criterionforum.org

At least he managed to do Big Fish before he fell to this.

Dylan wrote:It's sad, but Tim Burton's become a parody of himself.

He's been co-opted by the system because he has nothing left to say. He's a family man now. Naturally when you become succesful and have settled down, the angst dissipates.

Now he just does known works -- Planet of the Apes, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, now this. If you want to make an "edgy" yet safe film for kids, and want to sell Big Macs to boot, go to Burton. If you don't want to complete such a film, go to Gilliam.

It's pretty sad. I feel the same way about Scorsese in that these are one-time greats who now make studio product because they've become too well-adjusted.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Burton do his take on Dracula next. Something like that would follow the trend...

He's been co-opted by the system because he has nothing left to say. He's a family man now. Naturally when you become succesful and have settled down, the angst dissipates.

He was going to make a film called Believe It or Not, about Robert LeRoy Ripley and written by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski (who both wrote Ed Wood), and it's possible that would've been interesting, but he dropped out of it.

More like TweedleDUMB, amirite

Can someone explain why Carter and Hathaway get to be so exquisite but Depp gets to be a psychedelic drag queen?


Edit: On second thought, Carter looks like a bad parody of Glenda Jackson from Elizabeth R.

domino harvey wrote:More like TweedleDUMB, amirite

Yeah, you're right. It looks like Tim Burton's gonna make a mockery out of this just like he did with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

This looks set to be worse than the old Disney animation, and about as pointless as that Cat in the Hat film with Mike Myers (not that I saw that). Really, no filmmaker who respects Carroll's work should attempt a direct adaption: those who succeed - Svankmajer's the only one I can think of - would do so by emphasising its unfilmability, deliberately making the viewer conscious of the deficit (c.f. Cronenberg's Naked Lunch).

Why don't we all just junk this and watch Dreamchild again instead?

Dylan wrote:It's sad, but Tim Burton's become a parody of himself.

I thought "Sweeney Todd" was his best film to date.

james wrote:Yeah, you're right. It looks like Tim Burton's gonna make a mockery out of this just like he did with Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

How was that a mockery? Because it didn't pander directly to children? I don't consider that a bad thing. Yes, this looks like the same approach; I just wish he wasn't taking on a story that's been pretty much done to death now.

MoonlitKnight wrote:

Dylan wrote:It's sad, but Tim Burton's become a parody of himself.

I thought "Sweeney Todd" was his best film to date.

Sweeney Todd? Really? It's a mediocre film with a butchered soundtrack.

Having never heard the soundtrack, I suppose this is another case of 'ignorance is bliss.' :-"

I enjoyed Sweeney Todd, too, but for me it was mostly because of Sondheim, not Burton.

MoonlitKnight wrote:Having never heard the soundtrack, I suppose this is another case of 'ignorance is bliss.' :-"

Fair enough. It's definitely worth checking out, if just for God That's Good, which is a full four minutes longer in the stage version.

More character photos.

Well, at least those photos are a little better than the previous ones on this thread. For some reason, I was thinking this could work as a play instead of a movie. The look of the photos for me at least makes this more believable on stage rather than on film.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:

MoonlitKnight wrote:

Dylan wrote:It's sad, but Tim Burton's become a parody of himself.

I thought "Sweeney Todd" was his best film to date.

Sweeney Todd? Really? It's a mediocre film with a butchered soundtrack.

Medicore, indeed. Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Ed Wood remain Burton's best films. I wish he could return to simpler filmmaking. His overdoing the fantasy aspects really bleach out the soul of his works, turning them into pretty plastic wind-up toys.

God That's Good, which is a full four minutes longer in the stage version.

That sure would have kept the film moving along...

The first film still has arrived.

I haven't been particularly impressed by Tim Burton's entire oeuvre. It is more that his consistent and quite original set design seem to rule almost every picture and I don't find it overwhelming (but that doesn't mean I don't admire him for having a consistent and unique vision).

As far as the photos from the new "Alice" production are concerned I am delighted that he hasn't made any effort to try and replicate John Tenniel's classic drawings. I rather like the fact that he is going at it from his own audacious slant even if it isn't my cup of tea, so to speak.

I will probably see his film just because of the Vanity Fair photos. And because they are so different from Tenniel's view of "Wonderland".

In case you really care, you can join one of three Facebook "armies", the one with the most members being given the honor of seeing the teaser trailer first on Thursday afternoon.

Looks like the trailer hit the web early, and uh, what the hell?

In spite of myself and one or two nitpicks, that actually looks kind of good.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Looks like the trailer hit the web early, and uh, what the hell?

I don't see what's so surprising about it. It's almost exactly what I'd expect from a CG-heavy, Burtonized Wonderland.

Oh good, another detached, monotone, green-screen-eriffic Burton candyland.

Here is the trailer in HD.