Talk:Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Alice poster

I seem to recall there previously being a theatrical poster featuring Alice and the White Rabbit wandering through a Wonderland landscape, with the Mad Hatter's tea table in the background. It's really trivial, but would it not be more appropriate to continue using this poster instead of that which is currently to the right of the main page? It is, after all, Alice in Wonderland, not Johnny Depp in Wonderland. Flamingopuree (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I was thinking the exact same thing when I first saw it. It's a much nicer poster and makes a lot more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.89.225 (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"unimpressed"

I changed a previous sentence that indicated that Burton was "unimpressed" with previous film versions of Alice. The quote in the reference is: "I don't know; I've never seen a version where I feel like they got it all."
I've altered the article to indicate that Burton felt that other adaptations were incomplete, which is closer to his words.
I don't know if Burton would want to say that he had been unimpressed by an adaptation of the quality of Svankmajer's Neco z Alenky, for example. Aryder779 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And he feels this adaptation will have "got it all"...? Just another example of a British classic being cannibalised by Hollywood. Unimpressed is right... Đɨℓʊŋα^χχν 01:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Moviemakers working on a remake always bash the original and claim that they fixed its problems. After all, that's the only way to justify a remake artistically. The real reason for remakes is to make money while piggybacking on the fame of the original movie.71.56.66.132 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations

• Tristan Nichols (2008-09-16). "Alice filming starts in Torpoint". The Herald. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Borys Kit; Carolyn Giardina (2008-09-24). "Johnny Depp in deep with Disney". The Hollywood Reporter. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Shalabh Anand Bajpai (2008-10-26). "Daniel Craig: Indian films another feather in cap". MeriNews.

Can somebody cleanup all those Cite errors in the citations? I'm not sure how they got there. Gerzy2 (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

I hope everyone does not mind me coming on here and adding people that I have noticed have been cast, notably, Christopher Lee and Tim Pigott-Smith, who only announced privately on their personal webpages. I am just trying to keep myself busy as I await the film. I have no idea how to make a wikipedia page or acquaint myself with others providing information, but I thought it'd make a fine hobby to just pop on and provide properly cited information. As well as keeping eyes peeled for casted actors, I will be adding character descriptions if that is okay.  :) Karloffornia (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The entry on Crispin Glover as Ilosovic Stayne, the Knave of Hearts states his height as seven feet, six inches (2.92m) tall. 7'6" = 2.286m, 2.92m = 9'6"! Is he 2.92m or 7'6"? Thanks, Swampy 58.165.209.237 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Craig removed from cast

I've removed him because the reference provided was from Merinews, a site which relies on user generated content, and thus there is no way to ensure the reliability of an interview posted there. The interview is also fake, the fact that the original author and original place of publication were not specified should be enough reason not to report this as fact. However, it also treats Vesper Lynd as the name of the actress (Eva Green) rather than the character, and it contains several chronological errors. For example Craig states he will begin filming on Flashbacks of a Fool next month, then goes on to say that he'll star alongside Anne Hathaway in Alice in Wonderland. Yet, Flashbacks of a Fool was released in the U.K. in April, before Hathaway was ever attached to Alice. The interview also has Craig mentioning The Jacket as one of his upcoming projects although that film was released before Casino Royale. Aurum ore (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see: I just checked the cite Wildroot added and must say it is an atrocious article. Alientraveller (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's an understandable mistake. I almost forwarded it to one of the editors at a movie site before I noticed all the errors. Aurum ore (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Woops! Wildroot (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Poster of Mad Hatter

Whomever keeps deleting the poster of the mad hatter in the "Cast" section, STOP IT! there is no reason to not have it on the wikipedia page!

(Moviedude346 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

Hi! (I'm NOT the one deleting the picture... infact i havent even edited the page AT ALL) I DO want to say, though, that the picture of the mad hatter keeps being moved to the 'marketing' section by some other guy... and personally i think that is where it belongs.

I cant wait for the movie to come out!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOT! lol --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 15:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I also believe it belongs in the Charcter section, but a moderator keeps moving it so our opinion really doesnt matter :(

(Moviedude346 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Writer's Strike

The article reads: "The film was originally to be released in 2009, but was pushed to March 19, 2010", and "The original start date was May 2008, but filming did not begin until September".

I think it's safe to say this was because of the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. What does everyone else think? Wildroot (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think so. The Writer's Strike were mostly writer's from TV, not movies. Movie writers get paid shitloads. TV writers are paid some soup and a pittance. (The pittance was negociated in the writer's strike and they earned it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.196.163 (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Fry Source?

Where exactly on that page does it say Stephen Fry will indeed play the cat? 194.78.37.122 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes...the same with Lee, Taylor, Windsor etc....This is all rumored information that I found on The Tim Burton Collective, that was later posted by me on IMBD for analyzing and a Johnny Depp website later posted it as news. This might need some fixing...unless someone has an actual source. --Karloffornia (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Queen or Queen of Hearts?

According to the wikipedia article for ((Red Queen)) these two are commonly mistaken for eachother. The Red Queen does not appear in Wonderland but in Looking Glass. It may be that Burton's film blends the two characters but just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.198.174 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's red queen in this film. Alientraveller (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a combination of the two. She is referred to as the Red Queen but is accented in hearts and is the ruler of the hearts (i.e. the Knave). See photograph: http://comingsoon.net/nextraimages/aliceusatoday2.jpg 12.162.122.6 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

should we add the leaked pictures of the characters?

I also have the title logo for the film, should I include that to the box on the right? Josemrdj (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if leaked pictures (like the ones found here) are able to be added to the article, but I'm almost positive a title/logo could be added to the article. Duchess of Bathwick (talk · contribs) 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Film studios

Is it true that the film would also be distrubuted by Touchstone Pictures? The company name was included in the distribution and studio sections of the film infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkyblinky (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Alice's age

I've changed Alice's age from 17 to 19. it says that she's 19 on the official page...

Stop changing Alice's age..!

The reference clearly says that Alice is 19 years old...

Am I...

Am I the only one that would only watch this movie if it was rated PG-14? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brando26000 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No you are not, hun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.196.163 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Alice was seven

Alice may be 19 in this movie, but in the origenal books she was 7. So 12 years have passed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Little Fangirl (talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Alice was seven and a half in the second book. Seems insignificant, but Carroll has accentuated her age in both books.

There is actually a 6 year old Alice in this film. See here. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 18:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the source, shall we?

'In that case we start fresh,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'and it's my turn to choose a subject—' ('He talks about it just as if it was a game!' thought Alice.) 'So here's a question for you. How old did you say you were?'

Alice made a short calculation, and said 'Seven years and six months.'

From THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS, CHAPTER VI. Humpty Dumpty, at Project Gutenberg. --Thnidu (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

While in the book young Alice is seven (as Thnidu has demonstrated), she is presented as six in the film. It is made clear at the party that she's nearly 20 (so we'll call it 19), and before that, as they are heading to the party, a note on screen lets the viewers know 13 years have passed since the previous scene between young Alice and her father. By this, we arrive at six years old. Emtigereyes (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The book chronology doesn't apply here; using the book to source claims about the film would violate WP:SYNTHESIS. That said, people often round up years and say 13 years have passed when in reality it's 2/3 months either side, so if Alice is almost 20 then it's not inconceivable she had just turned 7 at the time of her first visit. Betty Logan (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Who keeps changing the summary? Do not add to this page unless you have a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemrdj (talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New Poster

I have uploaded a new poster. It's an official Theatrical poster. DO NOT CHANGE IT. I think it better represents Tim Burton's vision of the book better than Alice standing on an over-sized tea cup, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemrdj (talk • contribs) 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Screenplay draft leaked.

I assume everyone knows that the first draft of the film has popped up on the internet, and should it be mentioned? You read see it here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8742387/Alice-In-Wonderland-Screenplay Evilgidgit (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Are you sure that it's *REAL* ? Princess-pink95 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I doubt words like "ass" will be in a family movie. ;-) --Red-Blue-White (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • That's the actual screenplay alright, though, I'm sure it's been ammended a few times since it's original printing in February 2007. Also, words like "ass" have been used in a ton of "family" films, and being that this is a Burton piece, I don't doubt at all that such language may be used.

It was deleted. Does anyone know of another source?173.58.251.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

New Trailer

...So,yeah, 1 or 2 new trailers came out. The first one was mentioned, should these be mentioned to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Little Fangirl (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

STOP CHANGING THE POSTER!

Stop adding the Mad Hatter poster to the page. It's called ALICE in Wonderland. The Alice version has the Mad Hatter sitting on the end of this table, so we can use that one (which better represents the movie). Just because iTunes used the image, it doesn't mean that it's the official poster. Just in case you guys don't know, the two released teasers are from the Hatter's point of view.

So let's just leave the Alice poster until the official Theatrical Poster is released. Josemrdj (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The trailers aren't form the Hatter's point of view, they're just narrated by him(there's a difference). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil Little Fangirl (talk • contribs) 01:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Links that could be helpful

I just cleaned up the article (refs, format, etc) and noticed these links listed under the EL. They probably could useful somewhere in the prose, so I'm going to list them here instead.

• First look photos from the film from The Huffington Post
• Pictures of filming in Cornwall, England

—Mike Allen 01:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

American McGee's Alice

Does anyone know if this has any relationship or similarities to American Mcgee Alice in Wonderland game?? User talk:Orangatuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.187.65 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have any relation, except the basic Alice's story, characters and that. The game was a "proposed" sequel, set in a darkened Wonderland. The film it's another reinterpretation of the Alice mythos.

Similarities, on the other hand, are more subjective. One major similarity which could be pointed out is the unwholesome rule of a deranged queen of hearts, who recently took the kingdom by force. A major dissimilarity is that McGee's Alice was a world within the mind, while the movie was not presented as such. Asa bender (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the final battle between Alice and the Jabberwock, which certainly doesn't occur in any previous version. The Jabberwock only exists in a poem, not a character in either "Wonderland" or "Looking Glass". The landscape, battle, the talking Jabberwock, the tower are all highly reminiscent of McGee's treatment. It's a wonder he didn't sue. It should surely be noted that there are a number of similarities and Burton almost as surely plagiarized original elements of the story from McGee which were not present in any previous incarnation of the Alice story. 173.78.13.123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

PICTURES!

There are images from the movie of most of the charcters (Cheshire cat, alice, Red queen) on their wikipedia pages. Should any of them be added here?

(Moviedude346 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Alice - Avril Lavigne

It's not 3.01. It's 3.34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.164.210 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Boycots

Dutch cinemas and Belgian cinemas (source: http://www.hbvl.be/nieuws/media-en-cultuur/aid905601/ook-belgische-bioscopen-boycotten-alice-in-wonderland.aspx) are boycotting the release of Alice in Wonderland to protest against the early DVD release. 195.177.83.221 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Oedon just stopped the boycott. What a mess. lol Thanks. —Mike Allen 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception

"Alice In Wonderland" was recieved well by critics, and currently holds an 80% rating on Rottentomatoes.com based on five ratings. The reason for so little reviews is because the movie has not been released officialy in the US yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.121.168 (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Five reviews is not enough of a sample for the percentage to be reliable. The greater the number of reviews, the more normalized the percentage is. Erik (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Something's Missing....

Is there anybody who wants to tell the wiki viewers what has happened in this movie? 71.138.69.134 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A plot summary has been added. It still needs work, but it's there. —Mike Allen 04:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Jakarta

in the first 10 minutes, I heard Alice father said Jakarta which is actually wrong

from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakarta It was formerly known as Sunda Kelapa (397–1527), Jayakarta (1527–1619), Batavia (1619–1942), and Djakarta (1942–1972).

which means it is not even Jakarta yet, it is Batavia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.251.161 (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a goof. —Mike Allen 00:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Underland?

Opening line of introduction's second paragraph is "In the film, Alice is now 19 years old and accidentally returns to Underland, a place she previously visited 13 years ago." Shall that really be Underland or it is just Wonderland? --nafSadh নাফী ম. সাধ 10:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The film calls it Underland, not Wonderland. —Mike Allen 21:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Got that!--nafSadh নাফী ম. সাধ 22:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Chessur"

Where does this excentric orthograph come from? On the promotional posters he is credited as the Cheshire Cat, and on IMDB as well. Mezigue (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I wondered this my self. It could be possible that he's just "Cheshire". It could be pronounced as "Chessur". —Mike Allen 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's pronounced Chessur. Looks like a mistake and since the spelling has been introduced by a single unregistered user, I am reversing it. Mezigue (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, as my change has been reverted, the Hatter calls him "Cheshire" for short throughout the film. Cheshire is pronounced tʃɛʃər/. I am pretty sure he is credited in the closing credits as "the Cheshire Cat" Mezigue (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Template

I made a template that can be added to the pages contained. If there are any opinions about it please share.--Tikopowii (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What method of 3-D?

What type of 3-D film is it? Anaglyph, polarized, Eclipse, etc? The article currently just says "3-D". It makes a big difference for people who are blind in one eye. Kaldari (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically it can be converted to any type, but what they're showing in cinemas is usually polarized. What I wonder is how they converted 2D footage to 3D. Did they just assign depths to a number of flat layers or is it more sophisticated, with edge/motion/parallax detection?--87.162.46.189 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sequel?

>but she chooses to go home, promising him she'd be 'back before you knew it'. Does this imply that there is going to be a sequel? Any news/rumors yet?173.58.251.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Plot template

I've removed the plot template, as the plot section adequately details the storyline without omitting important details or diving into overlong fancruft territory. Ongoing spotty grammar and punctuation have proven the biggest problem in the section more than anything else. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 02:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove the template until the plot is down to at least 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. Right now it's hovering around 896 words. WP:FILMPLOT further explains, "the summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range, and this 109 minute film is not that complicated to merit 800-1000 words. The plot doesn't necessarily need to include every single "important" thing that happens, it just needs to concisely summarize the film. Thanks. —Mike Allen 03:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mike that it should be shorter. Word count is 898 words. The plot summary is supposed to be concise compared to the rest of the film article. If possible, it should be more between 400 and 700 words, and not just under 700. In any case, the rest of the article is more important because the summary is only intended to provide context for readers. Erik (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to condense the summary further, removing some of the details such as her height changes and specifics of how she achieves her goals. Hopefully that helps, though I get the feeling this may be ongoing. Emtigereyes (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, plot summaries are the most easily editable sections in film articles, and it gets bloated without improving the value. Just editors wanting to include this detail and that detail, and suddenly we have over 1,000 words. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I wished you wouldn't have removed the sources to the character names. The source was to an official character list. Those names was being challenged by IPs and regular editors daily. Maybe it'll be fine now... we'll see. —Mike Allen 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it will be fine. I put it back for the reference to Uillean and Absolem in the plot summary for safety, but frankly I feel those name details are better addressed in the cast list just below (where I did include the reference many times, along with the matching names). While the character names are useful to know, they are not dire to the plot summary as it is currently written. Such is my opinion at least. We'll see how this goes. Emtigereyes (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Cast List

Perhaps we should add a cast list for the film as there is no easy way to find who voiced/played a particular character at a glance without trawling through the casting section. TomBeasley (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow the blue links. Wikipedia should be made up of mostly prose, not lists. —Mike Allen 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to something like this, showing some of the main parts as opposed to an exhaustive IMDB-style list. TomBeasley (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally that sort of list (comparable to IMDb) is what we try to avoid. There's too much unused, white space, and nothing is written about the casting process. If there's absolutely nothing about production, usually the articles stays below GA/FA. This article is aiming at GA in the near future, thus the article's casting section suffice. —Mike Allen 06:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the cast list, particularly entries with more information about the creation and background, can benefit from the bullets without falling into the IMDb style... in my opinion, at least. On that note, I added bullets to the upper portion of the cast list. Towards the end, where the descriptions are notably shorter, I left the information in paragraph form. Hopefully this is acceptable, though alternative ideas are welcome. Emtigereyes (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with it, not for a "Casting" section under Production. Prose only should be used. If we must use bullets, then it will be better suited under a "Cast" section after the plot. I really don't understand why people find reading paragraphs (not very long ones either) difficult. If they are coming here to find a certain actor/character detail, the paragraphs are spaced and the blue links stick out like a sore thumb. It's acceptable if editors agree to it. I don't, but two others do. Would like to hear more feedback. —Mike Allen 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing a number of film articles that have achieved GA/FA and comparing to this one, we may want to review the content of this section more before we change too much its formatting. Ex. from Memento - Cast vs. Casting. Perhaps consider a separate cast list as MikeAllen suggested, leaving production notes in Casting. Emtigereyes (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFILMS, a basic cast/character "list" should be avoided, and used more as a last resort. We are not IMDb, and we link to IMDb for that very purpose. When you start getting into bulleting paragraphs of information, you're getting into an area where it doesn't actually help anything. Right now, it comes off more as distracting. The section is "Casting", not "Cast and characters". Allow the plot and infobox to list and connect characters like that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with having a simple cast list is that we have quite a bit to say about each character. If there were three characters that had a paragraph's worth of information each, I would advocate a simple cast list and a succeeding collection of paragraphs discussing real-world context about these three. An example of this that I've done is Apt Pupil (film) – Cast. Here, assuming that we do a simple cast list, it would be very difficult to transit between the passages about each actor and role. Another possibility did come to mind. While I don't normally advocate tables, I think that the "Casting" section is complete enough that we don't have to worry so much about new editors struggling with table code. We could do a three-column table where we have Actor, Role, and Notes (or some variant of that). It would allow readers to locate actors and their roles easily, and the rightmost column can discuss the real-world context of the actor and the role. Anyone interested in giving that a shot? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

About using a table: What would be listed under "Notes", like what kind of notes? What the character does in the film? Or brief production notes? Just let me know what would be listed and I'll be glad to make the tables to see what it looks like in the article. —Mike Allen 00:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably "Background" would be better than "Notes"; it would be the background of the actor and the role. I'm okay with giving it a shot, although I'm trying to figure out what to do with the Red Queen image in the course of re-structuring. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I started the table here. (The other parts of the article are from an old revision). —Mike Allen 06:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good start. I think, though, any background information or notes should not be included in that table. Perhaps the portion of Production that deals with that should be renamed - "Characterization" rather than "Cast" perhaps? (I want the info of that section to stay, but still grappling with how). Emtigereyes (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that non-free image does not meet the criteria for GA, does it? I guess an image really isn't necessary since its written that her head was digitally increased three times its original size on screen. One can pretty much come up with their own (free) image in their heads and a screen shot serves no additional purpose. Though Heath's The Joker is on the The Dark Knight article and it's passed GA. —Mike Allen 06:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just an update. I'll probably work on this more this weekend. —Mike Allen 01:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Character names

Are all those names credited to a draft found somewhere on the Internet actually used in the film? I don't recall them. Only those that are should be in this article. Mezigue (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Having seen the film a couple of times - the one character name that I do not recall being used was that of the Dodo. All of the other names were used at least once. Emtigereyes (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Home media // suggested addition

The Home media section includes just one sentence at present, and it currently makes no reference to the bonus features available on the DVD -- though they are mentioned in the press release used as the citation. Because I work with Disney I'll hesitate to add it outright just yet, but here is my suggested addition:

All versions are presented in [[1080p]] with a 16:9 [[Aspect ratio (image)|aspect ratio]] and [[Dolby Digital]] 5.1 HD surround sound. The DVD release includes three short features about the making of the film, focusing on Burton's vision for Wonderland and the characters of Alice and the Mad Hatter. The Blu-Ray version has nine additional featurettes focusing on additional characters, special effects and other aspects of the film's production.

Also, the existing citation finds the press release at ComingSoon.net, which mentions all of the above save for the 16:9 aspect ratio. Here is the same release on Disney's corporate site, including that detail:

<ref>{{cite press release |title=Experience more of Wonderland ... Disney's Alice in Wonderland; on Disney Blu-ray(TM) & DVD -- June 1, 2010 |publisher=Disney |date=16 April 2010 |url=http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/moreinfo/alice_on_dvd_blu-ray.html |format= accessdate=3 May 2010 }}</ref>

Let me know what you think. Happy to make these edits myself if there is consensus for it. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is fine. Even if it is the primary source it's still OK to cite. Third party sites are only going to re-post the same press release, it's better to just cite the original source (Disney). I don't see how this would cause a conflict of interest (from my talk page), unless you work at Disney? Mike Allen 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I have read this again. I see that you already stated you work for Disney. I personally don't see a problem with including those details, but I can see why someone would object: it's not really encyclopedic and most all DVDs include that material. Let's see what others say, if anything. Mike Allen 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks as if this is fairly standard subject matter for such an article. Looking to articles about similar movies, I find that Avatar has a lengthy Home media paragraph which talks about format and (lack of) features. The article about the first Pirates film has a Home release section covering format and special features. And The Dark Knight has a Home video release section which discusses such details as well. All three have reached Good article status, hence my thinking that such info is generally considered to be encyclopedic. Sounds like we're in basic agreement -- if no one else objects in the next 24 hours, I'll probably just add it. Or if you care to take it up sooner, go for it. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I waited a bit longer and, seeing no objections, went ahead with adding this new material (and new citation) to the page. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, NMS Bill (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Depp

I know this is trivial, but should we ask that Johnny Depp hasn't even seen the finished film? I guess he was unimpressed with it or something. 174.16.80.109 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think so. Depp has stated in the past that he doesn't like to watch his own films, so Alice is probably in the same topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwexarexbulletsx (talk • contribs) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Source? —Mike Allen 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It was an interview on the David Letterman show, just after the release of "Public Enemies". There's an annoying advert at the start but then it goes into the interview. He clearly states that he doesn't watch his own work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwkS-ERuNuk&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.197.68 (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Critique Referencing

There has been a couple attempts to add some commentary to the critical response portion that's been removed. While I have no objection to the content of this addition, the sourcing needs to be stronger for the comment to stay (which is why I recently removed it). The Metacritic page looks like a summary page, taking the average of various reviews from the positive to the negative. I presume the content being added comes from a review that appeared on this Metacritic list, but I've been unable to find it. That makes linking the Metacritic page rather pointless, as well as makes the content easy to dispute. However, if a link to the review with this comment can be provided, then I feel confident that the added content will remain. Just my two cents. Emtigereyes (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong is mentioned in the film

In the end of the film, they do mention Hong Kong, and China as well. Alice mentions that they, the British, have a foothold in Hong Kong.

 Foothold means: A firm or secure position that provides a base for further advancement. : [[1]]

This is where why I stated that during this time period, the British would have more likely have started in Hong Kong, China.

--Gokujoseitokai (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While yes, Hong Kong is mentioned in the film as a foothold for expanding trade with China, there is no reason to add it to the Critical Reception section. As I stated, the articles referenced for that paragraph never mention Hong Kong (only mentioning "China" and "The Orient"), and it doesn't add anything to the statement. This is also true with adding it to the plot summary... it does not add anything crucial to the movie plot, just a tidbit that ties into histories of the time period. Emtigereyes (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead section currently has time-sensitive descriptions which are subject to change, such as "Burton's highest-grossing film", "second highest-grossing film of 2010 internationally", a"sixth highest-grossing film of all time", "sixth film ever to cross the $1-billion mark in worldwide grosses", and "second film produced and released by Walt Disney Pictures, as well as the first springtime release". While this might be fine for the body of the article, the lead section needs to be relatively stable and should not refer to things that are likely to change annually. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of that information is mentioned under "Box Office Performance", which is a more appropriate section. I will remove the ranking info from the lead section, and move necessary portions into Box Office Performance. Emtigereyes (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Assertions that require verification

The following needs verification in order to be included in the article (it possibly can be found on the DVD/Blu-Ray special features):

• Illusionary dancer David Bernal doubled for Depp during the "Futterwacken" sequence near the end of the film.  Done
• Imelda Staunton's head was filmed and digitally added to the Flower Heads.
• Frank Welker did additional voices and vocal effects. (other than IMDb) Done

Thanks. Mike Allen 08:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bernal's dance is sick. He's not only a consummate dancer, but he knows how to work the crowd. I'm on this. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (done)

Considering how notable Welker is (top-grossing actor in Hollywood) we should make an effort to restore this. I'm working on it now. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)(done)

This is what was originally in the article. "Additional Voices and Vocal Effects. They include Roars for the Jabberwocky & Bandersnatch, Squawks for the Jubjub bird and Voices of the Monkeys and the Frog Footmen". Mike Allen 03:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Jabberwocky is looking through the glass in Underland

The creature is called the Jabberwocky, with a "Y". The land is called Underland in the film, NOT Wonderland. The Red Queen is from Through the Looking-Glass (although Burton combined the Queen of Hearts and the Red Queen. It's only logical to wikilink to the same article of the character's name). All reliable sources prove this. Read any review. So, please quit changing it. Thanks. —Mike Allen 05:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the creature is called the Jabberwock in the poem, while the poem itself is called the Jabberwocky. I will see the film tomorrow and will find out what the creature is called in this film, since that is what this article is about... not the poem. —Mike Allen 06:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MikeAllen is right. From Through the Looking Glass at Project Gutenberg (quoted text in blue, underlining added):

This was the poem that Alice read.

JABBERWOCKY

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

'Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!'

That's the introductory sentence, title, and first two stanzas.

In the film, however, the creature is called the Jabberwocky. I don't like it, but that's the fact. --Thnidu (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The article currently has:

Burton focused on the Jabberwocky poem as part of his structure.[12] Even so, Burton deviates from the original by referring to the creature by the name of the poem ("the Jabberwocky") rather than as "the Jabberwock", which is what it is called in the poem.

The second sentence seems to be "original synthesis" as described in WP:SYN, i.e. a form of original research. The synthesis in question is "A: Burton says he used the poem as a basis. B: The poem calls the creature the 'Jabberwock', not 'Jabberwocky'; A+B gives [the synthetic statement] C: Thus Burton partially deviates from his stated intention." (Also, the synthesis seems to be based on a false premise ("statement B"): Just because the poem refers to the creature as the Jabberwock, doesn't mean that the title of the poem, "Jabberwocky", doesn't also refer to the creature; the two words may be two names for the same thing.) Eljayess (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Both 'Jabberwock' and 'Jabberwocky' refer to the same creature. From this short poem, it's difficult to assign one term or the other as the "correct" name. To that end, I will be removing the second sentence in question. Emtigereyes (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree.

Carroll invents and clearly defines both words; and as author, his is the original and accepted definition. He defines each separately and consistently refers to them by these names, and none other, throughout the poem and in his other writings.

In the poem, Carroll describes many fantastic creatures: the Bandersnatch, the Jubjub bird, and the Jabberwock, for example. The Urban Dictionary [2], defines "jabberwock" as "a fictional monster appearing in the poem "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carroll". So, according to Carroll, "Jabberwock" is the name of the creature.

In "Through the Looking Glass", when speaking to Humpty Dumpty, Alice says it is the name of the poem:

"You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir", said Alice.

"Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem 'Jabberwocky'?""

Again, in Carroll's words, "Jabberwocky" is the name of the poem. It does not refer to the creature, and Carroll never uses it as such.

According to Webster's New College Dictionary (2010), "jabberwocky" is also defined as "meaningless syllables that seem to make sense." Carroll gave this explanation in response to a request to use the word for a girl's school magazine--an appropriate title for a poem that overflows with nonsense words.

The two words have different meanings clearly defined by Carroll; it should not be difficult to assign the "correct" name for the monster. The supposition that the two words are words for the same thing is incorrect. No serious scholars have suggested otherwise. One might as well assert that "cloud" and "cloudy" mean the same thing.

Burton may believe as he wishes, but my comment was that he deviated from the original by calling the creature something different than did Carroll.

The facts are verifiable; please reinstate the comment. HWAshton (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

While I do not fully agree with your assessment that Jabberwock vs. Jabberwocky is similar to Cloud vs. Cloudy, my opinion may be colored from experiencing other productions which assigned the name "Jabberwocky" to the monster of the poem as well. I have not seen anything to definitively make me say one term is the creature's true name. Even so, I do not have a problem with reinstating the essence of your comment. I will alter the wording slightly to address to concern expressed by Eljayess. I will also message a couple other editors to review this point. I hope this action is satisfactory. Emtigereyes (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Carroll obviously had no personal involvement in the making of this film. In Burton's film and interpretation, the creature itself, is called the Jabberwocky. "We must slay the Jabberwocky!" They must slay the poem.. or the creature? Mike Allen 04:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, perhaps my cloud vs. cloudy analogy was a little thin. My position was only that Burton called the creature something different than did Carroll. I would taken the same position if he called it "Puff the Magic Dragon." But, the film is Burton's vision, not Carroll's, and since it was not intended to be a sequel, he can call it what he wishes.

The current wording is acceptable. Thank you. HWAshton (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, I haven't read through every comment on this, so my adding any content already repeated is unintentional. Anyway, I think we're kind of making mountains out of molehills here. The creature in the poem is called the Jabberwock, which is is the official canon term for it because, obviously, Carroll's word is law since he created the stories and characters. However, in the Burton movie, the creature itself is named the Jabberwocky (for reasons known only to Burton and Disney), and should be depicted as such only in any articles related to the 2010 film. Depp refers to it once as the Jabberwock because he's reciting the poem, but other than that, he and everyone else adds the "y" at the end. The "cloud" and "cloudy" comparison isn't entirely accurate, because "cloudy" is an adjective, which the title of the poem is not (rather, a noun, like "hatch" to "hatchery"). sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 18:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The poem is called "Jabberwocky" meaning "The saga of the Jabberwock". Similar to how JRR Tolkein's "Silmarillion" is "The tale of the Silmarils". Presumably, Disney and Burton chose to call the Jabberwock "The Jabberwocky" because people are more familiar with the title of the poem (seems to be a common mistake to call the creature by the name of the poem.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.233.27 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Box office table chart for worldwide grosses

I don't think a table chart of worldwide grossing is needed for the box office section. Add it in prose not in a table. Box Office Mojo states, "These charts incorporate only the territories we currently track on the site." What countries do they track? Mike Allen 03:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Books in VCRs

The section on Mia Wasikowska seemed confusing, because it says that she studied the books for the role, then says "When we were kids, my mum would pop it in the VCR player." Oh really? That would be a neat trick! Of course she is talking about a film adaptation, but which? You might have thought it was the 1951 Disney version, but you would be wrong. Apparently according to the original article the quote comes from, it is the Jan Švankmajer version:

“My other encounter with Alice was the Czech director Jan Svankmajer’s version, a stop-motion animated film, which is incredible,” she adds, in such a mild Australian accent that you could mistake her for English. “When we were kids, my mum would pop it in the VCR player. We would be disturbed, and wouldn’t really understand it, but we couldn’t look away because it was too intriguing. So I had kept that feeling about Alice, a kind of haunting feeling.”

This makes her reaction make more sense, too, because apparently this version (which I have not seen yet) is pretty surreal. If I can make this more clear in the text without making it too much longer than it already is, I will. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The above quote was from the original article cited, available here. I think there is a place in the citation template for a url so I am going to fix that too. I meant to link it in what I said above but forgot. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Poster change?

I can't find where in the history it happened, but does anyone know why the Hatter theatrical poster has now replaced the Alice theatrical poster? While the Hatter character is important, I thought the Alice poster was used since Alice is the central character. This point was also why actress Mia Wasikowski was listed before actor Johnny Depp. Even if Johnny has more star power, Mia was the lead. Emtigereyes (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it is actually the theatrical poster. I know, I was hesitant at first (a user kept adding another poster) and I researched it and the poster that is on the page now was actually used as the theatrical poster (only poster with the credits at the bottom). —Mike Allen 20:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Burton's movie as a sequel to the Disney animated film?

While it's good that a reference was included in the most recent addition on this topic, I still question its accuracy. Quoting the reference given:

his film isn't yet another retelling of Lewis Carroll's oft-adapted story, but rather an original sequel, picking up several years after the events chronicled in both 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' and 'Through the Looking Glass' with a now-grown Alice (played by Mia Wasikowska) returning to the world she doesn't remember visiting as a child. This approach gives Burton free rein to use all of the familiar faces that populate the land at the bottom of the rabbit hole, without having to tread the same narrative path that other films—including Disney's own 1951 animated version—have followed before.

This quote does state that Burton's film could be viewed as a sequel since it does not reuse the books' narratives directly (despite Burton claiming it isn't a sequel). However, I don't see how you can say definitively that Burton's film is a sequel to the Disney animated film. I pose this to the other editors, since I've removed that statement once before. How faithful is the animated 1951 film to the original "Alice's Adventure in Wonderland" story (which I have not read)? If it's considered a faithful adaptation, is the statement that Burton's film is a sequel to it applicable?

Emtigereyes (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing the statement for now, until its accuracy is agreed upon by other editors. For review, here is the link that was provided as reference for the statement:

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/reviews/major-releases/e3ie2e67226d2672c9895bffb50773a964c

The quote in my previous post comes from this link. Emtigereyes (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it just a sequel to the book Alice in Wonderland? —Mike Allen 18:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be my take. I have no problem saying it's a sequel to the literary source. My problem is when there is a jump made from this to saying it's a sequel to the Disney animated version, where I don't see direct correlation. Hence my curiosity if the animated film is a faithful adaptation of the original story. Emtigereyes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

There isn't any evidence that it is a direct sequel, you would need a comment from the producers or Disney to confirm that I imagine. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Would "reimagining" be a more accurate term? —Mike Allen 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We are arguing semantics. Wikipedia: "A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that portrays events set in the same fictional universe as a previous work..." Burton cannot choose whether it is - it simply is. My edit was reversed and I hope it will be reinstated, despite it being sort of obvious:

The film is a sequel to Lewis Carroll's 1865 fantasy novel Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and by association, the 1951 Disney film based on that novel. 67.78.84.64 (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

While both films were made by Disney, I would not say that guarantees a direct association. If a statement can be found saying that, when producing the 2010 film, Disney intended it to be a sequel or successor to their 1951 animation, then there would be no issue. However, without it being referenced, how "obvious" it is comes down to opinion... making it easily contestable for a wiki article. This same logic of "by association" could make the 2010 film a sequel to a number of Alice in Wonderland films or TV series due to similar elements or bits of plot.

Given the definition of a sequel, it looks like most here agree that the 2010 film is a sequel to the original literary works, even if Burton did not intend it as such. However, depending on how faithful an adaption the 1951 film is of the literary source, it's a bit of a leap to say with certainty that the 2010 film is the sequel to the 1951 animation. The best way to stave off any argument or contesting of content is to find a suitable reference. Emtigereyes (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Maths? Physics?

One of the most adored aspects of the original Alice books, is all the in jokes for maths and physics types. I can find a few pre-release comments by folk musing about whether the Burton film would be true to this essential aspect of Wonderland, but nothing post-release.

I take that to mean it was a huge disappointment in this regard. (have not watched the film yet - wanted to know first)

I'm STUNNED to find that none of the words math, physics, or science appear in EITHER the article or this talk page (till now). So this is just a suggestion, if anyone knows of an RS review that touches on this, please add something relevant to the article. Cheers. 118.148.96.138 (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What actually happens to Alice in the movie?

Is it a dream? Parallel universe? Out of body travel? None of the above? 173.58.251.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

It is never explained. Mezigue (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

When she talks to the lord in the study, she has the scars from the earlier fight. i would think that lends strong credence to that its not just a dream —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.21.34 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My (completely irrelevant) take on it is that the film is subtly making it out as a recurring case of psychosis or schizophrenia that manifests in Alice whenever she is going through times of increased emotional distress, and/or is about to enter a new stage in her life, whereupon real-life artifacts and maybe events are represented in fantastical form in her hallucinations, and by battling her inner demons that arose from her contemporary situation, she becomes capable of facing her new challenges in life. The first time it occured was obviously shortly after her parents's divorce (after all, why else would it be her father bringing her to bed when he was in a decisive business meeting?), and this second time is after he father's death, when she's about to grow from a child into a woman and she's being pressured into marrying a man she does not love.

It's also why the place is called *UNDER*land in the film, just like her *SUB*conscious. According to Slavoj Žižek, Psycho has a similar structure where Norman Bates's dead mother (having become his super-ego) lives in the first floor of the Bates house, Bates himself (as the ego) lives in the ground floor, and the physical remains of his dead mother reside in the basement (as his Id). The White Queen in the film also looks a lot like an ideal twin of Alice (see ego-ideal, pretty much what Brad Pitt is to Edward Norton in Fight Club), obviously resembling what she'd like herself to be (she's also the one character who apepars most one-dimensional, like a puppet), and both Alice and the White Queen show a peculiarly similar strong reluctance towards violence for moral reasons. It's also why Absolem says in the beginning that she's "not quite the right Alice" yet, but she's becoming "the right Alice" throughout the film. --87.151.30.143 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, here's a few reviews I've found on Rotten Tomatoes that may be contrued as supporting my interpretation of the film:

"Burton expands our understanding of what this material means, of how madness derives from personal loss, or why certain individuals hold decapitation-oriented grudges."[3]

"Most important, 'Alice in Wonderland' honors the more tender subtexts of the Alice stories, having to do with isolation and loss."[4]

"Burton is the one who decided to give these characters pat psychological backstories — Alice must slay the fearsome Jabberwock in order to slay her inner demons — so it's up to him to come through with reasons why we should care."[5]

"Still, even Disney and a PG rating can't bury Burton's subversive wit. Like Carroll, he's a master at dressing up psychic wounds in fantasy."[6]

"'Alice' plays better as an adult hallucination, which is how Burton rather brilliantly interprets it until a pointless third act flies off the rails."[7] --87.151.30.143 (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

AlicOnLine

Hello people,

There is one thing that this wonderful film made me think of in its is awesome culmination: the biblical apocalypse. I found a bible and looked it up: John 12 and 13. How is it that nobody on the great GoogleSphere acknowledges this brilliant and reconcilatory message of the DisneyCorp with respect to the singular most important question of human existence (what was meant by Paraklatos and its collective-projection upon woman-psyche, in my humble opinion).

Here's a catholic forum about the film, it seems none of 'them' picked up on it. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=434505

Am I out of my mind? Take me seriously or I'm going to China!!! 69.165.131.126 (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How's China so far? --79.193.35.42 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic

Extended content
Why are the same people in all the movies?..Alice was nothing more then CGI cartoons-and the now required Dragons..same old crap. And is it Hollywood law Danny Elfman be made the movie score in everything big budget?...Its just- play loud...like any loonytune does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Freakishly long

Why is this article so freakishly long? It's almost twice the length of some Oscar-winning films, and that makes it harder to actually get the useful information. Do we have some guidelines on this? Or people can just keep adding details as long as they cite their sources. - Artoasis (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only 36 kilobytes long. Going by this it's not "long". Changeling, which is a FA, is "long"—it's 120 kilobytes. I think the soundtrack could be merged into its own article, it takes up a lot of space. When the film is released, then the cast can be included in the plot section, and the casting information can be added to a "Casting" section under "Production". A cast list is rarely used for FAs, it takes up too much space and leaves too much white, and it's better in prose. —Mike Allen 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted this 'cuz for an upcoming movie, I usually look for who's who in the cast and overall critical response. But this one makes it real hard to glance over the "cast" section without catching some "characters" spoilers. I'm afraid when the movie come out, it's gonna get much longer with people on each side trying to add positive/negative reviews. Anyhow, thanks for addressing my concern. - Artoasis (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And what's with this first sentence? "Alice in Wonderland is terrible film, of a classsic book by Lewis Carol, ruined by Tim Burton"? No longer a good article, clearly. Or a neutral one. 20:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)ravenwolf68

Lacanian Psychoanalysis Prize

On April 29, 2010 at the Café Clovis in Paris, the members of the Parisian Psychoanalytical Society awarded the Lacanian Psychoanalysis Prize to Tim Burton for his film Alice in Wonderland.

Only sources I could find for this were SPS. If anyone wants to discuss how we can add this back in, please comment. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.psychanalyse-paris.com/1272-Lewis-Caroll-Lacan-et-Tim.html

It's by guy, who handed over prize and text under title says Burton was awarded unanimously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.27.20 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

wobalaba

the wobalaba was a creature within the depths of wonderland and would often be seen in the darkness of the characters scenes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.213.2 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Poster

Why on this poster described only Johnny Depp? For me, should choose a new poster with another characters Belembay (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Belembay

link for "Alice Kingsleigh" has a problem

The link leads to an academic page for the character "Alice", not to a page for the actress "Alice Kingsleigh". In fact, I cannot find a Wikipedia page for the actress "Alice Kingsleigh" at all! Something doesn't seem right. --Xedd (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Barbour Ariel Gilet Navy

It is ideal time to play for the future plus its time to be happy. We've read this publish and if I possibly could I want to recommend you a number of interesting points or tips. Maybe you can certainly write up coming articles talking about this article. I must read much more things about the item! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.5.246.103 (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A loose retelling

This film is not a loose retelling of the book, nor the original Disney film.

This is an entirely different story, based on the same characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.169.50 (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alice in Wonderland (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.zdonk.com/zblog/visits-to-set/on-the-set-of-alice-in-wonderland/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Alice in Wonderland (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/alice-in-wonderland-film-review-1004071135.story?
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16006.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id98c48e90371c1116d62e39a12dd69d2?pn=2&imw=Y
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.louisvillemojo.com/blogs/Louisville_Blogs/85356/_Alice_in_Wonderland_s__Queen_Trumps_the_Mad_Hatter
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.buzzine.com/2010/02/tim-burton-interview/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3icc3b73373ecfd4eb5c2cfcccbef7d905

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Should we really call this a remake of the 1951 film

It can be argued that this film did give Disney the idea of adapting the animated classics into live-action films. However, I still do not think that this is a direct remake of the 1951 animated film. The credits of Maleficent and Cinderella do say that they are based on their animated films. However, the credits for this film never said, "Based on Disney's Alice in Wonderland properties". Both 'Alice' films also have their own Facebook pages. [8] [9] When the live-action Cinderella was released, the animated film's official Facebook page was updated. The Beauty and the Beast page has now been updated to promote its remake. [10] Should this really be considered a remake? And1987 (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Something can only be considered a "remake" if it credits the script of the earlier film IMO. If it doesn't then it's just another adaptation. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alice in Wonderland (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317215646/http://www.playbill.com:80/news/article/160824-Tony-Winner-Rob-Ashford-to-Stage-Disneys-Alice-in-Wonderland-Musical to http://playbill.com/news/article/160824-Tony-Winner-Rob-Ashford-to-Stage-Disneys-Alice-in-Wonderland-Musical
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ph.news.yahoo.com/mb/20100302/tel-johnny-depp-is-mad-2bf66ac.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)