure if I should delete it or not because I don't want to upset anyone, but at the same time it would rather seem like I was trying to cover my tracks.:XD What do you think though?

It is actually meant to be based on the books, all Alice in Wonderland movies are, and Tim Burton apparantly doesn't like the first Disney movie anyhow, but this movie takes place years after, I think that's why it doesn't mention the books. :yes: you see?

I'm only a little disappointed because I feel the screenwriter has really misunderstood the themes of the book, especially by making Alice the opposite of all Victorian expectations of young ladies (which I've read in an interview with her). But I'm sure it's an alright movie, I just don't think I could bear watching it, at least not for a while, because Alice in Wonderland is really a book close to my heart. I guess I was really expecting too much out of this film, I have a deviantART journal entry from May 30th last year where, to quote;
"I am looking forward to Burton's Alice film though! Stephen Fry playing the Cheshire Cat? :D YESPLZ. And you know, Tim Burton really hates the Disney one too! Which is really a good sign that the movie will be pretty damn good."
:lol:

There are parts that I think sound quite good though, don't get me wrong! I like the fact that they've included the Jabberwock, and it looks as if they've modeled that whole part on the illustrations by Tenniel. (you see, that's another part pointing to the book. ;)) I also think a lot of the visuals are very interesting, the enlarged heads (as also done in my favourite 1999 TV adaptation) were a really great idea because, again, it seems an echo of Tenniel in there. I was also tremendously pleased when I first saw the trailer and saw there was no PINK AND PURPLE CHESHIRE CAT! :mrgreen:

I suppose I really ought to see it just to form my own opinion (and for Stephen Fry factor!) but I can't afford to go to the cinema anyway. :cry:

Look, All in all my view is this:
It is up to the interpretation of the director, in this case Tim Burton, in how he wants to portray the character's in his film.
Perhaps some things have been adapted from the novel to bring some sort of antiquity, and truth from the writings or illustrations.
BUT, as long as it is not directly stated that this film is based on the novel...Then artistic expression/Interpretation ,however skewed it might be from the novel seems perfectly fine to me.
I'm no diehard Alice in wonderland fan....
But I do like the concept. Even the one created by disney...
And for the record, I took no offense.
;)

Originally Posted by l ll L i r e ll l

Look, All in all my view is this:
It is up to the interpretation of the director, in this case Tim Burton, in how he wants to portray the character's in his film.
Perhaps some things have been adapted from the novel to bring some sort of antiquity, and truth from the writings or illustrations.
BUT, as long as it is not directly stated that this film is based on the novel...Then artistic expression/Interpretation ,however skewed it might be from the novel seems perfectly fine to me.
I'm no diehard Alice in wonderland fan....
But I do like the concept. Even the one created by disney...
And for the record, I took no offense.
;)

Well, I do think a film sharing the same name as the book should try to honour it's source, I mean, if they did that with Harry Potter or some such, people would be FURIOUS, you know? :XD But because it's an older book and out of copyright, there's no one to defend it. :(
I actually don't think it's right for someone to do whatever he likes with the material just on the basis of; "It's my film, I'll do whatever the heck I please!", it just seems a little disrespectful. Which I'm sure, by the way, wasn't Mr. Burton's intention OR his sentiment in making the film, I was only stating that regarding what you said about filmakers and their sources, not this particular case. :yes:
(Trying not to step on any toes here, so I thought I'd just make that bit really clear!)

Oh, well I'm glad you didn't, in any case! :lol: Still not sure if I ought change it though~

I would just like to point out that a book was released a couple of years ago called "Through the Looking Glass WARS." I haven't read it, my friend has, she says it takes place years after Alice's first trip to Wonderland. I haven't seen the movie yet, I plan to, so is it possible that it was based on that book if it was based on a book?

Originally Posted by Huffie

Well, I do think a film sharing the same name as the book should try to honour it's source, I mean, if they did that with Harry Potter or some such, people would be FURIOUS, you know? :XD But because it's an older book and out of copyright, there's no one to defend it. :(
I actually don't think it's right for someone to do whatever he likes with the material just on the basis of; "It's my film, I'll do whatever the heck I please!", it just seems a little disrespectful. Which I'm sure, by the way, wasn't Mr. Burton's intention OR his sentiment in making the film, I was only stating that regarding what you said about filmakers and their sources, not this particular case. :yes:
(Trying not to step on any toes here, so I thought I'd just make that bit really clear!)

Oh, well I'm glad you didn't, in any case! :lol: Still not sure if I ought change it though~

Okay I actually thought up the Harry Potter example in my head prior to you even bringing it up xD And yes that would DEFINITELY anger a lot of hp readers because we all know that the harry potter movies were explicit in stating that they were based on the novels (even though a lot of the details were left out, thus sparking upset viewers)<--- This I understand. But Alice in wonderland was an adaptation of the Lewis Carroll Classic. Like you said , The basic skeleton of the character's are used... but not word for word/scene by scene/verbatim of the novel. That's the purpose of this type of movie, to engage the audience in a well known classic but offer up a twist in storyline/depiction. Why should it be any disrespect? Credit was given to the author for creating the original storyline. It's obvious that Tim Burton isn't necessarily a stickler to the norm lest he be seen as lackadaisical, of course he would let his creative juices flowww when taking upon a new project such as this... (but not blatantly trying to take away from the sentiment the novel brings) >_<

Originally Posted by l ll L i r e ll l

Okay I actually thought up the Harry Potter example in my head prior to you even bringing it up xD And yes that would DEFINITELY anger a lot of hp readers because we all know that the harry potter movies were explicit in stating that they were based on the novels (even though a lot of the details were left out, thus sparking upset viewers)<--- This I understand. But Alice in wonderland was an adaptation of the Lewis Carroll Classic. Like you said , The basic skeleton of the character's are used... but not word for word/scene by scene/verbatim of the novel. That's the purpose of this type of movie, to engage the audience in a well known classic but offer up a twist in storyline/depiction. Why should it be any disrespect? Credit was given to the author for creating the original storyline. It's obvious that Tim Burton isn't necessarily a stickler to the norm lest he be seen as lackadaisical, of course he would let his creative juices flowww when taking upon a new project such as this... (but not blatantly trying to take away from the sentiment the novel brings) >_<

Well, what I'm really saying is; you shouldn't mess with a classic, maaan. :cool:

And I blame Linda Wolverton for this really, because I feel she's tried to push her own feminist agenda on poor old Alice! I feel Tim Burton may have just been a bit naive and misunderstood the book, but this Wolverton woman, arg! :XD

I just think a classic children's novel shouldn't be turned into a gothic fantasy war movie basically. :lol: Even if they're not directly adapting it, they're using the names of the characters and the name of the book and as you said, twisting them. And while twisting is all fine and dandy sometimes, and in small doses, but when you distort the original message of the book, the original tone and feeling, well I don't think it's very nice really.

Even if the Harry Potter movies are an adaptation, I wasn't actually talking about them. :XD
My point was, if somebody made a movie that took place after the Harry Potter books left off, changed the character's personalities and themes of the book etc., THAT would make people worldwide FFFFURIOUS! Even if it never used any text from the books, and never stated explicitly save for the title and various names that it was based on the books, it would still be rather upsetting.
Like, if they decided Harry should be a snivelling coward, and he works for Ron at a magical detective agency, and they have to go investigate a case at Hogwarts, only it's a nursery school now. :D And it's like...a comedic farce or something with lots of toilet humour!
(I don't know if any of these people die at the end of the books, or if something happens to Hogwarts, so don't tell me please if this wouldn't make sense canon-wise! :lol: I have to get around to reading those last two really...)

I'm not saying film makers shouldn't be allowed to do this, by the way, I'm saying it's not very good of them to do so. :XD That's all! It just seems Alice is the only work it's acceptable to do this with, which has always annoyed me really.

Originally Posted by drachenlady

I would just like to point out that a book was released a couple of years ago called "Through the Looking Glass WARS." I haven't read it, my friend has, she says it takes place years after Alice's first trip to Wonderland. I haven't seen the movie yet, I plan to, so is it possible that it was based on that book if it was based on a book?

Hmm, that's odd. :^O Because the second book written by Carroll ('Through the Looking Glass') also takes place a couple years after Alice's first trip to Wonderland! Canon collision? :XD
I've heard of that book though, maybe you're right! :) Only I think that, since that book isn't out of copyright, they would have to state somewhere that it was based on that particular work of fiction, that's the only thing I'm a bit unsure about for that.

~I'm right now reading the books because I always want to read the true stories of fairytales like the brother Grimm tales. I've seen the Disney's and Tim Burton's version of Alice in Wonderland and I like them both just the same. I think if they try to incorporate everything in the book if would be like a 6 hour film and it would loose it's value. To me it seems like a tough book to read for small children and not so interesting to them, but then again it could be :?

[email protected]: I have those books but I haven't read them yet. Just borrowed them from a friend, but it does seem to me that Tim Burton's version may have been influenced by those books because battle scene :?

I never read the books before and I have seen the first Disney Alice in wonder land movie. but way back when I was a child I saw a live action Alice in wonder land movie. there was huge dragon in that breathed flames out it mouth it sacred me half to death. I really want to see Tim Burton's version of the movie so badly.

I can see what you guy's are saying. I have never read the books, but I have seen the original animated movie. When I saw the commercials and trailers, and saw the White Queen, I was like, "Who's that"? Then I noticed a dragon, and Alice being in armour with a sword. I was confused with that... Lastly, I noticed how in like all of the commercials, there was huge attention to Johnny Depp and the Mad Hatter. If I remember correctly, in the original animated movie, the Mad Hatter maybe has like 5 minutes of screen time? I really hope Tim Burton doesn't exaggerate this character because everyone loves Johnny Depp. It's not right.

Read the book. Watched the old movie. Hated the old movie, so was naturally terrified that I would actually hate the work of Tim Burton. But alas, I was completely thrilled by the end and the brilliant performance of my number one, the Mad Hatter. His Futterwack was astonishing. But I will let you find that out for yourself :O

I've read both "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There" and I enjoyed them both. Though, I got into an argument with my Children's Literature professor when she didn't know that it was "Through the Looking Glass" that involved the game of chess.

I've also seen Tim Burton's movie, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Others may not agree, but I found that it was better than the original, because the original Disney hodgepodge was... inaccurate and the childhood innocence that Lewis Carroll portrayed was gone. The characters in the original Disney film seemed underplayed and inaccurate. [/shrug]

But, with Tim Burton's film, I felt that one could see Alice's search for who she is, after falling down the rabbit hole and eventually finding out who she is and not allowing anyone but herself to decide what she does with herself. I don't care that it's set in the future, people do grow up after all, so I wasn't bothered with the time in the setting.

That's just my opinion though, and I'm sure it's different in more ways than one with what other people think.

Honestly, never read either book, but I've been meaning too.

I saw the older Alice in Wonderland a long time ago, but I remember not being very impressed by it. However, I just saw the new Alice, and I enjoyed it a lot. I really liked the portrayal of the Mad Hatter, Queen of Hearts, and White Queen. To me at least, it was those three that made the movie so enjoyable.

@Ayan Blaisdale;; I do agree with what you are saying. I just saw Alice in Wonderland last night, and I was impressed. I had my hopes up. I did not want this movie to be ruined... at all. I saw it in 3D, which added to the awesomeness that the movie was ;D And about the time setting, I liked how they had the smoking caterpillar explain how she's been there before when she was young and everything and that now she is returning, and before, she just thought everything was a dream. This movie is sort of like a sequel to the original animated film, I noticed. I thought it was a very cool movie and the actors were fantastic! =D

So here's my two cents.

I have very mixed emotions about the Tim Burton make of this movie. I mean, I understand that it's not a remake but more of a sequel but I think they just took too many liberties with the plot.

And when I say plot, I say it loosely because the original story to be honest didn't really have much of a plot. It was very nonsensical and scattered, but that was it's charm.

The costume design blew me AWAY. Seriously, Alices' dress in the scene where she's trying to save The Hatter was a DREAM. -swoon-

Read the book, seen the disney movie. I've also seen the new one that disney made and I thought it was bloody amazing. No, it has nothing to do with the books or the old disney version, but I love it. Its truly my favorite movie I've seen this year. The Mad Hatter was fabulous. In fact, all of the characters were amazing. The cheshire cat was 100 times better then the cartoon one, but then again the other one was cartoon and is older. I loved its smile, lol.

I have to agree that the costum designs made my draw drop! So amazing!

I loved the plot to this new movie. It was different, and catchy. Its like a fantasy movie. Although people who are looking for something serious wont find it with Alice in Wonderland, but it definetly has more of a magical/fantasy touch to it then the book and old movie did.

I'm going to be honest, I thought the movie would be good, but I wasnt prepared for how good it would be. I think something in me was hoping they wouldn't ruin it! But wow I was mistaken...everything about it was so amazing! See it in 3D if you ever get the chance! It's not like everything pops out at you, but everything seems so detailed and it makes the experience of the movie that much cooler.

Just saw this film last night, and I liked some parts of it, and absolutely hated other parts.

Visually very impressive for the most part, but the excessive CG turned me off a bit, but I'm kind of picky about CG.

Some of the writing was very well-done, but the rest of it seemed rushed and scatterbrained, like they just stuffed some very simplistic dialogue in just to fill time.

The acting was excellent. The girl who played Alice was perfect, I thought. She was bright and whimsical, but rooted in the real world enough to be able to relate to her. Johnny Depp has the incredible talent of making that one face that makes me feel unbelievably sorry for him. You know the face. The puppy dog face.

The music, sadly, was very hit or miss. Well-composed, of course, as is expected of Danny Elfman, but I felt that the music was either present where it shouldn't be, or missing when it should have been present.

I suppose all in all I didn't mind seeing it, but I'm glad I got to see it for free, and probably won't be going again.

I would love to go see it with my sister, but she's being stubborn and won't come with me. According to her it's too expensive to go see in the theatres, so she wants to wait until it comes out on DVD. And honestly... I don't know if I can make it. I've been wanting to see this movie since the time when it was only a rumor. Dx But my sister does have a point. And if I can't see it with her I won't see it at all (probably).

From what I hear, it's fantastic. Not only are the effects spactacular, but so are the characters and costumes. Someone said that the plot was a little weak compared to that of the books, but I'm looking forward to seeing what I think. Some were also worried about how the movie would turn out, but I'm not worried in the least. I love Tim Burton's work.

I plan on reading the book(s). My mom is reading it now, and she says it's pretty good.