Originally Posted By dznydad Since you guys have yet to review Alice, this isn't really directed at the fabulous LPP. Instead, it is to all the OTHER podcasters out there who have been making me pull out my hair after hearing their reviews (I'm bald, so it is really hard to do that). Since I respect LPP and your massive audience of listeners, I decided this would be a good forum to vent and hopefully get the word out. This isn't about positive or negative reviews of Alice - everyone is entitled to their opinions. It is about being ill prepared, uninformed . . . I've just listened to 4 or 5 podcast reviews. All stated at the beginning that they never have read Lewis Carroll's work. This is problem number uno. They are basing their reviews under the false assumption that Burton's film is a sequel to the animated Disney Alice. It is not. If you go in thinking that, you will be confused, frustrated and certainly disappointed. This leads to problem number deux, the mistaken belief that Disney's animated Alice was a faithful telling of Lewis Carroll's book. It wasn't. It was Carroll-light, sort of the junior novelization of two complex books with the two stories mixed together. So, read the books. It's not that hard. But, the new movie isn't really based on the books either. Once you read the books, you realize they don't really have a great cohesive story. It is more a collection of strange vignettes. Actually, the stories were political and social satires (most of which make no sense today. For instance, the Carpenter and Walrus story is a commentary on the church - carpenter? - they lead the oyster masses to follow them, then eat them). The problem with doing a faithful adaption of Carroll's books is that there is no real solid story and lot's of dated satirical dialogue. Disney's animated version was smart in tossing most of that out, which upset literary purists. So, what exactly is Tim Burton's version? In the 1930's, someone suggested to the famous New Yorker magazine cartoonist, James Thurber, that he should do new drawings for the Alice books. Thurber's reply was why not keep Tenniel's drawings and throw out the awful story? Most of what we love and remember about Alice is Tenniel's illustrations of the characters (Carroll really never described what they look like in his books). Again, this is what we also remember most about the Disney animated version. What they have done with the new film is turn the original story into a sort of prequel footnote and instead concentrate on the characters. They have created a completely original tale using the classic characters. This newly fabricated story is very similar to Wizard of Oz with a bit of the epic quality of Narnia tossed in. It retains all the key characters and a few episodes (the rabbit hole, drink me / eat me) and put them into a solid tale that has actual action and character development. This upsets Carroll purists, but I suggest you try watching one of the 2,000 "literal" tv adaptions of the book. Ugh. Thanks for letting me use this space to correct a great plague sweeping the Disney podcast nation.
Originally Posted By Rebekah Hey Dznydad. I've been swamped recently and have just now stumbled upon your post. What did you think of the LPP dudes review? I hope to read your comments about the film in the upcoming podcast - if the guys let me get a word in. =)
