Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6689
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by Dacey » June 6th, 2010, 5:49 pm

Ben, do you really know how much Tim influenced Linda's script? In interviews she said she just thought of Alice returning to Wonderland older, and started writing, saying she felt she was being kind of blasphemous (or some synonym) to Carroll. Yes, yes she was.
Um...directors direct. They are the ones in charge. If they want changes made to the script, they usually get them done. So, no, highly unlikely that Tim wasn't very involved with the process. :)

And exactly when was there a connection of any sort between this version and the deceased one based on the violent video game? I find it very hard to believe that Disney made their Alice with the intention of "burying" a film that they never had anything to do with.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5207
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by EricJ » June 6th, 2010, 6:02 pm

Dacey wrote:And exactly when was there a connection of any sort between this version and the deceased one based on the violent video game? I find it very hard to believe that Disney made their Alice with the intention of "burying" a film that they never had anything to do with.
There's a LOT of Telephone-Game between point A of a project and point B:
Wes Craven originally wanted to direct, and then just produce, the American McGee movie, then it fell into limbo as they dickered over the game rights, Dimension picked it up, Dimension was owned by Miramax was owned by Disney, and director names were revolved in and out while all the Geeky Lil' Fanboys gushed "Cool, what if TIM BURTON directed it??"

At which point, all Disney was left with at the end of the Telephone Game line was "Tim Burton directs a 'darker' version of the story, with Alice returning as a teenager to fight monsters", and some boardroom exec thinks, "Well, we have Alice fans, and we have Burton Nightmare fans, who else should make it? :mrgreen: "
And are now convinced they're making "A live-action version of the animated", so they put their Big Money Animated Screenwriter (hey, B&B got nominated for an Oscar, y'know!) on it so it'll make just as much money as Lion KIng!...Now, to get those Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella revisions into production!

(Or scenario B, the American McGee is officially declared Legally Dead, so Disney just happens to hit on the now up-for-grabs idea of cashing in their animated-icon identification and all their post-Nightmare Tim-Boiz fan base, and made their own more commercially mainstream "audience-friendly" version of a movie that, well, nobody ELSE was going to make now, were they?)

...It would be nice if studio execs had longer goldfish-memories, and could remember WHY they'd started doing projects to begin with, by the time they made them. :cry:
Last edited by EricJ on June 6th, 2010, 6:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25648
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 7th, 2010, 8:33 am

I just love how some of you guys think - on a big movie project - that the writer writes, the director directs, and no-one has any major crossover...hahaha.

I was on a project once where the producers rewrote the entire script the writer (based on his book) had written. It just wasn't working, he couldn't structure for film, and they took it on. They don't get the credit (that went to the writer) and the amount of input the director put into the script wasn't credited either, but that script had many hands and it's par for the course on big projects. The producers' reward? The film made a ton of money and a lot of the top crew went on to some VERY big things...

So you think Wolverton just went off and wrote merrily on Alice and B&TB (a film with double-digit story artists involved)? You really think Burton, or even Depp, didn't have a major hand in where the story went? You don't think the Studio gave notes (that may or may not have been acted upon)? Hmmm...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 459
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by Dusterian » June 7th, 2010, 7:18 pm

Ben...I know what you say is true (and relatively knew before you said so), but in this film's case: a friend of mine actually got a copy of the first draft of the script. And indeed it was different from the final film. The original copy was more cliched, more different from the original stories and characters, and the characters were more stereotyped. So yes, Burton influenced the script - to make it better. But that does not mean he told Linda to write the main idea(s) of the script, as she has said in interviews she came up with the idea of Alice returning to Wonderland older and confessed she was messing with Carroll's world a lot. All Tim wanted was a more cohesive Alice film that wasn't just a girl reacting to weird things, and Linda gave him some of that, but she also came up with a lot, if not most things on her own, the very things that made the film sucky.

But you hit on what I think has been the case wth Linda: When she wrote the scripts for Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King, it was really probably the other people working on the film who came up with most of the good ideas and made the films as good as they were. Like Howard Ashman influencing B&tB so much. On this live-action film, it was less collaborative in the story department than those Disney animated films had been. Thus, this was more sucky in story.
ShyViolet wrote:other than mocking Victorian rules and lessons his two books WERE basically posing the question of what Alice's eventual adulthood would mean.
Can I have an explanation of that, with examples?
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5207
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by EricJ » June 7th, 2010, 10:25 pm

All Tim wanted was a more cohesive Alice film that wasn't just a girl reacting to weird things, and Linda gave him some of that, but she also came up with a lot, if not most things on her own, the very things that made the film sucky.
As noted, Linda has a female-screenwriter tendency to "mess about" with adaptations a.....BIT.
Tim usually jumps into projects with two ideas in mind: One, paying tribute to all the culturally-overexposed (and often pop-cliche') Geeky Things He LIked As a Kid--usually Disney movies--and Two, making them look really Sick & Twisted & Neato, "N Stuff, since everybody knows, everything we liked as kids was really nightmarish and cool, and bad for us, 'n stuff, like hey, remember the Childcatcher from Chitty/Bang, or that whole Tunnel scene from Willy Wonka, where it's all psychedelic, and Gene Wilder starts screaming, and... :P

...Okay, screenwriter Arrogance, you'll be working with director Immaturity.
I'm sure you'll get along quite happily, as you'll probably find you have a lot in common.
Dusterian wrote:
ShyViolet wrote:other than mocking Victorian rules and lessons his two books WERE basically posing the question of what Alice's eventual adulthood would mean.
Can I have an explanation of that, with examples?
While it's overreaching to peg Carroll as some actual pedo, as the widely popular deconstruction has it (a lot of Victorians were doing artistic studies, back then, as was the fashion), Caroll does characteristically gush a bit about Alice as symbol of "innocent childhood, soon to be lost, etc."--
Even the last paragraph of the book says straight out:
Lastly, (Alice's sister) pictured to herself how this same little sister of hers
would, in the after-time, be herself a grown woman; and how she would
keep, through all her riper years, the simple and loving heart of her
childhood: and how she would gather about her other little children, and
make THEIR eyes bright and eager with many a strange tale, perhaps even
with the dream of Wonderland of long ago: and how she would feel with
all their simple sorrows, and find a pleasure in all their simple joys,
remembering her own child-life, and the happy summer days.
(yeeesh... :? )
Although that may have come out more as the fact that he believed he was writing the book "personally" to the Liddels, and added that more as a personal autograph, but it's pretty characteristic for the author--Later on, the full "Sylvie & Bruno" gets downright morose about it.
Last edited by EricJ on June 7th, 2010, 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 25648
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 8th, 2010, 6:56 am

Most of you guys need to go and try to find DreamChild...and freak yourselves out over that...!

Sad to see that Eric - after a few good posts recently - has resorted to the poor syntax and falling over himself typing style that he does when he makes a frustrated and ill-judged reply tinged with, well, whatever it is he tinges himself with... ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5207
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » June 8th, 2010, 10:50 am

Ben wrote:Sad to see that Eric - after a few good posts recently - has resorted to the poor syntax and falling over himself typing style that he does when he makes a frustrated and ill-judged reply tinged with, well, whatever it is he tinges himself with... ;)
If I have to go into "translation" mode again, so be it:
Tim Burton is the Bart Simpson of movie directors. And right now, half the people reading this are giggling because they thought I meant that as a "good" thing.
I don't--Because it refers to a 10-yo.

I don't approve that a film director 51 years old, and whom studios fall all over themselves to hand the keys to the studio treasury, still pretends to be the same gothy garage-film-school student or animation washout he was twenty or thirty years ago thinking he was the Next Edward Gorey.
Mr. Burton is neither as "original" as he (and his worshippers) believes himself to be, nor as "shocking". All I see is someone who tells the same jokes over and over, and giggles over his own cleverness at every single one.

I am not "shocked" about someone claiming they liked Willy Wonka, or at least the few easily-selected scenes they remember from it. I don't "gasp" at the idea that someone thought Alice was "really weird and nghtmarish" without displaying any clear recollection of what actually happened in the story itself, and I don't giggle at the "satire" of weird art direction, interchangeable Danny Elfman scores, or "quirkiness" so painfully forced it might've come out of an ABC series.
...Wanna really "shock" me, Tim? Do something mature. Think something Deep. Show some actual insight, perspective, or compassion for your material. Act your age (ie., old enough to be most of your target audience's freakin' dad). Come up with an original thought that hasn't already occurred to some giggling junior-high school student drawing goofy cartoons for the school newspaper, or some underachieving high schooler who'd rather make asinine jokes about his Lit class assignment than read it.
Then, when you can do that, maybe we'll take you as seriously as we did with a Sam Raimi or a Peter Jackson when they grew up out of their goofy lil' early cult-film wanks for some actual disciplined storytelling and art. If that means I've "outgrown" your films, Tim, then give me something for ME, because I don't like babysitting.
Ben wrote:Most of you guys need to go and try to find DreamChild...and freak yourselves out over that...)
Well, that's sort of the lame "snooty deconstruction" we were accusing Tim (and Linda) of in the first place, although probably at the opposite end of the same scale as Tim was aiming for: Carroll has a big, BIG target painted on his chest for a LOT of people, and not always for valid reasons. (Some of those reasons being that they were just too lazy or personally dim to understand what the heck he was saying and finding it easier to just make "coo-coo" circles around their ear because of it, and boy, can I personally sympathize with that. :P )
No matter what you want to "prove" to yourself about your own childhood, about social repression in some other age, or just about deconstructing every good and wholesome thing you grew up with just because you're grown up enough that you Can, isn't it possible--just possible--that...maybe a guy just wrote a funny book?
And if he did...don't start taking YOUR psychological issues out on him.

(And by "you", I could mean, Tim, or Linda, or Dennis Potter, or anybody who puts said snooty target-practicing artists up on a pedestal believing that they were fighting their battles for them.)

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6689
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by Dacey » June 8th, 2010, 1:02 pm

Tim Burton is the Bart Simpson of movie directors. And right now, half the people reading this are giggling because they thought I meant that as a "good" thing.
Actually, I doubt that anyone here thought that. You've only expressed you're dislike for Burton about 300 times here by now. ;)
If that means I've "outgrown" your films, Tim, then give me something for ME, because I don't like babysitting.
When did you become Tim Burton's babysitter? ;)

I'm only playing with you, of course. ;) Just letting you know that we all know how you feel by now. :) ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9077
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by ShyViolet » June 9th, 2010, 11:11 pm

Dusterian wrote:
ShyViolet wrote:other than mocking Victorian rules and lessons his two books WERE basically posing the question of what Alice's eventual adulthood would mean.
Can I have an explanation of that, with examples?
Basically, pretty much all the crazy things Alice runs into in both books is really about adult things that she will eventually have to deal with. Dealing with ridiculous rules at a tea party or being asked to recite nonsense rhymes is just a reflection of the insane "real" world she's on the verge of entering. Also, (this was understandably left out of the Disney version) Alice is asked by the Duchess to care for and even nurse a baby; she is of course too young but this is once again a prediction of her eventual adulthood. (the baby actually turns out to be a pig).

So....I think Tim did pretty well with transferring this to the film. Whatever LC's feelings towards the real Alice, the fictional Alice's world is all about adult hypocrisy. (among other things: there are many interpretations.)



EricJ wrote:
I don't approve that a film director 51 years old, and whom studios fall all over themselves to hand the keys to the studio treasury, still pretends to be the same gothy garage-film-school student or animation washout he was twenty or thirty years ago thinking he was the Next Edward Gorey.
Mr. Burton is neither as "original" as he (and his worshippers) believes himself to be, nor as "shocking". All I see is someone who tells the same jokes over and over, and giggles over his own cleverness at every single one.
But he's not just telling jokes; that's only part of what he does. The shock is not of skeletons or freak babies raised in sewers, the shock is from human ugliness, sadness, and pain. The hyper, super tacky worlds he creates are in Tim's mind more monstrous than the "monsters" of his films. This is what gives his films heft and beauty and why he's lasted this long.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5207
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by EricJ » June 10th, 2010, 2:22 am

ShyViolet wrote:
Dusterian wrote:
ShyViolet wrote:other than mocking Victorian rules and lessons his two books WERE basically posing the question of what Alice's eventual adulthood would mean.
Can I have an explanation of that, with examples?
Basically, pretty much all the crazy things Alice runs into in both books is really about adult things that she will eventually have to deal with. Dealing with ridiculous rules at a tea party or being asked to recite nonsense rhymes is just a reflection of the insane "real" world she's on the verge of entering.
Technically, Alice isn't "asked to recite nonsense rhymes", she's asked to recite real rhymes, and finds they come out as nonsense.
Partly to sell Carroll's own parodies, partly to clue us in that she might be dreaming (and that everything is "quite curious today"), and partly to satirize the Improving Education with which real schoolchildren were asked to recite them.
Also, (this was understandably left out of the Disney version) Alice is asked by the Duchess to care for and even nurse a baby; she is of course too young but this is once again a prediction of her eventual adulthood. (the baby actually turns out to be a pig).
The pig ends up in the movie as a completely unrelated "footstool" gag, almost because T&L knew from the Tenniel illustrations there "had" to be one in the movie--and that important "faithful" publicity shot of the RQ holding one--but didn't seem to be familiar enough with the book to know WHERE.
In the scene where we see the Frog Footman accused of Stealing Tarts--which doesn't seem to have any bearing on the actual story--while the Evil Villainous Knave of Hearts continues plotting, except for the heroic Dog, book readers are just staring at T&L's wildly scrambled illustrations-based bluff saying "You...really haven't read the darn thing, have you?"

(It's as if you asked me to describe a Shakespeare play if I'd never read one, and I'd enthusiastically said "Okay, Hamlet loves Juliet, but he has to defend the Castle because three witches are sending their fairies after it, but he's protected against them because he's got Yorick's skull which he got from Julius Caesar!" wouldn't quite sound convincing as a bluff: Hey, c'mon, he's got a skull; I saw the picture in Wikipedia! :wink: )
EricJ wrote:I don't approve that a film director 51 years old, and whom studios fall all over themselves to hand the keys to the studio treasury, still pretends to be the same gothy garage-film-school student or animation washout he was twenty or thirty years ago thinking he was the Next Edward Gorey.
Mr. Burton is neither as "original" as he (and his worshippers) believes himself to be, nor as "shocking". All I see is someone who tells the same jokes over and over, and giggles over his own cleverness at every single one.
But he's not just telling jokes; that's only part of what he does. The shock is not of skeletons or freak babies raised in sewers, the shock is from human ugliness, sadness, and pain. The hyper, super tacky worlds he creates are in Tim's mind more monstrous than the "monsters" of his films. This is what gives his films heft and beauty and why he's lasted this long.
Was referring more to Burton himself as a director:
I used to joke about Internet trolls or jackass Howard Stern fans, etc., that those who are the most in love with "shaking up the status quo" for thrill value usually end up attracted to the SAME EXACT corny familiar overworn punchline targets as each other (insert GeorgeC joke here :P )--Thus, ironically, making themselves their own overbearing and asinine cliche', completely in the belief they're not, while the rest of us casual folk with no social demons go our own merry unpredictable way.
In Tim's case, he wants to "champion the Weird and Misunderstood"--So, we get a parody of Plastic Suburbia...OOH! And comedy gags about wacky senile old ladies...EEK! Jokes about funny, lovable decomposing corpses that fall apart at the wrong time...FAINT! You could describe the plot of Mars Attacks on paper, and facepalm at the borscht-belt corniness of half the film just from the descriptions. ("Y'see, they figure out that to defeat the aliens, they have to play Slim Whitman records, and the yodeling makes their heads explode...Get it, get it??")
Whether taking on beloved pop icons, or "reinterpreting" famous Twisted Tales Of Our Youth", Mr. Burton is not quite as Misunderstood Weird as he desperately wants to be, and certainly wants to be a great deal "weirder" than he basically IS. It takes a lot more than Wanting To.
(And he can certainly create an atmosphere of misunderstood pathos or pain, but unfortunately, it's usually immediately deep-sixed by his urge to have, say, Paul Reubens suddenly walk in in a bit-part cameo because the director thought it would be a Hoot. Uh, Tim, there's this little directorial thing called "consistent tone", and it comes from not following your every single urge at every single minute.)

He's "stayed around" because of his Cults of Personality: Fanboys who want him to direct another Edward Scissorhands (because they dream of being as Weird As He Is without quite knowing how either), and Studios who want him to direct another Batman, both handing him movies and saying "Here, do it, you know how!"
For comparison, though, look at Spielberg: Thirty years later, Spielberg still attracts mindless 80's-fanboys who say "Spielberg should do some more aliens and dinosaurs, and another Indiana Jones!", and Steven turns around and does historical epics, period 60's con-men, and Tom Hanks dramas...In other words, going out and doing exactly whatever personal/artistic/conscience project he wants to do at the time just to keep from directing the same movie twice, and okay, fanboys, just try and predict we'd get Amistad or The Terminal.
Burton, OTOH, has believed his own publicity for the last fifteen years to the point that a studio can walk in, say, "We don't know what to do with this remake of Fantastic Voyage we've had lying around for twelve years, wanna do it?--We know you'll make it look Really Weird! Or how about this stop-motion movie, can you put in all those curly-stripey things from Nightmare Before Xmas?". Burton says "Okay! :mrgreen: " and directs it strictly to the paint-by-numbers and automatic casting. Thus becoming THE most predictable director working in films today...Now, really, Tim, is that shaking up the Status Quo? Being In a Rut isn't what Misunderstood Weird people aspire to do.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 459
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by Dusterian » June 10th, 2010, 8:11 am

Thanks ShyViolet. I agree with that!

EricJ, I think what it is is that Tim Burton always found himself liking things that most people around him, or the mainstream, or the popular, or the big studios and movies, did not seem to, so he saw himself as weird and different. And way back when, I'd say he was.

However, maybe he just wasn't around the right crowd, or didn't see enough independent films, or maybe it really was: he wanted the big, popular, mainstream movies and blockbusters to be able to have the weirdness he liked, he didn't want to make little seen independent films, or just didn't like independent films, or didn't even know about them.

It's okay tha Tim thinks he's really weird and maybe others don't think he is. Because a lot of times what we think we are, others don't think we are. That doesn't matter. It only matters what we think of ourselves (unless we're like, hurting people, and we think we're good people. And no, "hurting" people creatively/entertainment-wise doesn't count!). It's really opinion, and with yours on Burton I somewhat agree, but Tim still has a unique vision everyone recognizes all the time.

Though, what I do agree with you on is that Tim Burton was better and more original in the past, and now not so much of either of those these days. Yet, his vision of Wonderland was great, it was only Linda's ideas that were not. And I'd love to see his vision of Sleeping Beauty's world for Maleficent, as well. So, him doing such movies is okay with me just because we know those aren't about a new story he's writing, it's about how it looks (and about how good the performances are, more or less), and I know that's all it's about, and I'm okay with that.

He's doing Frankenweenie as a big stop-motion picture, that sounds close to his original creative roots again...

On this subject, I DO want to ask Ben and everyone who can answer, though...why did Tim Burton let all those other artists help design what Wonderland looked like? Did he draw his visions, then give them to others to finish up, and he just approved them when he liked them? Because that article a while back sounded like most things were drawn up just by other people, who tried to make it look like Tim's style, and then he approved or disapproved them!
Image

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6689
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by Dacey » June 10th, 2010, 5:39 pm

why did Tim Burton let all those other artists help design what Wonderland looked like?
Why didn't Walt do all of the drawings for "Snow White"?

Why didn't Chris Sanders paint all of the watercolor backgrounds on "Lilo and Stitch"?

Why didn't Peter Jackson do all of the designs for "The Lord of the Rings" and "King Kong"?

Why didn't...well, I think I've made my point here. ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9077
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by ShyViolet » June 10th, 2010, 6:23 pm

No prob Dusterian! :)

Technically, Alice isn't "asked to recite nonsense rhymes", she's asked to recite real rhymes, and finds they come out as nonsense.
Partly to sell Carroll's own parodies, partly to clue us in that she might be dreaming (and that everything is "quite curious today"), and partly to satirize the Improving Education with which real schoolchildren were asked to recite them.
Right, sorry, that's exactly what I meant. She says them all wrong but LC is just saying they're stupid in the first place.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 6689
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » June 11th, 2010, 3:49 pm

Random, but it's nice to see you on the boards again, Vi. I've missed having you around. :)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 9077
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland

Post by ShyViolet » June 11th, 2010, 4:08 pm

Thanks Dacey! :)
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

Post Reply