MovieChat Forums > Alice in Wonderland (1985) Discussion > DVD -- 2 parts -- Two separate movies?

DVD -- 2 parts -- Two separate movies?

posted 15 years ago by MattsMovieWatchingWorld
8 replies | jump to latest

To be clear to everyone who asks these frequent questions on these AiW boards... This is the one that came in 1985; that stars Natalie Gregory as Alice, Red Buttons as the White Rabbit, etc.; that has two separate parts, Alice in Wonderland, and Alice in Wonderland: Part Two (which probably ought to be called "Through the Looking-Glass"). I don't know if the two parts originally aired on TV as one or two or more pieces. I believe the VHS copies (published in the 1990's?) were two separate, one VHS was [Part One], and one VHS was "Part Two." The DVD copy (which I believe was published in 2006) has both parts together. There are still two separate parts, both more than 90 minutes long, both with a beginning credit sequence and an end credit sequence, for a combined length of 184 minutes. If a person was to buy the DVD, hoping for both parts, sees "to be continued..." at the end of part one, then turns off the player during the credits, the person would be missing out on part two, which starts normally after part one's end credits.

My question is: Is this a movie that deserves to be recognized as two individual movies? Would IMDb be more accurate to list these two parts as Alice in Wonderland (1985) and Alice in Wonderland: Part Two (1985), each with its own IMDb movie page? As of now, I have been listing this as one movie, but if each part is more than 60 minutes long (minimum length requirement, according to me), has its own credits, and is based on a separate individual book, does that constitute two separate movies? I guess that sortof depends on whether the original TV special aired them together or unconnected.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I also wonder if the upcoming Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows deserves to be one or two parts. Each part will undoubtedly be more than 60 minutes, will probably have separate credit sequences, and will be released months apart, so that means two separate movies (and two separate IMDb pages). But the two Alice books were originally published as two separate books, and Harry Potter 7 was all one book.

----
"Curiouser and curiouser!"

[–] MattsMovieWatchingWorld 15 years ago

Doing my homework on Wikipedia, I have found out that part one was aired on TV on Dec. 9, 1985, and part two on Dec. 10. That would further the argument that they belong as two separate movies, not necessarily that I am strongly arguing in this favor.

----
"Curiouser and curiouser!"

[–] crusaderrobot 15 years ago

I remember when this came on television, as my family recorded it. The Wikipedia entry jives with my recollection.

As irritating as it is to categorize, this is not a 'movie' at all. It was a (two-part) made for TV mini-series (or perhaps even a 'two-part TV Special'). Now, when something is a mini-series, I consider it a different creature from a (theatrical)feature film and even a 'made-for-TV Movie' (personally, I'd avoid the term 'TV Special' as it is a pretty vague term that could be anything that interrupts 'regularly scheduled programming' from half-hour cartoon specials to an entire Olympic season, but best applied to any one-night event of other-than-movie length). 'Alice' may actually be more closely related to a TV-series, but that is not quite right either. It is somewhere in between. When something is a mini-series, I don't know if it matters that it happens to be only 2 parts (easily misconstrued as movie & sequel) or 5 (as in the case of something which is obviously a mini-series like "Shogun" - originally 3hr/2hr/2hr/2hr/3hr and other times as 6 two-hour parts, either way a total running time of 547 mins.)

So, I contend that Alice is correctly titled "Alice in Wonderland" and tagged as a (two-part) "1985 TV mini-series" with a total running time of "187 mins".

IMDB also lists 'Alternate Titles' for things, often including 'Video Box Title'. For some (or all?)home video releases, this mini-series was (slightly) re-edited into what may now be considered two (home video) feature films. The cliffhanger ending originally broadcast at the end of 'part one' was moved to the beginning of 'Part two' (retitled for video as 'Through the Looking Glass') so that each half works more like a stand alone movie. An amazon listing for the original "Looking Glass" video states its run time as 93 min. I don't know how accurate that is but it would make part one video have a slightly longer run time of 94. Maybe the listing is off or perhaps the second part originally slightly shorter with more commercial breaks? They were probably aired both as two-hour blocks.

So depending on if you prefer to go with the original television broadcast version or the repackaged home video version you have either a single TV mini-series or two separate movies:

"Alice in Wonderland" 1985 (TV) 187 min.

OR

"Alice in Wonderland" 1985 (Video) 94 min.
"Alice Through the Looking Glass" 1985 (Video) 93 min.

[–] BouncyX 14 years ago

as someone else mentioned, its a mini-series so its still one movie. the only reason its split in two is because they wont air a 4hr movie in one shot. but its all one story, its not a movie and a sequel or anything. it was filmed and is intended as one movie but seperated into two parts because it aired on television. its no different than say Roots, V or many of the Stephen King made for tv movies.

i just watched the dvd last night and was surprised that while both parts play without interruption, they still kept all the opening and ending credits of both parts. i've seen other mini series that simply edit the parts together so it plays as one movie when on dvd.

[–] jackson-219 14 years ago

Yeah! I remember my mother taping this for me back in 85' and it was a two part mini-series. I do distinctly rememeber having the first part on tape then the second part on another tape because the first tape ran out of recording space, typical for vhs tapes back in those days. But this was a two part mini-series and I do remember being scared on some parts. If I remember correctly a dragon appeared at some point in the film. Brings back memories of being an 80's kid.

[–] suedestilettos 14 years ago

This movie came out before I was even born but I distinctly remember watching through the looking glass many times throughout my childhood and I have never seen the first part. It didn't seem to matter to me. When I was looking for the movie to buy on Amazon I was searching for Alice Through The Looking Glass and not in wonderland, I had no idea it was the sequel of sorts. Anyway if the movie can stand alone then it should be considered its own movie, just like any sequel. They don't lump spider man 1 and 2 into one movie on imdb.

[–] citrine75 14 years ago

It's a mini-series. So there are two episodes that are part of the same movie.

[–] GeneticSugarKane 14 years ago

The second half doesn't stand on its own though. Part two picks up right where the cliffhanger ending of part one leaves off, and then major characters from the first part reappear in the second part without any sort of proper introduction.

Didn't you ever wonder as a child why the film you were watching abruptly opened with a little girl being attacked by a monster in her parlor?

[–] anthchoggy 12 years ago

its what's known as a 'mini-series' not 2 different parts....