MovieChat Forums > Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) Discussion > I heard it has nothing even remotely to ...

I heard it has nothing even remotely to do with the book...

posted 9 years ago by dark_isle
22 replies | jump to latest

And yet they decided to do a World War Z and steal the title anyway? Luis Carroll must be rolling in this grave. I'm so tired of these massive studios raping and pillaging these timeless classics but with no intention of actually respecting the source material and just whoring out the brand name. They have the resources of small countries and yet they can't spend some of it making something original? And if not original, maybe a RESPECTABLE ADAPTATION that isn't random nonsense?! And maybe not another worthless vehicle for Johnny Depp to play the exact same character he's played for 20 years now? I'm so happy this POS flopped.

[–] lemner 9 years ago

Both books together would barely make a movie, and it would be a fun little movie, though not a blockbuster. Someone should do that someday.

In this case they took the characters and created backstories and plot, and made 2 blockbuster action movies, basically out of whole cloth.

Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam


[–] dark_isle 9 years ago

Oh please. The Hobbit was just as short and they managed to squeeze 9 hours out of it. Albeit the results weren't amazing, but its at least possible. Through the Looking Glass had more than enough intelligent subtext for 90 minutes, but they went with 2 plus hours of epileptic colors and Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp instead.

[–] trollomatic 9 years ago

>>>Through the Looking Glass had more than enough intelligent subtext for 90 minutes, but they went with 2 plus hours of epileptic colors and Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp instead.

no they didn't. This movie is SHORTER than 2 hours.

[–] SophieSlut 9 years ago

They didn't need to actually ADAPT the story. They just needed to keep the basic SPIRIT of the books alive. Instead they trampled all over it in 2 attempts at a cash grab.

They didn't even use the characters from the books. They used the names and images of the characters from the book and nothing else. The Blue Caterpillar is a wise old sage? WTF???



[–] PenTheater 9 years ago

Disney can imagine anything, but apparently all their money can't imagine making either classic tale Carroll wrote. The last one strayed of course from the get go, this one is H.G. Wells or something. A shame because really Though the Looking Glass is even a better and more complex story than Alice's Adventures, because the first one Carroll made up that summer day, and Through The Looking Glass Carroll spent more time on. But we all know that.

Disney, I love you but you blew it again.

Ephemeron.

[–] dalbrech 9 years ago

Burton's first Alice movie was not even a film of the book,but a messed up sequel to it. So Alice 2 is a messed up sequel to a messed up sequel.

[–] PenTheater 9 years ago

I know, I hated that one too.

Ephemeron.

[–] dalbrech 9 years ago

It's amazing how many people think the Burton film was a new version of the novel,not a messed up sequel to it.

[–] PenTheater 9 years ago

I would say sad rather than amazing.

Ephemeron.

[–] PenTheater 9 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164993/
Alice in Wonderland (1999

For any of you that have never read either story and am really interested in what Lewis Carroll's stories were really about, but might prefer a movie instead, check this one out. It was very well done and stayed very true to the books.

Watching this one might get you to read the books!

Ephemeron.

[–] PenTheater 9 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167758/
Another lost but true to the story version is this one with
Kate Beckinsale.
It was TV but had some very entertaining "chapters" one pleasure of all the unique characters in it was that they recited the unique poems that were in Through the Looking Glass.

Carroll would have loved this one I think.

Ephemeron.

[–] chilone 8 years ago

I now understand your position, given that you gave Slacker an 8.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] PenTheater 8 years ago

I should probably rate Slacker a little lower than that now but I don't compare it in any way to this type of movie, or I should say I don't compare most movies to a movie like Slacker, that was a completely different approach to movie making and storytelling. Slacker stands in a small group or on it's own as a video/story concept.
So different it would be trying to compare Psycho to Dark Side Of the Moon (album!) You don't need to do that.

So don't take that 1-10 scale to all movies compared together, at least I didn't.

If there are guidelines to rating these movies here I have never seen it but things I look for higher numbers are ,
Did it entertain me?
Would I watch it again?
Would I actually own it?
Did I get more out of it than the basic story line?
Was the acting and cinematography something memorable?
Was the story well done? Things like that.

In the case of this and the other Alice movie, if it had had a different title then yes, higher score, but calling itself Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass (Lewis Carroll) then NO.
Disney did it right the first time (1951).

. Ephemeron.

[–] Wombstar 9 years ago

Like they're aren't zillions of versions of Alice already. It was nice they didn't something different with the material this time.

[–] angiemae 8 years ago

I just really like that by writing "they're aren't", what you're saying is "they are are not", and I couldn't get past the silly gibberishness to continue on with your comment.

[–] angiemae 8 years ago

Ok, went back and re-read your comment and I actually completely agree with what you have written. People are acting like by using the title "Alice in Wonderland" but doing they're own take on it, no one can ever make another Alice again. That's it, it's ruined..we're done. It's ridiculous. I too was pleased to see something different and thought they did a great job.

[–] haunt_freak 9 years ago

Lewis Carroll is rolling at your misspelling of his name.

~~~
"I'm not used to being out in months that don't begin with 'O'."
-The Ringmaster, Dark Harbor

[–] C-Younkin 9 years ago

Well when you think about it the first Burton movie deviated from the Lewis Carroll story as well and tried to do it's own thing. It wasn't very good and this was really just as bad. Please no more.

Trying to create a funny, engaging YouTube channel. If you guys check it out, hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance.

Review of the film here- https://youtu.be/0TUmGxkfZ0M

[–] benman46 9 years ago

The same charge could be levelled at the first one.

[–] number1212 9 years ago

This is the sequel to the first movie which had nothing to do with the book and was instead a sequel (sorta).

[–] jaynekranc 9 years ago

Honestly, the book wasn't that great. I don't know why it's the classic it is considering how rambling it was and what a creeper Carroll was.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]