Eccentric Flower talk:201002/Alice
From Eccentric Flower
Comments on Eccentric Flower:201002/Alice
Is there some reason you can't just not watch them? Or is that a misguided question?
-- 22:32, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Jette: You know, it's amazing we get along as well as we do, when you hold opinions as heretical as those.
(I'm waiting for your guess about the other Disney film I own. Nonelvis, keep quiet; you are disallowed.)
-- 22:33, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Ys: Of course I can just not watch them. The problem I have is that people have such ephemeral memories and Hollywood encourages this, by trying to wash away so much that is good in its endless stream of bad remakes, TV licenses, et cetera. There will be people who see this version of Alice and don't realize there was a better one, just as there are now people who will never see the 1971 Wonka and will not know it was superior, just as there are people who will never know why Cheaper By the Dozen is such a fabulous book because all they know is a crappy movie, just like they will never see the brilliant original of The Women, et cetera et cetera ... and then one day I will go try to buy a DVD and I won't be able to find the real version for sale because the craptastic version will have totally eclipsed it, and then I will have suffered for everyone else's stupidity yet again.
However, it's worth noting that once in a very occasional while it does cut the other way, and thus one day the Rat Pack Ocean's 11 will, if we are lucky, be completely forgotten.
-- 22:38, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
P.S. on Anne Hathaway: It strikes me that, in her best roles to date, what she has achieved is merely an inoffensive and non-film-wrecking neutral presence, as in The Devil Wears Prada, where her performance could not be said to be bad ... nor could it be said to be good, nor much of anything.
She may yet surprise me one day, but she'll have to do it pretty soon, because I've about given up on her. Even Amy Adams at least tries to take a daring part once in a while.
-- 22:45, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Guess #1: The Aristocats (not to be confused by the more recent and completely unrelated The Aristocrats).
-- 22:51, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
God no. Seen it once, as a child, don't remember it well, don't remember liking it much.
-- 22:53, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
The fallacy in your argument is the assumption that those people would ever have found the better version.
-- 22:56, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
You must not have been one of those people at LSU who kept fussing because The Aristocats was not available for 16mm rental, then. Damn.
2. The Great Mouse Detective.
-- 22:56, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Oh boogers, I just remembered, I also own The Three Caballeros, but like Fantasia I have that in my mental roster as a series of short animated segments paired with music. I mean another long-form, single-story, animated feature, not an anthology piece.
-- 22:58, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Jette: I haven't ever even SEEN The Great Mouse Detective. Should I?
-- 22:58, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Ys: A girl can dream. Anyway, surely you detect that my tongue is at least one-third in my cheek.
-- 22:59, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Oh hell. You know what? I'm kind of an idiot. OK, well, it makes it easier. In addition to Alice in Wonderland I own TWO other long-form non-anthology Disney animated features. (Disney cel animation; e.g. Pixar doesn't count.) So now you have twice the odds on your final guess, Jette!
(I forgot about one because I only watch it very occasionally; as opposed to the one I had originally been thinking of, which I need to watch every couple of months. But fair's fair - either will do.)
ETA: This is what refreshed my memory.
-- 23:05, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
I guess Hercules. :)
Is there some way to tell this infernal site to notify me via some means when people have commented on the same post I've commented on (since there is no threaded conversation)? Or do I just have to remember to come back and refresh periodically?
-- 23:06, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
And yes, I know, the problem is that your tongue is only about one-third in your cheek. Some part of you really does believe that people will find the good stuff if it weren't for all the crap.
But it's not true. Most people don't care about the good stuff.
-- 23:07, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Ys: There are server-config reasons why I cannot allow this site to send outgoing mail notifications. Take it up with my ISP and their misconfigured global sendmail installation.
I check the "recent journal activity" page to keep track of comment activity, but so far I have not managed to find a feedroller that handles that. Oh, I have a feed roller, but it picks up only page CREATIONS, not modifications (which is good, for what I do with it - otherwise you'd get a post whenever I alter an entry after the fact). I'm still trying to solve that problem.
-- 23:11, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
Also: Hercules isn't a bad guess, it's one of my personal top ten in the Disney long-form list, particularly since throwing out their standard boring character designs and getting Gerald Scarfe to come in was such a gutsy move. However, I only seem to need to see it once every few years, so that's below critical mass for DVD ownership.
-- 23:14, 17 February 2010 (GMT)
I am always late to the comment party. But I was glad to note that you liked the CFKA-SciFi version of Alice. I quite liked it as a reimagining. But I might have been biased because the guy who played the Hatter was so adorable.
I can't decide if I am anticipating the Burton version with horror or intrigue. Possibly both. I must say I AM tired of him putting the Burton stamp on so much of my childhood. It would be different if he ever had a different vision, but it always seems to be the same one, executed on top of whatever story he is incidentally telling.
-- 00:58, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
the same one, executed on top of whatever story he is incidentally telling
I think this is my rant summarized in one sentence. (You have a habit of doing that.) It's not that I dislike his distinctive vision, it's that 1) he only seems to have the one and 2) he keeps putting it in places it doesn't belong.
Wasn't the Hatter adorable? Scruffy/disreputable but charming is hard to do well.
-- 01:19, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
P.S. You're not late, most of those comments happened within the space of a half hour!
-- 01:19, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
Huh. Having read all of this, now I dunno what to do. We were just talking about this film and whether we might want to see it. I thought Corpse Bride was a hoot. I do see the Burton stamp on just about everything he does, though. Maybe we'll wait until somebody's actually, you know, seen it to decide.
-- 03:26, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
You could be the brave volunteer!
But I suspect Jette will see it before any of the rest of us here.
-- 04:12, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
I actually rather liked the Burton/Depp version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. My feeling going into it was that the only way it could work would be if it never reminded me of the earlier film, and -- with the perhaps unavoidable exception of the Chocolate Room -- they pulled that off admirably, while retaining the core of the book.
Both versions felt the need to add on a stronger plot structure. The Wilder version had the Big Prize hinge on the Gobstopper test instead of obedience (or, if you prefer, lack of character flaws) and survival, leading to what was by far the largest transgression in either film: having Charlie try the fizzy-lifting drink. Which was all kinds of wrong.
But all told... I like them both; I'm glad they both exist; and I'm glad they're so different.
(As for the film, I was going to guess The Great Mouse Detective as well. I could pick something else at random, but... eh. Don't know.)
-- 04:46, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
Burton seems to only remake properties that he thinks are broken. (He famously didn't like the original Planet of the Apes, Wonka OR Alice.) I can respect leaving alone the properties you think are good and only remaking the stuff you think could've been much better, but the problem with Burton's remakes is that he keeps taking on things that are generally regarded as classics, and his attempts to "improve" them seem crass and clumsy and awful. He can still do decent work when he tells his own story (I have some hope for Frankenweenie), so I don't know why he's fixated on all these remakes.
I love many of the Alice movies, including the Disney version. I generally don't mind the changes made in the various movies, but I suspect Burton's will be another botch. Making it into some big fantasy war movie with Alice as a warrior knight is just too much of a stretch. While Alice isn't entirely passive, a certain degree of dreamy detachment is essential. She's a whimsical explorer, she wanders around and tries to figure stuff out... She does not strap on a goddamn sword and charge into battle. Jesus.
As for the casting, it doesn't bother me as much as Burton's attempts to "re-imagine" the characters. Using the same lines I've seen the Cheshire Cat played as a daffy fuzzball and as an otherworldly menace, and both approaches worked. The Mad Hatter can be kooky and harmless or terrifying, all depending on the inflection.
(I'm guessing 101 Dalmatians, for some reason.)
(Or maybe... The Sword in the Stone? Robin Hood?)
-- 05:28, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
I remember seeing the commercial and knowing immediately it was a Burton film. His "style" is just too distinctive and repetitive at this stage.
And my guess: The Black Cauldron.
-- 07:51, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
I'm with Jette on the Chocolate Factory films. Can't stand Gene Wilder.
Have never made it through any version of Alice in Wonderland, print or film. Won't see this one because my husband is appalled.
The Aristocats is awesome. We've had it out from Netflix for over a month and will probably have to buy it. But one-third of our family is two and a half; your family mileage may vary.
-- 14:18, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
To be honest, this conversation is making me want to hand over "Alice" to one of my reviewers instead of taking it myself (I think they want it more than I do, anyway). It just reminds me how I am always disappointed by Alice adaptations.
I was actually thinking of guessing "Three Caballeros" but decided against it. Damn.
"Great Mouse Detective" is one of Disney's hidden gems, if I remember correctly -- it's got Ashman/Mencken songs. And I liked it better than the recent "Sherlock Holmes" movie.
Guess #3 is "Aladdin." I know you have the original soundtrack with the non-bowlderized lyrics.
-- 16:22, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
I am clearly going to have to see Great Mouse Detective and re-see Aristocats. Yay! I get film recommendations!
(Xeney: One-third of my brain is two and a half, so that works out.)
Aladdin is in the same category as Hercules. I try not to buy a DVD unless I'm going to watch it at intervals less than a year. Besides, I have all the best lines in the film memorized.
Did you know that CD is a collector's item now?
Anybody else want to take a crack at one of the two long-form Disney films I own, particularly the one which I end up rewatching every three or four months?
SPC: I was never a Prydain reader as a kid - that's a fantasy universe that missed me entirely. So, while I saw The Black Cauldron, I think I was not positioned to really appreciate it. I've often wondered if that film's tanking was partially because a lot of other people were like me, simply not familiar enough with the mythos to care. I think if you're not a Prydain fan it looks like a very stock Jack the Scrappy Pigherd Fights Great Evil tale. Also, the animation looked unpleasantly Bluth-like to me (I can't stand the way Don Bluth films look, but I can't articulate why for you). Another possible problem was that at age 17 I was simply too old for it. I didn't start re-liking Disney until they learned how to put back in the two-level appeal, with material for both children and adults. If you look back at the chronological list I linked above, there's a period starting after The Aristocats and ending somewhere around the iffy Little Mermaid where Disney animation was making films which bored kids and had nothing in them for adults - their all-time low ebb, in my opinion. (The Little Mermaid is iffy not because it's a bad film but because there's nothing in it for grownups but Ursula.) Some people blame this on the last dying gasps of the Nine Old Men, just before they brought in new blood circa 1990, but the Nine were not scriptwriters, they were lead animators, and I blame script failure more than them.
I had thought, based on it being inside that 1970-1990 dead zone, The Great Mouse Detective was just as bad as its proximal peers, but Jette is convincing me to give it a look. I did see most of the others in that zone pretty faithfully.
Now, of course, Disney animation has entered its third dead zone, circa 2002, although I gather that The Princess and the Frog (which I haven't seen), shows that they may finally be remembering that choice of technique is less important than quality of script.
(The first dead zone was just after World War II and it wasn't their fault - cel animation operates on a three-to-five year lead time and they simply hadn't been able to do any during the war.)
-- 17:12, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
I'd go with either Cinderella or Snow White, because I suspect there was a time in your life where you identified with the main characters.
Tim Burton strikes me as Terry Gilliam without any taste. I want to like Burton's films, but other than Beetle Juice, which I liked, and his Batman, which I didn't, I either haven't seen or couldn't get through his other films. I really wanted to like Nightmare Before Christmas, and it just bored me (probably too much music).
Alice never did anything for me. As a kid, it struck me as a story for little girls, and when I got older, it struck me as perv bait for little girls. Thus, in principle I don't have a problem with someone messing with canon. I'd probably try watching it on HBO, but we go to so few movies now that neither of us wants to risk seeing a POS, which given that it's Burton, is a likelihood.
Oh, and Jette, they should revoke your film writer's license. Depp's Wonka is to Wilder's like dinner theater is to the RSC.
-- 18:31, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
Oh, Robert. "They should revoke your film writer's license" is the kind of comment I expect to hear on AOL after announcing I dislike a film, not here. Surely you can do better than that.
Henry Selick actually directed "The Nightmare Before Christmas," not Tim Burton, although Burton co-wrote it and his name is often mingled with the title. I may not like "Alice" adaptations but I loved Selick's adaptation of Neil Gaiman's "Coraline," which is rather Alice-like in some ways. In fact, this whole paragraph is just another excuse for me to declare my "Coraline" love (I also think the movie is better than the book).
I admit defeat on guessing which Disney animated features Columbine owns, but with my last gasp will submit Guess #4: "The Little Mermaid."
-- 18:41, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
Jette, I purposefully overwrote that criticism so you'd know I was teasing you about your horrible taste in Wonkas.
Coraline's on HBO or SHO this month, and Clare wants to see it. I'm happy to give it a chance.
-- 19:12, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
I don't think I mind Tim Burton, now that I think about it. I think I just hate Helena Bonham Carter. What she and her reedy little voice did to poor Mrs. Lovett was a catastrophe.
-- 19:19, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
Henry Selick is pretty brilliant and Coraline is worth your time, with or without 3-D. If Selick did an Alice adaptation I'd be there in a heartbeat - although, as Jette notes, Coraline is Alice-like enough that people might think he was repeating himself.
-- 19:29, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
I don't dislike Burton per se. He's made two non stop-motion films I consider pretty brilliant (Beetlejuice and Ed Wood), and all his stop-motion stuff, with or without Selick (The Corpse Bride was post-Selick, but it might as well have been one of his) is worth watching. His Sweeney Todd adaptation was about four times better than I expected it to be, which is to say, I expected him to take a dump all over my beloved source material and he did not - proving that sometimes he can be trusted. But I do think, as Harmony said, that he really only has one vision, so it's all a question of where it's applied. And he needs to stop casting his lovers.
-- 19:36, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
If it helps any, I was a Prydain fan going into The Black Cauldron, and I was disappointed when the film came out, because it didn't live up to the canon... but I was a stickler for that sort of thing in elementary school. :-)
-- 21:56, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
Jette: With The Little Mermaid I'd be more likely to buy the soundtrack than watch the film again. Only seen it twice (although I can pretty much sing "Poor Unfortunate Souls" from memory). The heroine is a co-dependent dingbat even by Disney standards (and yes, I realize that's not entirely their fault in this case).
I like Snow White a great deal, and not just for its historic/technical significance (although I watched it again a couple of years ago after a long hiatus and was astonished at how dated it looked). But no, that's not it, nor is Cinderella. Belle in Beauty and the Beast is more my kind of heroine, and no, that's not it either.
I'll post the answer later this evening. I was pretty sure no one would get it.
-- 22:08, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
Oh, I think it's Winnie the Pooh. Because you and Penny have at least a couple of others in common -- or maybe just Totoro? And that's the only one she owns.
-- 00:20, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
I'm really hoping it's not Winnie the Pooh, but that might be because I'm still kind of a snob about some things.
And my guess is Song of the South, more because it's hard to come by than for any real reason.
-- 02:52, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
(Although, reading the Wikipedia page, I found out that it had live action parts as well, which I completely forgot about, so I guess it doesn't count.)
-- 03:03, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
I have the VHS of Song of the South. Tried to watch it a few years ago and gaaaaaah. However much you think you liked it as a child, you are totally being clouded over by nostalgia. It is horribly racist, and it was racist even when it was released. I don't think Disney should release the movie on DVD unless there's an unfast-forward-able intro from Spike Lee or at least Elvis Mitchell. I would be thunderstruck if that's the movie Col. is talking about.
Now I am dying to find out what the movie(s) is/are. I mean, what the hell's left? Hercules? The commentary track on Brother Bear? Sleeping Beauty?
-- 03:26, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
Were the animated parts also racist, cause those are the only ones I have any memory of, and even then only fleeting ones…
Mulan?
-- 03:35, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
The Jungle Book. Snappy dialogue, good pacing, fabulous voice work, and the best songs the Shermans ever wrote (yup, even better than Mary Poppins).
Xeney: Did you know that the Disney version of Winnie the Pooh was widely reviled in the UK? (Possibly in Canada too, dunno, ask Blake.) Unlike us, British children had been growing up with A.A. Milne for a long time (poor things), and they had a very different mental idea of what those characters act and sound like, apparently.
Liking Totoro is just plain good taste. You can tell Penny I said so.
-- 04:36, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
Re: Pooh. The Disney Pooh seems wrong and baffling not just for English children. Russian children also have very different idea of how Pooh looks (and sounds - as the Russian Pooh also considers himself a poet)
An example with English subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqdiEUp6s4E
-- 04:52, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
I had never seen the Disney Pooh until we rented it for Penny, but I knew the songs from the music lessons I took when I was three. I am not a Milne fan so I do not care about versions there. Penny likes the songs, that's enough.
I have never seen The Jungle Book but Mary Poppins is the other Disney DVD we own so we will check it out if the songs are even better. But only if you check out The Aristocats. You must put on dancing shoes and a fancy dress for "Ev'rybody Wants To Be A Cat," though.
-- 13:46, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
That Russian Pooh looks so different from the British and American ones, but is just as cute. The animation in that piece was lovely, too, though I didn't have time to watch it all the way through.
-- 21:45, 19 February 2010 (GMT)
i will not be able to un-imagine Spall as the Mad Hatter now. it's a perfect match!
it's always a problem turning something episodic-chaptery-shaped into something movie-shaped. they always want to force it into a five-act box. Studio Ghibli does a good job of it (i think Takahata better than Miyazaki), but how much is a different cultural expectation of structure?
as a kid i had those book+record versions of lots of the Disney movies. the Mary Poppins melodies got stuck in your head, but the Jungle Book ones were the most fun to sing along with as loud as possible!
-- 19:12, 22 February 2010 (GMT)
Learning these things has actually made me feel a little better about the film.
OK, so, this is a sequel of sorts, then. It's not her original adventures; she had those long ago and she's coming back. And in the interim Wonderland has been under the thumb of the Red Queen and not for the better.
See, that makes it acceptable; that makes it not my story anymore and therefore he can do whatever he likes in it. I could watch this, because I wouldn't be watching the actual story but a curious anomaly, an experiment in miscasting. I won't mind watching his hallucinations if I can tell myself he's screwing up a sequel composed in his own head, rather than screwing up Lewis Carroll.
-- 18:39, 23 February 2010 (GMT)
Reviews are beginning to come in. Apparently, the key marker is whether you liked the books as a kid. If you didn't like the books (and I will refrain from saying, "What's wrong with you?") then you will probably like the film [cf. Ebert]. If you did like the books, you will probably hate the film [cf. Entertainment Weekly, which gave it a very unimpressed C grade].
-- 15:59, 5 March 2010 (GMT)
Jette:
I don't believe there's ever been a good adaptation of "Alice." All the best stuff is not really filmable. The Disney cartoon doesn't really grab me; I find a lot of animated Disney that I liked in childhood doesn't wear well for me. (But I bet I can guess the other Disney animated film you have, in three.)
I also can't stand the 1971 version of the Roald Dahl book and actually prefer the Burton version, although I'm divided on how I feel about Depp. Gene Wilder just makes me cringe.
I didn't like Anne Hathaway until I saw her in "Rachel Getting Married" and want to see her in more like that.
I hear Burton wants to adapt "The Phantom Tollbooth" next. Kidding!
-- 22:29, 17 February 2010 (GMT)