Alice in Wonderland : Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

I just saw this last week, and I can honestly say that I would choose the 1985 version over Tim Burton any time.

I like using spoilers.

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

I liked it, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 1985 version.

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

I saw the 1985 version a lot time ago. I dont think I even saw it in the 2000-2009 decade.

What I remember, thoughit was sweet and magical with some scary and tense moments with the Jabberwocky.

With the new version I never felt the magic or tension. Wonderland was just so bland like a boring video game. As for the tension, there was none since I always knew Alice would slay the Jabberwocky and she did it rather quickly with little suspense.

Maybe I'm just getting too old school. But this version just seemed too popish compared to the 1985 version or even the 1951 version.

I am also trying to consider whether I'm seeing it like this since usually what you see as a child looks better. But I can only go so far with that.

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

@movieluvr29 -

After the treatments given lately to all of the classics, ala Burton, Depp, Mike Myers, Carrey, I cannot in good conscience and will not take any of the progeny to the latest "Alice."

Come on when the Cat in the Hat gets a boner upon first meeting mother, I said "that's it!" Depp acting like some pedo-perv, trying to improve Gene Wilder's "Wonka."

I have heard that the viewing public is getting an "updated" version of Oz! You can bet that *IF* I take the kids to it, it will be *long* after I am assured by other viewers that it has *only* been improved from the original (is that possible?).

Sorry Hollyweird my kids will get to have a childhood *before* they are charmed into the left-coast sleaze which calls itself modern fare for younger audiences.

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

People shouldn't even talk about a Wizard Of Oz remake!! Just stick with the original. No one can top Judy Garland.

Your chains are still mine, you belong to me! - The Phantom Of The Opera

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

@PrincessMagical - I am in lockstep with you! BUT - *you know* Hollyweird!!

If there is a remote chance in making a buck by "updating" Oz they will do it!
I can see it already Boffo Boxoffice!!

Depp as the Scarecrow - trying to use some of his "hay" to "have a roll in" with Dorothy

Carrey as the Tin Man constantly wanting Dorothy to "lube his joint" with that "special tube of oil"

Mike Meyers as the Lion, running around constantly scent-marking Dorothy.

This time, Toto is an endangered dancing orca, played by Rosie O'Donnell.

Must have some minorities for the PC crowd, so let's make fifteen versions Eddie Murphy as various gangsta-styled obscenity-screaming Munchkins.

Billy Bob Thornton, since he already has enough weirdness, in the role of the Wizard/Professor Marvel.

Janeane Garofalo as the Witch of the West she would need no makeup or voice training for those ungodly cackles.

Alec Baldwin as the horses's ass of many colors.

200 ACORN/SEIU extras as the flying monkeys.

And last but not least, and since we need a lovely young girl who can sing(?) to play the role of Dorothy Amy Swinehouse!! Innocence personified! She has already done more drugs than Judy Garland did her entire life!

Yep, the children will love it

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

well to be honest, the garland movie is absolutely NOTHING like the original Oz book. Disney's Return to Oz is actually much closer, but hardly anyone liked it b/c it wasn't "cute and musical". I used to like Garland one myself, but after I read the book, I realized what a blasphemy it was. So I wouldn't mind a redo of the Oz story at all.

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

Considering the Judy Garland version wasn't the original film adaptation or even the first remake and is extremely unfaithful to the book, including the intended message.wellthat's just a bad example.

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

I agree, it woudl be hard to hodl a candle tothis film, although I DO like the 1972 version.

I dunno why they always combine the Red Queen and Queen of Hearts.

If they wanted to make a fresh new story like with Red Queen vs White Queen sorta deal that'd be fine but they need to totally do away with the HEART theme.

The past doesn't exist and the future is only an illusion.

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

In fact this new version is an original story, so I don't even consider it as a new version of the book rather than a new story that simply uses the characters.

Movie critics are mostly crazy!

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

They why didn't Burton just create new characters rather than connecting it to Alice in Wonderland?

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

The CGI took over for story. I think we all know the 2010 one sucked. But that's modern cinema for you.

CDEGFEDCC. (Shhh!)

Re: Who here was royally dissapointed with the Tim Burton version?

Speak for yourself! There is no "we".

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.
Top