Welcome to Gaia! ::

I actually just got back from watching it in 3D and I thought it wasn't bad.
Are you one of those people that watches a 3D movie for the cheesy scenes where they obviously have something coming out of the screen towards you just to show the 3D-ness, Orligirl?
Because frankly, I find those scenes annoying.
The 3D immersed me into the film more in a way, but that may just have been because I was sitting very close to the screen and watching it in IMAX so while watching the movie I could see little else even in peripheral.
(My favorite part with the 3D effect was there were just some leaves falling but it was great because it looked like I could have just reached out and touched the leaves.)


I also had very low expectations too but it was better than I thought.
As a sequel it was good.
The only things that were weird I thought of because I was comparing to the book.
Also, the Jabberwocky was in that and that was off because the Jabberwockey is not in Alice in Wonderland at all.

I was very pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it.

Also, I love Crispin Glover.
I thought he was great in it.
I kept having little fangirl moments when he came on.
(I gotta watch more of his movies.)

Yeah, I'd definitely check it out at the very least.
(Though 3D and IMAX aren't necessary.)

Crispin Glover we good.
He looked kind of weird because they must have messed with his proportions to make him look more card-like because he's the Red Queen's right hand man.
He was tall with really long limbs and his body was wider and a bit flatter.
But I still liked him.
(More than Johnny Depp.)

My friend was paying for my ticket so when she suggested 3D and IMAX I was cool with it. xD

He is the knave of hearts.
He has an actual name other than "The Knave of Hearts" but it's only used like once in the movie and it's the Red Queen blurting it out to call him to her throne so I don't recall it.
(It started with an "s")
But the cast was great.
And Anne Hathaway is a good White Queen if you're iffy about her at all.
I was curious about the Alice since I didn't recognize her from anything I knew but she was a good Alice as well.


I was worried about Johnny Depp too but after watching it, don't worry so much.
The commercials just made it look like it was all about him, it really isn't.
(Because that was one of my main worries.)
Though after Alice he is a very large character.
He's good as the Hatter but it's a type of character he seems to play a lot, kind of awkward, strange, and quirky, so if you don't like him doing that then you won't like him as the Hatter.

Huh
I saw Avatar in 3D but not IMAX.

The IMAX version was really good.
But I'd never say IMAX is necessary.
HD is nice but I've never been an "HD-snob", as in everything has to be hi-def or it sucks.
IMAX is nice but never necessary in my mind.
I could appreciate Alice in Wonderland in normal 3D just as much.
So it may not be a good idea asking me if you need to see it in IMAX. sweatdrop

I-I'm sorry, what?
Not to nitpick but I'd like to point this out because we already covered the subject in this thread.
Tim Burton had very little to do with 9.
He only produced it.
From what I've read, he had little to nothing to do with the artistic aspects or the story.

I don't know if you're a huge Tim Burton fan but if you're going to say Alice in Wonderland was weak then say how good 9 was, though you did say Corpse Bride and Nightmare Before Christmas alongside it, know your stuff.
(Or maybe I'm just cranky because I just woke up and am very confused about the nature of how long I slept but that's a different story.)
Still know your stuff before you compare it.

I fail to see what you mean by comparing this Alice in Wonderland to Magee's Alice though.
Magee's Alice is batshit.
Are you saying you wish Tim Burton had completely turned this movie around like Magee does?
Because I'm honestly glad that he went into a more whimsical direction rather than a real dark, creepy direction.
Dark, creepy, and Alice seem to be becoming part of a really annoying cliche as of late.

So you're saying that he's using this movie to draw in kids of future generations?
Because he could have easily turned this into a more adult movie, so I can kind of see where you're going with this.
But it doesn't feel like one of those marketing ploys to draw in children of future generations, like when action stars star in kid's movies.
(Though I may just be naive because I'd like to believe that Tim Burton made the movie to show his vision of Alice.)

No, you're making sense klikk.
You know much more about Tim Burton than I do, I just know the major movies he did and enough to trip up blind Burton fans.
So you were able to go more in depth.
Make the point much clearer.


Also, you reminded me I freaking love Big Fish and wish I owned it.

I'm not super bothered when they flip something around, like Alice in Wonderland or any other fantasy tale I've heard growing up. I like to think of it as a way of seeing it in another light. What really aggravates me is that they just repaint something, give it a little gloss, and then do little or nothing to it. If ya wanna redo a classic tale, fine. Just don't tell me the same story the exact same way, cept maybe the girl's goth instead of covered in white.

But personally, I prefer them to do something completely different, like tell the untold story of one of the characters (As in my fave book, Wicked, the Untold Story of the Wicked Witch of the West.) Even that little movie based on the old Red Riding Hood story was good. (It's called Hoodwinked.) It had all the original characters, but it showed us what was really going on with Red, the Wolf, Granny, and the Huntsman.

I don't like the fact that they're making a sequel to it, though. That may be milking it a bit. sweatdrop