1 Like
Goddammitsomuch.
I'd settle for a version of Allice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass that actually follows the book, uses decent effects to represent the animal characters (not people in costumes! Not celebrity voices!) and doesn't skip whole sections of either story.
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is already dark. It doesn't need to be "re-imagined" by anyone. Carroll already imagined it pretty dark and weird.
I blame Disney, Hollowwood (er, Hollywood), and American McGee. Disney made their lighter, friendlier animated version that taints everyone's memory of what AAiW should be (She's the wrong age (she should be 7 years old), the creatures of Wonderland being far less menacing than in the book, etc.). Hollywood (and the BBC to some degree) made lots of movies that borrow from Disney's template but also started the tradition of stunt-casting all the Wonderland roles, peppering celebrity cameos all over the place. American McGee started the whole "dark Alice" trend by turning her into an action hero in a world that resembled a rip-off of something Neil Gaiman might have written (and I'm sorry, I'm among those who thing McGee's game is cliche and rather dumb).
And don't get me started on Burton's weird rip-off of American McGee's Alice that played like it was shot back-to-back with Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
So I'm not surprised at yet another "re-imagining" of Alice. Why not? At this point, though, I think if anyone actually shot a book-true Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, people would be shocked at how disturbing it was in the first place, and they'd probably agree that all the forced darkness from other versions was gratuitous and sort of insulting.
