How awful will this be?

do Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan just work better in animated form?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xQBGmBOhQEE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Live action Pan is totally viable. Alice a little less so, but with the right budget and creative director, I think it could be done.

yeah Peter Pan can work. I love Alice in Wonderland but Ive never seen a live action adaption that worked. I had a lot of hope for the Burton one but that movie deviated so much from the material it was a mess.

>Trying to retroactively create a cinematic universe.
Guess we're doing this now.

youtube.com/watch?v=xQBGmBOhQEE

...

Well while watching their original Alice in Wonderland it bothered me that they talked about how she had been to Underland once before as a little girl since I felt like that was the movie I would rather be seeing. So if a prequel means that it'll just be a more faithful Alice in Wonderland story without all the bullshit they threw into the first movie then I'm for it.

Oh, wait. Shit. I thought they were announcing two prequels, not one movie that served as a prequel for both stories. What the fuck

oops wrong thread haha

>while watching their original Alice in Wonderland it bothered me that they talked about how she had been to Underland once before as a little girl since I felt like that was the movie I would rather be seeing

Felt the same way. But yeah this prequel/crossover seems needless. Just do a true adaption of the story.

>Making a fairy tale based movie based on something that the masses have already connected with Disney

When's the last time that worked?

Pan was so unbelievably shit
>Hook's acting
>Pixie dust is a mineral that Wolverine smokes to be immortal
>The Pan is the tribes greatest warrior
>Peters entire backstory
>The faeries are losing and letting themselves be flamethrowered to death until Peter gets his shit together and tells them what to do.

well that Snow White movie was successful enough to warrant a sequel. but yeah I get what ur saying.

And it appears other studios continue not to learn. From last years Pan, to this years Tarzan, to 2018s Jungle Book:Origins.

>Credited as the director of Brave
>Not credited as the director of Prince of Egypt
This bothers me more than it should

The main problem with Alice adaptations is that everyone tries to make their own "creative re-imagining", which leads to failure more often than not. (There is like ONE true to the book screen adaptation of Alice in Wonderland that I know of)

Svankmajer's version works although maybe not really as an Alice adaptation.

isnt alice old enough to be wendy's grandma? i dont recall the timelines exactly

I'll have you know that Brave won BEST animated PICTURE. Prince of Egypt never won shit.

the new Tarzan movie looks pretty good though desu

It barely qualifies as live action, too.

Excuse me?

The cast looks good. You can't go wrong with Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz and Djimon Honsou. Margot Robbie and Alexander Skarsgard are overrated as fuck but they'll do the job fine.

For me, it's the story. A generic action movie sequel to the original story where Tarzan has to reconnect with his animalistic side to save his damsel in distress Jane from an evil businessman? Fuuuucckkk that!

Disney must be so happy all these Victorian/Edwardian novels are leaving copyright.

The orginal title was basically "Kinda like Alice", Svankmajer just wanted to animate his usual stuff. It looks great and probably remains one of the better examples of unique stop motion, but beyond having a rabbit and a girl named Alice in it it's not an adaptation.

>we will never get a live action adaption of the best Alice in Wonderland reimagining

...

...

These are adaptations of children's books, not comics or cartoons.

>do Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan just work better in animated form?

clearly discussing the live action versions in relation to the cartoon versions.