I have noticed that about Alice in terms of the criticism it gets. General movie fans get mad because it's episodic, pointless, etc. the problem with that is... it's Alice in Wonderland, it's supposed to.JeanGreyForever wrote:I've never understood why so many people have never been found of Alice. I suppose, however, my opinion was always biased, because the book is one of my favorites so all the things that bothered other people never bothered me. Usually the most frequent complains are that the film is too episodic, not enough of a narrative, too crazy, or that Alice is either uninteresting or too Britsh which makes her difficult to relate to. I never had issues with any of these things, and frankly all of these complaints could be used to describe the book too, so clearly the detractors would never like Alice in Wonderland in any format. I think the book is one of the most difficult to adapt, because much of it relies on word play as well as historical references that are antiquated now. The former especially becomes very difficult to translate on screen, if you can't see the text in front of you. I think Alice manages to pull it off well though through animation as a medium, because they are able to show off some of that wordplay through the bizarre creations in the Tulgey Wood, but mainly because the songs use actual text from the book, so the text is still in the film in a way.pikachufan1336 wrote:
I know Dumbo doesn't have the artistry that the others have but I don't think that's the point, the legacy of Dumbo is it's sharp writing, sophisticated simplicity, and high stakes, all while costing three dollars and a hot dog (figuratively), being sixty minutes long, and a main character who doesn't talk. It's considered a deity of animation, it was ranked #6 on Timeout.com's greatest animated films (voted by hundreds of experts, employees, and figures in the industry). So I get why that movie is alongside of the others as a legendary film. It's a perfect movie, hell I don't think Disney animation has made a perfect movie since Dumbo. Sleeping Beauty definitly takes risks but it doesn't really have the writing of the earlier 5 (say what you want about Aurora, but the only real reason to care about her is because the fairies care about her. The movie is about the fairies, which is great. But when the try to pull the pathos of a character in the way that they did with Snow White, it doesn't have the gravitas because.....we don't know Aurora.)
I never been that hard on Alice, it's based off of a book that relies on so much that can't be translated to film, more than most books do (certainly more than any other book adaptation Disney has done). That's not to say that I think it's a satisfying adaptation of Alice, like most things, the books is THE VERSION. And I'm also not implying that one should pessimistically lower their standards when walking into this film with only knowledge of the book, rather, it's comparing apples to oranges. So of course we have to have things like transitions or having a main character not be capable the entire time. Besides, the movie does get a lot of nuances from the book that most adaptations forget: the lack of a traditional antagonist (I don't care what Disney's marketing department tells me), no forced moral, how half of the time the wonderland characters don't even realize she's there, Alice not getting particularly close to any of the creatures in the vain of the Wizard of Oz, etc. I'm not saying I don't see where all the criticism is coming from, in fact in some cases I even agree. But I think out of ALL of the Disney movies, I think people are way to hard on. Even though it's considered a classic. It's easily the definitive FILM version of Alice, along with Jan Svankmajer's version, thought that's a completely different movie. The better version really depends on how you feel about the book and how you feel about adapting it to a visual medium. Also, Disney does give us an interesting and different version that the book. Even though I'm willing to rant about all of the inaccuracies over the Tim Burton sh- show. I prefer to see a different story or experience, rather than a movie adaptation that is so literal to the book, and therefore aggressively worthless, you fell as though you could just go to the library and read the book for free (Mia Farrow's Great Gatsby, for example). I can't say the same about Peter Pan. Which, compared to Alice, has a MUCH more traditional approach and doesn't get the original point at all. Alice was certainly more ambitious by every standard, even if it's not a very satisfying adaptation it at least went there. Alice was more experimental, better looking, more interesting, Kathryn Beaumont was more interesting, etc. Sure it didn't have much of a plot, but it's Alice in Wonderland it's not supposed to. I love Peter Pan, but it's like comparing Mrs. Doubtfire to Tootsie, the former is a less good version of the ladder. But that's just me.
Though you make a good point about the 40's vs. 50's debate. I don't think the differences es are THAT Staggering, but I can certainly see it. Even though I do think the 40's were the better decade, you're right, I shouldn't be so dismissive of the others. Besides, I have realized I've watched the 50's movies much more than the 40's movies.
I know Walt was never a fan of the movie himself, nor were audiences at the time, but I'm glad he still ended up making it, because it has always resonated with me (I'm not sure what that says about me lol). I do know that Walt felt pressured to make this film, and especially try and make it accurate, because he knew not alone how beloved it was, but also how literary purists were so protective of it, that it wasn't a film he could tamper with too much. For that, I'm very glad he made it the way he did. I wish he had kept a similar attitude when it came to Peter Pan. Yes, it may follow the plotline for the most part of the original book, but the spirit of the book is not really there at all. Peter Pan may not be as beloved as Alice in Wonderland, but I would have preferred a truer book adaptation like the Peter Pan 2003 live-action film, which I've heard many people not only call the definitive version of the story, but also what many people think Walt would have wanted his film to be more like. It's no suprise that he was bothered by Peter Pan's portrayal in the film, and I can't help but wonder if part of that reason was the voice casting. I know that Bobby Driscoll was a favorite of the studio at that time (not that it ended up doing him any good), but in no way did his growing voice fit a boy who never grows up. And frankly, even his appearance was just very odd. I don't even mean the tights and elven ears which never made sense with the character, but the fact that he basically looked like Lampwick's big brother (not even little brother) and Lampwick was never a particularly good-looking character. Considering that Peter Pan is supposed to be a beautiful child and even with his darker side, he has the ability to charm anyone with his eyes and mischevious grin, but all of that is missing in the film. He is certainly not beautiful on the outside, and his inner self might be missing the darkness of the book, but it certainly isn't a very pretty sight either. He lacks any of the charm to excuse his despicable personality as he epitomizes the worst aspects of males from the 50s. Even Wendy, imo, gets the worst 50s attributes from women in the 50s, and all of this is especially a shame because of how well Cinderella and Lady and the Tramp blended the 50s era with their respective time periods from the films. Why Peter Pan failed so much in that respect, I don't understand. I won't get started on Hook either. I'm not sure why he is rated so highly except for his comedy with Smee and the crocodile I guess. Frankly, I would laugh more at him than with him. He's not threatening or dangerous at all to play off one of the most iconic villains ever...he's nothing but a foppish fool who the real Captain Hook would gut in an instant. Anyway, I won't rant about this film much longer, because I'm sure I've done so before and I have a difficulty to stop when I start.
I think one of the reasons the 40s gets the reputation it does compared to the 50s, is because the 50s is considered to be more frivolous. It lacks the darker scenes from the first five films, such as Snow White in the forest, anything with the Evil Queen or Stromboli or the Coachman, Bambi's mother's death, Chernabog, Dumbo's separation from his mother. The later films don't ever reach that same level of pulling at your heartstrings or frightening you to wit's end. People seem to claim that Disney was now afraid of going all out as they once had, and going for more family friendly material. I suppose part of that could be attributed to the more conservative 50s era, but honestly, most of the films that were released in that era anyway wouldn't have worked with the 40s "tar and sugar" (as the unshavedmouse calls it) style. Cinderella was never a dark fairy tale and unlike Snow White, it's supposed to be oppulent and sumptious with grand palaces and elegant balls and gorgeous costumes. Lady and the Tramp was first and foremost a love story. Alice in Wonderland isn't a dark book by any means and although the David Hall concept art from the 40s is stunning, and a film I would definitely love to watch, I wouldn't replace the Alice we got now with it because the one we have is the far more true Alice. Peter Pan is the one exception to this era considering that if any film did need the 40s treatment for more mature themes and darker scenes, this is the one. Which is why I would have loved to have seen David Hall's version for it from the concept art he did in the 40s. I especially prefer Peter's design with him looking much younger (like an actual child rather than a teenager), and not at all like Lampwick, along with the blonde hair (which is how he was mostly pictured before Disney) and the red outfit since green was never accurate despite common belief anyway. I also liked that Wendy looked much younger (around 8 which is what she is believed to be in the book I think) to match Peter, and I also liked the black hair she had to contrast Peter's fair hair. But anyway, the other exception is Sleeping Beauty, although this is a proper exception because while it may never get as mature as the early five films, it does have that same level of darkness in it.
The 50s era was probably my favorite at one time, closely tied with the Renaissance. I've come to appreciate the 40s era more, and realize the faults of some of the 50s films now, but otherwise I might have called this one the most classically Disney.
Then film critics, or at least a good portion of them, claim that it's not "Alice in Wonderland" enough. Which brings to my previous point of where the line draws between adaptations. I hate to be "this guy", but in both cases it's rather ignorant, it's missing the Forrest from the trees. I'm not saying Alice is a perfect movie by any standards, but it certainly does deserve more "forgiveness" if you catch my drift.
I think the problem with Peter Pan (though it's a personal favorite), is that they change the complex theme of "growing up is inevitable and necessary but don't loose all of it" into "never grow up!".
The result is a climax with a villain-victim relationship that can't decide if it wants to be serious (Snow White vs. The Queen) or comical, to a degree that it's not much of a threat (Alice vs. The Queen of Hearts). It jumps back and forth, and neither version work because Peter is not the innocent and gullible of Snow White, or the naive yet acquisitive Alice. The one who's REALLY at Danger is Wendy, this story is really about her. Kinda like with Sleeping Beauty, we only care about X character because of a link with another, not because we are worried or care about X character specifically. There is actually a reason for this, and this brings to my second point of 40's vs 50s. In the first 5, Walt was OCD, every corner cut, glossed up and brought to perfection. If you asked him a question he would give you explicit detail. After the War, the dissapointing losses of Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi, The strike, etc., he was a changed man. By the time Cinderella came out he was the exact opposite of that: you ask him a question and his answer will most likely be "I don't know what do you think?"
Frank Thomas had this problem with Captain Hook, is he comedic or serious, he asked Walt and he basically gave Frank that response. Again the 50s movies are great, but Walt Disney didn't have the level of input in those films as he did in the first five, and it shows.
). So the case about the girl-stamp being bad has been prominent a long time, not just currently (and yes, it may seem rhetorical, but it's true).
I think I should watch it someday. 
(and a bit... I dunno... something did seem "off" about the guy.) 
