Author
|
Topic: Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland
|
|
Sylvos
Non-Standard Userer
|
The re-make age of Hollywood continues, this time with Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland which is set for a 2010 release. Will Elfman be a part of it? If not which composer do you think is the right choice for the music?
  |
posted 02-17-2008 05:27 AM PT (US) ip
|
|
Camillu
Standard Userer
|
Elfman, all the way. I'm quite sure Elfman would get this assignment.
|
posted 02-17-2008 06:15 AM PT (US) ip
|
|
Marian Schedenig
Standard Userer
|
How is that a remake?
|
posted 02-17-2008 08:46 AM PT (US) ip
|
|
Sylvos
Non-Standard Userer
|
Yes, not really a remake. For some reasons I thought the 1951 Disney adoption was a film. I think I had 'The Wizard of Oz' in mind. Sorry for the confusion.[Message edited by Sylvos on 02-17-2008]
|
posted 02-17-2008 09:51 AM PT (US) ip
|
|
MWRuger
Standard Userer
|
Alice has been made many times over the years. The first film was made in 1915.
|
posted 02-17-2008 10:00 AM PT (US) ip
|
|
scoreguy16
Standard Userer
|
quote:
Originally posted by MWRuger:
Alice has been made many times over the years. The first film was made in 1915.
Yeah I am pretty sure it's been made into a film before. As for Burton directing, lets just hope it doesn't turn into another Planet of the Apes... whew... But I hope Elfman scores it! I think he'd be a perfect choice for it.
|
posted 02-17-2008 11:01 AM PT (US) ip
|
|
nuts_score
Standard Userer
|
I don't think something should be considered a remake if it has older source material that has been adapted time and time again Lewis Carroll's Wonderland series has provided inspiration for plenty of things.That said, Burton is absolutely wrong for this material. Wrong, wrong, wrong. As much as I'd like to see Terry Gilliam finally take a stab at adapting the story, he's made his own impression upon the legacy of this tale. Tideland was a wonderful spin on the well-known series, and nearly all of his films involve stepping through some type of device into another world (even Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). But Burton, yuck! And 2010? Was this information taken from IMDb? I doubt anything on this ever sees the light of day.
|
posted 02-17-2008 11:29 AM PT (US) ip
|
|
Sylvos
Non-Standard Userer
|
The release year is coming from imdb, yes but I read about Burton's involvement somewhere else:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=46213 http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=39384 It's coming from Walt Disney Pictures by the way.
|
posted 02-17-2008 01:03 PM PT (US) ip
|
|
Marian Schedenig
Standard Userer
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvos:
Yes, not really a remake. For some reasons I thought the 1951 Disney adoption was a film. I think I had 'The Wizard of Oz' in mind.
Which is also an older book and has also been made into a movie several times (and the famous technicolor version wasn't the first).
|
posted 02-17-2008 02:43 PM PT (US) ip
|
|
gkgyver
Standard Userer
|
I like that thought alot!
Any chance it could be a tasteful cartoon adaption without CGI and cool modernisations for a "hip" crowd?
|
posted 02-17-2008 04:39 PM PT (US) ip
|
|
nuts_score
Standard Userer
|
quote:
Originally posted by gkgyver:
I like that thought alot!
Any chance it could be a tasteful cartoon adaption without CGI and cool modernisations for a "hip" crowd?
You can forget that with Burton on board. Even Sweeney Todd, which needs no CGI at all, had plenty of CGI; he also relies on modernisations a lot, too. Though none were present in Todd, most of us witnessed his handling of the Chocolate Factory.
|
posted 02-17-2008 07:22 PM PT (US) ip
|
|
Kirkinson
Standard Userer
|
quote:
Originally posted by MWRuger:
Alice has been made many times over the years. The first film was made in 1915.
1903, actually. And you can see what's left of that version as a special feature on the DVD of Jonathan Miller's BBC production from 1966 (still the best screen version of this story, in my opinion). The 1915 version is actually quite good, as well, though I don't think a print exists anymore that conveys how gorgeous it originally looked (I've seen stills of it in a book in much better condition).Anyway, Lewis Carroll is my favorite author of all time and I've seen at least 20 different film adaptations of the two Alice books. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it's probably impossible to translate Carroll's work to the screen "correctly." Despite the very illustrative, imaginative elements, in the end the books' true uniqueness rests so much in its literary quality that it can't ever be conveyed to another medium to full satisfaction. Therefore, I've come to find it more interesting when a director has a unique, individualistic take on the material that they can present in some way that totally sets their version apart from any others. Having said that, my feelings about this version would be much more optimistic if late-1980's-Tim Burton was making it. 21st-Century-Tim Burton I'm much more cautious about, especially after reading (I forget where) that it was going to be another motion-capture CGI extravaganza. I'll see it just because I simply can't not see it, and I'm genuinely interested to see how it shapes up, but I can't say I'm actually optimistic unless it starts to seem like Burton is taking a really new, uncharted approach to the material. That very well could happen, but I just don't know...for now, I remain passionately ambivalent. Kirk
|
posted 02-18-2008 01:26 AM PT (US) ip
|
