The 2010 Alice in Wonderland, despite having made a lot of money, was an awful movie. The plot was weak and generic, capturing none of the magic of the original story. However, at that time 3D technology was still relatively new and refreshing, and they succeeded in selling that. I'm afraid the same thing could not be said for now. I don't know why anyone would make a sequel.
shareBecause contrary to your belief, some people might have different opinions. Shocking right?
shareAh, I'm only shocked that the people financing it have this 'different opinion'. Have a nice day.
shareBudget: $200,000,000 (estimated)
Gross: $334,185,206 (USA) (2 July 2010)
That is just the gross for the USA(Nevermind blu-ray/international tickets) so you've answered you're own question on why they are making a sequel. Hollywood has made sequels to movies that have LOST money never mind at least doubling it. Its all about the money not if the movie was incredible or not.
Insiders know that movies need to quadruple their "budget" to be truly profitable. "Gross" does not mean profit.
shareAlice made over a billion worldwide so they made a very nice profit on that one. However, I agree with the TC: most people saw the original because they wanted to experience a big film in 3D (with their kids).
There is no point in discussing our 'opinions' of the film itself but there is merit in discussing what drove most people to see it. The novelty of 3D is gone now and movies don't sell just because they're in 3D. So if my assessment of the original film's succes is correct then Disney is making a big mistake with this film.
I suspect the original made so much money that the Disney execs just couldn't help themselves but greenlight this film (despite better judgement).
It's actually triple.
shareBullsh!t.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
youre forgetting promotion which doubles the production budget so the original alice cost almost 400 million total
shareYou mean the opinions of the people who financed the last movie that made over a billion internationally? Yeah, they'd have no reason to want to make another one I guess.
shareMaking money is ONLY MARKETING. The Dark Knight is a great movie, but it wouldnt have made as much if Heath ledger didnt die. Avatar is an subpar movie that blowed people away with the effects and Star Wars was the most anticipated movie like EVER. This is what makes a movie sell. Not the content.
shareYou clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
Tim Burton films are always light on plot
shareUmm... Coraline?
Men love in haste but detest at leisure. Hatred is by far the longest pleasure.
Coraline had no involvement from Tim Burton. So I see why you had to preface your post with "Umm..." Check out the credits for the film if you don't believe me.
share[deleted]
"Because contrary to your belief, some people might have different opinions. Shocking right?" In this case, yes. I was never a fan of the first movie myself for a number of reasons, and imo, although there were a lot of beautiful visuals, I liked this sequel even less. Linda Woolverton, the feminist icon who wrote the movies seems to love to visit the same concept again and again, namely the woman ahead of her time, and basically throws in a lot of propaganda thinly disguised as fantasy. And for the thousandth time,Linda and Tim, it's not the Red Queen, it's the Queen of Hearts. Rant over, lol.
shareSame reason the made a sequel to Clash of the titans remake, or Transformers or Bays new Turtle stuff.. because there are people who enjoyed them, like this.
shareThey made Jurassic World... which was a sequel to Jurassic Park III. Jurassic Park III sucked and Jurassic World sucked. Guess what? Jurassic World topped the box office for three weeks. Beating out a masterpiece like Inside Out. That's why. Same reason why they keep making Superman and Batman films.
shareJurassic World didn't suck, you're just blinded by your nostalgia of the first film.
shareJurassic World sucked very much.
shareLol, if you say so, dude. I liked it, and so did almost everyone else I know who watched it. Not all did, but most.
shareJurassic World was garbage. The writing for the film might've been the worst out of the franchise.
shareyep, poop. felt generic and forced. they smushed the jurassic park theme music into every possible chance they could. it was annoying..
All the characters felt forced except the hamster ball operator who answers the phone.lol D'onofrio/'Kingpin' or w/e was good as usual. Maybe if the indominus-rex was spliced with human genes for a darker twist or something..
You might have missed the 2nd and 3rd sequels.
shareNo that was Jurassic Park 3. At least Jurassic World didn't have Raptors who could have run for Presidents.
sharehaha-no-that would be Lost World and part three (tie)
shareJurassic World was really bad. Bad CGI, bad script and bad green screen studio. It felt like a computer game.
EZ the man with two legs
Bad CGI?? You should watch movies a lot more often, dude. How about if you try the latest Independence Day 2?
sharehes right it was mediocre. the first film has better cgi (even tho i know some of it was animatronics)...
the most annoying part was that everything was teal and orange. it made everything look fake as *beep*. they need to stop with that.
Is that the logic you're really going with? Nostalgia? Nearly everybody who liked the movie liked it because of nostalgia.
shareI quite enjoyed Jurassic World, could have been slightly less stupid but it's Hollywood summer blockbusters, you expect them to be brainless.
shareWell then your lack of nostalgia blinded you, lol. I'm just kidding, by the way. I mean, I loved "Jurassic World", almost as much if not more than "Jurassic World". You didn't like it, that's fine. Not everyone can like the same thing. But just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it sucked. And just because I (and almost everyone I know who's seen it) liked it doesn't mean it didn't.
shareYou're right. Me not liking it doesn't mean it sucked. The fact that it sucked means it sucked.
shareExcept, that isn't a fact. That's an opinion.
shareno. It is a fact.
shareI know who's getting a dictionary for Christmas.
shareFact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true...
Fact: Jurassic World is terrible.
That's your opinion.
When it comes to what movies one likes it's all an opinion.
[deleted]
Who's opinion is it then if it's not yours?
If it was a fact then EVERYONE would agree. If it was a fact then I wouldn't have liked it. DUH!!
I have seen things that were considered "facts" that people disagree with. You can look at several court rulings for this. Disagreeing with something doesn't make it into an opinion.
Jurassic World is horrible. Fact.
Jurassic World is quite good. Fact
shareNope. It's horrible. That is an established fact. If you're going to challenge the established fact, you'll need evidence.
shareNope, it's quite good that's a fact (by your logic) there for YOU need to provide evidence to support it's not. I shall do no such thing because I know I'm right. Fact.
shareI mean,i loved Jurassic World almost as much if not more than Jurassic World.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you also like Captain America civil war as much if not more than Captain America
civil war?
I shall soon created the ultimate crossover sequel movie: "Jurassic Explosionformer Monsters"
Where dinosaurs and crossbred with giant robots and the resulting huge cyborgs go on a rampage and eat corporate America while firing missiles at Wall Street, only to be stopped by a hermaphroditic transsexual polygamist who believes we should all get along and have universal healthcare... because cyborg dino monsters are people too.
It was have a very subtle social justice message, you see!
*Movie wins all the film festivals and is praised for its bravery... then grosses only $37,846 total in the US. Alondro declares the public are just idiots because they couldn't comprehend the depth of nuance of his movie.*
;D
The 2010 Alice in Wonderland, despite having made a lot of money, was an awful movie.
You'll notice that they didn't actually bring Tim Burton back.
"Through The Looking Glass" is a different book to "Alice In Wonderland" and one that hasn't really had a big screen adaptation.
The guy actually working on this is responsible for the Muppets movies and episodes of "Flight Of The Conchords". (One of the stars of Flight of the Conchords also did much of the music in the Muppets movies.) I'm not actually terribly interested in seeing the previous movie, but I'm actually quite excited to see what this guy does with the property.
Also I've now seen Stoker, Tracks, Maps To The Stars and The Double - so naturally I'm now an enormous Mia Wasikowska fan and that alone may be enough to get me to check this out....
Also I've now seen Stoker, Tracks, Maps To The Stars and The Double - so naturally I'm now an enormous Mia Wasikowska fan and that alone may be enough to get me to check this out....
>"Through The Looking Glass" is a different book to "Alice In Wonderland" and one that hasn't really had a big screen adaptation.
Yeah, but it won't be 'Through the Looking Glass', seeing as how Jabberwocky was in the previous movie. They're only using the title because it's already there, and will have as little connection as the first did.. and much like the movie Lost World's connection to its book source.
Tim Burton is not directing, but he is listed as a producer. So it should have many of the qualities that make a Tim Burton film.
shareIm with you. I dont understand how this got greenlit. They first one was one of the worst movies Ive ever seen and its hard for me to at least not appreciate the effort put into any film but this... this was just agonizing. Its like those critics that are always like "please kill me" or they would rather swim with sharks than watch something bad, well this movie did that for me. Couldnt wait for it to end and the ending was the worst part.
shareDisney's got Johnny Depp's soul locked away - they have to keep pumping out movies while he's alive!
shareIm with you. I dont understand how this got greenlit. They first one was one of the worst movies Ive ever seen and its hard for me to at least not appreciate the effort put into any film but this... this was just agonizing. Its like those critics that are always like "please kill me" or they would rather swim with sharks than watch something bad, well this movie did that for me. Couldnt wait for it to end and the ending was the worst part.
You answered your own question: it made a lot of money. That would suggest more people liked it than you.
share