Alice in Flopland

>Alice in Flopland

Can Disney PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop remaking live action version of classic cartoons?

Other urls found in this thread:

boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=alicevs.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Jungle Book was insanely successful though

>Flopland
>All of their live action shit has been making major dosh
I don't think you know what "flop" means

They got lucky the first Alice made a billion, don't know why they tried testing that again with a sequel. Now with all the Depp drama lately that's going to kill any repeat business they were hoping for.

I don't think they're going to stop making them, but Alice 2 flopped hard.

Please, tell me more.

boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=alicevs.htm

>Depp drama lately

What?

Not as long as Disney feels the world needs a reminder that it's got it's mark on these stories.

Divorce with Amber Heard, she's claiming he's abusive and other stuff. Who knows if it's true or not.

>170 million buckaroos
Is CG! really that expensive?

When damn near every scene is CGI, yes.

I fucking hated the shit out if the first movie's guts for trying to be ''grim'' bullshit so I can only guess this one will try just as hard. Wonder which inspiring upbeat artsy song they'll be using for it this time around.

The first one made no sense so what the fuck is the second one about.

Yes, it is, unlike what 2D purists want you to believe.

The problem wasn't that they tried to be dark fantasy, that's always been part of it, the problem is it tried to be 'epic' fantasy.

The charm of Alice in Wonderland is there is no plot or character arc to speak of, it's just about a bunch of stuff that happens to cute mildly autistic victorian era girl.

Can Disney PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop remaking animated versions of classic British literature?

The cartoon wasn't good either.

I'll take the 90s live action version and the Czech stop-motion version over anything Disney has done with the property.

Czech stop motion doesn't really count because it never tried to be an Alice adaptation and the original title roughly means "Something like Alice" iirc, it just borrows similar idea for main character from the book, as well as the white rabbit motif, but I agree it's one of the best recreations of the general atmosphere of the story.

Neither of Disney's takes, let alone all the garden variety grim and dark retellings in the vein of those two games and so on, capture the feeling correctly, which is really odd because considering what's the prime appeal, an adaptation doesn't even need to be close to the book to achieve it.

Clearly Disney paid off those shill critics to ruin this masterpiece of fantasykino.

It has this retarded time travel plot which turns into one of those "you can't change the past so learn to accept it" type deals.

I just think it's something that doesn't lend itself that well to a movie. It's just that loose collection of vignettes that are sometimes intelligent, sometimes kinda dark but mostly humourous that don't really have much of an overarching theme or a plot that would fit the structure of a conventional movie.

How the fuck does time travel even fucking fit into Alice in Wonderland? Did the source have this shit?

Alice went to ask Time personified to help her bring back Hatter's family from the dead.

He and his minions was honestly the best part of the movie.

Whoever made that decision was a moron. One of the main reasons why the first one did so well was because of 3D and despite that, it got bad reviews. Had a sequel came out closer then it probably would've done a bit better.

Technically the first was a sequel to the original story, but yeah this one had no reason to be made.

I'm really hoping the inevitable failure of the Pete's Dragon remake causes them to reconsider the "Stripmine the animation library" strategy for their live action division

This is not even a remake
It is the sequel of a sequelr/remake.