Now with Add On.
Here's what I don't get. Disney is busy running away from "girl films," right?
So what's up with Alice In Wonderland?
Though young women were most interested in "Alice," the picture's strong showing and sellouts at all times of day indicated that it had broad appeal. At midnight shows Thursday night, Viane said, the movie made $4 million, mainly from young adults. It generated $41 million in the U.S. and Canada on Friday largely from families with daughters early in the evening and from couples on dates later in the night. On Saturday, "Alice" grossed $44.3 million domestically, in large part due to families attending matinees.
I'm surprised the marketing geniuses allowed that British girl's name to stay in the title.
Weren't they afraid of being, you know, tainted?
But there's no doubt about it. The name clearly hurt the box office. Why they didn't retitle it The Hatter, we'll never know.
Add On: Salon has the best title about this whole kerfluffle. "Disney Doesn't Want Princess Cooties."
Posts
12 comments:
Marketing rules on this one, because the movie is a terrible, terrible mess. And BORING! I couldn't believe how ugly it was, as well.
It was surprisingly good for a Tim Burton film. I did see a lot of families in the audience and with small children.
This was not a girls film. It was marketed from day 1 as a Burton/Depp film. The first marketing images released were of Depp. In the first image of Alice she was so small you couldn't even recognize her. I've seen more posters of Johnny Depp than I have of Mia Wasikowska. The only reason that marketing kept the name "Alice in Wonderland" is because it already has a certain amount of equity that will lure in an audience.
And I agree, it was a boring, terrible mess.
The only "girl film" part of this movie is the sex appeal of Johnny Depp. That alone is a huge draw for the female audience. The rest of the girl appeal would be the female actors of Mia, Anne and Helena.
The art and sets were fantastic though.
This was not a girls film. It was marketed from day 1 as a Burton/Depp film.
It had Tim's name above the title, if that's any subtle hint.
Disney obviously wanted the synergy of promoting "their" Alice with "his" Nightmare Before Christmas (in "their" 3-D), and made sure ALL THREE were in the title.
And, again, pitched it at the time of the year that would get the highest percentage of college-aged Tim-geeks with goth-wannabe hard-ons for Nightmare.
As for Depp, it's now gotten to the point that fans see Depp in a movie and think that means Burton must have directed it.
(No. I'm not kidding. We actually DID get imaginary Tim/Pirates 4 rumors at one point.)
The art and sets werel most certainly NOT "fantastic." They were distracting, ugly, unappealing, and totally without merit in regards to the story they attempted, and failed, to tell. Who the hell keeps hiring linda wolverton? She's a TERRIBLE "writer."
Alice was hot, and real. That'll get the boys in.
It is definitely a chick flick and my kids can't wait to go and see it, with or without Johnny Depp. Although, I plan on tagging along to see the film with them, purely for Depp satisfaction!
Who the hell keeps hiring linda wolverton? She's a TERRIBLE "writer."
Hail to you, Anonymous sir or madam--
I've spent the last nine years of my life trying to explain--and not just to the Story higher-ups--how Beauty&Beast flat-out insulted the original story (in its attempt to make it female-proactive), and asking whether anyone noticed that Lion King's script flailed all over the map.
Disney obviously thought Woolverton's house pedigree could "adapt" the story to marketable hosue needs, and er...oh, she can do something to it, all right.
Maybe I'm just being Carroll-fan oversensitive, but boy, could I have done without the "new made-up words" bit to try and out-author the author.
It seems you miss the point about Woolverton. What ended up on the screen for BatB had little to do with what she wrote. She's been living off the success of that film forever though she wasn't responsible for it.
Proving once again when a film is a success the writer takes all the credit and when its a bomb they blame the director for changing their script.
Alice in Wonderland is nothing more than a poor-man's Lord of the Rings, a last minute effort for Disney to cash in on the fantasy/action genre, now that they've given away their Narnia franchise.
Calling Alice a "girlie" film is not accurate, not only because Johnny Depp hogs up 3/4 of the screen time, but because Alice essentially becomes a "boy" by becoming a warrior.
I don't know about you, but I certainly enjoyed BATB (and it's original story) and the Lion King.
Post a Comment