Alice in Wonderland trailer, you guys:

Well, that looks neat, I guess. (You say you did all of that with a what now? A computahuh?) Also: unnecessary. Did we need Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Not really. But we got it anyway. Is it just me, or does it seem like Tim Burton is somehow exempt from the ordinary rules of disdain and public outrage over Hollywood’s cash-grabbing War on Movies That Don’t Need to Be Remade? I suppose Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands will buy you a lifetime of goodwill, AS THEY SHOULD. Old Godz. Walking among us.

As a sidenote, though: Johnny Depp should probably be careful. You can only ramp it up so much. His face/head is going to get stuck like that one day.

Comments (101)
  1. According to wikipedia, this takes place 10 years after the book? Wuet? WHy is Johnny Depp in everything Tim Burton does? He’s like Scorsese’s DeCap. I will probably see this though because there’s not much to do in Montana. At all.

  2. So it’s no longer a matter of if but when will we get Tim Burton’s Wizard of Oz. It’ll be just like the original, only Robert Smith will be the scarecrow and Dorothy will cut herself. Don’t worry, folks, a midget will still hang himself. Burton knows that some elements of the original should remain untouched.

    • caractacus  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +2

      So according to IMDB Tim Burton already did a version of the Wizard of Oz, or at least wrote a screenplay, and he’s going to be making 1984? Wooooof.

  3. Whatever happened to just “ALICE”.. the *HORROR* movie

    * = finger quotes

  4. I’m waiting for Tyler Perry’s Tim Burton’s Johnny Depp in Drag and a Fat Suit. It’s only a matter of time.

  5. We didn’t need the Charlie & the Chocolate Factory remake because it had already been made perfectly. But there hasn’t been a really definitive version of Alice in Wonderland, unless you count the ’50s Disney cartoon, which was really pretty but didn’t have any of the creepiness and anarchy of the book. So I’m excited! (Not that jazzed about the fucking predictable casting of Johnny Depp, though. Even Tom Petty made a more authentic-looking Mad Hatter.)

  6. I really hope this catapults Mia Wasikowska’s career. This doesn’t really show it, but she’s ridiculously talented for her age. She really deserves it.

    Or I might just have a thing for beautiful Australian actresses who aren’t Nicole Kidman. That too.

  7. It’s nice to see Helena Bonham Carter getting work. Tim Burton really gave her a break here.

  8. I liked it up until I saw Johnny Depp’s face

  9. You really did a nice segue from Juggalos to Tim Burton movie there, Gabe. Kudos (?)

  10. Selena  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +10

    Alice needs to figure out who her constant is.
    My money is on that damned unpunctual Rabbit!

  11. When I saw this picture

    I totally thought Reese Witherspoon was the red queen.

  12. JD  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +9

    Geez, Tim Burton could have at least made it look like a Tim Burton movie…

  13. I’m underwhelmed.

  14. Mr. Burton has probably been sticking to such recognizable properties because it makes it easier for him to convince Disney to pay for his massive army of Art Directors. (Also to pay for his girlfriend’s head implants, apparently.)

    While I’d prefer a bit more original material, he usually manages to put enough of an interesting twist on things to make them worthwhile. Sweeny Todd was good, at least.

  15. Anyone else think the Cheshire Cat looked kinda scary? No? Just me then.

  16. I wish Steve Buscemi reprised his mad hatter role from SNL for this. “You’re all dead and you don’t even know it!!!”

  17. It’s MOTHERFUCKING Alice in Wonderland, a truly MAGICAL time with unbelievably cool people JUST LIKE YOU! If you’ve never been, THIS IS THE TIME to go! GROW SOME FUCKING BALLS and GET THERE! Quit wishing you could go EVERY YEAR! The time has come! Get to Wonderland and DON’T MISS A THING! We’ll see you there, NINJA!

  18. Josh  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +1

    I think it looks great, and am very excited for it.

  19. In terms of creepiness, freakishness, awesomeness, otherness, other nesses, Loch Ness, Eliot Ness,…. ehm ok so just in terms of the first three, the Jim Henson muppets from the film Dreamchild defecate all over these interpretations of the characters. Sadly it often seems that nobody’s bloody seen the film except me and since it’s unlikely ever to appear on DVD any time soon nobody ever will. (There’s some clips on youtube but the quality is terrible and makes it look awful, which it’s not)

  20. Hey, also, wasn’t this already a probably ill-conceived videogame?

  21. bob loblaw  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 0

    this is just alice in wonderland on ecstasy.

  22. If I could put on my serious hat for a second, there will never be a really spot-on Alice movie. I love the book, but it is a largely plotless string of overwhelming strangers verbally abusing a child {or at the least having conversations of circular reasoning). This is going to have some hamstrung plot with unnecessary parental issues, and a strong plot is contrary to the book. The stop-animation “Alice” comes close to capturing the frustration, but is wildly scarier. Dreamchild is similar, in the couple puppet sequences. I am also really really tired of this style of CGI design. But hey, LOOKS FUN RIGHT

  23. it’s bad enough i have to know this exists. but i also know a bunch of people that will need to be sat down and told why this is a bad thing for all of us. and i’m not looking forward to that talk.

  24. I hope Large Marge makes an appearance. He hasn’t done a scene with her since Sleepy Hollow.

  25. This is going to sell SO MANY Hot Topic T-Shirts, folks.

  26. orange  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +5

    Unrelated, but I wanted to thank stereo/videogum because I was, in fact, hoping to surprise her with a bigger penis.

  27. Ray  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 -9

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

    • jordanbeard  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +6

      well, I think part of what made the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Willy Wonka..) was that the script was done by the same writer as the book (Roald Dahl).. If Lewis Carroll had written the script to this (and not died 111 years ago) I’d totally be interested in this movie…

      • Didn’t Roald Dahl boycott the movie though. I may be wrong, but if I’m right it kills your argument. And lets not saint Dahl. I love The BFG as much as the next manchild, but he was exceptionally racist. You can make a decent film adaptation of a book without dealing with an author, and you can make a terrible film adaptation dealing directly with the author, see Shopgirl.

        • You got an upvote because Shopgirl SUCKED.

        • You are right. Roald Dahl openly expressed his hatred for the Wonka film and Gene Wilder’s interpretation of Wonka. He said that it was no where near what he imagined. As for Burton’s adaptation, not remake, as it was based on the novel and not on the film, Dahl’s wife said that their version of Willy Wonka would make Dahl proud as that is how he was originally imagined. I personally think that Tim Burton is an amazing director and I think that Alice looks like it will be amazing. I wish people would wait until they actually saw it before judging it and would stop comparing it to the Disney version. It has nothing to do with the Disney version. It is based on Lewis Carroll’s books.

    • jordanbeard  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 0

      well, I think part of what made the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Willy Wonka..) was that the script was done by the same writer as the book (Roald Dahl).. If Lewis Carroll had written the script to this (and not died 111 years ago) I’d totally be interested in this movie…

    • Hate to interrupt your serious reading, but I’m not sure I understand your point. So filmmakers shouldn’t ever bother trying to adapt great books, even if the results are (by your own admission) amazing? Do you really want to make that argument?

      • Samantha  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 -4

        This is dangerous territory I know, but…

        Can you name three Disney films that were even remotely as good as their hardcovered predecessors? (ones whose scripts weren’t written by the original authors?)

        Even aside from that, isn’t it a bit blasphemous when they start changing plots and characters just to make it more commercial (some would say insulting, inaccurate, and usually sexist)?

        I mean we all adore Aladdin, but boy does it make me cringe

  28. Alice in Wonderland is already Alice in Wonderland on ecstasy.

  29. Ivan Idea  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +4

    Underwhelming to the max.
    Somebody stop Burton before he remakes Frankenweenie.

    • bill nighy  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +2

      “Frankenweenie is a 1984 short film directed by Tim Burton, and co-written by Burton with Leonard Ripps. It is a parody of and a homage to the 1931 film Frankenstein based on Mary Shelley’s book of the same name. Burton is currently working on a full-length stop motion remake for cinematic release.”

  30. I guess I’m really in the minority here, but I’m mildly interested in this movie and will probably go and see it.

    But man, Elijah Wood’s gotta be pissed about getting his face ripped off.

    • Then I’m super in the minority, because I love Tim Burton and I’m seeing this.

      • equalitystreet  |   Posted on Jul 24th, 2009 0

        Oh, thank god, there’s someone else looking forward to it. I refuse to let these comments piss on my fire! My fire of excitement! And even though he is scary-looking, I would still lick Johnny Depp’s face, despite having seen “Public Enemies”.

        Tim Burton’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” has had a massive slagging off here, but personally I really enjoyed it, which I guess bodes well for Alice? (Let’s please ignore “Sweeney Todd”. Its only saving grace is Borat singing. …okay, and “Planet of the Apes”. …look, what I’m trying to say is I have a good FEELING about this one.)

  31. Kira  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +18

    One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes your dress almost fall off of you

  32. It was! And I am!
    And I used to review films for my high school newsletter, so I really know what I’m talking about!

    (I mean, it’s no Scenes From a Marriage or Spy Kids, but what film is?)

  33. ehh, i really like tim burton, so i gotta be a dissenter here. even at his worst, i find his work interesting (save ‘planet of the apes’ which i don’t remember). i guess i’d rather see him do something new than remakes, but whatever. there are few people out there making movies in the same style tim burton makes movies (successfully anyway), so why look a gift horse in the mouth?

    besides, let’s not judge the whole film based on a teaser trailer.

  34. Alice? Who the fuck is Alice?

  35. I feel like Tim Burton sometimes skates by only because he’s Tim Burton. The weirdness in his movies is almost like a crutch more than something that enhances the movie. Outside of Pee Wee, Ed Wood, and Big Fish (which are all absolutely fantastic movies), he doesn’t really evolve or change or attempt anything different. This looks like it will be no exception.

    • Ms. New Jersey  |   Posted on Jul 23rd, 2009 0

      So I guess you didn’t like Nightmare Before Christmas? Or Beetlejuice? Or Mars Attacks – to a lesser extent?

  36. Lhy  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +5

    Yeah the Wilder version was so perfect Roald Dahl hated it.

    • Exactly! The book was one of my favorites as a kids and I remember watching the movie and being really confused. Like, why were they SINGING ABOUT BEING POOR and why did Wonka get all insane and angry at Charlie at the end? It was so different from the book, it’s easy to see why Dahl didn’t like it. ALTHOUGH, I understand why so many people love it, it’s FUN, okay. But I really liked Burton’s version because it was much more faithful to the book (apart from the dentist-dad thing, but that wasn’t even so bad) and it got the tone perfectly. Plus, it looked gorgeous! Like a movie made out of candy! So why does everyone hate it, aside from it being a remake (which it’s not, really, it’s ANOTHER ADAPTATION OF A BOOK)?

    • I personally don’t give a shit whether authors like adaptations of their work. (They almost never do.) I also don’t think it matters at all whether the author adapted the screenplay or not. A lot of novelists don’t know the first thing about writing a screenplay, so when a novelist turns in an adaptation that’s unfilmable and then a team of professional (unbilled) script doctors get called in to fix it up, of course he’s going to get sniffy. (The one exception to this that I can think of is Nabokov’s “Lolita” screenplay, which got radically changed but he still liked the end result because IT WAS GOOD).

      If L. Frank Baum was alive when “The Wizard of Oz” came out and he got mad because they turned it into a musical, MGM would’ve said to his face, “Fuck you, L. Frank Baum.” And they would have been correct.

      • langford  |   Posted on Jul 26th, 2009 0

        A-Fucking-Men. Burton’s may’ve been more faithful to Dahl’s vision, but it was the worse movie. I mean, Stephen King hated The Shining movie. Authors don’t know nothing ’bout movies.

  37. marilyn manson is coming out with a version of alice in wonderland next year too=GOTH OFF!

  38. I love the book, but it is a largely plotless string of overwhelming strangers verbally abusing a child.

    No kidding. I just reread it again for the first time since I was a kid and came away feeling kind of stressed out. She just wants to find the rabbit, guys! Stop quizzing her on grammar and geography!

  39. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  40. MilesMayhem  |   Posted on Jul 22nd, 2009 +4

    They’re just billing it as Johnny Depp ’cause that’s what everyone expects, that’s totally Madonna as the Mad Hatter

  41. Say whatever you want about Tim Burton, even if the movie sucks it’s worth watching.


    Ace art direction!

  42. Evan  |   Posted on Jul 23rd, 2009 -7

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see

  43. Alice Scissorhands In The Big Fish Chocolate Factory Of Fleet Street

  44. There already WAS a live action version of Alice in WOnderland that, aside from being too long on video (it was a miniseries), it was fascinatingly complex and aesthetically pleasing without wacky hot topic/harajuku imagery and transformers-caliber CGI landscapes.

  45. HN1   |   Posted on Jul 23rd, 2009 +4

    Oh good. They made Alice look like a sexy, underfed Eastern European fashion model. I was afraid they were going to go with the whole ‘little girl adventure thing.’ But who could have wanked to that (aside from Carroll himself)?

  46. Natty man  |   Posted on Jul 27th, 2009 0

    You people are crazy. Johnny depp is a genus and this film looks like it might be pretty good. Burton has a vision……..

  47. Natty man  |   Posted on Jul 27th, 2009 0

    You people are crazy. Johnny depp is a genus and this film looks like it might be pretty good. Burton has a unique vision……..

  48. Mein gott…

    There is no denying the man knows how to paint a screen with lush vs. muted colors to a considerable scale. I just miss the days when he wrote his OWN screenplays. Beetlejuice/Edward/Nightmare. Or with Ed Wood and Frankenweinie, he channeled other cinematic/surrealist yet heart-felt zones and scooped a few things out of the collective conscious. Things that we’d long dismissed.

    If you’re going to remake Alice (or re-imagine, or tell a different collection of her stories), best to do it with out retrodding ground. It makes me sad, because I truly like him and his crazy story in Hollywood. Ah well.

  49. Xochitl  |   Posted on Jul 29th, 2009 0

    I’m going to watch it just because it is a new Alice in wonderland movie. Nothing more, nothing less.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.